Let's Talk About Metacurrency

Not my bag, but a lot of people here seem to want that for reasons I don't understand.

I doubt it is for lack of trying to explain it.

Do you understand the reasons folks want GMs to follow some rules, generally?

If you grasp that, broadly, then the rest is fiddly commentary about where to draw lines, and what helps the GM do their job.

Edit to add: a Douglas Adams reference about strictly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty would fit here nicely.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Their use by non-force-sensitive characters certainly is not diegetic , even though the force itself is diegetic.
The Force flows through all living things, including those not generally considered Force-sensitive, so I see no reason a character can't use it unconsciously. Since it's hard to represent unconscious use in a game, I'm fine with it being represented by player choice in this instance, because of the specific in-setting circumstances involved.
 

The Force flows through all living things, including those not generally considered Force-sensitive, so I see no reason a character can't use it unconsciously. Since it's hard to represent unconscious use in a game, I'm fine with it being represented by player choice in this instance, because of the specific in-setting circumstances involved.

I see. I would definitely call unconscious use meta. The character is not making a choice to use it.
 

It is important, because then it is something the characters can make decisions about, and plan around in-character. The point of the game is to roleplay a character, not just make tactical decisions about resources.
Or, if you're going to make tactical decisions about resources, to make them from the character's point of view.

In the fiction the character knows it has a potion and can decide whether to use it now or save it for later. This exactly mirrors the thought process of the player at the table.

In the fiction the character does not know it has an out-of-fiction metacurrency token to spend, but the player does. The character's thought process and the player's are thus not the same.
 


I doubt it is for lack of trying to explain it.

Do you understand the reasons folks want GMs to follow some rules, generally?

If you grasp that, broadly, then the rest is fiddly commentary about where to draw lines, and what helps the GM do their job.

Edit to add: a Douglas Adams reference about strictly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty would fit here nicely.
I don't see how hard lines help the GM do their job. But then, the kind of games that explicitly limit the GM (rather then allowing personal judgement) don't really appeal to me anyway. I generally prefer toolkits rather than targeted RPGs (what @Reynard calls "opinionated" games).
 


How does one determine what the limit is in regards to how much the GM is allowed to author? What is a good TTRPG that lays out in no uncertain terms what the limit of the GMs authorship ability is? I've read a few games that have GM metacurrency that didn't really have anything to say on the upper limit of the GMs authorship ability, outside of some hazy stuff on not altering already established details about an ongoing scene without use of said metacurrency that didn't really give any solid advice or framework other than an implied "to make it seem fair" reason. Just curious because all the games I've read that have GM metacurrency don't really explain the use or reasons for having it very well of at all.
Burning Wheel is pretty clear on what a GM can do to dice pools by spending Fate or Persona for a NPC.

Marvel Heroic RP is pretty clear on what spending Doom Pool dice is for.
 


When a D&D player looks at their PC's hp, sees that they are getting low, and so has their PC drink a potion of healing, that's pretty meta! I mean, the PC can hardly know that their luck is running out. . .
It's just meat points, all the way down. Once you get through a PC's meat, it's just more meat.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top