Search results

Entirely fair. I might think you have to be--very cautious--in defining "traditional game" to make this work, but that's a nitpick.

I'm not recalling one myself. Modern Hero System has it as an option, but its pretty anemic.

Though I'd suggest "need" is doing some heavy lifting both times you do it. Savage Worlds doesn't technically "need" metacurrency; it serves some purposes, but its not clear the same purposes wouldn't be served in a lot of games. (Which doesn't mean you're always wrong: True20 and M&M actively...

I won't belabor it, but that seems to add up to "I just don't like it, but can't express why." Which is what it is (your example isn't bad because I'm not a fan of combining sweet and savory flavors and there's no special reason for that). It does make it hard to say why its a problem, if it...

Out of curiosity, can you explain why the difference (barring my last sentence in my post above)?

Like I said, you're not alone, but I have to point out dealing with most mechanics involves "getting out of character" to one degree or another for most people, so unless you normally stick to very simple systems, it can be seen as kind of special pleading more than a principal. It usually with...

That doesn't overly suprise me in either direction. As someone who probably has (undiagnosed) ADHD, its a pain the behind in sometimes unpredictable ways.

The value of the disadvantage should at least be reduced, however.

Well if you don't like metacurrency, you don't, but I do have to point out its nothing much but a roundabout way to reward the player in in-play benefit for having the disadvantage, and that's all the point yield is. If you dislike people thinking out-of-character during the game, that's as it...

Well, part of that was because 3e was the edition that often fished people back in who had long since drifted away, and what brought them back was going to vary considerably. I hadn't done anything with D&D for more than a decade at that point, and then once I ran into what I considered the...

Though I'll note people are really, really bad at acting like qualifier words aren't in a statement. If my experience has taught me something is overwhelmingly common I'll normally say it "usually" is because there are always going to be exceptions, and its always possible I've somehow seen...

Well, I'd argue that's because they've too frequently hit too many people who act like the default when talking to them is the contrary. But that's just speculation on my part.

That's more a benefit of discrete character build components. Point assignment happens to be the way that's managed in a lot of systems, but if you actually had faith in people's ability to try and all keep on the same page (something I don't think there's any reason for most people to have, to...

While I don't doubt that, the first part would (from where I sit) largely destroy any point with bothering with the game in the first place.

I didn't see any major practical impact from later books (at least in a negative way) at least until Essentials came by. You either were going to like where they were going or you weren't. If anything, some of the later GM-facing books actually fixed a few problems.

I try to use "IME" for similar reasons, but can't say I'm always consistent about it.

It would be helpful if people didn't regularly blur the two together in how they argue things. There's also the problem of what I call "I was there when it happened" which is that people will sometimes deny personal experience (not to be confused with denying the utility of the personal...

Most likely (though these can be indistinguishable from one another) just overcautious.

Well, there's somebody who doesn't understand the rules of the road as it were.

An entirely munchkin group is harmless, except to the degree one or more of them may have learned that's an acceptable way to play that may well produce unpleasant surprises when going to another group. A solitary munchkin in a group that doesn't roll that way, however, can be a brick in the...