Let's Talk About Metacurrency

[Reynard]

[This is another htread in my ongoing exploration of foundational TTRPG elements to consider for Bucket: The RPG, my personal RPG design to check off a Bucket List item. The intent is not to talk about my game design, though, but to explore the subject -- in this case metacurrency -- in a way that gives me perspectives on how other folks feel about the subject.]

I like metacurrency. I enjoy the way it gives control to players over their fate on occasion, and I like when the GM must employ it to "pay" for GM stuff like an extra attack or a complication of whatever. This latter is more about :fairness" for me, even though in most traditional RPGs the GM has the freedom to just fiat most of that stuff. My current favorite flavor of metacurrency is Daggerheart's Hope and Fear -- although it lacks one aspect of Player and GM metacurrency I often emply: a pool that moves back and forth between the players and the GM. This is a think i do whenever I run a convention game which utilizes metacurrecncy. For example, if I am running Savage Worlds, inctead of the players having their Bennies and my having my GM bennies, there is a single pool. When a player uses a Bennie, it goes into the GM pool, and when i use it, it returns to the player pool. This is loosely based on Momentum and Threat from Modiphius' 2d20 system, which is another metacurrency system I like.

So, all that said, how do you feel about metacurrency? Do you like it? Does it big you? Do you prefer a currency just for players, or for both GMs and players? Do you want it to be able to have narrative control (i spend a bennie to have a cart full of hay be below the window I am jumping out of) or do you prefer it to have only basic mechanical/mathematical aspects? Do you want it to be essentially optional, or integrated? How much metacurrency should be "on the table" == a single point of Inspiration as in D&D 5E, or a constant flow like Daggerheart?

As usual, thanks for your input.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As I've said many times, I don't like the underlying design premise of so many RPGs, which is that 'smart game play' is about knowing when to spend your metacurrency, and when to save it for a more important event (often a battle). (Also, "3x/day" kinds of abilities count as metacurrency, even if no metacurrency is named.)

So two design constraints that appeal to me:

• Limit metacurrency to "meta" applications. Meaning, don't use it to fuel standard abilities such as spells, instead reserve it for narrative intrusion, where the player is interceding on behalf of their character.
• Otherwise try to design abilities around risk or trade-offs (Barbarian Reckless Attack) or with situational requirements (Rogue Sneak Attack).
• When metacurrency is spent, it should be applied after the roll, not used as a modifier to the roll, for a bunch of reasons:
  • People tend to hoard scarce resources, so many players hope a roll will succeed without spending their resource, and eventually end up forgetting they even have it.
  • If they do spend it it's often wasted, either because the roll would have succeeded anyway, or because the initial roll was so bad the modifier couldn't save it. Which is always a /sadtrombone moment.
  • When it's spent after the roll it is more likely to turn a failure into a success, which is both more reliably dramatic, and which means less metacurrency can achieve the same overall benefit.* And that means it can be scarcer and thus feel more special/precious.

*Does that make sense? A metacurrency that turns a success into a failure 100% of the time, instead of 33% of the time, means that players only need 1/3 as much of the currency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not a fan.

I want the player and character decision spaces to be aligned, I want the decisions to be made in-character. Metacurrencies obviously go against that.

 

[cranberry]

I'm in a Draw Steel campaign that uses hero tokens and the bad guys get malice as meta currency.

I personally don't care for it in this game because it feels imbalanced. It seems to give the GM too much power to "fuel" the monsters, while giving the players minimal "bonuses".

IMO, it's an unnecessary mechanic that just allows success by without much effort.

 

[Staffan]

I'm in a Draw Steel campaign that uses hero tokens and the bad guys get malice as meta currency.

I personally don't care for it in this game because it feels imbalanced. It seems to give the GM too much power to "fuel" the monsters, while giving the players minimal "bonuses".

IMO, it's an unnecessary mechanic that just allows success by without much effort.

I think Draw Steel Malice shouldn't be thought of as a counter to hero tokens, but rather to the various Heroic Resources the heroes get. The Fury gets Ferocity, the Elementalist gets Essence, the Tactician gets Focus, and the Director gets Malice.

 

[Micah Sweet]

[This is another htread in my ongoing exploration of foundational TTRPG elements to consider for Bucket: The RPG, my personal RPG design to check off a Bucket List item. The intent is not to talk about my game design, though, but to explore the subject -- in this case metacurrency -- in a way that gives me perspectives on how other folks feel about the subject.]

I like metacurrency. I enjoy the way it gives control to players over their fate on occasion, and I like when the GM must employ it to "pay" for GM stuff like an extra attack or a complication of whatever. This latter is more about :fairness" for me, even though in most traditional RPGs the GM has the freedom to just fiat most of that stuff. My current favorite flavor of metacurrency is Daggerheart's Hope and Fear -- although it lacks one aspect of Player and GM metacurrency I often emply: a pool that moves back and forth between the players and the GM. This is a think i do whenever I run a convention game which utilizes metacurrecncy. For example, if I am running Savage Worlds, inctead of the players having their Bennies and my having my GM bennies, there is a single pool. When a player uses a Bennie, it goes into the GM pool, and when i use it, it returns to the player pool. This is loosely based on Momentum and Threat from Modiphius' 2d20 system, which is another metacurrency system I like.

So, all that said, how do you feel about metacurrency? Do you like it? Does it big you? Do you prefer a currency just for players, or for both GMs and players? Do you want it to be able to have narrative control (i spend a bennie to have a cart full of hay be below the window I am jumping out of) or do you prefer it to have only basic mechanical/mathematical aspects? Do you want it to be essentially optional, or integrated? How much metacurrency should be "on the table" == a single point of Inspiration as in D&D 5E, or a constant flow like Daggerheart?

As usual, thanks for your input.

I strongly dislike explicit meta-currency, because generally speaking it puts a thumb on the scale narratively, which is a place I want a little mechanical structure as possible in my games. Meta-currency IME usually exists outside the setting simulation, and I don't want Players having control of anything outside the knowledge and capabilities of their PC, and I don't want GM to have their hands tied in worldbuilding and adjudicating the in-setting situation.

There are a couple exceptions, for games with a subject matter I strongly enjoy that would benefit from genre emulation. Mostly supers games and games based on deep IPs like Star Trek or LotR. Even there, I prefer world sim to be a high priority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I've said many times, I don't like the underlying design premise of so many RPGs, which is that 'smart game play' is about knowing when to spend your metacurrency, and when to save it for a more important event (often a battle). (Also, "3x/day" kinds of abilities count as metacurrency, even if no metacurrency is named.)

So two design constraints that appeal to me:

• Limit metacurrency to "meta" applications. Meaning, don't use it to fuel standard abilities such as spells, instead reserve it for narrative intrusion, where the player is interceding on behalf of their character.
• Otherwise try to design abilities around risk or trade-offs (Barbarian Reckless Attack) or with situational requirements (Rogue Sneak Attack).
• When metacurrency isspent, it should be applied after the roll, not used as a modifier to the roll, for a bunch of reasons:
  • People tend to hoard scarce resources, so many players hope a roll will succeed without spending their resource, and eventually end up forgetting they even have it.
  • If they do spend it it's often wasted, either because the roll would have succeeded anyway, or because the initial roll was so bad the modifier couldn't save it. Which is always a /sadtrombone moment.
  • When it's spent after the roll it is more likely to turn a failure into a success, which is both more reliably dramatic, and which means less metacurrency can achieve the same overall benefit.* And that means it can be scarcer and thus feel more special/precious.

*Does that make sense? A metacurrency that turns a success into a failure 100% of the time, instead of 33% of the time, means that players only need 1/3 as much of the currency.

That's pretty much the opposite of what I want. Narrative intrusion is antithetical to my playstyle.

 

[Scribe]

Luck Tokens, Daily or Ability Mod Usage Skills, Hope/Fear? I'm on board with all that, but you either have to activate an ability with it, or use it after the fact to reroll or whatever.

Depending on the underlying system detail/crunch level, its fine, but I think we are a lot more aware of cognitive load these days.

 

[payn]

So, all that said, how do you feel about metacurrency? Do you like it? Does it big you? Do you prefer a currency just for players, or for both GMs and players? Do you want it to be able to have narrative control (i spend a bennie to have a cart full of hay be below the window I am jumping out of) or do you prefer it to have only basic mechanical/mathematical aspects? Do you want it to be essentially optional, or integrated? How much metacurrency should be "on the table" == a single point of Inspiration as in D&D 5E, or a constant flow like Daggerheart?

I am mostly fine with metacurrency. I've seen some games where it might be too accessible; I do prefer it to be a rare occasion type of thing. In PF1 I like hero points mostly to save PCs bacon as the combat system is very swingy. I feel players having to manage the resource allows for gloves-off GM play and makes the game more exciting in combat pillar. Thats obvious in the mechanical aspect only column. I prefer narrative MC in RPGs with a lighter crunch level and narrative focus.

I like the idea of players and GM passing a limited pool back and forth. It feels like I can cheat fate, but what goes around comes around! I also like players having a pool to manage. How much and how often? Id say probably once or twice a session seems about right to me. If the conflict resolution system is baked into it, where you are passing MC back and forth constantly, I'd probably like that a lot less.

As usual, thanks for your input.

You're welcome.

 

[sevenbastard]

Im ok with luck points, but not for anything narrative related.

Definitely only for players. DM can do whatever the want they dont need a meta currency.