Let's Talk About Metacurrency

[Laurefindel]

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.

I'm warming up to DM's metacurrency because oftentimes, "DM doing whatever they want" is often 1) unnecessarily antagonistic and 2) an unfair use of the rules or system beholden by the game.

Sure, a DM can say "rocks fall, everybody dies", but that is usually played in (and met with) disdain. I don't mind metacurrency that can act as meter for players to gauge how soon rocks will fall, and how damageable they will be when it happens.

Also, I'm warming up to systems where specific monsters can do X if they have (metacurrency), because it create situations where the best strategy isn't always "focus fire on the biggest monster, ignore all others until the first one is down".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like meta-currencies.

I also like the idea of having an interplay between the GM meta-currency and the player meta-currency, though it isn't required.

I don't mind if the meta-currencies actually is not entirely meta, like Torg possibilities are, but I wouldn't require it for a system. In Torg, there is basically a war between alternate realities (or an invasion of them on "our" world), and some people have the ability to use the possibility energy for their benefit. The villains in the setting are trying to collect massive amounts. The possibilities can be spend on boosting checks and powering some abilities.
Torg also uses a drama deck which is also a kind of meta-currency, and unlike the possibilities, it's not really defined that it's something the people in-universe do - though it can have clear in-game effects, like spending a Monologue card to basically force everyone to listen to your monologue (usesful as a delaying tactic).
The game has additional meta-mechanics, like distinguishing between ordinary scenes and dramatic scenes, which alters how the initiative cards affect players and NPCs (in dramatic scene, more is to the detriment of the heroes).

I like to use it for narrative purposes, but I also like it to simply be used to fuel special abilities like spells, maneuvers or whatever.

I also liked 4E Encounter/Daily meta-resource system and I think it's a superior model for ensuring cool maneuvers are used in combat without them being over-used. Systems that use increased difficulties or penalties often yield much worse results. Though the Encounter/Daily system really seems like a D&D artifact than something you'd really need. But it has (almost) no interaction with non-combat stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm warming up to DM's metacurrency because oftentimes, "DM doing whatever they want" is often 1) unnecessarily antagonistic and 2) an unfair use of the rules or system beholden by the game.

Sure, a DM can say "rocks fall, everybody dies", but that is usually played in (and met with) disdain. I don't mind metacurrency that can act as meter for players to gauge how soon rocks will fall, and how damageable they will be when it happens.

Also, I'm warming up to systems where specific monsters can do X if they have (metacurrency), because it create situations where the best strategy isn't always "focus fire on the biggest monster, ignore all others until the first one is down".

See, I believe that GMs should be trusted by the system to create an environment in which the Players can have fun, and both of your defenses of GM meta-currency amount to, "the GM should have system-enforced limits on their actions".

 

[Nytmare]

I love them. For decades, at least in the circles I ran in, it felt like the holy grail of gaming experiences was when you'd have a session or scene where, by accident, luck, or GM fiat, they'd feel like a scene from a movie. Gripping dialogue, last minute saves, meaningful sacrifices.

For the most part, I see metacurrencies (especially narrative metacurrencies) as the tools that modern game designers use to ensure that those scenes and sessions are one of design, not luck.

 

[Reynard]

See, I believe that GMs should be trusted by the system to create an environment in which the Players can have fun, and both of your defenses of GM meta-currency amount to, "the GM should have system-enforced limits on their actions".

One of the reasons I like GM facing metacurrencies is because it helps alleviate the question of whether the GM was acting fairly. Don't get me wrong: everyone at the table is tere to have a good time, and I don't think we should forgive bad GMs for abusing their fiat power in trad games. But, I do think that the GM saying "I spend 2 Threat to bring in a second wave of mooks" has the benefit of completely circumventing the fairness question. The players are like "Oh, crap, he spent 2 precious resource points to get us!" and that feels good, as opposed to a general grumbling that the GM is just piling on.

 

[Reynard]

• • 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.

I do think that spending after the roll is better than spending before (with the assumed potential outcome of failure). I like when metacurrency is used to bend fat. it does not have to be perfect and always result in success, but (IMO) it should be MOST LIKELY to result in success after the fact.

 

[Staffan]

One of the reasons I like GM facing metacurrencies is because it helps alleviate the question of whether the GM was acting fairly. Don't get me wrong: everyone at the table is tere to have a good time, and I don't think we should forgive bad GMs for abusing their fiat power in trad games. But, I do think that the GM saying "I spend 2 Threat to bring in a second wave of mooks" has the benefit of completely circumventing the fairness question. The players are like "Oh, crap, he spent 2 precious resource points to get us!" and that feels good, as opposed to a general grumbling that the GM is just piling on.

I agree, and even more so when the GM metacurrency is at least partially tied to the PC's actions. This is one area where 2d20 has some interesting ideas. In most versions, PCs can spend metacurrency to gain extra dice on their rolls. This can either come from their pool of pre-acquired Momentum (which in the fiction represents the PCs using previous efforts to gain an advantage now), or by giving the GM Threat/Doom/Heat or whatever the GM metacurrency is called in this game (which represents the PCs taking risks that will likely hurt them down the line).

 

[aco175]

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.

I like this idea. I give out one 'luck' point each night which is like inspiration but can be used for any roll. I could using this to influence the narrative like the example of a hay wagon under a window.

As the DM I cannot think of everything before hand and usually roll a d20 if the players ask something that I have not heard of and could be plausible. The hay wagon example I might just say roll a d20 since it might be. In my head I think rolling a 17+ would allow it. I'm rewarding the player quick thinking. If the player just says they want to use the luck point to have a wagon there might be ok with me since they still thought of it.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've been fine with them ever since I was introduced to them in the Ghostbusters roleplaying game.

For me... there is a distinct split between the mechanics of a game and the narrative that we are experiencing at the table. The narrative is what is truly important-- what is happening, what the characters are doing and experiencing, what the results of character and world actions are. It is a narrative that the players are improvising in and around the beats the GM is introducing, and describing to them.

The mechanics are merely the ways the improvision is guided by both players and GM. They have no actual "reality" in the story-- the mechanics do not actually exist-- they are just the "audience suggestions" the table receives that drive the story in certain directions. As a result... all meta-currency is is just additional mechanics that create variant "audience suggestions"... ones that are more likely better geared towards the story already being experienced in a way that increases the dramatics of the situation. The same way an improvisor might not take the very first suggestion by the audience, but perhaps the second or third they hear because that suggestion is probably better geared to a more interesting scene. Likewise... a meta-currency used by a player to hopefully increase the odds or results of a "success" has a better chance of increasing the dramatic action and tension within the scene. If they are wanting a specific narrative decision to have more import in the story at the table... they use their meta-currency to make it more likely that it will happen. And the GM will often then take that knowledge that this meta-currency was used to decide in the narrative the more unique successful result. Basically the same sort of thing a Dungeon Master in D&D might attribute a Nat 1 or a Nat 20 when they narrate the results of a check. A character didn't just succeed on their check and the DM narrates a standard successful result... the player rolled a Nat 20 and the DM gives a little more shine to the success.

So to me... meta-currencies are just rules of the game. They are one and the same. They are all just mechanics giving us cool ideas that we narrate as to our actions, emotions, and beliefs.

 

[sevenbastard]

because oftentimes, "DM doing whatever they want" is often 1) unnecessarily antagonistic and 2) an unfair use of the rules or system beholden by the game.

I feel like thats a need a better DM problem than a need more rules problem.

I get different people have diffrent styles of play, but if i dont trust the DM im not playing in his games.