Let's Talk About Metacurrency

[Vael]

My general take is that it depends on how the system uses them. They're a tool, and I'm more interested in how that tool is used in the context of a game system than just it in the abstract.

That said ... I'm really enjoying Hope and Fear in Daggerheart. It is satisfying to generate it, fun to use it, and it seems to generate good practices. By which I mean, I see a lot of GMing advice for DnD about eliminating extraneous roles, only roll the dice when there's a reason to. And since every action roll generates either Hope or Fear, I'm not calling for those kind of extraneous rolls anymore. I like that Fear gives me a resource to complicate the player's lives, spending Fear feels "fairer" than just GM fiat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So hit points may be abstract, but they aren't meta-currency. But a Battlemaster's "expertise dice" are a meta-currency, even if the thing they are spent on isn't a "meta-game" intervention.

So I think this is the main issue with discussion about this. To me, there’s no discernible difference between hit points and expertise dice.

This is yet another reason why I chose to stop worrying about anything “meta” a while back. Very often, what people are calling “meta game” (as in beyond or outside of the game) is literally the game.

 

[Lanefan]

[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.]

So, all that said, how do you feel about metacurrency?

Flat out dislike it, won't use it, and won't play in a game using it if at all possible.

Why? Because - pun both intended and not - it's far too meta. It either has nothing to do with the fiction or requires mind-twisting post-hoc rationales to make it fit with the fiction. I dislike metagaming intensely, and this leans into such rather than away from it.

The worst for me is the type of metacurrency that lets you alter or reroll a die after the original roll's result is already known. In my eyes, that's just the game letting the players cheat. Once you roll a die, that's it - the result of that roll is locked in.

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?

How much? None whatsoever, thanks.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Flat out dislike it, won't use it, and won't play in a game using it if at all possible.

Why? Because - pun both intended and not - it's far too meta. It either has nothing to do with the fiction or requires mind-twisting post-hoc rationales to make it fit with the fiction. I dislike metagaming intensely, and this leans into such rather than away from it.

But does that always happen with meta-currency? Some examples here are simply. "Let's you reroll a check" or "let's you succeed on check". You don't need to twist the narrative to anything, because if there was a check, a positive outcome was already possible.

There are other meta-currency mechanics that might do stuff like that. But one thing to consider is: If the game has the mechanic, maybe you don't need to twist the narrative, because you already designed your adventure and prepped the session with them in mind.

For example, in Torg, you can draw a Connection card. That basically allows you to say there is an NPC that might help you in a situation. So obviously you can prepare some NPCs that the players might call on.
Though, maybe I a mistaken, but I think Torg also allows the GM to say no, and instead, the character gets a Possibility. (At the minimum, any unused cards of this type can be turned into Possibilties at the end of the game.)

Even if it doesn't, that is something a meta-currency system can provide. "Oh, sorry, I can't provide you with a suitable NPC at this time. Here, you get a point for that."

 

[aramis erak]

So, all that said, how do you feel about metacurrency?

As usual, thanks for your input.

I'm quite fond of metacurrencies - to a point.
that point is when they render the randomness moot.

I don't like point pushing as the primary resolution.

Part of my reasons for not running/playing more FATE games: if scoping isn't used, it can rapidly devolve into "can I afford the cost to succeed in Fate Points?" - even with scoping of aspects, it can still devolve to that at times.

My favorite metacurrency is Experience Points...

 

[soviet]

Why? Because - pun both intended and not - it's far too meta. It either has nothing to do with the fiction or requires mind-twisting post-hoc rationales to make it fit with the fiction.

This sounds like a skill issue. I find it trivially easy to incorporate such things into a consistent narrative. You just build on the things that are already there.

The worst for me is the type of metacurrency that lets you alter or reroll a die after the original roll's result is already known. In my eyes, that's just the game letting the players cheat. Once you roll a die, that's it - the result of that roll is locked in.

This is a misperception I think. Most games that feature such things frame it as the dice roll isn't the final word, precisely because other factors may come in later. This is known as Fortune in the Middle. The dice roll represents a likely outcome - he doesn't seem persuaded, the missile doesn't seem to be on target - that may then be superceded. If people narrate it as 'You're definitely dead and your head falls off, oh wait you're spending a point :rewind noise:', again that seems like a skill issue.