Let's Talk About Metacurrency

[Lanefan]

I still have the Rolemaster Companion that had an alternate system for simultaneous actions - essentially every action had a 'units of effort' points cost and the game just kept counting down until the units had been spent and that action resolved. So every character's actions effectively go into the oven at the same time, with different cooking speeds, and the game continues with players declaring, counting down, and resolving actions without any turn structure.

I've occasionally thought about going to some sort of rolling initiative system like this, but the devil's in the details and I ain't nowhere near workin' all those out yet.

The biggest thing is movement. I need to know where each participiant is at any given moment, just in case they blunder into (or out of!) the way of something they'd rather not e.g. an arrow shot or a fireball.

Sounds interesting but looked like a nightmare, especially if you're the GM running 20 different goblins.

It's the same as tracking 20 individual initiative dice for them, which - ideally - I'd already be doing anyway.

 

[Umbran]

Heck, the equipment thing is usually handled by having everyone choose in advance how obviously loaded with stuff they are, and then pick the individual items on the fly … but still from the list that comes with your character.

In the (Cortex engine) Leverage RPG, the flashback is there in part to allow you to split the party, but have other players still involved in your scene.

 

[mamba]

I don't know. I don't use an XP calculator. All my encounters are ultimately based on what makes plausible sense to be there in the setting, either in my own judgement of that of the rules I'm using (like encounter tables).

what makes sense is a wide scope though, a warband can be 20 or 200, or just a scouting party of 5.

Do you never account for the number of players and their level? That feels unlikely

 

[Micah Sweet]

what makes sense is a wide scope though, a warband can be 20 or 200, or just a scouting party of 5.

Do you never account for the number of players and their level? That feels unlikely

If you run across a warband, you're probably not going to be surprised, and you're probably not going to fight them head on.

I start people off a low level place, more of less, then let them go where they will. If they approach somewhere super dangerous, I make sure there are signs that they may be heading beyond their pay grade. But I don't adjust existing threats for level, and I certainly don't use CR for anything but the sketchiest of "eyeball" estimates.

 

[Lanefan]

If you run across a warband, you're probably not going to be surprised, and you're probably not going to fight them head on.

I start people off a low level place, more of less, then let them go where they will. If they approach somewhere super dangerous, I make sure there are signs that they may be heading beyond their pay grade. But I don't adjust existing threats for level, and I certainly don't use CR for anything but the sketchiest of "eyeball" estimates.

At the overall-mission or adventure level, I'll set things (i.e. pick a module or write something homebrew) such that the challenges are vaguely appropriate for the party's current level...if they choose to go on that mission and not something else entirely. Note, however, the very careful use of the word "vaguely" in there, as individual encounters can vary all over the place in terms of risk or challenge.

It also helps if they think to ask. Sometimes, when at a loose end, the PCs will listen for or seek out rumours of adventuring missions or things that need doing, and I'll rattle off a few. They usually need to inquire further, though, to get an idea of which of those rumours might be suitable to their pay grade, which ones might be beneath their dignity, and which ones might put them in over their heads.

 

[pemerton]

Has anyone played much Cortex Primer here? Especially Marvel Heroic Roleplaying....

Yeah, I've GMed it quite a bit - of MHRP and also my various fantasy hacks.

I like spending 2d12 from the Doom Pool and making the players cry . . .

EDIT: In the first session I GMed, I spend 2d8 and it turned out that the PCs had defeated not Dr Doom, but rather a Doom Bot. That was fun too!

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Yeah, I've GMed it quite a bit - of MHRP and also my various fantasy hacks.

I like spending 2d12 from the Doom Pool and making the players cry . . .

EDIT: In the first session I GMed, I spend 2d8 and it turned out that the PCs had defeated not Dr Doom, but rather a Doom Bot. That was fun too!

Careful sir! This makes me want to turn this into a Cortex appreciation thread ... I could flood it with things I love about Cortex!

 

[zarionofarabel]

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

Meh. I can take it or leave it, at least on the player side. It can be handy to reinforce the idea that players are allowed authorship rights, but that can be accomplished without metacurrency, so again, meh. I neither like it, nor want it, nor understand why have it for the GM side, as GMs have unrestricted authorship rights. As for using it for mechanical things, I prefer dedicated resources rather than all encompassing ones, so, one more time, meh.

I guess my answer is...MEH!

 

[dbm]

I've occasionally thought about going to some sort of rolling initiative system like this, but the devil's in the details and I ain't nowhere near workin' all those out yet.

I seem to recall Hackmaster 5th Editon (no relation to D&D5e) uses this kind of action tracking. Might be worth checking out it you haven’t already?

 

[Omega Probe]

Not a huge fan of most of the systems I've played. It tends to have an antagonistic nature, players vs. GM. The GM always has the power to do whatever they want, but if they're spending metacurrency to interfere with the players' flow, it can feel like an aggression. This doesn't have to be a problem, but it can be a problem.

The reverse, when players use metacurrency to make a narrative intervention, I do like. I like games where the players can drive the scene almost as much as the GM, it promotes a style of play where all the players participate in creating the story, as opposed to a game where the GM creates the story, and all the other players just deal with it.

But that can be handled with "narrative" skills, where you roll to see if something you want or need is part of the scene. You could even have some sort of mechanic by which the difficulty of making a narrative intervention increases with each attempt, and certain failures create complications instead of being helpful. That shifts the weight of the punishment onto the player, and away from the GM (for the most part), so it doesn't feel like it's removing player agency.

For a more mechanically-oriented metacurrency, my favourite is "Luck" in CoC. You can spend it to help with rolls, reduce damage, or save yourself from certain death. At the same time, the Keeper can ask for "Luck" rolls to set the scene in your favour, or against you, so you have to be careful when you spend it. What I like about it, at a fundamental level, is that it's in players hands, not the Keeper's. It promotes and preserves player agency.