@Theory of Games
I always base leveling and attributes of a character in fiction based on what they actually are observed to do, not on the "aura" around them. Of course, since the fiction writer wasn't making the scenario to be 100% congruent to a set of game rules, and since neither the scenario nor any RPG are perfectly realistic, there is never an exact match. But I think my take comes pretty close as a translation even if ultimately this is all a set of opinions.
No way an 18 DEX - that's peak human, equivalent to an Olympic-level gymnast.
So yes, one of the defining traits of John McCane is he performs stunts which require or which perhaps even exceed what could be expected of an Olympic level gymnast, master juggler or other DEX based profession at the peak of their field. He's arguably bordering on the low level super-heroic we see of less realistic action movie heroes like James Bond, John J. Rambo, etc.
18 CON? Definitely. He had to be ridiculously tough to endure that beating.
Applying your own standards here, he can't be 18 CON because there is a character in the narrative with higher CON. McClane's toughness is best explained as being consistent with having higher HD than a normal mortal could have, hence the choice of 6th level. CON bonuses are multiplied by level.
Of course, low CHA which reflects in how he drives everyone crazy including his estranged wife
Again, we base the CHA of the character on what we observe, not on aura. The character is highly charismatic and immediately wins the sympathy of the audience and pretty much everyone he interacts with, as well as the respect and eventual fear of his foes. In story, McClane's difficulty with his wife is not explained as being the result of a personality conflict or his low "sexiness" or "magnetism", but over a professional disagreement as each are stubborn, driven, ambitious over achievers in their own field. His wife left him because she felt he was holding her back from success and because she couldn't handle caring about him as a cop risking his life, but not because he wasn't desirable or couldn't make her feel good.
McClane has above average CHR, possibly only overshadowed by Hans Gluber in the narrative.
I don't see the need for Metacurrency - McClane is just a tough SOB. He doesn't get nailed by the bad guys because they're thieves not operators, so they don't shoot well. Not as well as McClane, an experienced NYC police detective.
At least 6 of the 11 NPCs are professional operators and should be seen as fighter classed. And we know they are above normal level because they easily defeat any normal humans that they encounter. However, they are for the most part with perhaps one exception not shown to have any abilities that are unrealistic or superhuman. McClane is on another level though, dispatching his opponents almost as easily as they dispatch normal cops and security.
Hans is (if we're using D&D) high INT/WIS/CHA and a higher level than McClane.
There is absolutely nothing we see Hans doing that requires him to be higher level than McClane. His abilities are within human norms. His arrogance suggests that he is not high WIS, and there is nothing in actions that can't be explained by high INT characters being broadly skilled. If we see human normal performance but high levels of competency, this is best explained by high attributes and not high level. McClane is a standout as a low level superhero in a world of mundanes.
Karl is the closest we get to an argument for high level, just because he is absurdly durable, but I think high CON is sufficient to explain this.
Many of us played old D&D editions without Metacurrencies for decades and our PCs did fine - usually.
If your PC did fine it was because you cheated. Straight up. You fudged the dice. I played 1e AD&D too long not fudging the dice to believe otherwise. And yes, I am well aware being asked for a saving throw is itself failure, but way to many 1e AD&D saving throws come down to by the numbers 50/50 save or die, and way too many get forced on you by non-passive NPCs etc to believe any of this. I know my players in the era were fudging, because their average rolls were probably around a 15. I have observed players never roll under a 10 for most of a year. I tolerated it because it wasn't worth fighting over, I didn't want to strain friendships and as long as the other players weren't complaining to me I wasn't being hurt.
Sometimes. Metacurrencies take the randomness out of gameplay by negating bad dice rolls and those rolls - combined with ability/skill bonuses - are meant to emulate fictional heroes.
I know what they are meant to do, but that doesn't mean that they succeed at it.
I mean, if the PCs just winwinwin all the time in every situation, I wouldn't call that playing a game and that definitely doesn't fit the fiction that inspired the games in the first place.
Both strawman and a lack of genre awareness. Not only does access to metacurrency not mean that characters don't "winwinwin" all the time in every situation, but the heroic fiction that inspires games of this sort always comes down to the hero being able to reliably win against the odds. The hero of a movie or novel always has plot protection that doesn't exist in a purely random universe. I perma-killed like 8 characters in a party of 6 by 10th level in my last D&D campaign despite metacurrency, not counting two uses of raise dead as kills, and untold numbers of occasions PCs got down to -6 or -9 hit points and frantic first aid checks and unusual tactics like bull rushes were necessary to save a dying PC. Not sure how much higher the death toll would be without metacurrency but it would be a good deal higher.
Metacurrency allows me to play the game without always metagaming as a GM, putting on kid gloves and minding all the scenarios where on average you kill 35-50% of the party just to randomness.
