Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Beau Rancourt's avatar

I think a couple of interesting things are happening here!

First, I think your definition of metacurrency is pretty non-standard in some unhelpful ways; I don't think most people would include hit points or experience points as "metacurrencies". I totally get how you can imagine losing hit points as the 'price' of combat (and thus treat hp as a currency).

"meta-" is short for metagame, derived from the Greek meta meaning "beyond" or "transcending". When I imagine metacurrencies, I imagine currencies that are spent *outside* what's happening in the fiction, and that lines up with what Alexander is talking about here https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer. Hit points are spent *in* the fiction; when you engage in combat with someone, you get hurt/tired/etc, that's all abstractly represented by hp (just like how protective your armor is, is abstracted by AC). Contrast with bennies in savage worlds, where it doesn't represent anything in-the-fiction (ie, it's purely meta)

Second

> While I’m sympathetic to the immersion-breaking nature of this mechanic, I struggle to find any meaningful distinction between metacurrencies and other game mechanics with this objection. If spending points to perform some amazing maneuver breaks immersion, doesn’t rolling dice and adding your stat bonus?

No! If I'm practicing archery and trying to shoot at a target 50m away, I don't know if I hit or not. I know it's not actually random (and instead feels very physical), but *from my perspective*, I am uncertain about whether or not my shot will hit the target. So, I can translate that uncertainty into a game by modeling that uncertainty with dice. Just like the archer doesn't know if their shot will hit, the player playing the archer also doesn't know if their shot will hit, so rolling for a mechanic like that creates emotional bleed-over. It's also directly associated: some characters are more likely to accurately hit their targets because they're better archers, and similarly, some character sheets produce mechanics that make the attack roll more successful because of how we've modeled combat.

Conversely, if I spend an inspiration point to reroll an attack, that's *totally* disassociated from my character. That's me stepping outside the viewpoint of my character, back to a *player* level and deciding to spend a resource to give them a better chance. My character never has thoughts like "I should not beseech fate to make this arrow strike true because I can only beseech fate so many times a day", which is how you know it's operating on a *meta* level.

further reading / sources:

https://old.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/pwp8jt/

https://old.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1e75hgi/

https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer

Sophie M.'s avatar

For my own system on which I working on, I have found a weird departure from that paradigm in design, sine I removed all rolls for competencies and have the dice solely about the unfolding narrative. This made metacurrencies redundant, or if you want the complete die mechanism is a metacurrency, sine the players are completely free to interpret the die results to fit their character and the story they want to experience. I could basically play with tarot cards and nothing would change, the players interpret the oracle and describe the fate of their characters instead of railing against the rules.

7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?