• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Are there any games where players have effectively unlimited meta-currency?

vegetalss4

Registered User
Validated User
Not wanting to do the thing to get a Plot Point is fairly obviously different than not being able to get a Plot Point.

There is a cost to getting a PP in Cortex Prime, yes, but they are effectively unlimited. You can always get one if you're willing to pay the (minimal) price.
Can you spend the plot point on the very roll that will give it to you? (is that even a relevant question, wikipedia claims you can use cortex plot points for extra dice but I'm not familiar with the system, if they can only be used for non-roll benefits then it doesn't really apply.)
 

Mister Gridlock

Registered User
Validated User
Can you spend the plot point on the very roll that will give it to you? (is that even a relevant question, wikipedia claims you can use cortex plot points for extra dice but I'm not familiar with the system, if they can only be used for non-roll benefits then it doesn't really apply.)
Per the RAW, yes, you can use it right away. I've seen house rules that stipulate otherwise, e.g. you're playing Spider-Man and you're using his Friendly Neighborhood Hero? as a D4 when (once again, JJJ has smeared you) to negotiate with the cops. To some GMs you shouldn't be spending the PP you just earned as a "disadvantage" to bump the same die roll up with an extra die to your total (for example--there's more ways you can spend Plot Points). Regardless, the way you "pay" for earning your PP is to increase your chance for feeding the Doom Pool. If your D4 doesn't roll a 1, then you still get a PP (you're just twice as likely to roll a 1 with a D4 than the standard D8).

Since the GM can spend from the Doom Pool to create more trouble for the heroes, or even outright end the scene if the pool contains 2D12 (and end it badly for the heroes), feeding the Doom Pool is balanced against what the heroes are gaining. Of course, you can roll 1s on any given die in the pool, and some powers require the use of a PP to "fund" it, e.g. outright Invulnerability.

Cortex is genius in this give-and-take approach.
 

shockvalue

The Puncher Strikes!
Validated User
"To some GMs you shouldn't be spending the PP you just earned as a "disadvantage" to bump the same die roll up with an extra die to your total"

While that's certainly logical, I don't think rolling a Distinction as a d4 is necessarily intended to mean it's acting as a disadvantage. At least, I take pains to tell my players that's not the case. It just means things are more likely to get... interesting when you do.
 

SuperG

Active member
Validated User
I feel like none of these address the most interesting notion the thread title suggests: players always being able to decide "no. This one, *I win*" even if they did so in the previous scene.

Like, imagine Fate with players able to just take Fate Points at will, they just note that they are going into FP debt.

And if a player ends a session deeply in FP debt, that's just noted as a good time to have a talk about mismatched expectations, or whether to have shoes dropping next session if that is what they want.

Or maybe even just "if this happens in two back to back sessions, have a talk".

Basically use the bean counting to track how much people are grabbing the reins of the story, not to force "consequences".

Anyone think that sounds good?
 

Numanoid

#rocksteadyrollhard
Validated User
I feel like none of these address the most interesting notion the thread title suggests: players always being able to decide "no. This one, *I win*" even if they did so in the previous scene.

Like, imagine Fate with players able to just take Fate Points at will, they just note that they are going into FP debt.

And if a player ends a session deeply in FP debt, that's just noted as a good time to have a talk about mismatched expectations, or whether to have shoes dropping next session if that is what they want.

Or maybe even just "if this happens in two back to back sessions, have a talk".

Basically use the bean counting to track how much people are grabbing the reins of the story, not to force "consequences".

Anyone think that sounds good?
“Use too much of this feature the game provides for you and the GM gives you a lecture” sounds like the opposite of fun to me.
 

SuperG

Active member
Validated User
“Use too much of this feature the game provides for you and the GM gives you a lecture” sounds like the opposite of fun to me.
Way I see it, *you* should be lecturing the GM about overpowered enemies.
 

Silvercat Moonpaw

Quadruped Transhuman
Validated User
I feel like none of these address the most interesting notion the thread title suggests: players always being able to decide "no. This one, *I win*" even if they did so in the previous scene.
Not what I'm personally going for: if I wanted there to be an "I win" button I'd play GM-less freeform. Mileage Of Others Is Allowed To Vary.

Mostly what concerns me is that if the game is built assuming editing mechanics are going to be used then the game breaks down when they run out. And personal experience suggests GMs aren't as good about controlling the flow as they games expect. This thread is about seeing how to shift that control to players.
 

Thane of Fife

Registered User
Validated User
I can't say that I've played it, but my understanding is that SuperBabes uses a system where you can take points to break the rules, but then, every session there is a roll against your total number of points. If this roll passes, something bad happens to you (and I assume that your total goes down).
 

Mister Gridlock

Registered User
Validated User
Mostly what concerns me is that if the game is built assuming editing mechanics are going to be used then the game breaks down when they run out. And personal experience suggests GMs aren't as good about controlling the flow as they games expect. This thread is about seeing how to shift that control to players.
Marvel/Cortex Heroic is genius at player agency re: influence over the narrative. You can listen to some very good actual plays of a game set in the MCU on the Earth-405 podcast
 

SuperG

Active member
Validated User
Not what I'm personally going for: if I wanted there to be an "I win" button I'd play GM-less freeform. Mileage Of Others Is Allowed To Vary.

Mostly what concerns me is that if the game is built assuming editing mechanics are going to be used then the game breaks down when they run out. And personal experience suggests GMs aren't as good about controlling the flow as they games expect. This thread is about seeing how to shift that control to players.
I know you seem to think that what you just said isn't the same as what I just said... but I don't see what the distinction you're drawing here is.


Editing mechanics allow players to say "no. I win". Or they just improve odds (the ones where they let you roll extra dice) but in that case it's just a "sometimes it randomly fails" way to allow the player to say "no. I win". They are an "I win" button; if you have enough ("effectively unlimited") meta currency, you should be able to win, end of story, no?

Actually shifting control of earning meta currency to the players is largely going to have the same pitfalls and success criteria as giving them an "I win" button.

If GMs are generally too stingy, the flipside concern is naturally "but players are going to be too generous and so they'll have basically infinite meta currency".


So... take it one step further. What's wrong with that?
 
Top Bottom