I want to say something about "non-character" resources, I'll call Destiny points. It's the kind of resources you can spend outside of what was defined as resources for the character (stats, skills, contacts, etc.).
They are very useful to tell stories of Frodo vs Sauro or Robin w/ Batman, and take a break from reality law of "whoever is stronger wins". They are very dramatic Destiny points are good for Epic, Fantasy, Biblical, that kind of tones.
Here is an example of why it is useful : Robin takes a blow by the Iron giant. No problem ! while taking the blow he put a device on the giant that allow him to hack the giant's right arm servomotors. Cool. The action potential of the player is just channeled through some new creative mean.
I think this part is obvious, some tables want to play with a focus closer to the character, but really they just use Destiny points within a tighter frame and that's the aesthetic they want : it's perfect, not a problem for me nor for them.
But I think the use of Destiny points should be clearly framed, even veto-able, to maintain the session's aesthetic. Else, they're a blank check and the defined genre can go all over the place. My assumption is that you can't rely on all players to always use Destiny points in the best interest of the game session.
Example two is intended to show how it can derail aesthetic : Robin is filmed by a reporter while taking a hit in the face by the Iron giant. The player spends a Destiny point so that Robin can take the reporter camera and break it. This is a silly action from the player and in violation with the tone of the game for the session. It's got more to do with the player self esteem than with Robin's personality. If it was made through another procedure, the GM would tell : "you can't do that and defend yourself against the next blow from the Giant" or something. But somehow, Destiny points are less questionable. They are "Destiny" after all (or maybe that's humans failing at abstract thinking). And that's how little bits of meaningless stuff get forced into the game, undesirable consequences creep in.
Example three is shorter : in a game where the table agreed on playing "realistic", if a player wants to spend a point to continue brawling with an arm and a leg broken, players should simply veto, Destiny or not.
What happens usually is that some games begin with Destiny points in their core rules, then promise they can simulate all sorts of fiction. Without a clear frame for Destiny points this is not the case.
Example four is rather a case : In Chuubo'sMWGE and Star Wars 1e, players (GM actually) won't oppose the points spent, but they will note : "Oh, you did that, well, that's rather 'selfish' (or 'nihilistic' or whatever)" and it has consequences. There is a clear frame for using the points.
Example five is Karma in Shadowrun : the aesthetic is "these guys are cool badasses that win", it's very hard to not use them to that intent. It's really letting the reins go on power Fantasy : I sigh at the table standards but still, this is a good implementation.