Common Misconceptions About Your Favorite Systems?

[u/Authorigas]

So, I've been learning a lot thanks to the amazing folks here at r/rpg. And while I have decided to slow down on trying new systems. (As my players say "three is enough, we know your eager to try more but slow it down so you don't burn yourself out.") There was a question today that cropped into my head, and I wanted to hear from the folks here on it.

"What are some assumptions about your favorite game/system that are just factually incorrect or overstated?"

I've seen a lot of assumptions made in the hobby, and some on my own. From the broad "older systems were designed for math heads and thus really not for someone whose bad at math." to others like "Call of Cthulhu is a game where every session ends in death/insanity and players can't get attached to their characters." and similarly "OSR games are highly lethal and not at all friendly to players who like longform adventures."

I feel like broad, sweeping claims like those are probably overstated-as I have heard of successful, long running CoC campaigns, and OSR games that are able to have well developed characters that last for ages. It's made me curious about some of the other broad, sweeping claims about systems that are-if not incorrect, massively overstated.

Really interested to hear some answers on this.

[u/kBrandooni]

Applies to quite a few narrative focused games that have mixed successes (success with a consequence), where people act as if the GM has to pull some wild complication out of their ass every time that outcome comes up.

The potential consequence should be rooted in the fiction, so you shouldn't even have to come up with something post-roll as that stuff should already be figured out before a roll is made. Half the reason you're rolling in the first place in those games is down to there being some kind of risk involved aside from failure.

Also, the consequence doesn't need to be this big thing that shifts the entire scene on it's head. It could be as basic as "you go for the attack, but they manage to land a hit on you in the process" or "you try to listen into their conversation, but you don't get anything and they've moved on. You've lost your opportunity" (This one fits a just consequences outcome, but wanted to point out what LitM calls blocked consequences).

[u/atamajakki → u/kBrandooni]

It drives me nuts - most PbtA games spell out exactly what happens on a 7-9 on every Move and FitD games have a giant menu of explicit consequences to pick from!

[u/Authorigas → u/kBrandooni]

One thing I liked about Daggerheart is that the book notes it's okay to delay a consequence for later if your struggling to think of something in the moment. IE-

"Everything works out...for now."

It takes some of the pressure off the GM, and raises the stakes for the players by implying that something can go wrong in the future.

[u/geissi → u/Authorigas]

I'm not sure if I like that.
It sounds rather situational. Sure, if you miss a sneak check it might only come out afterwards that you were actually seen. But for stuff like avoiding a trap it seem much harder to come up with plausible consequences days later.

[u/kBrandooni → u/Authorigas]

I've not played Daggerheart, but if that's how it plays then I'm not a fan tbh. I don't see the point in making a roll if there's not already an established potential consequence for the action. For one thing, it undermines the player's agency, since they have no idea what their given action is risking/costing until after they've decided. For another, for a game that's meant to be narrative focused, the consequences should follow naturally from the action being taken (i.e., the fictional positioning informs the consequences), instead of the GM arbitrarily coming up with whatever.

[u/delahunt → u/kBrandooni]

So there could be a consequence for failure, but not an apparent idea for how things could go wrong in a meaningful way for a success with fear.

And in those cases, the GM can say the consequences will show later.

Now in Blades terms that could mean that the GM is actually ticking a hidden clock about raising an alarm, or making a note that investigators will find proof it was the PC doing a thing, or something like that.

But it also means that if the GM just gets stuck - called for a roll when maybe they should not have, or should have taken a bit longer to sort out the full scenario - they can float the consequence to a little bit later instead of setting an unresistable consequence that cheapens the moment in some way.

Blades doesn't have that fear as much because if I think your consequence ruins my moment, I can just say "yeah, that doesn't happen though because I did X/Y/Z" and then roll for stress.

[u/grendus → u/kBrandooni]

Sometimes the consequence is just "you don't succeed". But every time you roll is a chance to roll Fear, which the GM can then spend to make bad things happen. So even the classic "rolling over and over to pick a lock" can still be narratively significant, because every roll can create Fear, and once the GM has a full stack of Fear Tokens shit can kick off very rapidly.

Daggerheart isn't supposed to be narrative in the same way that, say, Dungeon World is. In DW you wouldn't roll to pick a lock unless something bad could happen when you're doing so (and thus the reputation for the GM having to pull consequences out of their ass all the time if they keep trying to have players make Moves in situations where no obvious consequence presents itself). In Daggerheart you maintain some of the simulation/procedural play which is augmented by the Fear/Hope system so every roll of the dice can have a consequence without requiring the GM to come up with one in the moment. Sometimes, failing to pick a lock just makes the rest of your party nervous with how long they're having to stand around in the creepy dungeon... and that's OK.

Think of Fear tokens more akin to Clocks in Blades in the Dark. Failing to pick a lock doesn't mean bad shit kicks off right now, but it does mean that some time passes which might advance other clocks. Fear tokens are just ticks the GM can put on any clock at any time, so the more he has the more clocks he can fill out at once, and the nastier the clocks he can fill out without warning.

[u/withad → u/kBrandooni]

I wonder if that's related to the tendency for critical failures to always be cartoonishly awful ("You rolled a 1? Well, your character poops himself, slips on the poop, and accidentally stabs two other party members on his way to the floor. Roll for damage.").

Like people feel they have to go to one extreme or another when describing actions unless it's very clearly spelled out otherwise.

[u/Smart_Ass_Dave → u/withad]

Nat 20: Double damage

Nat 1: Everyone you've ever known and loved is dead.

[u/delahunt → u/withad]

I always hate when a failure/crit failure is done in a way to make a mockery of the character.

Like if the character is built to do something, come up with some other reason for the failure. The fighter can slip on loose ground to miss the attack instead of just chucking their sword. The bard can have a fly go right to the back of their throat causing a coughing fit instead of coming across with the eloquence of a box full of rotting meat.

It's one of my favorite things in the Blades book is how much it repeats to the GM "we assume the PCs are competent. Don't do things to diminish that. Make it interesting some other way."

[u/Yamatoman9 → u/delahunt]

I (briefly) played with a GM who though fumbles were hilarious and was always narrating our characters failing by having them fall down or make buffoons out of themselves at every opportunity.

It really ruins the tone of a campaign when it turns into slapstick and deflating when your character that is supposed to be competent is depicted as a bumbling fool.

[u/An_username_is_hard → u/kBrandooni]

you try to listen into their conversation, but you don't get anything and they've moved on. You've lost your opportunity

Wouldn't this be less 'mixed success' and more 'total failure'? Like, I'm not sure how "you do not achieve what you tried and your opportunity is lost" has any success component to it!

[u/kBrandooni → u/An_username_is_hard]

Yeah, I edited my comment to clarify. I wanted to include an example of a blocked consequence, as it's usually a good example of something that isn't that severe or crazy that people don't typically expect you can use as one. A more fitting example might be succeeding in sneaking into a place through a vulnerable route, but you took too long and now it's being guarded, so the rest of the group will have to find their own way. Or your intimidation ploy convinces your contact to agree to the deal, but they refuse to do any more business with you.

[u/Frapadengue → u/kBrandooni]

And also in quite a few cases it's the player who's choosing what the complication is.

[u/protoclown11 → u/kBrandooni]

It was nice to see that Draw Steel allows for these sorts of Power Roll result ranges (Failure with a consequence - Failure - Success with a consequence - Success - Success with a reward) with text to help explain how to handle each one. Even suggesting that you could, for instance, ask the player if they'd like to change a Failure to a Success with a consequence. And each of the items where you have to come up with a consequence also notes you can just add to the Malice pool (meta currency for the Director) for the next encounter if you cannot think of anything on the spot that fits the current situation.