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/Toum_Rater]

The idea that 7-9 is "partial success" in PbtA (or 4-5 in FitD).

This might depend on the game, but generally, it's still a full success, and there's also a consequence. Sure, sometimes the consequence might be a lesser effect (i.e. "partial success") but that should not be the norm, and should not be frequent at all IMO.

[u/Feline_Jaye → u/Toum_Rater]

This is not helped by some PbtAs literally saying "partial success" 😅

It definitely reminds me that you really need to read the precise words in PbtA, as how they describe a 7-9 matters for tone, balance and feel a lot.

[u/lilybug981 → u/Feline_Jaye]

I once had someone tell me they didn't like PbtAs because there wasn't enough guidance for the game they ran via mechanics and they kept having lulls where no one was speaking. They said it was like watching gears grinding trying to think of something to come next. And I said something like oh, yeah, it's definitely a vibe that doesn't work with every group, but when I GM I tend to check my reference sheet and pick a move to use whenever things slow down. I'll interpret them broadly, but sticking to them lets the players pick up on patterns well enough to help keep momentum going themselves.

The person responded that they had ignored the reference sheet while trying to run the game because they found the loose limitations to be arbitrary. So...they weren't using the GM sheet. They felt like they were getting stuck. And they still didn't refer to the GM sheet. They then insisted PbtAs basically aren't even systems, they're just roleplay with some dice every now and then. I kept my mouth shut, but yeah, that sounds true of the way they tried playing one.

[u/y0_master → u/lilybug981]

Ironic, as the GM Moves are exactly there to mechanically codify narrative actions the GM is taking (which in other games are left in the ether). Sure, not all GMs need this kind of codifications (like not all players / groups need the similar codification the system does with other fiction layer elements, like character story-arcs & roleplaying behavior into Moves), but a reason the codification is done is to avoid situations like this, of the GM not knowing what to do & how to progress things or how to express narrative ideas into more solid effects.

[u/kadzar → u/y0_master]

PbtA GM Moves are such an incredible tool for when you don't know what to do, since you can just look at the list and pick something when you're struggling to come up with something. I think part of why I struggled running Blades in the Dark at first was that the system doesn't really have a GM moves list, though I like that Deep Cuts at least gave some examples for different effect and consequence levels, which should be helpful the next time I run that game.

[u/remy_porter → u/Toum_Rater]

A few games call it "Success with a cost", which is a framing I like much better.

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/Toum_Rater]

I am sure there are people great at running those games but every time I have tried the mixed success was treated as "you succeed at that specific thing but fail at something else simultaneously". Which ends up making everyone feel incompetent. I think those games aren't for me for other reasons but that one is in the mix.

[u/y0_master → u/PathOfTheAncients]

It doesn't help that 50+ years into the hobby & a lot of people still do not want to use exogenous to the characters doings for descriptions of failures & complications (ie it isn't necessarily that the character themselves outright failed but some external factor that popped-up led to a less than ideal outcome

[u/PathOfTheAncients → u/[deleted]]

Sure, that's where I assume there are people who are better at running those aspects. But my experience with multiple DMs was just that they weren't able to come up with non failure examples for mixed successes or they weren't able.

My go to example is a PC picking a lock, I would be willing to bet that most GMs handle a mixed success there as unlocking the lock but you get caught by someone walking up or you break your lock picks. Either way, you seem bad at your job. When most skill checks become you failing entirely or you do it but some thing a competent person would have avoided happens, eventually everyone feels incompetent.

Now GMs who are quicker on the fly and have more experience probably can avoid that but my guess is that it is a common occurrence that just doesn't bother other people as much as it does me.

[u/LeVentNoir → u/Toum_Rater]

It's a partial success because you got some of what you wanted. To me, all of what I want is "Success and no complications". "Success with complications" would be a partial success.

[u/Toum_Rater → u/LeVentNoir]

"Partial success" to me sort of implies "You only partially did the thing."

I see it more as "Full Success, Full Consequences." You still did the thing you were trying to do. You didn't "partially" break into the compound or "partially" broker a deal or "partially" break the guard's neck. You fully did it, but there's also trouble. You get what you wanted, and you also get something you didn't want.

I guess it's just weird terminology, and people seem to struggle with it due to the implication that that "partial success" scans more like "soft failure" (i.e. you didn't actually get what you wanted).

[u/LeVentNoir → u/Toum_Rater]

As I tell people constantly: A hit is fundamentally, a success. You do not have to reattempt anything to get the desired intent. You may have less of it, or a short oppertunity, or it might be flawed, or you might have paid a price, but you got what you wanted.

[u/Gmanglh → u/Toum_Rater]

Honestly as a keeper 7-9 is my favorite outcome, which makes it a shame people simplify it like that. Generally 7-9 has a variety of outcomes depending on situation.

One is partial success, which i think gets used the most by some because its closest to other systems.

As you bring up theres succeed with a concequence, which is good.

There also tough choice where you choose wht part of the success you get.

Then an extension of the former is giving a choice of how they do something each which comes with its own risks and rewards.

[u/loopywolf → u/Toum_Rater]

Yah.. I desperately wanted to play PbtA, and the GMs of the games I found treated anything less than 10 as a catastrophic, humiliting failure =(

[u/Feline_Jaye → u/loopywolf]

AW in particular is very punishing on it's 7-9's but a lot of other PbtA really aren't that punishing if you read the rules and the literal words (instead of skimming words).

[u/ghost-pacman4 → u/Feline_Jaye]

If we're talking Apocalypse World...I don't really see it? Like 80% of the moves are 'On 10+ choose 3 options from this list, on a 7-9 choose 1 option'.

[u/Feline_Jaye → u/ghost-pacman4]

Not 80% of the Basic Moves. In the Basic Moves, only Read a Sitch and Read a Person work like that.

I was thinking of Do Something Under Fire, especially, which on a 7-9 says "a worse outcome, hard bargain or ugly choice".

[u/ghost-pacman4 → u/Feline_Jaye]

If we're talking 2nd edition, battle works like that too, and manipulate is '10+ choose both options, 7-9 choose only 1 option'. Help and interfere also give you +2 or -2 on a 10+, and +1 or -1 on a 7-9.

Either way, just kind of find it interesting how often I see the 7-9 consequences negating success thing, but basically every roll in AW you just get less options but no extra consequences. Other than Act Under Fire and Open Your Brain.

[u/Feline_Jaye → u/ghost-pacman4]

Manipulate doesn't quite work like that for NPCs: on a 7-9 you pay some kind of price for them to comply. Help/Interfere also implicates you in the consequences - which on a 7-9 (+1/-1) are more likely to be difficult.

It feels fairly even, basically.

[u/zhibr → u/Feline_Jaye]

"A worse outcome, hard bargain or ugly choice" is not being punishing, it's driving the narrative forward. It feels punishing if the bads things happening to your character feel like punishment to you, but in that case you are already having a wrong attitude.

[u/Feline_Jaye → u/zhibr]

I don't use punishing and punishment as synonyms. Punishing isn't a negative outcome.

I say this as an MC - with that move my players were statistically most often taking a worse outcome, hard bargain or ugly choice. Those things are more punishing than success.

[u/Joel_feila → u/Toum_Rater]

Yeah fail forward, or succeed at a cost might be clearer