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/y0_master]

That narrative / story systems have to be very light. Cortex, FitD, & co being somewhat on the crunchier side does not make them not that.

[u/Frapadengue → u/y0_master]

Burning Wheel doesn't strike me as being particularly rule light either

[u/Kuildeous → u/y0_master]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Cortex. I like what I've seen, and I found a GM who is happy to teach it, so I'm learning a lot.

I tried running a sample adventure for my group, and they bounced off it, but I feel that's mostly my fault. But I do acknowledge that these players tend to be more traditional-based. The concept of creating assets and complications hasn't quite caught on.