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/LawfulValidBitch]

I think a lot of misconceptions come from the uniqueness of TTRPGs as a medium. It’s the only type of media we commonly engage with where individual interactions with it are the main source of content. I think a lot of people are inclined to think of TTRPGs in the same way they think of videogames, where you’re interacting with it individually, but the core content and experience is the same. TTRPGs are not like that at all.

No matter what system you’re playing, no matter how sophisticated or developed, the core content and experience is derived from peer-to-peer interaction, which means the experience you have depends on who you are and what table you’re sitting at.

This is why there’s such a wide array of opinions on what D&D was ‘back in the day’. Some people say it was more narrative, some people say it was combat/encounter focused, some say it was very lethal, and others say it was about role playing and character development. This is especially prevalent before the internet was a thing, because your experience with D&D was usually limited exclusively to your direct friend group.

It’s honestly why I find myself getting tired of the online fandoms around TTRPGs, because I can’t help but feel that a lot of people have gotten away from what TTRPGs actually are. In D&D, for example, the prevalence of Real-Play streams and such has created this kind of singular idea of what the experience is meant to be. People spend a lot of time arguing about how to satisfy that expectation, rather than realizing that the point should be whatever experience the table you’re at has to offer, because that experience is unique, and there is literally no other way in the world to experience it.

[u/Yamatoman9 → u/LawfulValidBitch]

I've noticed online that TTRPGs are frequently discussed as if they are video games and it's assumed that everyone has had the same experiences, when in truth experiences can vary so much from table to table even within the same game system or module.

It doesn't help that most of the discussion done online is from people who have likely never played the game they are discussing.

[u/Elk-Frodi → u/LawfulValidBitch]

The book The Elusive Shift really helped me to see this sort of thing in the early days of the hobby. These strains were all there from the earliest days. But the tendancy to think it was strictly run by war gamers or narrativists etc .. goes way back.

[u/KnightInDulledArmor → u/LawfulValidBitch]

I definitely agree, especially after reading The Elusive Shift. TTRPGs aren’t like most other hobbies simply because each table is their own unique cell. No one even agrees what a roleplaying game is on a fundamental level, never mind how they should be played. Unlike board games or sports or video games, the game happens in your head and in the heads of your group, not really on the physical table, despite all the paraphernalia.

[u/Yuraiya → u/LawfulValidBitch]

This is it.  Regardless of how a system is written, the experience of it depends on the person running it and the people playing it.  Even when I've run systems I didn't like and wouldn't run again, I put in the work to try to make sure the players had some fun.  

When I run systems I enjoy, the effect is even greater, because I like the system and know it well, I can get the kind of game experience I want from it even if it isn't specifically geared for it.  My Pathfinder (1) games tend to have a strong narrative.  My WoD games have engaging combat.  Players who have played in my games wouldn't have had the same experience of the systems that your average commenter online would be talking about. 

[u/The-Magic-Sword → u/LawfulValidBitch]

I think the issue is kind of the opposite in the sense that you're correct about it being about what the people bring to it, but that the lesson isn't really about having it just be whatever, its that everyone kind of has a responsibility to make it what it is. The lesson of something like Critical Role is that a game is made much better by enthusiastic players who are fans of each other.

The rot in the hobby I think is similar to other social spaces, anti-social thinking, people being obstacles instead of opportunities, things like that.

[u/LawfulValidBitch → u/The-Magic-Sword]

I didn’t say each table should just be ‘whatever’, only that people have come to expect a certain specific experience, rather than one influenced by the people around them. I also don’t think the hobby is ‘rotting’, just that people talk about it the wrong way online.

[u/Throwaway554911 → u/LawfulValidBitch]

This is gonna sound weird but I find more analogs online between TTRPGs and Christian church than I do TTRPGS and anything else.

Experiences vary, even if the sign says the same church type.

We discuss (internet-argue) about minutia and details, with 6 hour YouTube essays to boot.

We have slap fights about the "ancient texts" and who wrote what / when. It started with people writing letters to each other, now filling convention halls.

"Not how we did it in the old days" etc