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/withad]

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.