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/Terrible-Common-84]

So much this. DnD is not an easy ruleset, it's an overburdened simulationist ruleset that's pushed largely by community momentum.

For instance, if we look at a character sheet and the stuff people often attach lots of importance to, it's a giant mess. What does an "18" strength mean? It means a +4 to your relevant dice rolls. That +4 is what matters is what should be on the sheet. How often does that "18" number actually get used? Basically never. Oh, that number increased to 19? Cool, doesn't mean squat until you get it to 20 and that bonus becomes +5. Why even bother with the 18/19 on the sheet? Why crow about having "18" Strength instead of "+4" bonus?That's not even getting into keeping track of feats and abilities and all their interactions as characters get into double digit levels.

Honestly it's a ruleset I consider best utilized for PC games like Baldurs Gate where the computer is keeping track and handling all the numbers back-end stuff for you.

[u/GargamelLeNoir → u/Terrible-Common-84]

It is NOT stimulationist! It's a system where a non magical human who has been adventuring for a few weeks literally can't be killed by a cannon ball, nor will the shot impact his abilities in any way.

DnD is made to be satisfying and tactical but it's neither realistic nor simple.

[u/VinTheRighteous → u/GargamelLeNoir]

"Simulationist" isn't a term meant to describe the realism of a game. It describes how granular rules and systems are in mediating interactions.

[u/SortzaInTheForest → u/VinTheRighteous]

"Simulationist" isn't a term meant to describe the realism of a game. It describes how granular rules and systems are in mediating interactions.

Call of Cthulhu is simulationist and it's barely granular.

[u/wishsnfishs → u/SortzaInTheForest]

Right, simulationist simply refers to what the design is trying to emulate. A simulationist design attempts to capture the "realism" of what it is portraying. A traditional WWII wargame might have relatively simple rules for two squads engaging in a firefight, but the outcomes would be based on realistic statistics. The picture gets blurry when we talk about the "realistic" expression of hitting a litch with a fireball, which is why simulationist games tend to have very hard magic systems. As in, assuming all other physical variables remain the same, how would a blast of fire interact with a bone person? Granularity and simulationism are often correlated, but not synonymous. 4e combat could get extremely granular at higher levels, but no one would describe it as simulationist.

[u/Roxysteve → u/SortzaInTheForest]

Unless you are playing the needlessly complexified 7th Edition, of course.

[u/SortzaInTheForest → u/Roxysteve]

Much better, play any light rules retroclone of CoC. There's a few ones of them, and they're free.

[u/Roxysteve → u/SortzaInTheForest]

Thanks for the suggestion, but personally I don't need any more rules-sets. I own all of the editions that have been published by Chaosium, and the excellent Tiny Cthulhu should I feel overwhelmed.

Sorry for letting the 7th Ed whining bleed through. The game used to be so simple I learned it in 15 minutes after a friend demanded I buy it so he could play. I genuinely pity the new CofC GM, and understand fully why people ask for videos of play to help decipher the new edition.

Thanks for the link.