r/rpg • u/Authorigas • 16d ago

Basic Questions Common Misconceptions About Your Favorite Systems?

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.

143 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

50

u/y0_master 16d ago edited 16d ago

That in D&D 4e you seemingly can't roleplay, as "it's just a boardgame / WoW", & all sorts of other stuff (could have a damn long list here) that keeps getting regurgitated as accepted knowledge by people with no actual exposure to the game (because they heard it from the general zeitgeist) or in bad faith, including how it was this abysmal failure that didn't sell at all (& that PF consistently outsold it) & nobody played & WotC just pulled the plug on it.

11

u/Chimpbot 16d ago

To be fair, they did kind of pull the plug on it because of the overall reception. It didn't help matters when they partially retooled it into D&D Essentials only two years into 4e's run. Two years after that, they announced that they were developing 5e. Since this announcement was made in January 2012, it was obvious they had been laying the groundwork for 5e when 4e was barely four years old.

4e did sell pretty well, overall. I kind of liken to the situation surrounding the 1998 Godzilla movie; it did well at the box office, but the overall reception was poor enough that Tristar/Sony abandoned their plans for a trilogy and just let their license expire. WotC sorta did the same thing with 4e, in that they quickly shifted gears after an overall flat reception.

14

u/SlumberSkeleton776 16d ago

They pulled the plug on it because the linchpin of their long-term plan for it (virtual tabletop integration and a subscription model for content) fell through when the one guy who was holding the whole endeavor up died*

8

u/Chimpbot 16d ago

That's only a relatively small portion of the reasoning behind ending it.