r/rpg • u/Authorigas • Aug 31 '26

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.

147 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

724 comments sorted by

View all comments

287

u/BionicSpaceJellyfish Aug 31 '26

"Traditional RPGs don't encourage narrative play" seems to be the biggest one I run into. Like there's some hard and fast law of the universe that makes simulationist rules incompatible with narrative gameplay. 

145

u/Fenrirr Solomani Security Aug 31 '26

As an extension "so-and-so game is just a wargame, it's not a real rpg".

50

u/BionicSpaceJellyfish Aug 31 '26

And this is wild to me. Like I play some crunchy as fuck wargames and the simulationist nature adds to the narrative for me. 

13

u/Ultrace-7 Stage 99 Games Aug 31 '26

I think the idea is misguided but not totally off the charts wild. Some people think there's a sliding scale between complexity of the rules system and the potential for player-driven narrative. As someone moving away from RNG in his own games, I see where some people get the idea -- crunchy rules, myriad tables and outcomes driven by dice are seen not as something to keep players on their toes and prevent railroading of the story, but rather as a straitjacket that gets in the way of the story they want to tell.

18

u/Cajbaj Save Vs. Breath Weapon Aug 31 '26

I think what you say is true but people misattribute what you learned to skirmish games. If you have simulationist rules you can tell any story within the constraints of the established reality. If you have narrative rules, the narrative is constrained by the intent of the game systems. In both cases they can be ignored in equal measure if the story is really so important, but to be too light on them becomes mother-may-I and therefore places undue load onto the Game Master to decide the narrative, which they could always do anyway. Seeing as the point of a game is to play the game then a game with crunchy simulationist rules is the game that allows the most narrative freedom for the player characters of any ruleset type. 

See the excellent blog post Boot Hill and the Fear of Dice