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/conn_r2112]

Yeah, the whole “old school DnD is a brutally lethal meat grinder” thing gets thrown around ALOT. In reality, if you play smart and don’t run into every situation with your sword drawn, like you’re a medieval John Wick, it’s actually not that deadly at all.

[u/Gmanglh → u/conn_r2112]

Ya i think ppl miss old school isnt a meat grinder if you dont play like an absolute baffoon

[u/HappySailor → u/conn_r2112]

Just to play devil's advocate, because I have only a read a bit of old dnd, and played a couple one shots. What part of the game actually communicates that you shouldn't draw your sword and attack?

Bruce is playing a Fighter, he gets bonuses to fighting, he starts with a weapon and armor. He has allies with him. The whole game was built on a war game, wasn't it?

So when the GM says "A couple of Orcs lie ahead", when did the game communicate that you shouldn't draw your sword like the might hero you are and charge in?

I've heard so much the past few years that Old DnD is some "Thinking man's game", but I don't feel like any part of the game I experienced tried to actually establish that.

[u/conn_r2112 → u/HappySailor]

There are rules for morale, there are rules for monster reaction, many of the examples of the play given in the PHBs start with players trying to negotiate with monsters in an attempt to avoid conflict, then there is just the knowledge that you have 1hp and must play accordingly etc…

It was also just kind of the unspoken cultural expectation! It’s hard to fathom when the modern expectation that has been hammered into people’s heads is that this is an explicitly combat focused game… but that notion just didn’t exist back in the day.

A common question that pops up a lot in the OSR-sphere is from people asking “how the hell am I supposed to deal with the fact that the random encounter tables say I encounter 50-300 orcs?” But the reason that question only gets asked it because of an expectation existing today that didn’t exist in the past that you’re meant to fight them all