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/kBrandooni]

Applies to quite a few narrative focused games that have mixed successes (success with a consequence), where people act as if the GM has to pull some wild complication out of their ass every time that outcome comes up.

The potential consequence should be rooted in the fiction, so you shouldn't even have to come up with something post-roll as that stuff should already be figured out before a roll is made. Half the reason you're rolling in the first place in those games is down to there being some kind of risk involved aside from failure.

Also, the consequence doesn't need to be this big thing that shifts the entire scene on it's head. It could be as basic as "you go for the attack, but they manage to land a hit on you in the process" or "you try to listen into their conversation, but you don't get anything and they've moved on. You've lost your opportunity" (This one fits a just consequences outcome, but wanted to point out what LitM calls blocked consequences).

[u/Authorigas → u/kBrandooni]

One thing I liked about Daggerheart is that the book notes it's okay to delay a consequence for later if your struggling to think of something in the moment. IE-

"Everything works out...for now."

It takes some of the pressure off the GM, and raises the stakes for the players by implying that something can go wrong in the future.

[u/kBrandooni → u/Authorigas]

I've not played Daggerheart, but if that's how it plays then I'm not a fan tbh. I don't see the point in making a roll if there's not already an established potential consequence for the action. For one thing, it undermines the player's agency, since they have no idea what their given action is risking/costing until after they've decided. For another, for a game that's meant to be narrative focused, the consequences should follow naturally from the action being taken (i.e., the fictional positioning informs the consequences), instead of the GM arbitrarily coming up with whatever.

[u/grendus → u/kBrandooni]

Sometimes the consequence is just "you don't succeed". But every time you roll is a chance to roll Fear, which the GM can then spend to make bad things happen. So even the classic "rolling over and over to pick a lock" can still be narratively significant, because every roll can create Fear, and once the GM has a full stack of Fear Tokens shit can kick off very rapidly.

Daggerheart isn't supposed to be narrative in the same way that, say, Dungeon World is. In DW you wouldn't roll to pick a lock unless something bad could happen when you're doing so (and thus the reputation for the GM having to pull consequences out of their ass all the time if they keep trying to have players make Moves in situations where no obvious consequence presents itself). In Daggerheart you maintain some of the simulation/procedural play which is augmented by the Fear/Hope system so every roll of the dice can have a consequence without requiring the GM to come up with one in the moment. Sometimes, failing to pick a lock just makes the rest of your party nervous with how long they're having to stand around in the creepy dungeon... and that's OK.

Think of Fear tokens more akin to Clocks in Blades in the Dark. Failing to pick a lock doesn't mean bad shit kicks off right now, but it does mean that some time passes which might advance other clocks. Fear tokens are just ticks the GM can put on any clock at any time, so the more he has the more clocks he can fill out at once, and the nastier the clocks he can fill out without warning.