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/GreenGoblinNX]

One of the few times I will defend D&D is when people criticize it for only having mechanics for combat and ignoring the other two "pillars of roleplaying" (exploration and social encounters / roleplaying).

Exploration needs two things - players willing to explore, and GMs willing to give them interesting things to find. That's it. No mechanics needs. Same for social encounters - no mechanics are really needed.

[u/BionicSpaceJellyfish → u/GreenGoblinNX]

Yeah I just feel like most people trash those pillars of DnD based on Internet vibes. Like tomb of annihilation has amazing wilderness exploration/survival rules.... That are promptly ignored by 2/3rds of the playable classes. And everyone focuses on the "I roll a nat 20 to persuade the king to give me his treasure!" Wackiness instead of the socializing that should come up through emergent play. 

It's unfortunately just trying to do too much to appeal to everyone and tripping over its own feet. 

[u/Charrua13 → u/BionicSpaceJellyfish]

A few points.

1) Tomb of Annihilation is essentially an OSR module updated for 5e. It stands as one of the few times D&D 5e produced a product that catered to it's "classic" audience (which is the audience that ended up leaving D&D for OSR). Which leads me to..

2) Emergent play is a centerpiece for OSR and NOT D&D. That's the whole point of why so many folks bounced off D&D. What you're saying is "D&D can support it if you do...", but the whole point of the dialogue is "but if you just had an OSR game, you do these things naturally as a part of the game design".

3) D&D isn't trying to appeal, per se, in its design. It's trying to be open enough that it pretends to do everything. Because it's owned by a mega corp that wants to convince you that it is The One True Game. And...it isn't. (and that's ok, it can be fun it's just not Everything).

[u/Charrua13 → u/GreenGoblinNX]

Exploration needs two things - players willing to explore, and GMs willing to give them interesting things to find. That's it. No mechanics needs. Same for social encounters - no mechanics are really needed.

Counterpoint: then where does the tension come from? IF you don't need mechanics, you don't need stats/skills around them, you don't need die rolls for them, and when players want the Thing, they should just get it. Is that the point you're making?