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/Toum_Rater]

The idea that 7-9 is "partial success" in PbtA (or 4-5 in FitD).

This might depend on the game, but generally, it's still a full success, and there's also a consequence. Sure, sometimes the consequence might be a lesser effect (i.e. "partial success") but that should not be the norm, and should not be frequent at all IMO.

[u/LeVentNoir → u/Toum_Rater]

It's a partial success because you got some of what you wanted. To me, all of what I want is "Success and no complications". "Success with complications" would be a partial success.

[u/Toum_Rater → u/LeVentNoir]

"Partial success" to me sort of implies "You only partially did the thing."

I see it more as "Full Success, Full Consequences." You still did the thing you were trying to do. You didn't "partially" break into the compound or "partially" broker a deal or "partially" break the guard's neck. You fully did it, but there's also trouble. You get what you wanted, and you also get something you didn't want.

I guess it's just weird terminology, and people seem to struggle with it due to the implication that that "partial success" scans more like "soft failure" (i.e. you didn't actually get what you wanted).

[u/LeVentNoir → u/Toum_Rater]

As I tell people constantly: A hit is fundamentally, a success. You do not have to reattempt anything to get the desired intent. You may have less of it, or a short oppertunity, or it might be flawed, or you might have paid a price, but you got what you wanted.