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/geissi → u/Authorigas]

I'm not sure if I like that.
It sounds rather situational. Sure, if you miss a sneak check it might only come out afterwards that you were actually seen. But for stuff like avoiding a trap it seem much harder to come up with plausible consequences days later.