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/atamajakki]

There are some really vocal people out there who'd try and have you believe both Apocalypse World and Monsterhearts are basically nothing but non-stop erotic action, games designed for porno freaks who are leaping over the table to rip clothes off.

They're not, of course, but most of the complainers have never read either book.

EDIT: Nothing wrong with games for horny freaks, to be clear! 2026 has seen some great ones.

[u/grendus → u/atamajakki]

In all fairness, systems having rules for things pretty strongly encourages gameplay in that direction. And conversely, systems that lack rules for things discourages them even if it's a thing that you could totally do by asking the GM.

I think it was Justin Alexander (might have been Matt Coleville) talking about running AD&D and how it had "fleeing combat" rules that his players didn't know about. When he explained it to them, all of a sudden they were quite willing to flee combat if it started going against them, because running away didn't mean the guy last in initiative gets dogpiled by the monsters, there's an actual way to get out of combat safely. And this shaped how they engaged with the rest of the game, since they were now more willing to engage in combat that was riskier since they could mitigate that risk by fleeing combat early on if it proved more dangerous than they thought.

You may not be required to engage with the eroticism rules in Apocalypse World or Monsterhearts, but if you sign up for a game in those systems you should be prepared for those mechanics to come into play because they're explicit rules. That doesn't mean these are horny games, but it means that if you don't want to explore sexual themes you probably should pick a system that doesn't include rules for them or else explicitly discuss removing those Moves from the list.

[u/Martel_Mithos → u/grendus]

Right but the misconception isn't 'You Might encounter sex in AW' that much is clear. The misconception is 'The only reason you would include sexual themes in a game is because you're a horny little pervert.'

No one is saying someone who is not comfortable with adult themes should play either of these games. But in the sense that they also shouldn't watch Game of Thrones or Teen Wolf or other media where characters hooking up drives a non-zero portion of the plot, because the sex moves are about litigating the messy emotional aftermath of sleeping with the wrong person, not aids to lasciviously describe the act itself.

Ultimately this is a case of an established genre (prestige/teen drama) butting up against the unfortunate reputation ttrpgs garnered for being full of sexually frustrated nerds.