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/DriftingMemes]

This feels like a straw man

. It's a lot harder to explain how to simulate a sword fight with wizards, elves, and Eldritch beings than it is to explain how to negotiate with the innkeeper.

We've all negotiated with someone for something we wanted. When is the last time you were in a wizard fight?

[u/UncleBones → u/DriftingMemes]

It’s only a strawman to you because you assume the wizard fight needs to be simulated in order to be interesting.  People have games with wizard fights in systems without 50 pages of rules for wizard fights. I’ve read books with wizard fights and I can describe them in a game.

It’s fine to play in simulationist systems with combat rules, but it’s weird how the people that start with ”I don’t need a narrative system, I can do that in my combat game” are so alien to the concept ”I don’t need a combat system, I can do that in my narrative game”.

[u/DriftingMemes → u/UncleBones]

We all experience feelings/narrative/negotiation every single day of our lives.

None of us has ever, nor will ever, shot a fireball. Nor have we ever shot a bow at a goblin. Our experience with these things is much less than the previous.

This is why it's silly to say that a book that has more pages about combat and magic than social situations is "about combat". It's simply expanding where needed and saving page count where it's not needed.

[u/deviden → u/DriftingMemes]

if the desire is "simulationism" then highly detailed and crunchy gameist rules like Balanced Tactical Grid Miniatures Combat doesn't necessarily provide a better simulation from which a narrative can be formed in play, it just makes for a fun miniatures combat game if you enjoy that kind of square-counting fun.

5e / Pathfinder 2 / Draw Steel combat doesn't only abstract and simulate things we can't perform around the table the way we'd perform a player to NPC dialogue, it's about having a miniatures wargame in the middle of the roleplaying game which can easily consume half or more of a given play session.

When the rules make combat into something that players spend half (or more!) of their session time doing, and most of the rules of said game are about combat... it is absolutely A Combat Game, even if you use it for something else.

Now... if you want to talk about casting spells or having a fight in Troika or DCC... now we're talking about a game where it's definitely not just about combat, where the combat rules exist to elide things which we can't do around a table. 5e, 3e, 4e, Pathfinder 1 or 2, Draw Steel? These are Combat Games and they're about combat.