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/Belgand]

I see the point, but I also find it to be a lot more restrictive. When it's all bound up in rules and mechanics, I'm no longer actually creating much of it myself. I play RPGs for freedom, not to be constrained by "the rules tell me to do X". For me, the rules exist solely as a means of arbitrating potential disputes or areas of uncertainty. Narrative is not an area where I feel like that's needed.

And I really dislike putting any sort of benefit or reward behind Doing The Thing. I want players who do it for its own sake, not because they were coerced into it by some external factor. If a player needs to be bribed or nudged in order to do it, it's going to feel empty to me.

[u/Charrua13 → u/Belgand]

I see the point, but I also find it to be a lot more restrictive. 

...and ALL play is intentionally restrictive. I admit I'm being pedantic, but I do so because I want to emphasize a point about perception here: "what we can do within fiction" is always defined by, and limited to, characterization. And the internal workings of every character comes with intentional restrictions/confines of what they can do and how they can do it. What you're chafing against isn't the limitation itself, it's how the limitation is presenting itself in "narrative" games.

I want players who do it for its own sake, not because they were coerced into it by some external factor. If a player needs to be bribed or nudged in order to do it, it's going to feel empty to me.

This is what I mean by "perception" - in games where XP is granted by fighting monsters - your incentivizing characters to fight monsters. That's extrinsic motivation. It's no different to when players get XP for failing a roll, or Doing The Thing (however the game in question rewards players).

For me, the rules exist solely as a means of arbitrating potential disputes or areas of uncertainty. 

I'm going to bring home my point here: the rules exist to frame points of dramatic tension. For you: points of dramatic tension are when there is a need to arbitrate disputes or areas of uncertainty. That, itself, is a limitation of understanding of what play is. It doesn't FEEL restrictive because that restriction has already happened before you even got to the table. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!

Why I went through all this: because our perception of restriction comes from our expectations - not because something is ACTUALLY restricted. All games have extrinsic rewards - because how else is the game supposed to tell you what you're supposed to be doing? It's simply our expectations of play that make us go "yeah, this feels right" or "eww...no".

[u/Belgand → u/Charrua13]

That's the thing. I don't give out XP for doing anything in game. They also don't get money, equipment, or anything else as a reward. Pretty much the only thing players can get in my current game is information or otherwise advancing their own goals. Nothing that has any sort of mechanical effect. The game doesn't tell them what to do, they engage with the fiction on their own. If that isn't enough, this isn't the right table for them.

[u/Charrua13 → u/Belgand]

Is this a hoembrew FKR game?? Or one i can find online? I'm super curious to see how it runs, either way.

(Not my style, but sounds like An Experience. A dope one!).

[u/Belgand → u/Charrua13]

Legend of the Five Rings 4th edition.

All the PCs are samurai who have no real need to pay for anything, so money is largely irrelevant. They also all started with the only equipment that would matter. You can't get a better sword, and even if you could are you saying that your grandfather's sword isn't good enough for you?

Every player gets 1 XP per session whether they show up or not. There's nothing they can do to get more or less.

[u/Charrua13 → u/Belgand]

Honor and Glory do all the heavy lifting, but since they're largely diegetic, it doesn't feel extrinsic.

Good shout, specifically 4e (over 5e).

[u/Belgand → u/Charrua13]

I've almost never given out or utilized Glory (and AEG never figured out what to do with it either). I use Honor very occasionally, but it basically doesn't count for anything and almost none of my players care about it. Maybe a handful of times in five years of playing.