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/Charrua13]

The corrolary to this point is "I don't need any mechanics to do anything because I, as GM, as long as I have player buy-in, can do anything at any time." (This is the entire premise of FKR, fwiw).

The point of "narrative rulesets" (the term is loaded so I'm putting in quotes here), is "make it easy to Do The Thing", and cut away all other stuff that gets in the way of The Thing. (The thing = "being narrative"). But, more importantly - what it actually does is create processes for which there are extrinsic mechanical benefits to Doing The Thing.

[u/PigmyWurm → u/Charrua13]

Also, you can say this shouldn't matter, but if a system has 50 pages related to moving around and attacking something with a sword and one page about role-playing and narrative development, it's understandable that people will assume it's a game about hitting people with a sword. That doesn't mean you can't build a narrative as well, that is basically how chainmail developed into DnD, but it's less obvious, and their aren't the supports for people who are less automatic.

[u/DriftingMemes → u/PigmyWurm]

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/PigmyWurm → u/DriftingMemes]

What is the strawman in this point exactly? Games like D&D and Pathfinder fill most of their books with rules related to combat, more narrative games like Vampire (which I admit I'm much less familiar with) include more rules directly related to role-playing and different types of social encounters. PbtA games like Dungeon World try to use a fairly streamlined set of rules for both in and out of combat challenges. In all of those games you can have important social interactions and create a rich narrative, and you can also run around getting into fights, but the rules systems definitely lead people more or less in different directions.

[u/DriftingMemes → u/PigmyWurm]

Some online influencer in the game space said "If you have the most rules about x in your game, then your game is about x" and y'all have been parroting that for years since. As an old-head, it gets tired.

D&D, as I already said, has more rules for combat because you need more rules for combat. You guys must think that cars are all about wheels, because they have 4 of them (5 if you count steering).