Sliding down the stairs seems like it’s just making things more awkward than walking down them the ordinary way, sliding down the mountain on the other hand seems like an efficient and possibility the only currently available way to travel such a great distance quickly in the circumstances
Legolas isn't just shield surfing for effect. He's surfing so he can also full attack while moving. Its like doing a run and full attack in one turn to put it in 3E talk. 5E is different in that you don't sacrifice movement to attack more, making a shield surf less needed.
So when you say a system that relies heavily on rulings is "objectively bad," you're saying that lots of people like systems that are objectively bad - which of course then means that either those people have bad taste (and also implies that taste is mostly objectively measurable), or that it isn't an objective matter at all, because it isn't bad for the many who embrace rulings. I tend to think that the latter is a better approach to take, because it doesn't reduce such differences to those who have good vs. bad taste.
I don't want to engage heavily with this because I don't think I can do so without a bunch of people getting really upset. But, I don't think is just a matter of taste. I think it is an objective matter. I think "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, and have already made that post.
What I think though is that by Celebrim's 2nd Law of RPGs, how you think that about playing an RPG and how you go about preparing an RPG has more of an impact on play than the rules of an RPG. And, under the 2nd law, "Rulings not rules", while objectively a nonsensical statement, can be a proxy for very powerful and important claim about RPGs that is more complex than that overly simplistic and trite statement. The statement is "true" only if it is standing as a short hand for that larger idea. And that idea is that fundamentally the GM of an RPG is not merely the crank of a rules engine operating in a mechanical fashion. If that was true, then cRPGs would give a better experience in every regard than tRPGs. Fundamentally, to run a good table you as the GM frequently have to apply your judgement and handle things according to the situation that the rules designer didn't account for. In other words, "rulings not rules" if it means something like "the GM is greater than the rules and that's a good thing" is something that I think people need to hear and something that a player or GM introduced to the game in certain eras, that if they hear it, can so radically change how they think about playing the game as to be revolutionary to them.
And that's great and good, and I think that a lot of the people who defend "rulings not rules" fall into the category of people who needed to hear that and needed to change the way they thought about the game. But that still doesn't mean that as a bare statement, "rulings not rules" isn't objectively nonsense and often used as such or that a game that relied heavily on "rulings not rules" didn't objectively have a huge glaring objective problem.
And I think at some level, when you get away from how you feel about me saying "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, that you get that. Because you go on to say this:
Well I don't think anyone is advocating for "arbitrary rulings," because that implies a lack of any kind of consistency or logic. I think most DMs, or at least reasonably proficient ones, develop a style and follow a certain logic. Players learn the style and logic of the GM, and dialogue/negotiate with it. I think that's just a natural part of the game, and not dissimilar to students learning the individual proclivities of a teacher. Where it becomes problematic is if the teacher (or GM) isn't consistent or fair, which inevitably happens at times - it is just part of the nature of the beast. But it really depends on the teacher (or GM), and varies by degree. A good GM (or teacher) cultivates self-awareness and tries to be as fair and consistent as possible, but will inevitable miss the mark at times.
And I can totally agree with that. But what I see you writing about there is in fact how rulings are rules, that as a table plays together and a skilled GM creates rulings, those rulings become rules in the same way that a judge ruling on the law becomes a common law ruling. That is to say, common law created by the judiciary ruling is as much rules as the written legislative law. Most tables don't take the step to write their common law down, but they do know it and abide by it. You don't think of that as being "mechanical systems", but in fact it is basically not any different than the mechanical systems. The game became more consistent, logical, through dialogue, but the product of that was indistinguishable in practice from a rule. And if isn't indistinguishable in practice from a rule, then it's going to fall into that area of arbitrary rulings you agree no one wants.
The craft of good GMing includes turning rulings into rules, even if you never write them all down.
I'm not sure quite what I'd call it, in terms of pithy phrases. Perhaps someone else can come up with something better, but my first stab would be "awesomeness aversion." There's a pattern I've seen, one that seems to be a creeping issue that even Gygax himself encouraged with some of his writing (despite at the table apparently being the exact opposite): the reluctance on the part of designers and DMs to just allow players to do crazy impressive things.
Gygax I suspect was a very nuanced GM, and nuance is a very hard thing to capture. Sometimes nuance sounds like two contradictory claims at once. The sort of writing you are talking about is the Gygaxian principle: "Never give the players an inch." Gygax says, "The players will regularly wheedle you and try to take advantage of you. Don't let them."
There is a tension here that I think Gygax recognizes between wanting to have something and actually feeling validation on receiving it. I don't think Gygax or indeed most GMs that manage to keep tables for a considerable period are in any way adverse to the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things. Indeed, the PC's succeeding and doing awesome things is much of the fun of GMing. It's the pay off for most successful GMs. (There are GMs with other less salubrious pay offs, but let's not go there yet.)
Gygax in his terms put this as the tension between a Monte Haul campaign where the players get instant gratification and full validation of everything that they do, and a Death Dungeon campaign where the players are ground down by the GM's unwillingness to let the players succeed. Gygax suggests the way of the Skilled GM is the middle way.
I think awesome aversion is a cultivated response to being a good GM. Even good players are looking for a loophole and a shortcut, because ultimately all the players want is to win. And "The Rule of Cool" is a terrible rule in practice, because you haven't DMed for very long if you don't have a point where you deeply regretted saying "Yes" and had to go, "Ok, I know I said "Yes" that once but now I have to take it back because otherwise this is going to ruin the game for everyone."
The problems with "The Rule of Cool" are numerous, but one of the problems is that typically from the players perspective is some movie stunt that they watched one time where the protagonist or antagonist did that thing that worked and they want to replicate that. But things that happen in the movies according to movie logic worked in the movie because of movie logic. It's very hard to translate movie logic into a long running RPG because movies aren't simulating anything and they are usually over in about two hours. Movies don't have to deal with the implications of an individual scene. They can just forget about it because while it worked in that one scene for something to work, the writer just did that to be entertaining and they know that repeating it in a second scene would be boring.
Players though on the other hand if they find a tactic that works will naturally and quite reasonably want to repeat it over and over again. This creates a problem, because "it worked in that one scene" doesn't take into account that it might have been a desperation tactic used in that one scene knowing that it had a low probability of success and therefore only done out of desperation and that's why the protagonist doesn't do it again. So as GM you often in a very uncomfortable situation when the player wants to perform a stunt. If you treat that stunt as a desperation tactic that had a low probability of success, then the players says you are stifling his creativity. But if you don't treat it as a desperation tactic, then you are saying, "This is a world where this is extremely effective and relatively easy to do." and that will be setting changing.
Usually I have players that have a high trust in my GMing ability. They know that if something is in their characters ability to do that I will let them pull off the crazy stunt with a reasonable chance of success and reasonable advantages gained. But if I got situation where I'm stuck between the players belief that my ruling was harshing up the game and stifling creativity and my desire to keep the game sane and with a certain heroic feel to it, the way I address that distrust is to openly and honestly bring that player into my rules adjudication process and explain why I'm ruling like I'm ruling.
And generally I find that players back down over this point: "Whatever I rule in your favor, I will also rule in the favor of the NPCs. Whatever you open up for yourself, you will also open up as something the NPCs do back to you. Everyone is using the same rules here. The NPCs don't get to have it easy as a way to challenge or beat you. I'm not favoring them or disfavoring you. If you think that your ruling is fair, then realize that it will be used against you."
To hitch a ride on someone else's earlier comment, if the PC wants to throw sand in the eyes of the bad guy to blind them and thinks that ought to be a low risk and high reward tactic with a reasonable chance of success, then we exist in a universe where throwing sand to blind people is a low risk, high reward tactic with a high chance of success. And the PC wasn't the first person to discover that in the world's ten thousand year history, so if it is true then all the bad guys know about it too. If it is true that works, every goblin in the dungeon and all the world's armies just added a bag of sand to their inventory, and we live in a world where combat looks like people throwing dirt at each other.
"The Rule of Cool" is actually giving terrible advice here in the sand throwing situation. If you listen to it, you'll end up with a situation that isn't cool for anyone.
Now of course there is a counter-argument to what I just outlined. What if the whole table just enjoys a Monte Haul campaign? What's wrong with that? Why can't you just validate the player no matter what? What is wrong with being a little inconsistent and having NPCs just not be awesome enough to do the things that the PCs do? And I suppose at some level the answer is nothing. It's a stylistic choice to have no real difficulty in the game and let everything come easy. And there are parallels in the larger gaming world. We've seen trends of games that back off the difficulty so much that you basically don't need to develop any skill at playing the game to easily progress through it. And there isn't anything wrong with that, and certainly there are games where I just wanted to play them casually. But we've also seen that aesthetic create a deep hunger for more meaningful challenges, creating a wave of "Dark Souls" inspired games that are unapologetic about requiring skillful play if you want to progress.
I think Gygax's middle way with it's high dose of "awesomeness aversion" is meant to satisfy as many different player aesthetics as possible.
I don't want to engage heavily with this because I don't think I can do so without a bunch of people getting really upset. But, I don't think is just a matter of taste. I think it is an objective matter. I think "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, and have already made that post.
What I think though is that by Celebrim's 2nd Law of RPGs, how you think that about playing an RPG and how you go about preparing an RPG has more of an impact on play than the rules of an RPG. And, under the 2nd law, "Rulings not rules", while objectively a nonsensical statement, can be a proxy for very powerful and important claim about RPGs that is more complex than that overly simplistic and trite statement. The statement is "true" only if it is standing as a short hand for that larger idea. And that idea is that fundamentally the GM of an RPG is not merely the crank of a rules engine operating in a mechanical fashion. If that was true, then cRPGs would give a better experience in every regard than tRPGs. Fundamentally, to run a good table you as the GM frequently have to apply your judgement and handle things according to the situation that the rules designer didn't account for. In other words, "rulings not rules" if it means something like "the GM is greater than the rules and that's a good thing" is something that I think people need to hear and something that a player or GM introduced to the game in certain eras, that if they hear it, can so radically change how they think about playing the game as to be revolutionary to them.
And that's great and good, and I think that a lot of the people who defend "rulings not rules" fall into the category of people who needed to hear that and needed to change the way they thought about the game. But that still doesn't mean that as a bare statement, "rulings not rules" isn't objectively nonsense and often used as such or that a game that relied heavily on "rulings not rules" didn't objectively have a huge glaring objective problem.
And I think at some level, when you get away from how you feel about me saying "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, that you get that.
It is hard to get around how I feel about you saying that "rulings not rules is objectively nonsense," because you're confusing the meaning of what "objective" means. I don't want to have the age-old internet conversation of subjective vs objective, but I think it applies, if for no other reason that your so-called "objective truth" relegates a large number of people to be nonsensical in their understanding and approach to a game - some folks who have played that way for 40+ years, and have had no to little problems with it.
Meaning, it isn't something "people need to hear" but is the way many people play, and have always played.
And I can totally agree with that. But what I see you writing about there is in fact how rulings are rules, that as a table plays together and a skilled GM creates rulings, those rulings become rules in the same way that a judge ruling on the law becomes a common law ruling. That is to say, common law created by the judiciary ruling is as much rules as the written legislative law. Most tables don't take the step to write their common law down, but they do know it and abide by it. You don't think of that as being "mechanical systems", but in fact it is basically not any different than the mechanical systems. The game became more consistent, logical, through dialogue, but the product of that was indistinguishable in practice from a rule. And if isn't indistinguishable in practice from a rule, then it's going to fall into that area of arbitrary rulings you agree no one wants.
The craft of good GMing includes turning rulings into rules, even if you never write them all down.
This isn't how I see what "rulings" mean: they are not always or even usually to-be codified common laws, but rather a basic approach of reliance on the judgement of the GM in a context-specific moment. It is simply the idea that in any given moment in a game session, a GM is required to use their best judgment to apply an in-the-moment and contextual rule(ing), that may or may not continue on or become codified. It may be assigning a DC, or it may be an interpretation of a result, or an added on narrative element that isn't clearly defined by the rules. It is a license to "riff off" the rules as the GM sees fit, that they feel serves the game as a whole.
Sometimes rulings becoming semi-official or codified; sometimes they become a "table rule." But often times they're simply a GM's adjudication in the moment.
You kind of go to that point above, but again, it is not simply something "people need to hear" but an ongoing approach of the GM using their best judgment in the moment.
I think awesome aversion is a cultivated response to being a good GM. Even good players are looking for a loophole and a shortcut, because ultimately all the players want is to win. And "The Rule of Cool" is a terrible rule in practice, because you haven't DMed for very long if you don't have a point where you deeply regretted saying "Yes" and had to go, "Ok, I know I said "Yes" that once but now I have to take it back because otherwise this is going to ruin the game for everyone."
Er...I've been DMing actively for over four years now. Haven't once had that happen. The absolute closest thing is, one time I quickly belted off a new benefit for a player's abilities, and it turned out that I did the numbers slightly wrong, causing it to be too powerful. I had a chat with the player, voiced my concerns, and we toned it down slightly (upped the cost and reduced its snowball rate, more or less.) Hasn't caused a problem since.
And my game absolutely uses the Rule of Cool (or Rule of Interesting) very heavily.
I really don't think they are--or, at least, you're going to have to defend them, rather than just allege their existence and presume you have my agreement.
It's very hard to translate movie logic into a long running RPG because movies aren't simulating anything and they are usually over in about two hours.
The only thing my game is "simulating" is the One Thousand And One Nights. Which are absolutely full of some of the most ridiculous crap you'll ever read about in myth and legend. Now, I myself do place a priority on having a world that is well-grounded and makes sense, but that's far from the same thing.
For example, I have (as I've mentioned many times around here) heavily reworked the behavior of Devils (and, to a lesser extent, Demons) because the way D&D devils are written is idiotic. Mine are scary, and yet "less" evil, or at least less blatantly evil. Their evil is cunning, shrewd, and (most importantly) genuinely concerned more about success and significance than about rapaciousness or screwing over mortals. I have, as a result, made devils in my game significantly more grounded, even though the delightful consequence of doing so is that (at least in my opinion) this also happens to make them much cooler (or at least more interesting) than they were before. My devils actually have a chance to tempt the party into calling on their aid....just this once....when they really need it....it can't hurt, right? Not that badly...
This has nothing to do with the Rule of Cool though. It's the result of giving a general benefit with no limitations, rather than addressing a specific scene and tailoring the response to fit. So, for example, in that parallel thread about whether a Fighter could pray for divine aid, my process might look like this:
DM (me): "Paladin, the behir has you under one of its far-too-many legs. Its scales are surprisingly pretty up close, but it's hard to appreciate them when you know a blast of lightning is about to strike you in the face. What do you do?"
Paladin: "I'm stuck under one of its feet? Damn...not that I have much chance to dodge out of the way. This really isn't good. Can I wrestle my way out of the pin, throwing all I have into it?"
DM: Sure, that sounds like a Defy Danger with Strength. Roll that beautiful dice footage.
Paladin: (rolls snake eyes) "Oof. That's a miss."
DM: "Unfortunately, you take that blast of lightning straight to the face, as you wriggle helplessly under its claws. That's..." (rolls damage--high!) "...12 damage. And being lightning, it ignores armor, I'm afraid."
Paladin: "Crap. I'm at zero. Guess it's Last Breath time..."
Fighter: "I shout a big dramatic 'no! Surely this is not how it ends!' Isn't there something I can do, DM? Could I like...pray to his god, try to save him?"
DM: "Hmm. You've not really shown much piety up to this point. Or any piety, really. How do you intend to do that?"
Fighter: "Yeah...you're right, I haven't. But...I really have come to respect Paladin and his faith, even if I've sucked at telling him that. He's, he's always been there for me, and he didn't just judge me when he found out about my past and some of the unsavory things I'd done. He's shown me there's real strength to be found in Bahamut's teachings. It never really hit me before, but...I really wasn't just being dramatic, I genuinely can't believe this is how it ends. All that faithful service, for nothing."
DM: "Alright--that's a pretty fervent prayer, sounds like it's genuine to me. Are you willing to accept the possible consequences of doing this? Calling out to the divine with no training and no experience can be...well, very dangerous. To you...and maybe to Paladin too."
Fighter: "Yeah, this is absolutely a 'Hail Mary' play. Or, I guess, a 'Hail Bahamut' play, hah. I'm desperate."
Paladin: "If you end up beseeching Asmodeus to help me I'm gonna be SO MAD." (Said while grinning like an idiot.)
Fighter: "Guess we'll have to find out just how bothersome the gods can be for a god-botherer, eh?"
DM: "Alright. Give me a Charisma roll. Normally I might let you choose to use Wisdom instead, but between lack of training and how desperate you are, this sounds like praying from the heart, not from the head."
Fighter: "Here goes nothing..." (Roll: Partial success.) "Hey, that's an 8, not half bad."
DM: "You hear a strange voice in your mind. It is powerful, even terrifying, and yet at the same time comforting and nurturing, like a stern but loving father. 'Iꜰ ᴛʜᴏᴜ ᴡᴏᴜʟᴅsᴛ ᴩʀᴇsᴇʀᴠᴇ ᴛʜɪs ɴᴏʙʟᴇ sᴏᴜʟ, ᴡʜᴏᴍ I ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʟᴏᴠᴇᴅ ᴀɴᴅ ᴡᴏᴜʟᴅ ᴡᴇʟᴄᴏᴍᴇ ʜᴏᴍᴇ, ᴛʜɪɴᴇ ᴏᴡɴ ᴍᴜsᴛ ʙᴇ ʀᴇɴᴅᴇʀᴇᴅ ᴜᴩ ɪɴ sᴇʀᴠɪᴄᴇ. Wɪʟᴛ ᴛʜᴏᴜ sᴜʀʀᴇɴᴅᴇʀ ᴛʜʏ ʙᴇʟᴏᴠᴇᴅ ʙᴇᴅʟᴀᴍ, ᴛʜʏ ʟɪʙᴇʀᴀᴛᴇᴅ ʟɪᴄᴇɴsᴇ? I ᴍᴀʀᴋ ᴡᴇʟʟ ᴛʜᴏsᴇ ᴡʜᴏ sᴀᴄʀɪꜰɪᴄᴇ ꜰᴏʀ ᴀɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀ.' It's clear you're being offered a deal, but the terms are...pretty open-ended, and not necessarily favorable to you. What do you do?"
Fighter: (long pause) "It's tough, I agonize about it for a long moment...but I accept."
DM: "You can feel that something has changed, Fighter. But the promise is fulfilled: Paladin, a surge of divine light bursts forth from your prone body. You throw off the behir's claw that was keeping you down, and you are filled with vigor and vitality, ready to show this jerk what Bahamut's wrath is like. What will you do?"
Note that the specific context matters here. Calling on a deity is not safe, and even here it comes with serious strings attached. It also needed to be a genuine, heartfelt prayer, which isn't something that you can just belt out any time you like. I can't see this becoming a Standard Operating Procedure. And if the players clearly start pulling stunts where the Paladin intentionally gets splattered so an ally can call on divine aid...well, the gods don't like being used. They will not be conveniences. Absolutely a scene powered by the Rule of Cool, and yet not one that leads to a "use it literally every time, all the time, forever" tactic.
if the PC wants to throw sand in the eyes of the bad guy to blind them and thinks that ought to be a low risk and high reward tactic with a reasonable chance of success
There's your problem. You're assuming that "Rule of Cool" means "low-risk, high-reward tactic(s.)" It doesn't. It means, at least to me, appropriate-risk, appropriate-reward tactics, with an eye toward high-flying action, competence over ineptitude, and enabling things that enrich the experience. Letting players create "I Win" buttons is not something that enriches the experience.
...what on earth? You can always validate your players without bowing to their every whim. Don't conflate being a supportive DM with being a completely permissive doormat.
We've seen trends of games that back off the difficulty so much that you basically don't need to develop any skill at playing the game to easily progress through it.
I have no interest in doing this. My favorite edition is 4e, an edition where skillful play is extremely important to success--because the system will not hold your hand, and absolutely will punish you for failing to be a team player.
But we've also seen that aesthetic create a deep hunger for more meaningful challenges, creating a wave of "Dark Souls" inspired games that are unapologetic about requiring skillful play if you want to progress.
I think Gygax's middle way with it's high dose of "awesomeness aversion" is meant to satisfy as many different player aesthetics as possible.
