D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Ruin Explorer]

If the simulation rules are incomplete or faulty, make better rules.

No.

Simulation rules are all incomplete and all faulty, and attempts to make them less of both have frequently just lead to games that are basically unplayable.

You're offering a completely fake and impossible "solution".

 

[Micah Sweet]

No.

Simulations rules are all incomplete and all faulty, and attempts to make them less of both have just lead to games that are basically unplayable.

You're offering a completely fake and impossible "solution".

So there's one level of simulation that can't possibly get better or worse, for a given individual or group's value for that?

Come on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This, "players just always win now no matter what" sentiment has become common online, but I dont see much in discussion or play to support it. This is not what rule of cool means.

Exactly. Suggesting that's what it means is starting from a point which is basically de facto bad faith, even if it's honestly meant, because it's a misrepresentation.

Rule of cool is easy to see in actual play. What it usually boils down to is giving something unsupported by the rules a chance to succeed - often not even a very high one. Pretending the players are just deciding "cool naughty word" happens though is laughable.

The number of parties totally unwilling to run away is sadly pretty high, because "run away" means "not winning".

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or the "rule of cool", and predates discussion of the "rule of cool" by decades. People pretending that it wasn't common to see parties fail to run away in the late '80s or the '90s are either limited in their experience, or absolute revising the past. Why are you derailing your own thread with this angle?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So there's one level of simulation that can't possibly get better or worse, for a given individual or group's value for that?

Come on.

I'm not sure how "all simulations are incomplete and all simulations are faulty" is at all hard to understand. It is a very simple and objectively true statement in the case of TTRPGs.

Further, attempt to re-write rules at the table, or banning things that make a degree of sense and seem apposite (which is 95% of what gets called "rule of cool", as this thread shows) because they're not within the current simulation rules seem like terrible ideas.

Especially as many games attempt to simulate environments where cool things happen all the time, like swashbuckling novels or superhero comics.

 

[Oofta]

I was in a convention game a while back where the DM really leaned into the rule of cool and ... yuck. It just wasn't for me. I want to be challenged during the game, I don't want other players rewarded simply because the DM likes the cool sounding action they just made up.

I think there's a balance to be sought. The rules can't cover everything and they shouldn't try. But at a certain point rule of cool can become, to me, a loony toons cartoon where someone is like Bugs Bunny not falling after running off the edge of a cliff because they didn't study law. Because it becomes basically a contest of "convince the DM". If you happen to have that kind of exuberant convincing personality trait you're good to go, otherwise you're left in the rule of cool dust.

Meanwhile I do allow actions that are not in the rules but they will always be things I can envision the character doing based on their capabilities. Want to swing from the chandelier? Cool, I'll set a DC based on what I think makes sense for the current scenario and give you a general idea of how difficult it will be before you attempt it. Maybe it will work, maybe you'll fail dramatically and fall to the floor while risk being stunned for a round.

In the OP's example, one PC jumped from pillar to pillar, potentially taking risks and definitely spending their movement resource. They weighed risk and cost as defined by the game. The PC that high jumped just ignored the entire structure of the game, bypassed all the risk and resource trade-offs that make a game challenging. The rule of cool can be like playing a video game and using a cheat code to "win" the game. No thanks.

 

[deadman1204]

This, "players just always win now no matter what" sentiment has become common online, but I dont see much in discussion or play to support it. This is not what rule of cool means.

This is what bugs me most about how so many run 5th ed (and the way the game was designed). A 5th ed game is the story about how your characters will win. All dm advice, the structure of the game (literally impossble to accidentally kill a character over lvl 2) and such all feeds into making victory inevitable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure how "all simulations are incomplete and all simulations are faulty" is at all hard to understand. It is a very simple and objectively true statement in the case of TTRPGs.

Further, attempt to re-write rules at the table, or banning things that make a degree of sense and seem apposite (which is 95% of what gets called "rule of cool", as this thread shows) because they're not within the current simulation rules seem like terrible ideas.

Especially as many games attempt to simulate environments where cool things happen all the time, like swashbuckling novels or superhero comics.

I specifically said to change the rules if they don't allow something they should. I don't disagree that simulation rules are imperfect. I object to your suggestion that making them better is "impossible".

 

[Pedantic]

I don't care for the framing as player entitlement, but I do agree with the premise for a specific framing of "gaming." Rule of Cool is usually a player forward means of shifting the structure of the game into negotiation. Players set out what they'd like to happen, GMs set costs or risks, and the currency added to either side is the perceived "coolness" favor by both parties.

I don't really like negotiation gameplay in general, and I think it's even worse when you're playing with a currency that has variable value to all the players involved in some incalculable, unknowable way. If there existed some other gameplay loop, where the players are presented challenges and leverage abilities, resources and some time/action economy to overcome them, RoC can break that, turning the same into a different, and in my opinion, worse game.

However, there exist modes of play that are entirely negotiation based to begin with, and RoC in those contexts is mostly just suggesting value should be assigned to the "coolness" factor when using them. If that's already the game being played, I have significantly less qualms, though I do like and way of formalizing its value, maybe using a boon/bane system, or meta currency.

 

[deadman1204]

Exactly. Suggesting that's what it means is starting from a point which is basically de facto bad faith, even if it's honestly meant, because it's a misrepresentation.

Rule of cool is easy to see in actual play. What it usually boils down to is giving something unsupported by the rules a chance to succeed - often not even a very high one. Pretending the players are just deciding "cool naughty word" happens though is laughable.

By your logic, there should be no rules, if "not supported by the rules" is simply the fix for something your character cannot do.
If your character has no limitations, why bother? You are approaching the game such that the players must be able to overcome ANY obstacle with ease. Why can't I just say a prayer and X god just kills the battlefield? That'd sure be cool and very character flavorish. Sure sucks for the game at large and all the other players though. "rule of cool" is just cheating and dm favoritism by another name.

If all rules that prevent a character from having fun are "bad" and must be worked around, then you functionally have zero rules. Its just a stupid powerfantasy where the person the dm likes the most wins, and literally no one can lose.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I specifically said to change the rules if they don't allow something they should. I don't disagree that simulation rules are imperfect. I object to your suggestion that making them better is "impossible".

In the short term it is.

It's impractical long-term-ist solution to a short-term problem at the table. Worse, easily 90% of DMs aren't even remotely qualified or skilled enough to write replacement rules. Sure a lot of people here are - but we're all ancient (well mostly) and like 25% of us are published designers or adventure writers! We're hardly representative. For evidence just look at the quality of house rules through the decades - the majority I've seen, offline and online are usually there simply because the DM in question didn't understand existing rules well, and/or was simply unaware certain rules existed.

That might be a valid long-term solution for you, but not generally.

At the time the DM has to make a call. If that call is always "Rules don't cover, so no!" or "Give 3-6 days to come up with new rules" (and I'm not seeing you leaving an alternative to those) then players, rightly, will have little patience with that DM. Rule of cool is just what we call DMs saying "Yes" and giving an action a chance to succeed despite it not being covered by the rules, essentially.