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

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

No and that appears to an intentional misrepresentation of my position. It's certainly completely false and I refute it. I haven't suggested anything of the sort.

Its just a stupid powerfantasy where the person the dm likes the most wins, and literally no one can lose.

This problem only exists in your head.

I need to ask - do you actually play RPGs? Because I do. Most of us do. And we've seen REAL "rule of cool" in action for decades, not the fantasy version you made up, but the real one, and 95% of the time, it works just fine, and everyone is happy, including the DM. Your objections sound like those of a guy who has either never played RPGs, or hasn't played them for decades, and is mad about this concept he heard about and misunderstood, and is keen to tell other people how very bad they are for liking that concept.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

I don't think that's what Rule of Cool is. To me its the idea that game decisions should be based on whether or not a participant personally wants it to happen. That IMO should not have anything to do with whether or not you can do something, or can succeed at something you try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No and that appears to an intentional misrepresentation of my position. It's certainly completely false and I refute it. I haven't suggested anything of the sort.


This problem only exists in your head.

I need to ask - do you actually play RPGs? Because I do. Most of us do. And we've seen REAL "rule of cool" in action for decades, not the fantasy version you made up, but the real one, and 95% of the time, it works just fine, and everyone is happy, including the DM. Your objections sound like those of a guy who has either never played RPGs, or hasn't played them for decades, and is mad about this concept he heard about and misunderstood, and is keen to tell other people how very bad they are for liking that concept.

You seem keen to tell people that improving simulation in an RPG is mostly a mistake and a fool's errand. I certainly object to that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To me its the idea that game decisions should be based on whether or not a participant personally wants it to happen.

That's not what it is. That's never been what it is. It's not about "a participant" either - it's about a negotiated "How are we going to do this between the DM and the players", or just simply DM fiat, depending on the group and game.

 

[deadman1204]

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.

Why is it bad for the DM to say "NO"? DMs don't say no enough. The rules are not faulty if a player cannot solve a problem. Maybe they need something else, or its a teamwork option, or many other things.
You keep approaching this that ALL challenges MUST be overcome and won by the party, and any rule that prevents this is bad. This means that there are no challenges, and the dice or character builds are ultimately irrelevant. Why spend a spell slot on a jump spell or something when any rando can be better than that cause its "cool". You go on about how most DMs lack the skills to do things properly, yet fail to look at the party and game holistically.

If the dm doesn't say no and the party never loses, then whats the point? You go on about "faulty simulations" and "bad rules by the dm". Everything is the DMs and games fault that players cannot do everything. You claim I missrepresent, but this is exactly what you are saying.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not what it is. That's never been what it is. It's not about "a participant" either - it's about a negotiated "How are we going to do this between the DM and the players", or just simply DM fiat, depending on the group and game.

Are you about to pull out a dictionary definition then? You seem pretty sure of yourself.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You seem keen to tell people that improving simulation in an RPG is mostly a mistake and a fool's errand. I certainly object to that.

So you really want to misrepresent what I said whilst I can still quote it lol?

I said trying to do it at the table is a fool's errand, and I don't think you disagree.

I said you, for example, @Micah Sweet might be qualified to do it generally, but most DMs are not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are you about to pull out a dictionary definition then? You seem pretty sure of yourself.

No. No-one is, because it's living thing that exists in games, and people constantly use without any of the problems our friend @deadman1204 has made up.

DMs don't say no enough.

Wow, you've completely made up a bunch of fictional problems with a concept you're misrepresented, and now you're telling us that the real problem is DMs don't say "No" enough, and seemingly have no basis for this either - you fail to provide any real examples.

Rule of cool has absolutely nothing to do with "all challenges must be overcome". You literally are WRONG. Flatly wrong. Just like you were wrong re: running away having anything to do with it. Rule of cool is about finding ways for stuff that seems to fit the setting to have a chance to succeed.

I ask you once again - do you actually play TTRPGs?

 

[deadman1204]

So you really want to misrepresent what I said whilst I can still quote it lol?

I said trying to do it at the table is a fool's errand, and I don't think you disagree.

I said you, for example, @Micah Sweet might be qualified to do it generally, but most DMs are not.

Take a breath and look at all your posts together. This isn't about a "gotcha" from a 1 line post. We are looking at your entire argument over every post, and its pretty clear what points you are trying to convey. Perhaps that nots what you intended, but its very clearly what you were saying.
You're not even discussing this thread anymore, you're just trying to "win" the discussion and "beat" everyone else. When you devolve to gotchas and such, its take to back off.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you really want to misrepresent what I said whilst I can still quote it lol?

I said trying to do it at the table is a fool's errand, and I don't think you disagree.

I said you, for example, @Micah Sweet might be qualified to do it generally, but most DMs are not.

Assuming you're right about who's qualified to make those calls (and I'm not conceding that you are), how would that change my necessarily personal perspective on the matter? It's my thought process, from my point if view. You know I don't care about popularity.

And making those calls at the table can be temporary; if you come up with a better way later, you adjust moving forward. For the short term at the table the game must go on.