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

[payn]

The issue with this discussion is that what you describe as rule of cool is what I would call improvised actions that still follow the rules. So what do you call people who follow the rule of cool like the OP's high jump example where it makes no sense? Because I've played in game where the DM says they're like the rule of cool and it's really "If you can describe something cool you can get away with Loony Tunes."

Without an agreed upon definition and at least loosely defined limitations, the phrase rule of cool is meaningless.

No, you want a singular definition and application. Rule of cool is a philosophy that can be applied in different ways. Its a game mastering tool that can both add a rule where none exists within the framework, or allow the rules to be broken in a particular instance. Its up to the wielder to decide.

Enough with this, "I have to totally agree in all aspects or its meaningless for everyone" rhetoric please.

 

[Oofta]

No, you want a singular definition and application. Rule of cool is a philosophy that can be applied in different ways. Its a game mastering tool that can both add a rule where none exists within the framework, or allow the rules to be broken in a particular instance. Its up to the wielder to decide.

Enough with this, "I have to totally agree in all aspects or its meaningless for everyone" rhetoric please.

For some people rule of cool means you can high jump 30 feet from a standing start. For others it's that you can improvise actions that make sense in context of the game rules and genre.

In my opinion, there is a world of difference. It's like saying a paper airplane and a jet fighter are the same because they both have wings and fly so there is no need to make a distinction.

 

[payn]

For some people rule of cool means you can high jump 30 feet from a standing start. For others it's that you can improvise actions that make sense in context of the game rules and genre.

In my opinion, there is a world of difference. It's like saying a paper airplane and a jet fighter are the same because they both have wings and fly so there is no need to make a distinction.

The distinction comes in the context of the discussion. Give it a try sometime.

 

[Oofta]

The distinction comes in the context of the discussion. Give it a try sometime.

The distinction is based on the OPs post. Give it a try yourself.

 

[payn]

The distinction is based on the OPs post. Give it a try yourself.

Its been well established by now that the OP wasnt talking about rule of cool specifically.

 

[Oofta]

Its been well established by now that the OP wasnt talking about rule of cool specifically.

I am discussing the topic of the thread and don't care if you disagree with the OP's depiction of the rule of cool as inaccurate. I've seen DMs justify similar things based on the rule of cool, I've seen other posters promote it as well. If you want to ignore the OP and their definition, that's fine. Meanwhile, I am just agreeing with @deadman1204 that the style of DMing they describe is bad for the game.

Thing is, you don't get to tell me that my opinion is wrong. If I or the OP don't get to define what rule of cool is, neither do you. Which in my opinion makes the phrase meaningless. Because there's a vast difference between improvised actions as described and encouraged in the rules and letting players do whatever they want because it sounds cool.

 

[Remathilis]

The issue with this discussion is that what you describe as rule of cool is what I would call improvised actions that still follow the rules. So what do you call people who follow the rule of cool like the OP's high jump example where it makes no sense? Because I've played in game where the DM says they're like the rule of cool and it's really "If you can describe something cool you can get away with Loony Tunes."

Without an agreed upon definition and at least loosely defined limitations, the phrase rule of cool is meaningless.

I think part of the issue is that everyone has a different level of what cool is. For example:

RAW: you can make a standing jump of (3 + STR) x 0.5 if you don't move 10 ft prior, and the jump costs you movement. So you can't jump on a 3 ft table unless your strength is 16 (3+3 = 6, /2 =3 ft): unless you use your action to make an athletics check. If you fail the roll by 5 or more, you fall prone.
Rule of Stunting: yeah, roll an athletics check and I'll let you jump, but if you fail you can't make that jump.
Rule of Cinematic: yeah sure, you can jump on the table and attack your foe.
Rule of Wild: yeah, you can jump 30 ft with no action.

I don't know how many people would allow Wild in normal play. The question to me is how many people stick to RAW and how many go farther.

 

[Oofta]

I think part of the issue is that everyone has a different level of what cool is. For example:

RAW: you can make a standing jump of (3 + STR) x 0.5 if you don't move 10 ft prior, and the jump costs you movement. So you can't jump on a 3 ft table unless your strength is 16 (3+3 = 6, /2 =3 ft): unless you use your action to make an athletics check. If you fail the roll by 5 or more, you fall prone.
Rule of Stunting: yeah, roll an athletics check and I'll let you jump, but if you fail you can't make that jump.
Rule of Cinematic: yeah sure, you can jump on the table and attack your foe.
Rule of Wild: yeah, you can jump 30 ft with no action.

I don't know how many people would allow Wild in normal play. The question to me is how many people stick to RAW and how many go farther.

Which is all I'm saying. I would never use rule of cool to mean "anything not explicitly covered by the rules" because things not explicitly covered by the rules as rulings by the DM is a core design philosophy of 5E.

In 5E, allowing things not explicitly covered is a core rule.

 

[billd91]

What I don't like "Rule of Cool" for is allowing a player to do something that isn't on their character sheet. For example. Had a DM once who allowed a Fighter to run up a wall 20 ft, leap off and land on the monster's back, jabbing his swords in. An awesome, cinematic moment...except that Fighter's can't run up vertical surfaces. IN FACT, there IS a Class who specifically gets this as an ability: Monks. Monks specifically gain the ability to run on vertical surfaces, and on water, as a part of their class.

The DM allowed it cause it was 'cool'. But in doing so, he basically gave a Monk ability to a Fighter. What does that say to the Monk, who specifically chose that Class so he could do things like that? It means he could have saved his time and picked any class cause the DM would just let you do Monk stuff anytime you wanted cause it's "cool". Of course it's cool! That's what makes Monks cool!

So no, if a player comes to me and asks "Can I do this?" I say "Can you do that on your character sheet?" And if the answer is no, then that's their answer.

Interestingly, a 5e fighter can do much of that. If they use their action surge to dash and get extra movement, they may have enough movement to cover that 20 ft climb and leap onto the monster's back and still have the action to stab.

 

[payn]

Interestingly, a 5e fighter can do much of that. If they use their action surge to dash and get extra movement, they may have enough movement to cover that 20 ft climb and leap onto the monster's back and still have the action to stab.

This is often how I run rule of cool. If you can reasonably state how it would work, ill figure out how to make it possible.