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

[Celebrim]

I've been seeing alot of instances of "The rule of cool" in games, and while it seems neat at first, I've started to think its actually bad for the players and the game.

I agree with your conclusion though not with your reasoning (which builds a strawman that will be easy to knockdown).

But glad to see these dumb proscriptions about how to tell a story are starting to get called out more and more often.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, I'm pretty firmly in the "just actually write rules for everything" camp, and I'd argue this is a pretty heavy yoke on that kind of design. You're talking on extra design work for a return that at best exists entirely in your own head, and at worst, actively makes a player have a worse time. If the outcome is a rule that is actively bad for players to engage with, the best outcome is that they don't, and the worst case is that they don't put that together and do (probably once).

The rule is either only valuable as set dressing for the GM's mental state, presents an avoidable knowledge/engagement tax on the players, or outright encourages obscurantism if the GM wants players to interact with the rule.

Well, as I said, some people will understand the consequences and just bull on through anyway, but I have no reason to believe that's a particularly large percentage.

To take it back to the actual example, rope swinging has to present a reasonable incomparable advantage over normal movement relative to the risk of presents to be worth considering. Maybe if it's situational enough to be a forced action you'd need to resolve, and something a player could optionally build to be better at, you'd have something. Otherwise.... Why are you allowing the action at all?

Well, in some people's case because they have a strong simulationist bent and figure if it can be physically done there should be rule to handle it, even if its pretty stupid from a gamist perspective. That doesn't make me think any better of it for general usage, since even in the day when the term was coined, hardcore simulationists were pretty thin on the ground and I have no reason to believe those numbers have increased with time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, at least you're not presenting the alternate viewpoint to your own disrespectfully.

I actually have a fair bit of respect for people who are willing to do that. I just don't think its particularly common.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, as I said, some people will understand the consequences and just bull on through anyway, but I have no reason to believe that's a particularly large percentage.



Well, in some people's case because they have a strong simulationist bent and figure if it can be physically done there should be rule to handle it, even if its pretty stupid from a gamist perspective. That doesn't make me think any better of it for general usage, since even in the day when the term was coined, hardcore simulationists were pretty thin on the ground and I have no reason to believe those numbers have increased with time.

As I've said before, the popularity of my preferences says nothing about their validity.

Of course, you're free to only focus on things the majority likes. You'll have plenty of company.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As I've said before, the popularity of my preferences says nothing about their validity.

For general use, as compared to use with specific groups with specific tastes? Of course it does. That's like saying "there are a lot of people who really hate food X, but I'll serve it at this large party anyway."

Of course, you're free to only focus on things the majority likes. You'll have plenty of company.

Not focusing on what the majority likes can be fine, if you're willing to make sure whoever you're doing things for is on the same page. If you're just assuming it, however, because its what you like--its hard for me to read that as a good thing to be doing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For general use, as compared to use with specific groups with specific tastes? Of course it does. That's like saying "there are a lot of people who really hate food X, but I'll serve it at this large party anyway."



Not focusing on what the majority likes can be fine, if you're willing to make sure whoever you're doing things for is on the same page. If you're just assuming it, however, because its what you like--its hard for me to read that as a good thing to be doing.

In practice I do tend to compromise. But if I didn't have to, I like what I like.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In practice I do tend to compromise. But if I didn't have to, I like what I like.

And you're not the only one sitting around the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And you're not the only one sitting around the table.

Which is why I compromise.

 

[Remathilis]

It depends on what your game and worldbuilding priorities are IMO. As I've said many times before, in-setting logic and verisimilitude are my priorities, followed by gamist concerns.

I don't see where my example fails any of your concerns. If I want to run a game where swashbuckling action is a part of the genre, I make swinging on chandeliers as easy as walking. If I'm running a noir style mystery setting, chandeliers aren't as easy to swing on. But I don't create one rule to cover both settings based on the fact that "ackshullay, it's very hard to swing on them in real life."

 

[Remathilis]

Some players.

Others, however, will lean into the opportunity for spectacular and be just as happy if it ends up slapstick, because in either case it's a step beyond the prescribed action.

And IMO players who can't laugh at the foibles and fumbles of their own characters aren't worth keeping.

Some players like to play clowns. Some don't. That's really a "know your audience" style of call.