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

[Remathilis]

On success the net effect is the same but swinging on a rope is (for a typical person on-over normal terrain) somewhat more difficult than walking, thus swinging on a rope when you could have walked instead tells me loud and clear that for whatever reason you're willing to voluntarily make things riskier for yourself than you had to.

A check of some sort, even if trivially easy to pass, merely mechanizes that added risk.

Perhaps, but quite honestly movies let that kind of thing happen all the time. When was the last time Luke Skywalker or Jack Sparrow missed a rope swing? Rarely if ever (and if they did, it's a plot point). And if the roll is so low that it's all but guaranteed, why bother rolling?

To be frank, DMs who are overly cautious about stunting is how we ended up with 4e martial powers. Players who wanted to do cool things got tired of jumping though hoops to do them, so they got encounter powers that allow them to always find a rope to swing on (1/encounter, no matter where they are) that just works. I'm not exceptionally fond of that style of play either, but I understand their frustration.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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."

Genre sim (which are both your examples) is less important to me than physics sim.

 

[Vaalingrade]

To be frank, DMs who are overly cautious about stunting is how we ended up with 4e martial powers. Players who wanted to do cool things got tired of jumping though hoops to do them, so they got encounter powers that allow them to always find a rope to swing on (1/encounter, no matter where they are) that just works. I'm not exceptionally fond of that style of play either, but I understand their frustration.

Rope swings were permeant terrain features and then skill powers in 4e.

But the point remains: discrete abilities are a defensive mechanism against the DM's whims. It's one of the reasons for the martial/caster disparity that often gets overlooked: the martial has to beg the DM to do something cool; the caster just gets to do it.

 

[Lanefan]

Perhaps, but quite honestly movies let that kind of thing happen all the time. When was the last time Luke Skywalker or Jack Sparrow missed a rope swing? Rarely if ever (and if they did, it's a plot point).

To be abundantly clear: I'm not running a movie.

If anyone comes to my table thinking I am running a movie, they'll learn soon enough.

And even then, players sometimes try some wacko stuff here and occasionally pull it off in spectacuar fashion. They're just aware that there's risk involved as well as reward.

And if the roll is so low that it's all but guaranteed, why bother rolling?

Becuase a 1 is a 1 is a 1.

Same rationale as when something is almost impossible: a 20 is still a 20, so roll away and hope.

 

[CreamCloud0]

To be abundantly clear: I'm not running a movie.

If anyone comes to my table thinking I am running a movie, they'll learn soon enough.

And even then, players sometimes try some wacko stuff here and occasionally pull it off in spectacuar fashion. They're just aware that there's risk involved as well as reward.

eh, i don't think you even need to be close to running a movie, but IMO on average 5e is definitely a system that is thematically designed to be more inclined to replicating 'movie realism' than 'gritty realism' and it's mechanics should work to support that, not the high-cost, low-reward dynamic it currently seems to have for doing anything other than your basic actions.

this is not however an endorsement for RoC being a free pass to performing impossible stunts because of spectacle.

 

[tetrasodium]

eh, i don't think you even need to be close to running a movie, but IMO on average 5e is definitely a system that is thematically designed to be more inclined to replicating 'movie realism' than 'gritty realism' and it's mechanics should work to support that, not the high-cost, low-reward dynamic it currently seems to have for doing anything other than your basic actions.

this is not however an endorsement for RoC being a free pass to performing impossible stunts because of spectacle.

I disagree. Too many rules like resting/recovery vision/darkness etc are written so the players can challenge the gm for that analogy to hold up without a long clause about the studio imposed restrictions in the writers and directors. Even movies like free guy boss level & edge of tomorrow* make an effort to justify that level of super

*Not including marvel movies because it's been shown that origin story movies tend to suck and the marvel movies lean heavily on the comics doing the justification by implied and handwaved link in ways that we don't lend themselves to ttrpgs or d&d.

 

[Remathilis]

Genre sim (which are both your examples) is less important to me than physics sim.

D&D and its cousins are the absolute WRONG system for that. AC and hit points alone disqualify it. D&D rules are as committed to the laws of physics as cats are; a casual relationship at best.

To be abundantly clear: I'm not running a movie.

If anyone comes to my table thinking I am running a movie, they'll learn soon enough.

And even then, players sometimes try some wacko stuff here and occasionally pull it off in spectacuar fashion. They're just aware that there's risk involved as well as reward.

Becuase a 1 is a 1 is a 1.

Same rationale as when something is almost impossible: a 20 is still a 20, so roll away and hope.

No, it's clear you're running a board game and I will diligently move my pawn across the board to the prescribed amount of spaces.

Also as an aside: I hate the "20 always wins, 1 always loses" on skill checks. You're telling me I have a 5% chance, regardless of skill and training, to perform brain surgery, seduce the queen, or convince a dragon to part with its gold on a single die roll?

And you think swinging on a rope is a bridge too far?

 

[TiQuinn]

D&D and its cousins are the absolute WRONG system for that. AC and hit points alone disqualify it. D&D rules are as committed to the laws of physics as cats are; a casual relationship at best.

Every campaign where players turned D&D into a physics game ended up with people arguing over laws of thermodynamics and clamoring for outsized effects. Nonsense like “I froze the dragon so when it uses its fire breath its insides will rupture from the rapid change in temperature.”

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Every campaign where players turned D&D into a physics game ended up with people arguing over laws of thermodynamics and clamoring for outsized effects. Nonsense like “I froze the dragon so when it uses its fire breath its insides will rupture from the rapid change in temperature.”

Well, hold on a second. What's the heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient of dragon? Also there could be a phase change involved.

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, hold on a second. What's the heat capacity and thermal expansion coefficient of dragon? Also there could be a phase change involved.

brain explodes