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

[TiQuinn]

Yeap. Use it if you like, dont if you dont.

Also, if you and your players like where the bar is set for the "rule of cool", well...that's cool, then.

 

[KYRON45]

Also, if you and your players like where the bar is set for the "rule of cool", well...that's cool, then.

The Irony here is that the "rule of cool" eliminates all of the bars so that everyone gets their chance to have their version of fun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you are saying it again, you've perhaps missed the point.

Yes, OMG, if the GM isn't happy the game will end! If the players aren't happy, the game will also end.

The obvious result is that BOTH SIDES need to be a bit flexible. And maybe need to find new groups if they find they can't compromise.

This is not rocket surgery, or some surprising new insight.



How much? 17. Exactly 17 Wheedles. The "Wheedle" is the International Diplomacy Standard Unit of compromise, named after George C. Wheedle, top negotiatior for the now defunct League of Nations.

Which is my way of saying, geeze, maybe frame the question in a way that has an actual answer?

I think there is a better question that will get a more useful answer: Why is the GM running a game at all?

I know why I run games. Because I like to make interesting imaginary worlds and let the players explore them through their PCs. I have more fun building and reading than I do playing or running. That doesn't mean I don't listen to my players about what they want to see, but it does mean there's a limit to how I'm willing to change my ideas.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though at least when it comes to FTF play, it can come down to having relatively broad likes, but ones that just are still out of sync with the available pool. As an example, there are places that if you don't want to play D&D, good luck, even if there's two dozen other game systems you're willing to run.

Where are these places? Do you have a list?

 

[Seramus]

Where are these places? Do you have a list?

My groups are like this. We have a stable of 4-5 DMs with heavily cross-pollinated groups, and I cannot drum up enough interest for many game systems. I would love to run Pathfinder 2E, Geist: Sin Eater, Monster Hearts 2, Godbound, etc, But there are not enough takers.

And yet, when someone offers a D&D game suddenly there's more interest than spots.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Where are these places? Do you have a list?

Am I supposed to either memorize places people have told me they've had that problem or assume they're lying? Otherwise known as, just what is the purpose of this question, Micah? Because it appears to be trying to play "gotcha".

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Nowadays in the era of online play and such, I don't know if the world is so small, but it was and if meat space play is important, it still can be.

As a DM from a small town, who often, and primarily, DMs online, there is an overwhelming number of players looking for games - especially 5e. Last time I tried to find players, I ended up with over 50 inquiries in mere hours. There are simply far more players than spots.

I, personally, don't see a reason for me to not be a "tyrant" given this. I feel like DMs have all the leverage. If you are clear as to what you want, and even decent at running games, you will have no issues finding players online. There have been points where I've had a literal wait list on my discord.

This might be different for other systems, as I don't run those for strangers. But with 5e, I have had nothing but overwhelming demand even for games with fairly harsh restrictions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This might be different for other systems, as I don't run those for strangers. But with 5e, I have had nothing but overwhelming demand even for games with fairly harsh restrictions.

D&D 5e is the least likely system to have this with, but I'm willing to bet there's still places with the wrong limitations, it wouldn't happen.

 

[Lanefan]

Just off the top of my head:

"Anything not permitted is forbidden." When the rules of the world are the physics, they determine what is possible to do. Hence, if the rules don't cover it, it doesn't exist, because the rules are what the world is, hence, what the rules are not, the world cannot be. This is the natural direction toward which such design tends, at least in D&D. That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence.

As noted above, the endless reams of narrowly context-specific modifiers and alterations. Every situation needs its modifier, otherwise it's gibberish--again, rooted in the idea that for every thing its specific rule, and a specific rule for every thing, which is the conceptual heart of "rules as physics."

The problems of PrCs, ACFs, substitution levels, etc. If there's a cultural difference between Paladins from continent A and continent B, it needs to be represented within the rules, or it doesn't exist. The proliferation of these ultra-hyper-specific build options--"bloat," as many call it--directly arises from the need to have everything represented by a rule, to make every nuance of physical difference explicitly encoded into the game.

Ridiculous optimization gaps. A ruthlessly-optimized character will beat the pants off of a casual, built-for-fun character in this context, because ruthless optimization means capitalizing on every possible situational and contextual bonus to eke out the greatest benefit. Players are actively encouraged to do this, leading to an obsessive pre-building culture-of-play, rather than a culture-of-play that engenders spontaneity and creativity.

For lack of a better term, "backstory exploitation." Backstory is no longer an optional flair or a fun seed for future adventures. It's now a critical part of the character, looped into the ruthless optimization as much as any other part. Of course, 3e in particular was rather sloppy in its design on this front, which is a distinct harm, but the margin of error was razor-thin to begin with because of how much benefit can be wrung out of the "right" backstory--strangling interesting or unusual options (e.g. "bad" race choices, quirky backgrounds like a Spy Paladin or an Urchin Wizard or a halfling barbarian or what-have-you).

I'm sure I could come up with more. All of these things are, in one way or another, rooted in the need for every physical thing to be represented by a discrete, specific rule, and the need to have discrete, specific rules for all things that are possible/valid/real.

Had a much longer reply mostly done, then my computer decided to take a nap and all that typing went poof; so I'll boil it down to this:

Rules-as-physics (or, perhaps, physics as rules) provide a baseline underpinning that allows a character to try anything, whether "within" the game rules or not, with a vague sense of what might happen next.

Gravity is an unwritten game rule because we already know how it works, reflected by jumping and falling rules etc. The ways in which magic interacts with and affects other in-game physics (as in, at the base level) should be written game rules such that we all know how it works and can extrapolate and-or rationalize other game rules on top of it cf gravity vs jumping.

Rules-as-physics doesn't need - or mean - a rule to cover every possibility. In fact, the opposite is almost the case: if the physics-as-rules are nailed down the DM is in a far better position to make consistent calls when players try things the game rules don't already cover.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Am I supposed to either memorize places people have told me they've had that problem or assume they're lying? Otherwise known as, just what is the purpose of this question, Micah? Because it appears to be trying to play "gotcha".

I am simply not familiar with these places where seemingly every game except D&D is welcome.