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

[Thomas Shey]

Yup, that's a tough spot. You may have to de as @Lanefan says and make a break for it, hoping at least one of you makes it out and lives to adventure another day.

Or, more likely, just decide you're not any more likely to die fighting it out than being cut down as you run. Some times running is just pointless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So this might open up a huge can of worms...

Let's argue for the sake of this thought that the DM is a neutral arbiter AND that he will roll fairly and abide all results. He rolls that ancient red dragon encounter (or any creature that outguns the PCs). So now we're going to negotiate.

How are we handling this? The fair arbiter says some sort of reaction roll/charisma check is best (removing any bias from the DM) but that's a sterile approach to a role playing situation. Can the encounter just be RP'ed though and if so, how does the DM adjudicate that fairly without bias? A player with good speaking skills could theoretically outtalk the DM and win such encounters. A player who is not good at oratory might not. Regardless, the DM is applying a form of Cool (how persuasive is the players/characters words) to the scenario. Perhaps a mixture of both? Well, that could create a scenario where a player can give an impassioned speech or negotiation and fumble the die roll. Likewise, the player can give a terrible performance and crit the reaction roll. Either way, the two parts (roll and role) have little impact on each other unless the DM is again making a judgement call all awarding the player a bonus (or penalty) for good/bad RP.

In the end, aren't we stuck again with "rule of cool" vs "slave to the dice"? The DM putting his thumb on the scale or being completely impartial? I'm not sure how to square that.

The reaction roll determines the monster's starting attitude towards the PCs. You then talk it out under those parameters, and call for a roll to see how well the PC communicates the player's intent. That way, a player can come up with a really great tactic but it's up to the PCs ability and the dice to determine how well the player's plan is executed. This is how I prefer to concept skill rolls.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or, more likely, just decide you're not any more likely to die fighting it out than being cut down as you run. Some times running is just pointless.

I don't think either choice is in general more or less likely than the other. It depends on the situation and the personality of the PC.

 

[Oofta]

Or, more likely, just decide you're not any more likely to die fighting it out than being cut down as you run. Some times running is just pointless.

Sometimes the best you can do is hope for glory in Valhalla.

 

[Kannik]

This all seems like a giant hyperbolic strawman.

To which I find the opening post/premise of this thread also hyperbolic. All suggestions in this realm -- whether dealing with RPGs or with life in general where interacting with and being with a group is at play -- cease to be productive and often become deleterious when brought to the extremes. And sometimes they are misunderstood, leading to those extremes that detract from the game experience.

Things are in a continuum, a gradient. Many of these 'rules' overlap or intersect and combine with each other. Inquire about them, seek out other's experiences, and ongoingly play with the sliders and your understanding of these 'rules' to discover what works best for you and your group.

 

[Oofta]

To which I find the opening post/premise of this thread also hyperbolic. All suggestions in this realm -- whether dealing with RPGs or with life in general where interacting with and being with a group is at play -- cease to be productive and often become deleterious when brought to the extremes. And sometimes they are misunderstood, leading to those extremes that detract from the game experience.

Things are in a continuum, a gradient. Many of these 'rules' overlap or intersect and combine with each other. Inquire about them, seek out other's experiences, and ongoingly play with the sliders and your understanding of these 'rules' to discover what works best for you and your group.

Where I ultimately come down on this is that it's a preference thing. How closely you adhere to the rules, how far you stretch things (and whether or not something even qualifies as "the rule of cool") is up to the groups out there. Discuss it and figure out what works for your group. What is over the top gonzo for some people is just another Tuesday night game for others.

As always, there is no one true way.

 

[Lanefan]

As long as they are given a reasonable shot at knowing, I'm content. Often I personally will just say it because that's just how I feel about things, but I don't require that of others. Now, "reasonable shot" (as noted above) needs to not be someone playing sillybuggers: no "well they had a 1 in 2000 chance of finding out, guess it just sucks to be them!", that's quite clearly not a reasonable shot. But, for example, if the party has a net (say) 85% chance and it just so happens they fall into that 15%...sometimes that stuff happens!

I think we'll disagree over what constitues a "reasonable shot" - to me, were it codified into numbers, 15% might still qualify as reasonable depending on the in-game situation - but in principle we're not far apart here.

Likewise, if they just never think to ask the question, despite the question being quite reasonable and not involving any pixelb#$%&ing, then that's on them.

I should probably point out here that what you refer to as pixel[hunt]ing I see as being an accepted part of play. So in my spellbook example, the book will likely be somewhat well-hidden; if they think to look for it they may or may not find it, and if they don't specify they're looking for it they still might stumble on to it anyway while searching for other things (and if they don't search at all, too bad for them ).

It behooves to err on the side of giving info rather than not, of course, but if you're already meeting them halfway and they just...don't follow through, that's not your fault. (Of course, this is best addressed by looking into why the players aren't meeting you halfway, but that's a different subject.)

Sometimes the players, in-character, simply get distracted by something else.

 

[Lanefan]

I haven't said that D&D doesn't have a resolution system. I have said that there are possible action declarations for which 5e D&D has no clear resolution system, and I've even given an example: I jump the crevasse in circumstances where it is established that the crevasse is wider, in feet, than the jumping PC's STR score, and where the jumping PC is not under a Jump spell or similar magic.

If the PC can't jump farther in feet than its STR score and the chasm is wider than that, doesn't the resolution then immediately turn to falling-damage mechanics?

 

[Lanefan]

If a player indicates that they believe an NPC may be not telling the truth, generally an insight check is called for. If I know the NPC is being honest, I still call for a roll. If the player suspects they are being followed but they are not, I'll still call for a perception check.

In either case, I don't want the player to be given information the PC cannot have. They will be fairly certain of the facts with a high result, uncertain with a low. If I just said no to the insight check the player knows, guaranteed, that the NPC is truthful. In the latter case, telling them not to bother with a perception check guarantees they aren't being followed.

There is technically no uncertainty as far as the state of the world, I'm maintaining uncertainty in the knowledge of the world from the PC's perspective.

I don't consider that fudging a roll. I always roll in the open except on contested checks. Those I may, in these cases, roll secretly and ignore the result.

I "liked" this post for the rest of what it says but still disagree with the bolded idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, at least from where I'm sitting, the problem is perception/insight checks in the first place. They have bad, inherently metagame-inducing design. To see a bad roll is to know what you aren't supposed to know.

Which is the precise reason why I-as-DM often make such rolls for them (searching is the most common example here).

For my part? I usually just don't see the point. If I want them to worry that there's something they don't know, I'll just say, "You're fairly sure you aren't being followed, but it would take time to check to be absolutely sure. Is that what you want to do?" or something of that nature. That way, there's no need to invoke a roll that is actually meaningless, and instead players are put on the spot, needing to make a decision--and that decision may then open up even further story potential depending on exactly what happens.

That can work. But so also can keeping the PC (and thus the player) in a state of low-grade paranoia for a while, where there might or might not be stuff happening and they just don't know, and what's worse they know they just don't know.