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

[Micah Sweet]

Maybe they advise us rolling a die. And to determine how likely something is to succeed, they tell us to designate a target number.
And to differentiate a bit between different characters, they have us assign some numberd to the character. And then depending on the number add a bonus to the roll.
Lets decide what die might work well for such a... lets call it "ability check"... maybe a 20 sided die gives a good probability distribution.

What happens if you want to do something that doesn't have rules in the book?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What happens if you want to do something that doesn't have rules in the book?

Pull something out of my... hat...

edit to clarify: I try to do my best assigning numbers. From very easy (5)
to virtually impossible (30+)

This is often better to say instead of "yes" or "no".
I generally find the guidelines in the DMG sufficient to adjucate all situations.
In regard to the OP: jumping 9m with a 5ft pole... we are looking at STR(athletics) vs DC 30+

So hope for guidance and bardic inspiration and the new and improved second wind and maybe the fighter can do it.

 

[Oofta]

I would call it what you just did: senseless. All rules should be used with sensibility and sensitivity. Reasonableness is necessary.

I'm honestly shocked to hear you of all people saying that a rule needs to be precisely nailed down to a single, universal description everyone can see and agree upon. Like this is exactly the sort of thing I would expect you to be arguing the very points I am.


Nothing is universal.

A term that can have such divergent definitions is, in my opinion pretty much pointless. Swinging from the standard chandelier like Erol Flynn swashbuckler is vastly different from something that would look out of place anywhere but a wuxia movie.

In one definition, you're following the guidelines of the game on improvised actions since the text can't cover every possible scenario. In the second you're ignoring the rules and the DM saying "Yeah, this is covered in the rules and what you want to do is impossible based on the text but I'm going to allow it because it's awesome."

Swinging from a chandelier can be handled using existing rules as an improvised set of actions. Jumping 30 feet in the air to land on a dragon is clearly not possible according to the rules of the game. They are not at all the same. I allow and encourage improvised actions, but I don't allow nor do I like playing games where the PCs can just ignore the rules because it's cool.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If someone says they don't like the "Rule of Cool" because of the term "Rule of Cool" (as opposed to some other turn of phrase to denote what it is people are talking about)... to me that's kind of missing the point. It's looking at a hand-carved oak table and saying you don't like it because of the tablecloth put on top of it and not the actual design of the table itself.

If the phrase "Rule of Cool" bugs someone... then the easiest way to get into the discussion is to ignore the phrase itself and instead just look at the rule the poster is talking about (and then choose to agree or not agree then.) But to just ignore the meat of the discussion completely because you're hung up on the descriptor phrase? That's really pointless. Why even bother discussing things at that point?

 

[KYRON45]

I'd be surprised if my players knew where their PHBs were...let alone know whats in them.

 

[Oofta]

If someone says they don't like the "Rule of Cool" because of the term "Rule of Cool" (as opposed to some other turn of phrase to denote what it is people are talking about)... to me that's kind of missing the point. It's looking at a hand-carved oak table and saying you don't like it because of the tablecloth put on top of it and not the actual design of the table itself.

If the phrase "Rule of Cool" bugs someone... then the easiest way to get into the discussion is to ignore the phrase itself and instead just look at the rule the poster is talking about (and then choose to agree or not agree then.) But to just ignore the meat of the discussion completely because you're hung up on the descriptor phrase? That's really pointless. Why even bother discussing things at that point?

But at least people are not discussing the OP's scenarios. They're giving examples of improvised actions that, while not explicitly spelled out in the rules, pretty much follow the limitations of the characters defined by the rules. That's not what the OP used in their example - they described an activity that clearly ignored the rules to allow something the DM thought was cool.

So in keeping with the context of the thread, there has to be a discussion of the differences between improvised actions and totally bypassing rules altogether. They are not the same thing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A term that can have such divergent definitions is, in my opinion pretty much pointless. Swinging from the standard chandelier like Erol Flynn swashbuckler is vastly different from something that would look out of place anywhere but a wuxia movie.

In one definition, you're following the guidelines of the game on improvised actions since the text can't cover every possible scenario. In the second you're ignoring the rules and the DM saying "Yeah, this is covered in the rules and what you want to do is impossible based on the text but I'm going to allow it because it's awesome."

Swinging from a chandelier can be handled using existing rules as an improvised set of actions. Jumping 30 feet in the air to land on a dragon is clearly not possible according to the rules of the game. They are not at all the same. I allow and encourage improvised actions, but I don't allow nor do I like playing games where the PCs can just ignore the rules because it's cool.

There's a middle case though. How practical an action is can vary considerably even among games that consider it possible. If the rules make something generally a bad idea, people will learn that pretty quickly and in most cases, avoid doing it.

What RoC can do is say "Yeah, the general application of the rules here would make this look dumb compared to just spending the round closing with them, but its cool so we'll finesse the rule here."

(You can argue that what should be done is a more general massaging of the rules to make more cinematic actions more practical in one way or another, but the hobby is full of people who will just end run problem spots in the rules they hit rather than ever formally, or even consistently informally, house rule them. I find that a little incomprehensible, but different people's minds work differently).

 

[DEFCON 1]

But at least people are not discussing the OP's scenarios. They're giving examples of improvised actions that, while not explicitly spelled out in the rules, pretty much follow the limitations of the characters defined by the rules. That's not what the OP used in their example - they described an activity that clearly ignored the rules to allow something the DM thought was cool.

So in keeping with the context of the thread, there has to be a discussion of the differences between improvised actions and totally bypassing rules altogether. They are not the same thing.

Then that's a great discussion point and a meaty topic-- stating why one way could be useful and worthwhile, while the other isn't. That's something that is worth discussing, the actual meat of the convo.

 

[Pedantic]

There's a middle case though. How practical an action is can vary considerably even among games that consider it possible. If the rules make something generally a bad idea, people will learn that pretty quickly and in most cases, avoid doing it.

What RoC can do is say "Yeah, the general application of the rules here would make this look dumb compared to just spending the round closing with them, but its cool so we'll finesse the rule here."

(You can argue that what should be done is a more general massaging of the rules to make more cinematic actions more practical in one way or another, but the hobby is full of people who will just end run problem spots in the rules they hit rather than ever formally, or even consistently informally, house rule them. I find that a little incomprehensible, but different people's minds work differently).

The most frustrating part of TTRPG discussion will always be the insistence that the rules producing unwanted results cannot possibly be a systemic problem with the rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The most frustrating part of TTRPG discussion will always be the insistence that the rules producing unwanted results cannot possibly be a systemic problem with the rules.

Well, people being in denial about their choice of poison in game rules is always going to be a thing. Its more the hostility to calling things house rules (that are clearly house rules with the person because of how they phrase) and actually writing them down that boggles me more.

This is followed by people who clearly understand the troublesome consequence of a given rule but aren't willing to change it anyway (of course some of them are players and may have a limited amount to say about it).