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

[TiQuinn]

All I'm saying is that you don't need any extra "rule of cool" to attempt anything. It may be simple and automatic, it may be uncertain or, as the example of hitting the moon with an arrow, it may be impossible. It will always be up to the DM and group to decide what qualifies for each category.

Still with people getting hung up on the moniker “rule of cool”.

Rule of cool applies to whether it’s possible. Just as there is no roll necessary if something can automatically be done, there’s no roll necessary if something is impossible. Rule of cool is just about making an argument that the impossible could be possible because it passes a cool test. The DM doesn’t have to allow it.

If you don’t like it or the term, don’t use it.

 

[pemerton]

D&D has guidance as well. What some people keep calling rule of cool is just following the rules of the game. If outcome is uncertain, make an ability check adding appropriate proficiency if applicable. Throw in advantage or disadvantage if it makes sense. Done.

I don't really have a good sense of how the GM is supposed to decide whether or not something is uncertain, nor what the outcome of a declared action might be.

To me, it seems to prioritise the GM's view of how the fiction should unfold.

I've never played Apocalypse World, how do they do it?

There are rules that establish who gets to say what happens next, and what the parameters are for what they say.

In general, the GM gets to say what happens next, and what they might say is established by the list of GM moves, and in general it is to be a soft move.

If the GM has already made a soft move and no player declares an action that might stop the trajectory of events coming home, then the GMis entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like.

And as an exception to the general rule, if a player declares an action for their PC that triggers a player move, than that move is resolved. On a 6- result, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. On a 7+, the rules for the player move establish what happens next, or who gets to say what happens next and within what parameters.

 

[Oofta]

Still with people getting hung up on the moniker “rule of cool”.

Rule of cool applies to whether it’s possible. Just as there is no roll necessary if something can automatically be done, there’s no roll necessary if something is impossible. Rule of cool is just about making an argument that the impossible could be possible because it passes a cool test. The DM doesn’t have to allow it.

If you don’t like it or the term, don’t use it.

What can I say? The phrase isn't needed and it's misleading. It's implying you're doing something not already covered by the rules when it is.

 

[Oofta]

I don't really have a good sense of how the GM is supposed to decide whether or not something is uncertain, nor what the outcome of a declared action might be.

To me, it seems to prioritise the GM's view of how the fiction should unfold.

There are rules that establish who gets to say what happens next, and what the parameters are for what they say.

In general, the GM gets to say what happens next, and what they might say is established by the list of GM moves, and in general it is to be a soft move.

If the GM has already made a soft move and no player declares an action that might stop the trajectory of events coming home, then the GMis entitled to make as hard and direct a move as they like.

And as an exception to the general rule, if a player declares an action for their PC that triggers a player move, than that move is resolved. On a 6- result, the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. On a 7+, the rules for the player move establish what happens next, or who gets to say what happens next and within what parameters.

Obviously there are different approaches to TTRPGs. But who decides what is just a different approach; the group should discuss edge cases if they cause an issue.

If a more narrative(?) approach works better for you, don't play D&D or make house rules to implement a different style. It still comes back to someone makes a call and you roll dice.

 

[TiQuinn]

What can I say? The phrase isn't needed and it's misleading. It's implying you're doing something not already covered by the rules when it is.

Don’t use it.

 

[Oofta]

Don’t use it.

I don't. I think we should keep to the OP's post and the version of the phrase they are using. Otherwise the phrase has no meaning.

 

[Remathilis]

You cannot have individual, singular rules for everything. Everyone leaves out that part: the idea that, if you have a different situation, you necessarily have different rules for each one. That, I completely agree, is not merely unreasonable, it's impossible. No system of individual, singular rules could ever be totally comprehensive.

That's why you abandon the need for every situation to have a singular, individual rules expression. You embrace the fact that rules are always abstractions, and put that abstraction to work for you. My preferred expression of that is what I call "extensible framework" rules. Skill Challenges are one example of this concept. "Montage" sequences are another. What I've heard of Blades in the Dark's rules sounds like another example. DW's moves like Undertake a Perilous Journey, Supply, Carouse, and even basic ones like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, and Defy Danger (probably the single most commonly-used move) are all examples of extensible frameworks: using one core, abstracted structure, you can cover essentially anything within the particular scope of that move. If it makes sense as a journey from one place to another that could be dangerous and uncertain, then that move is pretty much guaranteed to work, or at least be an extremely good starting point with some minor tweaking (e.g. it's perfectly applicable for ocean voyages with light tweaking, but might need some creativity if applied to a vision-quest type "journey into the mind" thing).

This seems contrary to the Rules as Physics style that @Micah Sweet and others are in preference of. You roll a one time roll to determine if you're lost, ambushed and ration consumption using a similar abstract mechanic rather than a specific rule for getting lost (with DCs changing based on terrain, conditions and such), being surprised or foraging food. While I see the appeal (and would play it myself if offered), I don't think it scratches the itch of the old school players for which a DC 15 survival check is needed to gather food for 1d6 + Wis people.

 

[TiQuinn]

I don't. I think we should keep to the OP's post and the version of the phrase they are using. Otherwise the phrase has no meaning.

The OP’s post doesn’t mention whether or not the DM called for a roll. You’re operating under the assumption that it didn’t. And if the OP didn’t like what occurred, they shouldn’t play with that group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And yet Apocalypse World does.

Trusting the referee is a red herring. If I wanted the referee's vision of the fiction to be determinate, I'd ask them to tell me a story.

Well, that is why players in classic and traditional games get to affect the world through the choices made by their PCs.

Also, Apocalypse World is a very different game than non-4e D&D.

 

[Oofta]

The OP’s post doesn’t mention whether or not the DM called for a roll. You’re operating under the assumption that it didn’t. And if the OP didn’t like what occurred, they shouldn’t play with that group.

The DM in the OP allowed a vertical jump from a standing start. It more than doubles what the rules allow even with the most optimized PC. To me, that's what the rule of cool means - ignore the rules completely because it looks cool.

The problem is that I played in a game a while back at a convention where the DM stated they followed the rule of cool and did similar things for one player who happened to be more outspoken/convincing than the rest of us.

So if rule of cool is just "the rules don't cover it, but the DM will make a call that still follows the spirit of the rules and do not completely ignore the rules of the game" then we need another term what these DMs do. Extreme rule of cool? Loony Tunes rule of cool? Do whatever the f*** you want as long as you can make it sound fun and are enthusiastic about it?

It's a spectrum of course. But I've seen rule of cool allow whatever the player wants to do, rules that already cover what they're trying do be damned. It is not the same as improvised actions that may not succeed. It's shooting an arrow and hitting the moon because the player is convincing enough.