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

[payn]

This is what bugs me most about how so many run 5th ed (and the way the game was designed). A 5th ed game is the story about how your characters will win. All dm advice, the structure of the game (literally impossble to accidentally kill a character over lvl 2) and such all feeds into making victory inevitable.

You should check out the defining new school thread going on right now. I think it would be more illuminating than what has been set up here.

In short, some folks want the game to be a survival sim, and others want it to be an adventure game. However, I think rule of cool applies to both styles, al beit, different ways. As some have mentioned rule of cool is allowing something that fits the narrative one way or another. For a survival sim, its about allowing a cool thing to potentially happen in a consistent matter (I.E. houseruling to add something missing or make something more possible)

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

: "If it looks cool, you can do it."
: "If you can do it, you can do it in a way that looks cool (physics permitting)."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

We are looking at your entire argument over every post, and its pretty clear what points you are trying to convey.

You've created a confused mess of an argument, which started a bad misrepresentation of the concept the thread is supposed to be about, which you haven't corrected, and don't seem to be interested in correcting.

You've then dragged in multiple unconnected concepts that you seem to think are the same thing - "players don't retreat enough", "players have to succeed", and it seems like you just have a generalized objection to a lot of vague ideas.

Given your misunderstandings and misrepresentations, in the absence of any substantive responses to any of my points, I'm confident in saying it appears (superficially) that either you don't or aren't interested in understanding this issue or my points or the concept of "rule of cool".

I'm going to presume from refusing to answer twice and that you're calling it a "gotcha", that you do not, in fact, play TTRPGs, or haven't played for many years. That's fine, but it's big part of why you're so confused about these issues, and it's part of why you're conflating a bunch of separate issues together.

However, I think rule of cool applies to both styles, al beit, different ways. As some have mentioned rule of cool is allowing something that fits the narrative one way or another.

Exactly this.

: "If it looks cool, you can do it."
: "If you can do it, you can do it in a way that looks cool (physics permitting)."

Yeah this is how it tends to play out in most games. Physics obviously varying based on the setting, DM, etc. The "physics" in CoC tend to be very different to a Critical Role-esque 5E game which is different from a GURPS Space campaign based on For All Mankind or the like (but even the latter has "rule of cool"-type moments, I guarantee it).

 

[deadman1204]

Lots of things

When you are replying to literally every post, and 50% of all posts in a thread are you, that shows that this isn't about the thread anymore, its about the forum battles.

 

[Remathilis]

Rule of Cool is a shorter way of emulating action movie level physics. It's swinging from the chandelier, walking away with the explosion in the background, or kicking the foe over the rail to their doom. You can remove that from D&D, but you pretty much cripple martial characters and weaken casters (with far more needed to begin to balance it) with it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nope.

Rule of cool isn't about a single player, it's about what's cool to the group.

Just like fun, balance and all the other 'people like to say this is actually bad' good things that make the game worth playing.

 

[el-remmen]

I am not a "Rule of Cool" guy - though I do agree with @Cordwainer Fish's characterization of an approach to trying things - however, I do think it is either disingenuous or misguided to say that "the rule of cool" is simply about negotiating how to proceed with something and not about the coolness factor. (I mean, "cool" is in the name!).

Yes, the characterization of "whatever seems cool always works and you always win" is also way off base - but in my experience of RoC, the purported "coolness" has been the primary factor in determining if the character can accomplish X thing, either at all or determining the difficulty.

The example I frequently see used is the cliche chandelier swinging. For some people, the mere presence of a chandelier means they want to swing on it and get some bonus for doing so because it is cool (I have seen many people say variations of this on ENWorld in the last 5 years alone, leaving aside the decade I was a regular on the boards in the early 2000s).

For me and my games, swinging on a chandelier might be useful in some way (circumventing a pit, getting from gallery to gallery in a room without having to climb down to floor level, etc. . ) and it might even look cool, but the coolness and the benefit are not connected. I don't think it is mischaracterizing the Rule of Cool to say that for many of the groups/DMs that use it coolness and benefit are connected (to varying degrees).

I can't speak to how common it is, but it certainly isn't uncommon.

And there is nothing wrong with that style, if that is what they like. It is not for me. But guess what, we don't all have to play in the same games and it definitely isn't "bad for the game" more broadly.

I do think it is an example of a reason why it is a good thing to play with different DMs and groups to test out different styles and variations and find what you like and to what degree you like it.

 

[Oofta]

I think there's a spectrum between "always say yes" which is associated to the rule of cool and "if it's not in the rules it ain't happening". Personally, did a little bit in my previous post, the PC may be able to swing from a chandelier if I think it's possible, although the difficulty may range from easy in which case I may not even ask for a role to incredibly difficult DC 30. I even use action movie logic for making these kind of calls because D&D should be heroic.

But there's also times when I'll say "no, but what are you trying to accomplish" which then we can quickly discuss alternatives. Sometimes it's possible to achieve something, sometimes it's not. But the OP's example of high jumping 30 feet? Not going to happen in a game I'm running.

 

[overgeeked]

Rule of Cool is a shorter way of emulating action movie level physics. It's swinging from the chandelier, walking away with the explosion in the background, or kicking the foe over the rail to their doom. You can remove that from D&D, but you pretty much cripple martial characters and weaken casters (with far more needed to begin to balance it) with it.

And, as always, there are other games out there specifically designed to emulate that kind of play rather than being poorly tacked onto D&D. Check out the action-adventure RPG Outgunned for pure action movie rule of cool mayhem.

 

[Clint_L]

This is what bugs me most about how so many run 5th ed (and the way the game was designed). A 5th ed game is the story about how your characters will win. All dm advice, the structure of the game (literally impossble to accidentally kill a character over lvl 2) and such all feeds into making victory inevitable.

Okay, so this is really just another thread that starts with a straw man example as an excuse to bash 5e.

Also, I have a pet peeve about people using the word “literally” when they are clearly being figurative (hyperbolic in this case).