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

[Lanefan]

What is life without needing a calculator at the gaming table?

Well, a) the calculator's almost certainly already there for other things anyway, and b) you don't need it if you're on a grid: a fireball fills 33 10x10x10 cubes, so if the ceiling is 10' high all you need to know is how to count to 33, with some fine-tuning around the edges maybe if someone happens to be standing right on the border.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seems like people have different ideas about what “rule of cool” means. Some folks, including the OP, seem to be operating with an understanding of “rule of cool” that essentially means, player describes a cool thing they want to happen, DM allows it to succeed automatically because it would be cool. Now, that’s not how I’ve ever seen “rule of cool” used or applied, but I do agree with the premise that this would be a bad thing for the game.

What I’ve always understood “rule of cool” to mean is, sometimes you want to do something cool, but there’s nothing in the existing rules that accounts for how to resolve such an action, or maybe it technically doesn’t work under a strict reading of RAW; in either case, “rule of cool” would be improvising a way to resolve the action (potentially setting a new precedent for such actions, if that’s your group’s jam) or agreeing to interpret the rules a bit less strictly in order to enable the cool thing.

Essentially, in my understanding of “rule of cool,” it’s just another way of saying not to let the letter of the rules get in the way of the spirit of the rules. And I think that’s a very good thing for the game.

 

[MGibster]

I always thought rule of cool applied more for how the rules in a game generally worked than it did for individual rulings. i.e. If you're playing a game set in the modern era where bringing a sword is a viable option when going to a gunfight then that's an example of rule of cool. I never really considered rule of cool to be used to allow someone to circumvent the typical rules, especially when another player has been accomplishing things within the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's your choice, of course.

You are more than free and welcome to reject proper simulation in favor of GM-fiat.

Cute. If the spell says that it expands to fill the AOE, then that's the appropriate sim for the magical fire it is. It could easily be otherwise (and has been officially for a long time), as this is obviously just a preference.

 

[payn]

One thing of note, is its interesting to see rulings over rules type players argue against an implementation device of it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For me, Rule of Cool means I can do a sweet backflip over an obstacle I can move over rather than scramble over it like a regular little guy and the DM has the courtesy and respect for my vision of my character not to shout 'verisimilitude' in my face and slap me with the DMG until I stop trying to roleplay and have fun.

 

[Umbran]

Well, a) the calculator's almost certainly already there for other things anyway

What other things? I haven't needed a calculator at my table for anything for over 20 years.

b) you don't need it if you're on a grid: a fireball fills 33 10x10x10 cubes, so if the ceiling is 10' high

If you are on a grid, and if the ceiling is 10' high. Assumptions.

all you need to know is how to count to 33, with some fine-tuning around the edges

"Fine tuning around the edges" is actually doing some heavy lifting there, along with the ifs, but no matter. If you feel you have what you need, that's great. You go do that, and have fun.

 

[Lanefan]

Seems like people have different ideas about what “rule of cool” means. Some folks, including the OP, seem to be operating with an understanding of “rule of cool” that essentially means, player describes a cool thing they want to happen, DM allows it to succeed automatically because it would be cool.

That's pretty much how I've always interpreted the phrase, yes.

Now, that’s not how I’ve ever seen “rule of cool” used or applied, but I do agree with the premise that this would be a bad thing for the game.

What I’ve always understood “rule of cool” to mean is, sometimes you want to do something cool, but there’s nothing in the existing rules that accounts for how to resolve such an action, or maybe it technically doesn’t work under a strict reading of RAW; in either case, “rule of cool” would be improvising a way to resolve the action (potentially setting a new precedent for such actions, if that’s your group’s jam) or agreeing to interpret the rules a bit less strictly in order to enable the cool thing.

Which reads much the same as your first paragraph: you're automatically allowing the "something cool" to succeed.

This is different than the DM assigning a chance for success (however slim it might be) and having the player roll, which is what in theory happens whenever a player thinks outside the box and-or rules and comes up with a creative solution.

The other headache if one goes by "rule of cool" is that it holds the door wide open for players to come up with rules exploits and win buttons with the expectation that the DM will allow them to work.

Essentially, in my understanding of “rule of cool,” it’s just another way of saying not to let the letter of the rules get in the way of the spirit of the rules. And I think that’s a very good thing for the game.

Provided it's clear what the spirit of the rules is intended to be. Unfortunately, it often isn't clear at all; meaning the letter of the rules is all you've got to go by.

 

[Lanefan]

What other things? I haven't needed a calculator at my table for anything for over 20 years.

Experience points, character finances, anything else that people don't feel like adding in their heads.

If you are on a grid, and if the ceiling is 10' high. Assumptions.

That you're on a grid is an assumption, yes; as it's been the default for three editions now (and was kind of assumed in 1e also). Edit to add: and even if the players aren't using a grid, the DM will have a map with a scale or squares on it.

If the ceiling isn't 10' high it's also pretty easy to do the math. I'll grant that uneven ceilings and rough caverns make it tricky; all you can do there is take an average height and width and just go for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Which reads much the same as your first paragraph: you're automatically allowing the "something cool" to succeed.

Then I must not have expressed myself clearly enough, because what I was trying to say was completely unrelated to automatic success. Perhaps an example would be more effective.

Imagine, a player is playing a character who’s an archer, and rather than simply aiming to kill their target, they want to try to aim for the target’s hand, to cause them to drop their weapon. However, D&D 5e doesn’t have general rules for called shots or disarm attempts. There are some specific class features that could allow for something like this, such as the Battlemaster fighter’s Disarming Strike maneuver, but let’s say this player’s character doesn’t have such a feature. By a strict reading of RAW, they can’t do it, and the existence of the Disarming Strike maneuver as a Battlemaster class feature suggests that, as far as the system is concerned, this shouldn’t be something just anyone can do. But, it would be pretty cool, and also well within the bounds of what should be reasonably possible (albeit potentially difficult) in a most fantasy settings. So, a DM might decide to disregard the existing rules, or in this case the lack thereof, and improvise a rule with which to resolve this action. Maybe they make their attack roll with disadvantage, and on a hit, they deal only 1 damage but the target drops their weapon. That’s mechanically distinct from and less effective than the Battlemaster’s disarming strike, and still gives the player a way to attempt what they wanted to do.

That, in my understanding, is what “rule of cool” is. Nothing to do with automatic success, just a willingness to go outside the rules as written to enable the player to attempt something cool. It’s really just a more player-focused reframing of what might in other contexts be referred to as “rule zero.”