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

[Iosue]

I don't care for the framing as player entitlement, but I do agree with the premise for a specific framing of "gaming." Rule of Cool is usually a player forward means of shifting the structure of the game into negotiation. Players set out what they'd like to happen, GMs set costs or risks, and the currency added to either side is the perceived "coolness" favor by both parties.

I don't really like negotiation gameplay in general, and I think it's even worse when you're playing with a currency that has variable value to all the players involved in some incalculable, unknowable way. If there existed some other gameplay loop, where the players are presented challenges and leverage abilities, resources and some time/action economy to overcome them, RoC can break that, turning the same into a different, and in my opinion, worse game.

However, there exist modes of play that are entirely negotiation based to begin with, and RoC in those contexts is mostly just suggesting value should be assigned to the "coolness" factor when using them. If that's already the game being played, I have significantly less qualms, though I do like and way of formalizing its value, maybe using a boon/bane system, or meta currency.

There's not much that I agree with Pedantic on, but I think he gets to the point here.

IMO, "Rule of Cool" is absolutely necessary to run DM-based resolution in games. If a player suggests something that is plausible and/or feasible within the genre we are playing in, and furthermore is Cool, then denying it by strict application of the rules only encourages players to only engage in Rules Approved actions, and my game is impoverished by it.

That doesn't mean auto-success, though it can mean eschewing excessive checks.

I'm leery of describing it as "negotiation," as it calls up the hoary cliche of "convince the DM," and the reality is that there is not much DM-Player back-and-forth as "negotiation" implies. However, it very much relies on the players and the DM being on the same page with regard to genre, playstyle, and aesthetics.

It should also be noted that Cool is highly genre/playstyle specific, and thus can even be applicable to gritty survival-type games. (I daresay that most, if not all, gritty dungeoncrawl games have at one time or another made a call concerning flasks of oil that was not necessarily realistic or supported by the rules, but felt "right" in the moment.)

 

[tglassy]

I've always seen "the Rule of Coolk" as a means of choosing the direction to go in a particular instance. Like, I introduce a dragon, and my player asks if it's female, and I say yes, and he squeals, cause he's playing a horny bard and has never had the opportunity to seduce a dragon. I role my eyes. But it is his dream. So I allow AN ATTEMPT.

He failed, of course. Miserably. But if he'd done better, things would be different.

What I don't like "Rule of Cool" for is allowing a player to do something that isn't on their character sheet. For example. Had a DM once who allowed a Fighter to run up a wall 20 ft, leap off and land on the monster's back, jabbing his swords in. An awesome, cinematic moment...except that Fighter's can't run up vertical surfaces. IN FACT, there IS a Class who specifically gets this as an ability: Monks. Monks specifically gain the ability to run on vertical surfaces, and on water, as a part of their class.

The DM allowed it cause it was 'cool'. But in doing so, he basically gave a Monk ability to a Fighter. What does that say to the Monk, who specifically chose that Class so he could do things like that? It means he could have saved his time and picked any class cause the DM would just let you do Monk stuff anytime you wanted cause it's "cool". Of course it's cool! That's what makes Monks cool!

So no, if a player comes to me and asks "Can I do this?" I say "Can you do that on your character sheet?" And if the answer is no, then that's their answer.

 

[Pedantic]

There's not much that I agree with Pedantic on, but I think he gets to the point here.

IMO, "Rule of Cool" is absolutely necessary to run DM-based resolution in games. If a player suggests something that is plausible and/or feasible within the genre we are playing in, and furthermore is Cool, then denying it by strict application of the rules only encourages players to only engage in Rules Approved actions, and my game is impoverished by it.

That doesn't mean auto-success, though it can mean eschewing excessive checks.

I'm leery of describing it as "negotiation," as it calls up the hoary cliche of "convince the DM," and the reality is that there is not much DM-Player back-and-forth as "negotiation" implies. However, it very much relies on the players and the DM being on the same page with regard to genre, playstyle, and aesthetics.

It should also be noted that Cool is highly genre/playstyle specific, and thus can even be applicable to gritty survival-type games. (I daresay that most, if not all, gritty dungeoncrawl games have at one time or another made a call concerning flasks of oil that was not necessarily realistic or supported by the rules, but felt "right" in the moment.)

It's often a very short negotiation, and as you note, generally presupposes everyone has a very similar goal to begin with. I think of Rule of Cool as the inverse face of the old Mother-May-I crack, focused more on highlighting the player's contributions than on the GM's unspoken internal criteria. If everyone is on the same page about what is cool, then it doesn't require much negotiation to begin with.

I find it no less disempowering in any gameplay context not built for it, in that it strips away player's agency by changing the nature of the game being played. You could make a case that a lot of modern indie games start with negotiation as the intended gameplay loop and lay out structures on top of that, whereas RoC usually is an argument the game should be shifted into negotiation away from the usual gameplay loop in some situations.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

That is close to my understanding too.

An Ancient Dragon Magazine had this rule: let a player try anything, just assign a percentage chance to do it. Character wants to throw four daggers at one time...I give them a 30% chance. They roll a 27...and then still have to roll four attack rolls. You stick to the game rules for the effect.

This has worked out great in my games. Some player try crazy stuff...like 1% stuff. But roll a 1d100 enough times....and characters can do some crazy stuff!

 

[payn]

Lottery the RPG.

 

[Older Beholder]

'Rule of Cool' is pretty much just advanced improv.
It might not be for every group, but to call it bad for gaming kinda odd

 

[The Sigil]

The rule of cool is not to break immersion nor to allow someone with an idea that sounds epic to run roughshod. Rather, it is a philosophical assertion about how the rules limit actions. Some feel “if an action isn’t explicitly allowed by the rules, it cannot be attempted.” The rule of cool instead states, “if an action is not explicitly forbidden by the rules, it can be attempted.” This doesn’t mean all actions should be allowed to succeed. (I tell my players they can try anything, but even a natural 20 does not allow the impossible… a first level fighter in full plate mail can’t leap 100’ in the air vertically regardless of their athletics roll.)

Basically, where a rule does not exist, the DM will make up a rule, preferably by modifying a relevant existing rule, but not to the point of breaking verisimilitude - in the example in the OP most games do not explicitly have pole vault rules. So instead you would use the jump rules with a modification … or if your game doesn’t have jump rules you set up a skill check like an Athletics check … and if the game lacks that, it is probably a Strength/Dexterity (or both) check. The exact rule is less important than the general philosophy of “you can TRY it…”

 

[James Gasik]

The Lord of the Rings movies have quite a few of these, usually involving Legolas for whatever reason.

"Hey I'm an Elf, can I walk on the surface of snow without sinking into it so my movement speed is reduced?"

"Hey, I'm an immortal thousands of years old Elf, can I grind a shield down a stone staircase while accurately firing arrows at enemies like it's a skateboard?"

"Hey, same super experienced and awesome Elf, can I..."

DM: "What? Take on an oliphant siege unit with a bunch of guys riding in a palanquin on it in like two rounds? Sure fine whatever."

Basically the kinds of ridiculous action stunts we're used to seeing out of Hollywood that are highly improbable, but fun to watch, and few rules systems on the planet are capable of mapping out.

Probably the best system for this I've ever played with was Hong Kong Action Theatre, where you can burn "Star Power" (a combination of xp/fame) to do something incredible, but as this is also the metric by which your character advances and bids on future roles, you have to be careful with it- the example one player used was Steven Seagal, who basically walks through Under Siege 2: Dark Territory without ever really being challenged, and, as a consequence, gets killed off in the first half hour of Executive Decision!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I've been seeing alot of instances of "The rule of cool" in games, and while it seems neat at first, I've started to think its actually bad for the players and the game. It lets any one player do practically anything they want, cheating the other players who may have actual abilities and tools to solve the problem.

A recent example in a game I was in was one player spent several rounds being up high on pillars and stuff and jumped onto the back of a dragon the bbeg was riding. Another player who had the mcguffin to kill the bbeg wanted up, but didn't wanna spend time moving around. So they used a 5ft stick to somehow polevault up 30 feet (with zero lateral movement) into the bbeg's face.
That sure was neat for the player who suddenly developed divine levels of pole vaulting skills, but sure wasn't that great for the player who spent time up above, and all the rest of the party who might've also had ways to solve the problem.

With "the rule of cool", you never have to run away or play the right class or do the right thing. Just make up a epic sounding thing and the dm will go along with it. While they make an encounter fun for that player, these actions strip everyone else of both agency and utility. Why spend time on special class abilities or items when someone else can suddenly be 10x better than you because the idea "sounds cool". Effectievely the bar for winning gets so low that victory starts to lose meaning with "the rule of cool". You never have to run away or regroup because you can suddenly to epic anime crap to overcome any problem. How is winning fun if you cannot actually lose?

This does not sound like "rule of cool" but bad DM adjucation.

Not every has to work. It is just that the DM should have an open mind about creative solutions.

I remember that in 3e and especially 3.5 and 4e, there was the opposite problem of needing abilities for everything you want to try. That often meant that people (in my groups) stopped trying anything creative, because the probabilities were usually not in their favour.

So for me, there is a happy middle ground. Where not everything you do works, but many things are worth a try at least.

Lifting yourself with a 5ft pole in 30ft height (9m) seems way out of line. I just watched olympics and they managed to get barely over 20ft (6m).
So barring any supernatural ability to jumo that high, I see no way they could do it. So I'd probably assign a DC 30 check.

 

[cbwjm]

A recent example in a game I was in was one player spent several rounds being up high on pillars and stuff and jumped onto the back of a dragon the bbeg was riding. Another player who had the mcguffin to kill the bbeg wanted up, but didn't wanna spend time moving around. So they used a 5ft stick to somehow polevault up 30 feet (with zero lateral movement) into the bbeg's face.
That sure was neat for the player who suddenly developed divine levels of pole vaulting skills, but sure wasn't that great for the player who spent time up above, and all the rest of the party who might've also had ways to solve the problem.

Rule of Cool is fine, but this example isn't what I'd call cool, it's too far out of bounds from the game rules and as a DM, I'd say no to the player.

For me, rule of cool allows some bending of the rules or allows players to do something the rules don't really have an answer for but still seems within the spirit of the game.