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

[Older Beholder]

I’m not sure if this is what is meant by rule of cool, but my character was once fighting a ghost and was asked to make 2 different saving throws. I made one but failed the other, the one I made was against being aged, my character was an arcana cleric and I actually wanted him to be aged, so I asked the DM if I could swap the results of the rolls and fail the save vs aging instead.

The DM allowed it and docked a point or two from my Strength score.
My character being an old man for the rest of the game was great and added a fun element that all the players enjoyed.

 

[cbwjm]

I’m not sure if this is what is meant by rule of cool, but my character was once fighting a ghost and was asked to make 2 different saving throws. I made one but failed the other, the one I made was against being aged, my character was an arcana cleric and I actually wanted him to be aged, so I asked the DM if I could swap the results of the rolls and fail the save vs aging instead.

The DM allowed it and docked a point or two from my Strength score.
My character being an old man for the rest of the game was great and added a fun element that all the players enjoyed.

I have an image of him instantly transitioning to calling people whippersnappers and talking about "Back in my day, adventurers did x/y/z.

 

[Older Beholder]

I have an image of him instantly transitioning to calling people whippersnappers and talking about "Back in my day, adventurers did x/y/z.

Yep.

The same character also got a headband of intellect at some point, and immediately started using the word indubitably all the time.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

OK, now I get it.

In the same situation I'd probably just say "OK, roll to hit as normal, but if the die comes up 19 or 20 you hit the hand (instead of the rest of him) and we'll see what happens then". Then if a 19 or 20 does come up, I'd probably give the target a save to hold on to the weapon and perhaps, if the damage roll also comes up high, a second save to see how useful that hand still is.

In other words, assign a small chance because what's being attempted is difficult, and carry on.

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.”

I think you're using the phrase "rule of cool" where I'd just use the phrase "improvise a rule" to cover situations (and hell knows there's a lot of 'em!) where a rule doesn't already exist.

To me, the "rule of cool" concept implies eschewing rules that already do exist in order to allow something cool to happen; which - while fun at the time - inevitably leads to headaches in the long run due to precedent.

 

[Lanefan]

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.)

I completely agree with all of this other than the use of the phrase "rule of cool".

What you define as rule of cool I define as simply how best to play the game; to me, the "rule of cool" concept is a negative, as it goes well beyond what you describe and gets into the much-less-desirable realm of sometimes allowing the impossible and-or setting precedents you really don't want to have to keep.

 

[Vaalingrade]

'Impossible' in our terrible boring world, 'impossible' in a world of fantasy and dragons or 'impossible' in a limited version of our terrible boring world brought about by some peoples' myopia about how it actually works?

Because those are all different things and the last one is the case waaaaay too often. and the first one is also the case way too often too.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think there's a balance to be sought. The rules can't cover everything and they shouldn't try. But at a certain point rule of cool can become, to me, a loony toons cartoon where someone is like Bugs Bunny not falling after running off the edge of a cliff because they didn't study law. Because it becomes basically a contest of "convince the DM". If you happen to have that kind of exuberant convincing personality trait you're good to go, otherwise you're left in the rule of cool dust.

Meanwhile I do allow actions that are not in the rules but they will always be things I can envision the character doing based on their capabilities. Want to swing from the chandelier? Cool, I'll set a DC based on what I think makes sense for the current scenario and give you a general idea of how difficult it will be before you attempt it. Maybe it will work, maybe you'll fail dramatically and fall to the floor while risk being stunned for a round.

So here I think is a matter of definition- I don't consider simple creative actions that the rules don't cover "rule of cool," I consider that GM arbitration. "That's creative and it seems possible, yeah if you make the skill check you'll do better but if you fail it's really going to suck."

I do agree with the Bugs Bunny thing- there's allowing creativity, and then there's ignoring rules, the way the world works, to please the player- of you want to let the Immovable Rod instakill the ancient dragon because the rogue says they shove it down the dragons throat and activate it or some of the other "our level 4 party killed a great wyrm by using control water on its blood" then it's your game... I guess THAT it where I call it "rule of cool."

 

[Oofta]

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.)

But the problem is that "The rule of cool" doesn't really have a single definition. I don't think being able to do things not explicitly called out by the rules as necessarily being the rule of cool. The rule of cool to me means being able to do things that are contradicted by the rules and doing it anyway because it's fun.

Take the OP's example. One player made a 30 foot standing high jump because they had a stick. Standing high jump according to the rule of the game is half of 3 + your strength modifier, so at most 4 feet. You can reach and grab onto something 1 1/2 times your height so a 20 strength 7 foot tall goliath could still only reach something a little less than 15 feet above their head. Doubling that? That to me is impossible according to the rules of the game. You can exceed normal distance jumped with a successful athletics check, but at least doubling that distance? It goes too far for me.

There's a line between allowing improvised actions, which are referenced repeatedly in 5E, and just ignoring the rules because giving PCs wire-fu capabilities looks cool in the moment. The rules can't cover every potential action the PCs can make, but they can give a guideline to the limitations the PCs have. The rule of cool is a problem when ignores those limitations.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

That's...not the rule of cool. That's "let people ride roughshod." The rule of cool--when it is used correctly--is allowing things that are reasonable, but the formal rules have left a hole that needs filling. It's going with what makes sense and would be more enjoyable, rather than things that would be genuinely not that fun to do.

If someone else in the group already has a tool or ability to address the situation, that they would enjoy using, it isn't rule of cool to prevent that from happening. In fact, that would be quite uncool.

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.

There's a rather more obvious problem with this fight: the MacGuffin that instantly kills the boss. That will almost always lead to an anticlimactic and dull finish, because "push the proverbial red button to kill boss" isn't fun.

With "the rule of cool", you never have to run away or play the right class or do the right thing.

No. That's riding roughshod. With "rule of cool," you have a backup option when the actual rules let you down.

I'm an avid user of the rule of cool. But you have to actually SELL me on it. You can't just say, "Wouldn't it be awesome if I could do X?" Of course that would be awesome. HOW are you going to do X? How are you going to make that make sense? If you can actually, legitimately justify it to me, then I'll move heaven and earth to make it happen.

But just saying, "I want to do X because it's awesome"? Try again, friend. Especially when someone else has already done the work.

Note how the big issue with the pole-vaulting thing above, for example, was that it clearly didn't even make any sense. A five-foot stick? Hell no. We all accept some degree of suspension of disbelief, but that's not even wuxia, that's straight-up reality-bending.

Now imagine if the character had, say, a magical size-changing pillar (hello Sun Wukong), and was willing to allow that pillar to fall away--his signature weapon, something he worked very hard to get--in order to get into position to slay the bad guy. That's not just "wouldn't that be sweet?!" That's a personal sacrifice, a logical extension of an existing power, and a cool scene resulting from that. The chain linking cause to effect is established. I don't care if there are no rules in the game for pole-vaulting, it's going to work because the idea is cool and sound.

Rule of cool doesn't excuse unsound ideas. It's not enough to be JUST cool. It as to be cool and reasonable, for some definition of "reasonable.' And yes, by definition, that means it's going to vary from person to person and table to table. There is no universal standard. There is no objective rule. Reasonableness is necessarily a contextual thing.

 

[Oofta]

That's...not the rule of cool. That's "let people ride roughshod." The rule of cool--when it is used correctly--is allowing things that are reasonable, but the formal rules have left a hole that needs filling. It's going with what makes sense and would be more enjoyable, rather than things that would be genuinely not that fun to do.

If someone else in the group already has a tool or ability to address the situation, that they would enjoy using, it isn't rule of cool to prevent that from happening. In fact, that would be quite uncool.


There's a rather more obvious problem with this fight: the MacGuffin that instantly kills the boss. That will almost always lead to an anticlimactic and dull finish, because "push the proverbial red button to kill boss" isn't fun.


No. That's riding roughshod. With "rule of cool," you have a backup option when the actual rules let you down.

I'm an avid user of the rule of cool. But you have to actually SELL me on it. You can't just say, "Wouldn't it be awesome if I could do X?" Of course that would be awesome. HOW are you going to do X? How are you going to make that make sense? If you can actually, legitimately justify it to me, then I'll move heaven and earth to make it happen.

But just saying, "I want to do X because it's awesome"? Try again, friend. Especially when someone else has already done the work.

Note how the big issue with the pole-vaulting thing above, for example, was that it clearly didn't even make any sense. A five-foot stick? Hell no. We all accept some degree of suspension of disbelief, but that's not even wuxia, that's straight-up reality-bending.

Now imagine if the character had, say, a magical size-changing pillar (hello Sun Wukong), and was willing to allow that pillar to fall away--his signature weapon, something he worked very hard to get--in order to get into position to slay the bad guy. That's not just "wouldn't that be sweet?!" That's a personal sacrifice, a logical extension of an existing power, and a cool scene resulting from that. The chain linking cause to effect is established. I don't care if there are no rules in the game for pole-vaulting, it's going to work because the idea is cool and sound.

Rule of cool doesn't excuse unsound ideas. It's not enough to be JUST cool. It as to be cool and reasonable, for some definition of "reasonable.' And yes, by definition, that means it's going to vary from person to person and table to table. There is no universal standard. There is no objective rule. Reasonableness is necessarily a contextual thing.

The issue with this discussion is that what you describe as rule of cool is what I would call improvised actions that still follow the rules. So what do you call people who follow the rule of cool like the OP's high jump example where it makes no sense? Because I've played in game where the DM says they're like the rule of cool and it's really "If you can describe something cool you can get away with Loony Tunes."

Without an agreed upon definition and at least loosely defined limitations, the phrase rule of cool is meaningless.