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

[Pedantic]

Interestingly, a 5e fighter can do much of that. If they use their action surge to dash and get extra movement, they may have enough movement to cover that 20 ft climb and leap onto the monster's back and still have the action to stab.

That's the tension between two gameplay modes in action. If there's a negotiation based mode available, and it's shown to routinely produce better outcomes or is just more understandable to the player, then it becomes easier and more normalized to use it as the default means of expression/gameplay. This fighter example involves mechanics the GM doesn't get to say anything about. All they could do to alter the resolution is clarify the situation is different than the player understood it to be (give or take 5e's persistent fuzziness about basic resolution)... Which provides more context for any other use of mechanics that player might have in mind.

You know, it could be an interesting thing to tie invoking negotiation to a currency and/or a GM side flag (though you'd probably want a bigger unit than action by action). Sort of takes it back to early action/hero point currencies, but I haven't seen anything that explicitly lays out conditions on when you can/can't try to stunt. On the GM side, I'd probably want to use something like Fantasy Craft's dramatic scenes, which activate a whole bunch of mechanics when declared for an extended duration.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It was good if you were great at calculating cubic volume or you and your friends were immune to fire, but most of the time it was that fireball, the iconic wizard spell, was bad in most situations.

As someone who hates Fireball being the Iconic Wizard Spell i see no downsides in this specific result.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't know how many people would allow Wild in normal play. The question to me is how many people stick to RAW and how many go farther.

I go a lot further....but not quite to Wild.

A lot of games like D&D keep things vague: When you do an action, save or check you are just assumed to be doing all sorts of unmentioned stuff that is cool.

So like when a foe shoots a magic ray at a character and they make the save they might "high jump in the air over the ray", "duck behind a table and knock it over to block the ray" or even "deflect the ray with their shield or bracelet".

Or if a character wants to jump high they might jump on and off another person or do that running jump onto and off the side of a wall to get higher up. Or using a drainpipe for support to climb up a wall.

As part of the rule design many games keep this vague. But it's not "cool".

So, as I said above....I let characters try such things. And set a percentage. Often around 30%, but often enough players will roll under 30. Even at 1%, players do still roll that.

Then they can try their Cool Move.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah, its abundantly clear there's widely varied usage of that term in operation here, which makes it hard to have a discussion. Way I've always seen it has been "Never let the rules or even real world logic automatically get in the way of a cool situation". Which I wouldn't automatically be hostile to if it wasn't yet another case of tossing too much to the GM as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think part of the issue is that everyone has a different level of what cool is. For example:

RAW: you can make a standing jump of (3 + STR) x 0.5 if you don't move 10 ft prior, and the jump costs you movement. So you can't jump on a 3 ft table unless your strength is 16 (3+3 = 6, /2 =3 ft): unless you use your action to make an athletics check. If you fail the roll by 5 or more, you fall prone.
Rule of Stunting: yeah, roll an athletics check and I'll let you jump, but if you fail you can't make that jump.
Rule of Cinematic: yeah sure, you can jump on the table and attack your foe.
Rule of Wild: yeah, you can jump 30 ft with no action.

I don't know how many people would allow Wild in normal play. The question to me is how many people stick to RAW and how many go farther.

And there's a lot of interim cases. As someone earlier in the thread said, there's "Let them do what you'd see in a typical action movie even though its fairly unrealistic" and there's "let the do what you'd see in a typical wuxia movie". Those really aren't the same things.

 

[payn]

Yeah, its abundantly clear there's widely varied usage of that term in operation here, which makes it hard to have a discussion. Way I've always seen it has been "Never let the rules or even real world logic automatically get in the way of a cool situation". Which I wouldn't automatically be hostile to if it wasn't yet another case of tossing too much to the GM as far as I'm concerned.

There is tossing too much to the GM, and then there is thats what the GM is for. It really depends on where you line up on rulings over rules or rules over rulings. Both have their +/-.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not exactly hard to prove something is bad for the game when the starting definition basically includes 'is bad for the game' instead of... not a tautology

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is tossing too much to the GM, and then there is thats what the GM is for. It really depends on where you line up on rulings over rules or rules over rulings. Both have their +/-.

My position is that the less judgment calls a GM has to do, the better. It basically invites, and I'd argue, can't help but invite (which doesn't mean it can't potentially be avoided, but the world is full of things that you don't do even though they aren't certain to cause problems) people learning the way to get what they want is to game the GM. Its one of the reasons while I recognize why some people have a preference for social interactions and similar things to be purely interactive, I personally have little tolerance for it.

(This is actually separate from my feelings about rulings, not rules. That can avoid this problem if the GM largely doesn't let the players get their oar in overly much, so my dislike of it is on other grounds).

 

[payn]

My position is that the less judgment calls a GM has to do, the better. It basically invites, and I'd argue, can't help but invite (which doesn't mean it can't potentially be avoided, but the world is full of things that you don't do even though they aren't certain to cause problems) people learning the way to get what they want is to game the GM. Its one of the reasons while I recognize why some people have a preference for social interactions and similar things to be purely interactive, I personally have little tolerance for it.

(This is actually separate from my feelings about rulings, not rules. That can avoid this problem if the GM largely doesn't let the players get their oar in overly much, so my dislike of it is on other grounds).

At one point in time it was a concern for me too. Though, now I am pretty comfortable in the ambiguous. I think you need to build trust and understanding across the table for it to work well. Align playstyles and it works wonderfully. Its bad for cons and pick up play. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At one point in time it was a concern for me too. Though, now I am pretty comfortable in the ambiguous. I think you need to build trust and understanding across the table for it to work well. Align playstyles and it works wonderfully. Its bad for cons and pick up play. YMMV.

I've just seen too many groups, including long time ones, where that became how you want to get things done. Sometimes its a little subtle to spot, and its always an issue of the fact its going to favor some people over others even if no one has malign intent.