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

[Kannik]

Might Rule of Cool simply be a particular variation of/take on Rule 0? In this case tilted towards the favour of what's narratively exciting for the game/campaign at hand and/or what's the most interesting or fun for the players? Just like Rule 0, it's a philosophy -- Rule 0 could be taken to the extreme where the DM can simply reply "Nope, you still fail!" dozens of times in a row because they want to (could be because they think its more cool that way!), but for many of us (I'd assume) we wouldn't play at that table for very long if we didn't expect that going in. But I also doubt that many would be clamouring to get rid of that concept or saying that due to Rule 0 being a thing that it's ruined every game that's used it. It, like many things in RPGs, is middle path. Walk that (still broad) middle path and it can work wonders. Walk to the sides on either extreme, and it can be deleterious.

Separately, I've found that Rule of Cool can apply to the DM/GM side of things in terms of worldbuilding, both in terms of what they create beforehand or when creating a detail that wasn't preordained. There are a lot of options that make sense... which of them makes it more interesting/intriguing/exciting/fraught for the party and/or the players for this campaign? Lean towards that one. (This can work well when a player asks a question about a particular thing, such as the dragon seduction example above, or when the GM had something in mind but this question opens up new avenues and therefore would be 'cooler'.)

 

[Lanefan]

The distinction comes in the context of the discussion. Give it a try sometime.

The distinction needs to be made before the phrase is used, otherwise the discussion becomes pointless as people are talkng about vastly different things.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Indeed; and some of us aren't even happy with action-movie degrees of implausibility (including while watching action movies!), because the specific intent is that it's supposed to be real-world believable and far too often it isn't.

Contrast this with wuxia, which is intended to be a not-real setting and - while having its own internal consistency - can thus gleefully leave reality behind.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed, and in those cases it's on the DM to self-police* and make sure nobody is being unduly favoured. It's also on the players to (quietly or otherwise) call it out if it appears someone is being unduly favoured.

* - dice are useful tools for this, as randomizers.

 

[deadman1204]

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.

This is no different than having no rules then. A player has a 30% chance of doing practically anything they want to. Why spend your time taking all the skills or classes or feats if anyone can say "I wanna od this cause its cool" and still have a decent chance on a dice roll to succeed?

 

[payn]

The distinction needs to be made before the phrase is used, otherwise the discussion becomes pointless as people are talkng about vastly different things.

So, you always need something perfectly, succinctly, specifically defined before you can ever have a conversation?

 

[Lanefan]

So, you always need something perfectly, succinctly, specifically defined before you can ever have a conversation?

Defined enough that we're not using the same turn of phrase to mean two entirely different things, yes.

There's a very big gulf between the following definitions - each already seen in this thread, if paraphrased a bit - of rule-of-cool:

a) where the DM makes on-the-fly rulings to cover things the rules don't already specify, thus allowing players to think outside the box (good)
b) where the DM allows the existing rules to be ignored and-or precedent to be overturned just because a player has a spectacular action in mind (bad)

Thus, someone could say "Rule of cool is great!" and I'd have no idea whether to agree or disagree because I wouldn't know what's being meant by the phrase.

 

[payn]

Defined enough that we're not using the same turn of phrase to mean two entirely different things, yes.

There's a very big gulf between the following definitions - each already seen in this thread, if paraphrased a bit - of rule-of-cool:

a) where the DM makes on-the-fly rulings to cover things the rules don't already specify, thus allowing players to think outside the box (good)
b) where the DM allows the existing rules to be ignored and-or precedent to be overturned just because a player has a spectacular action in mind (bad)

Thus, someone could say "Rule of cool is great!" and I'd have no idea whether to agree or disagree because I wouldn't know what's being meant by the phrase.

Thats why you ask. For example, there is also a rule of hunting which is different for firearms compared to archery. If someone says, "I always follow the rule of hunting" I ask them to clarify the version they follow if I dont have the context. I dont shrug and tell them the conversation is over because I dont know what they mean.

 

[Seramus]

I find Rule of Cool facilitates and smooths out gameplay far more than it hinders it. There are outlier situations like always, such as a DM favoring one player over another consistently, but those are an issue of DM experience and shouldn't be used to condemn a flexible and useful DM tool like Rule of Cool.

The most common use of Rule of Cool I've seen is "Fudging the Action Economy." The swashbuckler wants to grab a chandelier, swing from it, and still get all their attacks? Sure. The assassin waits around the corner and wants to rush out and stab her mark when they pass by? Sure. You draw two weapons at the same time, or stow a sword to draw a bow and still get to shoot it? Sure.

I allow all of these in moderation because they are quality of life improvements. My game is more fun because of it. The important thing (for me) is making sure everyone at the table has equal opportunity to benefit, and these little advantages in the action economy are being shared around the table. Bob is cool with Jane getting it, because Bob knows he can get the same benefit later.

The second most common is just allowing things normal people can do, even if the rules don't necessarily support it. @Charlaquin used a great example of an archer disarming someone with a shot. Battlemaster has a maneuver for it, so whatever the player accomplishes should not be as potent, but it's something anyone could do (though not easily). In this case, allowing it but sacrificing damage is a pretty easy ruling to make.

Parity is a big issue that comes up a lot when invoking Rule of Cool. It might even deserve an entire thread of its own, but it's the basic idea/argument that a creative action taken by a character should be equal to just attacking, or slightly better with a skill check to balance out the added risk. It's easy for a DM to lose Parity either by asking for checks without the result being slightly better, or giving too much action economy to the player with no addition risk.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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."

I would call it what you just did: senseless. All rules should be used with sensibility and sensitivity. Reasonableness is necessary.

I'm honestly shocked to hear you of all people saying that a rule needs to be precisely nailed down to a single, universal description everyone can see and agree upon. Like this is exactly the sort of thing I would expect you to be arguing the very points I am.

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

Nothing is universal.