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

[Oofta]

Was there a roll involved and possible failure where the equivalent non-flashy move wouldn't have had one? That's excessively risky.

The "failure" is that you don't look awesome in exchange for the chance for benefit (someting like advantage or inspiration). It's just a bit of slapstick fun that has no real mechanical impact. As I said above it's almost always just a chance to show off how cool your PC is in ways you don't normally get.

I don't know why you're so stuck on this, if we didn't have fun with it I wouldn't do it. I don't run a 100% serious game, its something we play for laughs.

 

[Remathilis]

The "failure" is that you don't look awesome in exchange for the chance for benefit (someting like advantage or inspiration). It's just a bit of slapstick fun that has no real mechanical impact. As I said above it's almost always just a chance to show off how cool your PC is in ways you don't normally get.

I don't know why you're so stuck on this, if we didn't have fun with it I wouldn't do it. I don't run a 100% serious game, its something we play for laughs.

Honestly, that's probably the reason I don't try to "cool" up my actions when I play. I've played with enough DMs who love to make your PC look incompetent when you try flashy things, usually ending in a net negative (falling prone, dropping a weapon or item, etc) to the point you quickly learn the safest thing is to stand in your 5 ft square and declare "I attack". Ignore everything else in the room, It's a trap designed to waste your action.

I don't ask for game breaking advantages, but the minute I'm rolling to swing on a rope with my advantage being a foe pushed 10 ft and my negative wasting my action and being prone, please don't feel bad when my next action is "full attack. AC 19? 17 damage..."

 

[Oofta]

Honestly, that's probably the reason I don't try to "cool" up my actions when I play. I've played with enough DMs who love to make your PC look incompetent when you try flashy things, usually ending in a net negative (falling prone, dropping a weapon or item, etc) to the point you quickly learn the safest thing is to stand in your 5 ft square and declare "I attack". Ignore everything else in the room, It's a trap designed to waste your action.

I don't ask for game breaking advantages, but the minute I'm rolling to swing on a rope with my advantage being a foe pushed 10 ft and my negative wasting my action and being prone, please don't feel bad when my next action is "full attack. AC 19? 17 damage..."

Most of the time I use improvised actions it's to get a bit farther, get past an obstacle, jump a little higher than you normally can. In those cases I give people a general idea of the difficulty. If you are trying to do something out of the ordinary, there is a chance you will fail.

But I simply disagree that any minor setback your PC might encounter is a terrible thing. We have a lot of fun in our game, even if that means every once in a while laughing about failure.

 

[TiQuinn]

If the simulation rules are incomplete or faulty, make better rules. Convince me that what you want to do could be done under the perimeters of ability and verisimilitude, and we'll set a rules precedent together.

I find this “make better rules” tack is unrealistic and unreasonable. There is no system with a rule for every conceivable occurrence in a game, and at some point, it is left to the GM to make a judgment call. Rule of Cool is as good a weather vane as any other.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find this “make better rules” tack is unrealistic and unreasonable. There is no system with a rule for every conceivable occurrence in a game, and at some point, it is left to the GM to make a judgment call. Rule of Cool is as good a weather vane as any other.

Judgement calls can be better rules for that table; in fact, if you get consensus on the call it is guaranteed to be a better rule by that metric. That's what making new rules means. You decide how a situation that lies outside the published rules (or is poorly handled by such) works, and establish a precedent. You write it down like a good scientist. Over time such rulings accumulate and add to your table's effective ruleset.

What's "unrealistic and unreasonable" about that?

 

[TiQuinn]

Judgement calls can be better rules for that table; in fact, if you get consensus on the call it is guaranteed to be a better rule by that metric. That's what making new rules means. You decide how a situation that lies outside the published rules (or is poorly handled by such) works, and establish a precedent. You write it down like a good scientist. Over time such rulings accumulate and add to your table's effective ruleset.

What's "unrealistic and unreasonable" about that?

Judgement calls can lead to house rules but you didn’t specify that. You just said make better rules, implying that’s on the system and the designers to anticipate every eventuality. If you didn’t mean the system, then what do you see as being the difference between this and “rule of cool?” Can “rule of cool” not lead to “make better rules” in your parlance?

 

[Oofta]

I find this “make better rules” tack is unrealistic and unreasonable. There is no system with a rule for every conceivable occurrence in a game, and at some point, it is left to the GM to make a judgment call. Rule of Cool is as good a weather vane as any other.

I agree that the rules can't explicitly cover everything, but that's why we have ability checks. They should (and hopefully will) go into this a little more but the rules allow all sorts of improvised actions and give you general ideas and categories for each ability.

So are we following the rule of cool, or just following the rules? In my case I'd call it the latter. There are other cases where we simply have house rules of course.

 

[TiQuinn]

I agree that the rules can't explicitly cover everything, but that's why we have ability checks. They should (and hopefully will) go into this a little more but the rules allow all sorts of improvised actions and give you general ideas and categories for each ability.

So are we following the rule of cool, or just following the rules? In my case I'd call it the latter. There are other cases where we simply have house rules of course.

When it’s something that’s covered by an ability check, sure. I’m not suggesting that rule of cool means automatic success.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Judgement calls can lead to house rules but you didn’t specify that. You just said make better rules, implying that’s on the system and the designers to anticipate every eventuality. If you didn’t mean the system, then what do you see as being the difference between this and “rule of cool?” Can “rule of cool” not lead to “make better rules” in your parlance?

That is not my implication. At all. If the rules in the published system are not working the way the table wants, make better rules for that table. RoC can be the basis of those better rules if flash and drama are desired, sure.

That is generally not the case for me, as my preference is for simulation and verisimilitude to be prioritized in the rules. Most of my rule changes, my "better rules", involve enhancing that aspect of the game. But it's certainly not the only philosophy to follow.

 

[Oofta]

When it’s something that’s covered by an ability check, sure. I’m not suggesting that rule of cool means automatic success.

Back in 3.5 (and in a different way with 4E) they tried to come up with a rule for everything to ensure everyone played the same game as if it were a tournament. There's a wall? Well if you know what the wall's made of here's the DC. Which went on, supplement after supplement as they continually tried to throw in another patch because something wasn't covered.

Except it didn't really help any, it just meant that some people would stop the game while pulling out books and saying "There's a rule for that somewhere" and slowing down the game for little reason. Even worse, it ultimately didn't matter, it just meant that if I wanted a wall hard to climb I had to look up the wall table to figure out what type of wall matched my idea of what the DC should be.

So I agree that we can never have a rule for everything. Rather than try to replicate that we now have rulings over rules, the DM makes a judgement call and we move on. That doesn't mean it's a house rule, it just means that I decided climbing that wall was a hard difficulty. Possible for a normal person, but not easy.

Now, at a certain point we go beyond that into things like climbing a waterfall or jumping 30 feet straight up from a standing start.

So I guess it goes back to what you're talking about. If it's automatic there's generally no need for any check*. If it's uncertain, I ask for a check. That uncertainty may be because it's climbing the side of a building with a rough brick wall (possible but still a hard DC) instead of using the ladder that's not going to require a check but may be spotted by a guard. It may be because the PC has a 14 strength and they're trying to jump across a 15 foot gap which is going to have a low DC.

*Yes, every once in a while I call for a check because under the circumstances it's automatic but an opportunity for either the PC to do something really cool and even advantage or some minor slapstick.