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

[Thomas Shey]

Game design and Rule of Cool affect player and GM alike.

That still doesn't mean how you see it has any bearing on how the players will respond to it. I'm going to continue to agree with the other poster: a rule that simply makes the players ignore doing something is largely serving no purpose that just saying "Don't do that" wouldn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That still doesn't mean how you see it has any bearing on how the players will respond to it. I'm going to continue to agree with the other poster: a rule that simply makes the players ignore doing something is largely serving no purpose that just saying "Don't do that" wouldn't.

If you insist. I will continue to say that the player isn't the only one that matters here, even if you have a point about likely player reaction.

 

[FrogReaver]

That still doesn't mean how you see it has any bearing on how the players will respond to it. I'm going to continue to agree with the other poster: a rule that simply makes the players ignore doing something is largely serving no purpose that just saying "Don't do that" wouldn't.

But one way is soo much cooler than the other.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you insist. I will continue to say that the player isn't the only one that matters here, even if you have a point about likely player reaction.

When you can sell me that a rule like this has as big an impact on your--and isn't liable to end up at least some of the time being a trap option for one or more players--I'll except your interest matters as much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But one way is soo much cooler than the other.

Not if no one uses it, which is why I always make an exception for the percentage of people who want to "die for their art".

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not suggesting your system is like that, but DMs who opt for the "save vs slapstick" style of stunting can really turn off some players for doing anything more than the PHB prescribed actions. And that's kinda sad IMHO.

Some players.

Others, however, will lean into the opportunity for spectacular and be just as happy if it ends up slapstick, because in either case it's a step beyond the prescribed action.

And IMO players who can't laugh at the foibles and fumbles of their own characters aren't worth keeping.

 

[Lanefan]

I think it can, depending on the action.

For example, I would have no problem if a PC used a rope to swing 30 ft over to his enemy rather than walk 30 ft. The net effect is the same.

On success the net effect is the same but swinging on a rope is (for a typical person on-over normal terrain) somewhat more difficult than walking, thus swinging on a rope when you could have walked instead tells me loud and clear that for whatever reason you're willing to voluntarily make things riskier for yourself than you had to.

A check of some sort, even if trivially easy to pass, merely mechanizes that added risk.

 

[Pedantic]

Not if no one uses it, which is why I always make an exception for the percentage of people who want to "die for their art".

Right, I'm pretty firmly in the "just actually write rules for everything" camp, and I'd argue this is a pretty heavy yoke on that kind of design. You're talking on extra design work for a return that at best exists entirely in your own head, and at worst, actively makes a player have a worse time. If the outcome is a rule that is actively bad for players to engage with, the best outcome is that they don't, and the worst case is that they don't put that together and do (probably once).

The rule is either only valuable as set dressing for the GM's mental state, presents an avoidable knowledge/engagement tax on the players, or outright encourages obscurantism if the GM wants players to interact with the rule.

To take it back to the actual example, rope swinging has to present a reasonable incomparable advantage over normal movement relative to the risk of presents to be worth considering. Maybe if it's situational enough to be a forced action you'd need to resolve, and something a player could optionally build to be better at, you'd have something. Otherwise.... Why are you allowing the action at all?

It's alright to put things outside the game's scope, that's something you're going to do anyway. If you don't write rules for firearms, the PCs can't invent blackpowder, and that's fine. If you don't write rules for swashbuckling stunts, the PCs can't do them and that might also be fine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not if no one uses it, which is why I always make an exception for the percentage of people who want to "die for their art".

Well, at least you're not presenting the alternate viewpoint to your own disrespectfully.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, I'm pretty firmly in the "just actually write rules for everything" camp, and I'd argue this is a pretty heavy yoke on that kind of design. You're talking on extra design work for a return that at best exists entirely in your own head, and at worst, actively makes a player have a worse time. If the outcome is a rule that is actively bad for players to engage with, the best outcome is that they don't, and the worst case is that they don't put that together and do (probably once).

The rule is either only valuable as set dressing for the GM's mental state, presents an avoidable knowledge/engagement tax on the players, or outright encourages obscurantism if the GM wants players to interact with the rule.

To take it back to the actual example, rope swinging has to present a reasonable incomparable advantage over normal movement relative to the risk of presents to be worth considering. Maybe if it's situational enough to be a forced action you'd need to resolve, and something a player could optionally build to be better at, you'd have something. Otherwise.... Why are you allowing the action at all?

Because you're allowed to try anything, no matter how foolish or sub-optimal or impossible it might be.

Here, someone swings on a rope intead of walking. Why? Who knows. Who cares. But for whatever reason it seemed swinging on a rope was the Thing to Do in the moment, and thus if the game rules don't already cover that the DM is now left having to make a ruling of some sort.

It's alright to put things outside the game's scope, that's something you're going to do anyway. If you don't write rules for firearms, the PCs can't invent blackpowder, and that's fine. If you don't write rules for swashbuckling stunts, the PCs can't do them and that might also be fine.

Just because I don't have rules for firearms doesn't mean the PCs will never find any; instead it just means that if-when they do I'll have to come up with some rules at that point (or sooner if I see it coming). I don't have rules for laser cannons and neither does any edition of D&D that I'm aware of, and yet a group of PCs not only found one in an old campaign of mine (which I knew was coming), they got the damn thing working (very unexpected!). And so, almost on the fly I had to come up with game mechanics for D&D laser cannons.

And while I'd be fine with rules for swashbuckling stunts, that I don't really have any doesn't and shouldn't preclude a player from having a character try swashing a bit of buckle now and then; and when they do I-as-DM will have to handle it case by case in terms of difficulty, possible risk-reward, and so on.