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

[Oofta]

They’re taking their bad experience and using it to justify a larger argument.

No, they're taking an actual situation and explaining why they think it's a bad thing.

Did you complain?

It was a gaming con, so no. It was his style of DMing. I won't ever sign up for another game he runs. If I had understood what kind of game he ran I wouldn't have signed up in the first place.

I'm not going to be that rules lawyer guy when it was obvious that it wasn't just a simple mistake, it was simply his style of running the game.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would argue that if a DM is invoking “rule of cool” every session, they’re either missing or ignoring a key part of the rules in service of something else, which could span from they don’t like the system to they’re too tired to bother.

I think that's part of the difference though. It often gets invoked by the players now to wield its mantle of goodwill it earned when crunch was present while pressuring the GM to bypass the remaining rule of a roll for something because the GM often doesn't have any other rules to consult

 

[Thomas Shey]

And yet Apocalypse World does.

That's largely because you're using probably both of "rules" and "everything" differently here than I expect that poster would.

 

[TiQuinn]

No, they're taking an actual situation and explaining why they think it's a bad thing.

Can’t agree with that interpretation.

 

[Oofta]

Can’t agree with that interpretation.

What interpretation? That they had a DM allow someone to jump 30 feet in the air? That to them, it's an example of what some people call the rule of cool being a bad thing for the game?

You may allow people to ignore the rules in your game in this case, that's your prerogative. But I struggle to understand why you're refusing to accept that this instance rubbed the OP the wrong way and such things can be bad for the game. Unless of course everyone at the table agrees with the style, which is obviously not the case.

 

[TiQuinn]

What interpretation?

As I said, they described a bad experience - a bad call by maybe a bad or inexperienced DM, and now want to use that as the basis for an entire argument about rule of cool. That’s my viewpoint. You disagreed and said:

No, they're taking an actual situation and explaining why they think it's a bad thing.

One person’s bad game is just one person’s bad game. I call it a strawman because they’re taking one person’s bad call and using it to attack every instance of the “rule of cool.”

Sorry but I don’t agree.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, tell us what you really think!

Again, it is a spectrum. You're right that you're not going to reach pure rules as physics, but making your goal to lean that way whenever possible and practical is a perfectly viable playstyle, so the idea that doing so will necessarily lead to deleterious effects in your game (essentially saying the philosophy itself is hopelessly flawed) is ridiculous and borderline insulting to anyone who prefers it. These sort of opinions, while perfectly fine to express, IMO need to be very clear about their lack of objectivity.

It's a harsh truth, but I genuinely do believe it is the truth. "A rule for everything and everything has its rule" is genuinely harmful to a D&D game, but that's the only way to achieve what "rules as physics" wants to have. You need laundry lists for everything: weather conditions, attitudes, times of day, surface textures, material strength, value of goods, etc., etc., etc. If an action has no predefined approach, it is necessarily not possible unless the DM decides to be gracious and invent one for you on the spot. Yet doing so is incredibly laborious because it's very difficult to insert such a thing into such a complicated structure without breaking something, whether that be the system or the action (by which I mean making players slowly avoid creative play because it's rarely worth doing, as the DM fails to make it appropriately challenging and/or appropriately rewarding for that challenge level).

With the kind of game D&D is, and the kinds of pre-established commitments D&D has, rules-as-physics is an ideal that enforces serious problems. E.g. caster supremacy, the swinginess of dice, the "auteur" DM, etc. If you could eliminate those pre-existing commitments, it would be fine. But you can't, not without making too many players reject the result as "not D&D." 4e has far, far fewer changes to D&D's pre-existing commitments, and look at how that worked out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a harsh truth, but I genuinely do believe it is the truth. "A rule for everything and everything has its rule" is genuinely harmful to a D&D game, but that's the only way to achieve what "rules as physics" wants to have. You need laundry lists for everything: weather conditions, attitudes, times of day, surface textures, material strength, value of goods, etc., etc., etc. If an action has no predefined approach, it is necessarily not possible unless the DM decides to be gracious and invent one for you on the spot. Yet doing so is incredibly laborious because it's very difficult to insert such a thing into such a complicated structure without breaking something, whether that be the system or the action (by which I mean making players slowly avoid creative play because it's rarely worth doing, as the DM fails to make it appropriately challenging and/or appropriately rewarding for that challenge level).

With the kind of game D&D is, and the kinds of pre-established commitments D&D has, rules-as-physics is an ideal that enforces serious problems. E.g. caster supremacy, the swinginess of dice, the "auteur" DM, etc. If you could eliminate those pre-existing commitments, it would be fine. But you can't, not without making too many players reject the result as "not D&D." 4e has far, far fewer changes to D&D's pre-existing commitments, and look at how that worked out.

I do believe you, I just don't agree. Yes, it can take a good deal of work, but that doesn't mean it is inherently harmful, nor does it mean that the work can't be rewarding. All it means is that you don't like it and think it is harmful, presumably to the kind of game in which you'd prefer to participate. I know you're a 4e fan, do I wouldn't expect otherwise (and I've said many times that I respect 4e even if I don't like it). Good for you. It doesn't make anything you believe true for anyone besides yourself.

 

[Oofta]

As I said, they described a bad experience - a bad call by maybe a bad or inexperienced DM, and now want to use that as the basis for an entire argument about rule of cool. That’s my viewpoint. You disagreed and said:

The DM I had at the con was an experienced, professional DM. They leaned into what they termed the rule of cool just as much as the OP's DM. In many ways he was a fantastic DM, he just wasn't the right DM for me. So is his definition of the rule of cool also incorrect? Who gets to decide?

One person’s bad game is just one person’s bad game. I call it a strawman because they’re taking one person’s bad call and using it to attack every instance of the “rule of cool.”

Which is why I keep harping on the fact that we have no definition of what the rule of cool means and how it's misleading and annoying to lump everything together. There's a massive difference between allowing improvised actions not explicitly covered by the rules to ignore the rules of the game completely and let the player do what they want if it is fun for the player.

Sorry but I don’t agree.

The rule of cool has such broad definitions. So if the OP's experience and my experience are not rule of cool (even though the DM I had would disagree with you) what are they? Because the style isn't inherently bad, it's just that our experiences went too far on the spectrum of "follow the rules" to "always say yes" for us. We are arguing about different things, you seem to want the rule of cool to mean any and all improvised actions, the way I've seen people use the rule of cool goes far beyond that.

 

[pemerton]

Well, that is why players in classic and traditional games get to affect the world through the choices made by their PCs.

Also, Apocalypse World is a very different game than non-4e D&D.

Obviously there are different approaches to TTRPGs. But who decides what is just a different approach; the group should discuss edge cases if they cause an issue.

If a more narrative(?) approach works better for you, don't play D&D or make house rules to implement a different style. It still comes back to someone makes a call and you roll dice.

I don't quite understand the point of these posts. Upthread, someone posted that you can’t reasonably have rules for everything. I pointed out a counter-example. (There are others, too, but I pointed out a fairly well-known one.)

Are you two disagreeing with my counter-example? Or do you agree that it is a counter-example, but want a different one that will suit your approach to RPGs?