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

[EzekielRaiden]

If the problem is that the players don't like how the DM runs the game....what's stopping someone else from DMing?

Fear. Existing workload. Wanting to be a player. Just not having fun when in the DM's seat. Plenty of reasons.

If the problem is some players are getting their way and some players aren't.....that has nothing to do with the rule of anything.

Yes, I'm aware. I was poking fun at the claim that a DM not using the rule well means the rule must be bad.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Fear. Existing workload. Wanting to be a player. Just not having fun when in the DM's seat. Plenty of reasons.

All valid reasons why someone might not want to DM. Only downside though is that it restricts the types of games a person is able to play, because they are at the mercy of the person who does step up to DM.

The biggest advantage of being a DM is that you get to have a game in exactly the way you want it to be run. Unfortunately though, you just don't get to play a PC in it.

 

[Oofta]

All valid reasons why someone might not want to DM. Only downside though is that it restricts the types of games a person is able to play, because they are at the mercy of the person who does step up to DM.

The biggest advantage of being a DM is that you get to have a game in exactly the way you want it to be run. Unfortunately though, you just don't get to play a PC in it.

So you're saying that Jacques, my DM PC that was min-maxed into superhero status at level 1 and totally dominates the game (I'm sure the other player just bow down to Jacque's awesomeness) is a bad idea. Huh.

 

[Oofta]

When I invite people to my game, I start with a quick blurb. Tell them what kind of game I run, the fact that I don't allow evil PCs, things like that. Maybe based on this thread, I'll include a blurb on the rule of cool. I also establish offline means of communication and tell people that they can always message me privately if they have any questions or concerns. I do that because some people are just going to go with the crowd or don't feel comfortable about direct confrontation.

Having a lot of flexibility on how you run your game is a strength of D&D. Not communicating effectively about expectations on both sides of the DM's screen is always going to be a potential weakness.

 

[Remathilis]

So you're saying that Jacques, my DM PC that was min-maxed into superhero status at level 1 and totally dominates the game (I'm sure the other player just bow down to Jacque's awesomeness) is a bad idea. Huh.

DM PCs are a bad idea in general.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So you're saying that Jacques, my DM PC that was min-maxed into superhero status at level 1 and totally dominates the game (I'm sure the other player just bow down to Jacque's awesomeness) is a bad idea. Huh.

No, no, Jacques is a gem! I'd never dismiss Jacques! Please don't get the wrong idea. It's all the other DM PCs that are horrific stains on humanity. But Jacques? A peach of a character. No one can beat Jacques.

 

[Maxperson]

Which is fine, once.

Except it's never just once; as having finessed the rule to work that way once you're now bound by precedent to have it work that way every time, should the same situation arise again (and in a long campaign, it's almost inevitable that it will).

Even worse is if-when you finesse a rule to account for player B's cool idea when player A did exactly the same action last session and didn't get the benefit of that same rule finesse. If I'm player A in that set-up, I'm feeling a bit ripped off.

Or, if one wants a more grounded and-or less cinematic game, one can houserule the other way. But you're right in saying that hard-coding these finesses and tweaks as houserules is the way to go.

Yes. These are my issues with the rule of cool. Based on many experiences from both sides of the fence.

1. DMs rarely get it right. They make what is being tried too easy or too hard, and/or too weak or too powerful.
2. If the DM makes it too hard and/or too weak, the players will decline to do the action and pretty much never try it again, opting to use a more effective tool that they already have.
3. If the DM makes it too easy and/or too powerful, they will repeat the action every time the same or similar situation comes up. After all, if they can do it once under the same or similar circumstances, it should be repeatable.
4. Both 2 and 3 above remove the action from being cool.

 

[Maxperson]

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. Once DMs start adding acrobatics checks or such to the mix, you create more fail points that are unnecessary. If my choice between swinging on the rope and walking are effectively the same, I choose the cool. If the choice is a Dexterity check and if I fail I fall prone and waste my movement getting up and now I can't reach my target and I've made a fool of my character? Uh, I'll just walk over and attack, thank you.

Now, I might be more willing to roll if there is an advantage to using the rope (Dex roll to avoid any opportunity attacks while you move there, fail and you provoke OAs as normal) but far too many DMs I've known have felt "looks cool" is enough of a reward to justify looks cool/mechanical penalty as the pass/fail states.

Sure, but there are a lot of people who would still try it. Why? Because they like to do cool things and the chance of failure and setback is worth the risk to them. You wouldn't do it, and neither would I, but they would. Like many things in D&D, this is a playstyle choice.

The thing is, it makes sense for there to be a decent failure rate for leaping off a second story balcony and swinging on the chandelier, only to let go at the right moment to land feet first on the BBEG and knock him to the ground. It's really cool if you pull it off, but it should have a good chance of resulting in a fall along the way.

The style isn't for everyone, but it works out very well for those who enjoy it.

 

[Maxperson]

swinging on the rope has benefits too. You ignore caltrops grease difficult terrain some obstacles & so on before getting into possible scenario specific things like AoOs surprise or whatever. I can probably count on one hand & still have a fist if I were to count how often I've seen a player want to do something like swing 30ft on a rope without having some expectation of mechanical benefit or increased power as a result of the swinging

"You fool! The caltrops were just an illusion. It was the rope I left hanging there that you just grabbed that was greased in order to lull you into just this sort of compromising situation. Muahaha! Muahaha! Muahahahahahahaha!" ~ Larry, M.D., Ph.D., B.B.E.G.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the rules aren't there to represent the in-setting physics then they serve no purpose.

Many games have rules designed to represent genre conventions. Those conventions are often not "real" in a certain sense (in that they are supposed to occur in POV far more frequently than is supposed to represent the overall reality of the setting) and are explicitly not acknowledged by the characters in the setting (barring reified versions, which usually because of that look nothing like the normal versions).

This sort of high genre imposition may not suit you, but it serves some extremely specific purposes for people who use it.