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

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, it's why 5E's 'rulings over rules' philosophy has made it so successful.

Correlation does not equal causality.

 

[Oofta]

Correlation does not equal causality.

But game philosophy does influence people's enjoyment of the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't strike me as that particularly unlikely in the case of groups with a strong moral slant or those with strong camaraderie. "No man left behind" is motto in the real world for some groups after all.

Sure, it could go that way. But heroism is risky, and I'm not interested in compromising logic to minimize that risk. You rolls your dice and you takes your chances.

 

[Maxperson]

But the point is that we do have a resolution process. The PC can't jump that far automatically so the DM decides if it's possible. If it's uncertain but possible they set a DC.

I agree that some guidelines would be nice, taking jump as an example of how to set them. Problem is that we can't have specifics for every possible option. They tried giving us concrete numbers in 3E, but it never really helped all that much. We'll have to wait and see what they do in the 2024 DMG.

To me that's an incomplete process. The process would be to inform us of what the various DCs mean with regard to how far. I also don't agree that giving more complete jump information would necessitate other types of information be given. Jumping farther via athletics is a bit of an outlier with it's need for precision.

 

[Lanefan]

I might be alone, but I'd rather have no guidance than have everything prescribed. And this discussion seems to be people proposing the latter.

On the prior page, people promote that a DM having to make up a DC isn't a granular enough resolution system.

If the in-game situaton where the DM has to dream up a DC only happens once, it's probably fine. The problem comes when the same situation arises again (e.g. jumping a chasm is likely to come up repeatedly over time) and the DM can't remember what rationale(s) went into deciding the DC the first time. And so, you end up with inconsistent rulings.

To counter this, the DM (ideally) makes notes on how that DC was determined, which then become part of the behind-the-scenes houserule canon for that campaign. Repeat this process often enough and a DM can't be blamed for wondering why the published rules didn't cover a bit more of this stuff.

I think there is an upper limit on the amount you can hem in a DM with "guidance" and rules before you take the game out of the game. And I think once we are seriously discussing rules that prescribe every outcome or DMs needing to abide by the results of random tables, we have crossed that line.

I wonder what happens to the number of DMs as their role transforms into one of memorization. I don't remember liking memorization when I was in school, so I am not optimistic.

I don't like memorizatoin either, but I do like - and insist on - consistency. Therefore, the answer is to make notes on how I rule something now such that when the same thing comes up again I already know how to handle it.

 

[Lanefan]

This assumes that most of the meaningful things in the game to do are near town. I know there are town based adventures, but in fantasy games, I've seen fairly few campaigns where that wouldn't add up to "So when are you going to play some characters who actually want to do something?" Sometimes the simple fact is that the majority of adventuring things to do require you to go out into terrain where retreating isn't liable to be a practical option.

And that's fair.

That said, if I'm playing a character knowingly going in to such terrain I'm going to do my best to make sure either I or someone else has a "getaway car"* such that if-when things really do go sideways at least one of us can get out and from there (maybe) do what's necessary to revive the rest of us.

* - examples: scroll or device of teleport or other fast long-range travel; devices of both invisibility and flight; abilities and-or devices that allow one to reliably hide and-or sneak; ability or device that allows one to shapeshift into a bird or bat or similar; etc.

 

[Older Beholder]

I've used 'Rule of Cool' in conjunction with Inspiration Points, letting the players spend a point if they want to do something outside the game rules. It worked pretty well.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I don't like memorizatoin either, but I do like - and insist on - consistency. Therefore, the answer is to make notes on how I rule something now such that when the same thing comes up again I already know how to handle it.

My post was simply an objection to over codification of a system. You, and anyone else, can do as you please at your table to "fix" the issues you find within whatever system you choose to play. Codifying it is a big step from that.

Some examples from my personal 5e games. I have my players roll initiative at the start of the session, and we use that order all session. This absolutely should not be codified. But I feel strongly that it speeds up combat in a major way. The ability to duck in and out of combat seamlessly is really nice.

I award exhaustion when you go from 0 hp to 1 hp. I only allow the regaining of either hit points or hit die on long rest - not both. I do away with stunned and paralyzed for MCDM's dazed. I adjust DCs depending on if they player puts effort into the description of the action. I give inspiration when a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack or save.

I don't ever use a random table, because I feel that my judgement is better then just random dice. I don't have my players roll unless the consequences of failure are meaningful. I won't even enter combat unless there is a chance at defeat, the players can just describe their actions. I never ask for rolls, unless the players prompt one.

None of this should be codified because it's specific to the type of game I run, and to the preferences I have. So it always strikes me as odd when people want large changes to the system based on, at best, personal preference. Especially, when the system is 5e, as it is so malleable already. You can literally rip out the skills and the game still functions fine.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But game philosophy does influence people's enjoyment of the game.

Which has nothing to do with what the poster I responded to said. He assigned the success of 5e to a particular trait, and there is no reason to believe that's a major factor in it. I'd buy claims that Advantage/Disadvantage was the major reason as easy as that, and I pretty much hate that mechanic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, it could go that way. But heroism is risky, and I'm not interested in compromising logic to minimize that risk. You rolls your dice and you takes your chances.

That's fine, I'm just noting "they can run away" is often, in practice, anything but true for a number of reasons.