Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9384864" data-attributes="member: 6799660">emphasis added.I think the bolded clause is the fundamental issue here. In the specific situation where the DM automatically goes along with any suggestion the players make that sound epic, then rule of cool will outperform other methods of achieving success. However, that's true of any situation where the DM won't say no -- be that rule of cool or giving the players all the magic items they want or using any busted 3pp  character options the players want to use or just plain refusing to pull the trigger on killing a PC/party when the situation ends up with that as the outcome. It isn't specific to Rule of Cool, and is only applicable to Rule of Cool if and when the DM doesn't say no.I think that's the fundamental issue. Is 'rule of cool' universally 'always say yes?' If it is, is it 'always say yes (with no reasonable qualifiers, checks, failure chances, or requirements-- just whatever the player suggests, no further thought or discussion)?' I ask because, if it is, it seems to overlap perfectly with '(player) authorial fiat', and 1) then I'm not sure why we have two phrases for the same thing, and 2) I haven't run into any tables where this happens. Even games with specific mechanics for players authoring gameplay event outcomes tend to have mechanical gates like Fate Point/Stress Point cost and limits and the like. I think this is going to depend on the group. For me, "cool" is in the name specifically because it's the kind of thing (not otherwise covered in the rules) that people want to try in the first place.Honestly, I think everything else is going to spool off of that 'depending on group' clause. Some groups are going to have people suggest wacky shenanigans (in place of actual reasonable strategy) and expect to succeed; other groups people are going to suggest wacky shenanigans because it's perfectly emergent from the situation, do so because it would be enjoyable to try, and expect not automatic success but instead simply a reasonable hearing out of why the attempt should be allowed (despite no rules to cover it). Exactly how frequent each scenario is is undoubtedly unknown to everyone here; and I suspect how frequent each of us thinks really happens hinges mostly on our optimism/pessimism on how frequently we believe hypothetical other gamers are trying to get away with something, as it were.It's cliche because it's a common (type) of disjunct. swinging on the chandelier and maybe knocking over a small group of low-threat enemy henchmen is a common fiction trope in the genre media lots of people come to gaming with. It's not something covered in a lot of game rules. Firstly for the complexity and massive number of potential disparate possible actions (and are we going to have a rule for each of these iconic situations?). Secondly because a lot of games were developed with a level of quasi-realism (lower-case sim) for non-magical activity which registers below even swashbuckling and cliffhanger genre fiction.There is some DM advise which can read this way. Other than that, I'm not sure how 5e really does this. Mind you, the default rules are dialed towards the far 'easy-mode' end of the spectrum, and sometimes it's hard to maintain verisimilitude while keeping the party from performing another resource-refresh (doom clocks for every adventure, etc.). However, beyond a default to easy, I don't see exactly what makes victory (or even success) inevitable. PCs can still hit dead ends, run out of options, piss off the wrong people (who can pursue them and not let them recover), or take on challenges they shouldn't have attempted.This just plain isn't something anyone has been advocating, stating, or promoting.</blockquote>

Verification