Should cool be a mechanic?

[DonTadow]

I didn't want the god of war thread to get off on a tangent.

In that thread a poster asks how he can do the things and moves in god of war. This seemed simple to me as I have done those things my entire Dungeons and Dragons gaming life. It seems like just really cool descriptions of your actions. I've noticed that alot on the boards, whenever someone asks can A. be done, there are 30 to 60 posts of references that do not help the player do the thing they want to do anymore, but additional mechanics to give pluses here and bonuses there.

Can you do cool things without mechanical upgrades? Is it some kind of taboo?

 

[howandwhy99]

All actions require mechanical justification now. It's tempting to be descriptive when it comes to cool fight actions, but all too regularly those same actions are covered by a prerequisite feat , skill, or stunt.

 

[Umbran]

Can you do cool things without mechanical upgrades? Is it some kind of taboo?

That depends on whether the cool leads to a mechanical bonus or not. A thing is not cool if it is not effective - so if you action isn't effective it isn't cool. Frequently, a thing is not cool if it isn't more effective than a similar uncool action. Then, you need a mechanic for coolness.

For example, a monk can do an unarmed strike. Or, he could to a roundhouse kick to the head. The latter is more cool - if the player expect to also disorient the target, there's got to be some mechanic back there. In D&D, I'm not going to hand out extra effectiveness to some players just because they happen to be better at description of what they do. In Feng Shui, perhaps, or Paranoia, but not D&D.

 

[Emirikol]

I'd stick with current mechanics

I'd stick with current game mechanics and use things like diplomacy, intimidate, bluff and charisma.

Here's how you do your "cool"
TOTAL of any 3 charisma based skills:
TOTAL....COOL
-9 to 0....Uncool
1-6.........Cool
7-10.......Really Cool
11+........The FonZ


jh

 

[cmrscorpio]

The way I see it, the "Cool Mechanic" is partially what Action Points represent. They give you a little extra omph when you need help in pulling off something that should ordinarily be just a little beyond your character's abilities. As a DM, I put a bit extra emphasis on the descriptions of actions that succeed when Action Points are used.

 

[Edheldur]

Another easily portable "cool mechanics" are, IMO, the stunts and challenge rules from Iron Heroes. For stunts, it's basically make a check and gain a bonus; and for challenges is get a penalty and get a bonus.

Another system is the maneuvers from the Book of Iron Might, but it isn's as simple as the challenges rules.

 

[Imaro]

That depends on whether the cool leads to a mechanical bonus or not. A thing is not cool if it is not effective - so if you action isn't effective it isn't cool. Frequently, a thing is not cool if it isn't more effective than a similar uncool action. Then, you need a mechanic for coolness.

I think Umbran nails it right here. If I describe something cool and in order to do it there's a greater chance for me to fail at it( or worse) than just doing a straight attack. Guess what...I'm going to do the straight attack. Because it sure ain't cool to try to disarm someone and end up disarmed yourself, that's what I'd call looking silly, not cool.

The funny thing is a while back I posted a thread similar to this and the GoW thread about the combat maneuvers in D&D, and how I felt they weren't really practical to try in all but the most specific circumstances( a build that optimizes them, terrain that makes them advantageous, etc.) Well , I still believe that, but recognize that it is inherent in D&D's design. The game is built so that deciding when to use these maneuvers(with their disadvantages), etc. is part of the challenge and fun of a highly tactical game.

I believe a game's design philosophy affects this alot...Some games want to emulate wuxia, anime, or GoW type videogames(style over any sembelance of realism) and their mechanics facilitate this.

Other games are based around tactics, resource manageent, planning, etc(simulating at least a modicum of balance and realism is a design goal for these games). I don't believe either one is superior to the other, but for me they do scratch different itches and I find it a hassle to try to force one to do the other.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Cool should only be a mechanic in Ghostbuster games.

 

[Klaus]

That depends on whether the cool leads to a mechanical bonus or not. A thing is not cool if it is not effective - so if you action isn't effective it isn't cool. Frequently, a thing is not cool if it isn't more effective than a similar uncool action. Then, you need a mechanic for coolness.

For example, a monk can do an unarmed strike. Or, he could to a roundhouse kick to the head. The latter is more cool - if the player expect to also disorient the target, there's got to be some mechanic back there. In D&D, I'm not going to hand out extra effectiveness to some players just because they happen to be better at description of what they do. In Feng Shui, perhaps, or Paranoia, but not D&D.

For me, when the monk rolls enough to hit the opponent and deals average damage, it was a run-of-the-mill attack. But when the same monk scores a critical hit and deals enough damage to bring the opponent to -10 hp, he performed a roundhouse cartwheel backflipping kick that made the opponent's head fly 40 feet back while the body shivered a while before collapsing to the ground.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Give out "cool points", 3 per level, to be spent on "enhanced coolness maneuvers".

This mechanic will debut in the Complete Uber Coolness supplement.