Should cool be a mechanic?

[howandwhy99]

But why? SUre mechanically its covered in a feat or stunt or something, but is it against hte rules to describe your attack in a cool way. Kratos only does something cool when he's killing a character. What is stopping a really cool description of a character being killed without any mechanical justification.

I'd say most now believe it is against the rules, yes. If your PC is described as performing an action only possible when incorporated with another mechanic, your breaking the RAW. If you can remember what effects are not covered by rules, go ahead and use those for descripton. However, the DM might correct you regardless.

IMO, this is a system failure. Description now has zero effect on the game unless it is tied to a mechanic. Many people prefer this style of game, where 1000's of rules (feats, etc.) are offered and you pick the ones you like. I prefer the older D&D editions where description actually influenced the game, even if the player only rolled a single d20.

It's all personal preference. In our OD&D game, description dictates reality in a nearly unlimited number of possible ways.

 

[hong]

Without any concrete in-game reason for florid descriptive text, after a while it stops being cool and starts sounding like you just want to hear yourself talk.

 

[Nathan P. Mahney]

3e becomes much better when you let characters do standard Feats without the actual Feats - they're just worse at them. So you can let a character Cleave without Cleave, except he gives up part of his next turn. He can Power Attack, but he only only gets half the bonus (though it's at least +1), and loses some AC until next turn. You can let non-rogue characters sneak attack for +1d4. It makes for a much more fun game.

One thing we had back in our 2e days was the Bull-Sh*t Chance. If at any point a player shouted "BULL-SH*T CHANCE!" and then stated what would happen, there was a flat 10% chance for it to happen. For example, a player hit an orc on the head with a sling bullet, cried "Bull-Sh*t Chance!" and said that the bullet ricochets off the orc's head into the one standing beside it. It was a lot of fun, and the players never abused it or used it in really critical situations.

 

[DonTadow]

I'd say most now believe it is against the rules, yes. If your PC is described as performing an action only possible when incorporated with another mechanic, your breaking the RAW. If you can remember what effects are not covered by rules, go ahead and use those for descripton. However, the DM might correct you regardless.

IMO, this is a system failure. Description now has zero effect on the game unless it is tied to a mechanic. Many people prefer this style of game, where 1000's of rules (feats, etc.) are offered and you pick the ones you like. I prefer the older D&D editions where description actually influenced the game, even if the player only rolled a single d20.

It's all personal preference. In our OD&D game, description dictates reality in a nearly unlimited number of possible ways.

The thing that got me into DUngeons and Dragons was hearing a coworker talk about how his ranger was standing on this tower with a bunch of gargoyles behind him. He jumps from the tower, throws a grappling hook and starts picking off the gargoyles as they flew at him and he swung. I just thought this was so cool to play that I had to do it.

It does sound like a system failure if what you're saying is true about it being against the rules. If so it is a rule I have obviously disregarded. Two things I hate at the gaming table is interputing and reading during your initiative.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

How I do cool...

I play Exalted.

 

[Herzog]

If a 'cool' action has more effect than a 'normal' action, it should also be more difficult.
That's game balance.

However, if you choose to describe a 'cool' action, without actually requiring anything outside the normal rules, the only thing that can stop you is misinterpretation.

If, somehow, you include a game mechanic in your description, it is reasonable to assume other players will think you are performing that game mechanic.

This means you have to:
-avoid 'jump' when you aren't jumping
-avoid 'climb' when you aren't climbing
-etc.

or:
-Try to figure out how to avoid the confusion in your gaming group.

I have a bard that regularly sings and plays instruments on request. As long as I don't spend Bardic Music / day, nothing game influencing happens...

Herzog

 

[Draxo]

Eh.. when i'm running i narrate my combats to make the players skills special. AT low levels they tend to just 'cut' or 'chop' or whatever (though narrated better than that), unless they crit then i narrate something better. If the blow takes off more hit points, then i'll narrate it as worse.

'The ogre hefts its large club and brings it down upon you.. you jump back, but the tip of the club grazes down your front, leaving you winded and nearly driving you to your knees! It grins menacingly down at you..' ~The Battlemage just got hit for 16 out of forty hit points by an ogre in the last game i run.

Was it a 'knockdown' attack? No. it was just a normal attack combat.

If they kill they 'lance their sword through the enemies chest!' or something similar. If they just roll a 20 its something like 'you swing your sword, an exellent blow! The enemy just manages to duck and avoid it, your sword slashing and opening a cut along his temple..!' *shrugs*

At higher levels.. the monk can roundhouse kick, chop, whatever.. it doesnt make any difference. Those are their unarmed strikes, they can narrate them as they want. I dont care if they say they're swinging at the enemies head.. it just does damage. I sometimes narrate it myself when i run to that effect.

My reason is. I used to play Marvel Superheroes with another DM. We used to describe our attacks as heroic.. and he kept putting nasty penalties on our rolls saying 'oh you're tryingt o do this this or that! knockdown, stun, bullrush! Thats what would happen!'. We argued 'no, we're just hitting them! We dont want any special effects.. we're just trying to make our combats sound better then 'you hit him' 'he hits you' you hit him' *snore*' Anyway.. he didnt relent.

Our combats just went on as 'ok.. i hit him..'

'he hits you..'

'you hit him...'

he didnt get the hint. Unsuprisingly we got bored and the game didnt continue next session.

Let your players spice up their game, dont care about wether its would 'mechanicall stun him!' or 'mechanically that shoulder barge is a bull rush!' ask the player if they're trying to bull rush or just attack or whatever, if they just want to describe a heroic attack and not 'i hit him' and not wanting some bullrush, just let them describe it that way. Dont become another 'you hit him' DM. =/

 

[howandwhy99]

The thing that got me into DUngeons and Dragons was hearing a coworker talk about how his ranger was standing on this tower with a bunch of gargoyles behind him. He jumps from the tower, throws a grappling hook and starts picking off the gargoyles as they flew at him and he swung. I just thought this was so cool to play that I had to do it.

It does sound like a system failure if what you're saying is true about it being against the rules. If so it is a rule I have obviously disregarded. Two things I hate at the gaming table is interputing and reading during your initiative.

Well, I should step back from "system failure". Use the rules that offer the game you want. The old one minute round wasn't an exact science, so the scenario you described could easily fit into the rules: 1 attack per round, maybe a dex check for swing to a specific area, etc. The catch is, your PC is no better at it than any other of his level.

Back when D&D came out there were many systems that gave players vastly more descriptive mechanics. Remember all the AC & HPs by bodypart rules? And the dueling mechanics where stance, attack form, and dodging choices were made round by round by both attackers and defenders? Lots of people really want hardwired mechanics in their games. I'd guess they feel, if it doesn't offer a mechanical advantage, it isn't worth doing. D&D never originally offered that. It was just roll a d20, the DM modifies by difficulty. But it did allow for roleplaying advantages. Which for me are more expansive than any comprehensive rules system could be.

You can try this in 3.5 too, but it's difficult. The fighter class stands to lose the most whenever you allow "combat feats for free".

 

[Pbartender]

The thing that got me into DUngeons and Dragons was hearing a coworker talk about how his ranger was standing on this tower with a bunch of gargoyles behind him. He jumps from the tower, throws a grappling hook and starts picking off the gargoyles as they flew at him and he swung. I just thought this was so cool to play that I had to do it.

I'm surprised Hong hasn't mentioned it yet...

You should try playing Iron Heroes. It sounds more like your style.

 

[DJCupboard]

If you want your cool to do more, take the skills and feats that support the actions. If you want your cool to sound neat, just start describing your actions. The Monk's flurry is a whilrwind of jabs and kicks as he circles his opponent. If you want the Monks whirlwind of strikes to confuse his opponent to the point that he can no longer react, expend a stunning fist attempt.

Mechanically, Iron Heroes has more cool options (not that D&D straight doesn't have enough), but for cool flavor, there is no such thing as a game that can't accomodate it. For example, playing hopscotch you don't jump on one foot from 1 to 2, you bound from square to square, masterfully executing your flying leap, landing just in time to attempt another leap onto the perrilous 3rd square on your mission to reach 10.