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

deadman1204 said:

I've been seeing alot of instances of "The rule of cool" in games, and while it seems neat at first, I've started to think its actually bad for the players and the game. It lets any one player do practically anything they want, cheating the other players who may have actual abilities and tools to solve the problem.

A recent example in a game I was in was one player spent several rounds being up high on pillars and stuff and jumped onto the back of a dragon the bbeg was riding. Another player who had the mcguffin to kill the bbeg wanted up, but didn't wanna spend time moving around. So they used a 5ft stick to somehow polevault up 30 feet (with zero lateral movement) into the bbeg's face.
That sure was neat for the player who suddenly developed divine levels of pole vaulting skills, but sure wasn't that great for the player who spent time up above, and all the rest of the party who might've also had ways to solve the problem.

With "the rule of cool", you never have to run away or play the right class or do the right thing. Just make up a epic sounding thing and the dm will go along with it. While they make an encounter fun for that player, these actions strip everyone else of both agency and utility. Why spend time on special class abilities or items when someone else can suddenly be 10x better than you because the idea "sounds cool". Effectievely the bar for winning gets so low that victory starts to lose meaning with "the rule of cool". You never have to run away or regroup because you can suddenly to epic anime crap to overcome any problem. How is winning fun if you cannot actually lose?

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

I don't think the "rule of cool" is about never failing. It is about not letting poorly thought out simulation rules get in the way of the action.

The rule of cool is dependent on the genre, theme and mood. What it allows the GM to do is say "yes" to player intent, even if the rules are fuzzy or outright contradict something they should support for that genre, theme and mood. Jumping onto the back of a dragon without having to engage in a series of skill tests is an appropriate use of the rule of cool in same campaigns, and not in others.

As is usual, the players and Gm should have a conversation about expectations and how the rule of cool may or may not be implemented.

Click to expand...

Reynard said:

I don't think the "rule of cool" is about never failing. It is about not letting poorly thought out simulation rules get in the way of the action.

The rule of cool is dependent on the genre, theme and mood. What it allows the GM to do is say "yes" to player intent, even if the rules are fuzzy or outright contradict something they should support for that genre, theme and mood. Jumping onto the back of a dragon without having to engage in a series of skill tests is an appropriate use of the rule of cool in same campaigns, and not in others.

As is usual, the players and Gm should have a conversation about expectations and how the rule of cool may or may not be implemented.

Click to expand...

grimmgoose said:

Something I've talked about my group is, "the rule of cool is for the story, not just the players."

Meaning, "rule of cool" doesn't just mean, "hey look this is the way I can bend the rules so my character can do something great or OP or whatever." It can also mean, "oh, that fireball spell definitely set the house on fire, and now the house is going to burn down in 1d4 rounds!"

If we all agree that it's going to be cool for the story as whole, we roll with it. But it can't just be, "let me bend the rules so I can get my way."

Click to expand...

Micah Sweet said:

If the simulation rules are incomplete or faulty, make better rules. Convince me that what you want to do could be done under the perimeters of ability and verisimilitude, and we'll set a rules precedent together.

Click to expand...

deadman1204 said:

Just because its hard or the players don't have an immediate single action answer to the situation doesn't mean its "poorly thought out". Maybe its hard cause they didnt scout? Maybe they need to run away and get other resources/people to help them.
In the VAST majority of cases the thing isn't impossible, its simply not convinent and easy for the party at that moment. Refusal to scout and get intelligence can be obviated by saying the encounter is "poorly thought out", because blundering into it is hard. Same with running away and trying again. The number of parties totally unwilling to run away is sadly pretty high, because "run away" means "not winning".

Click to expand...