The rule of cool: I don't give a crap about internal consistency Okay just this once, sure why not: I can't be bothered to actually know the rules and I am sure that players will never ever reference this one instance when they ask for something impossible next time.

If you put internal consistency above fun then what's the point?

Just because it would be cool doesn't imply that it would be fun (for everyone involved)?

And just because it isn't consistent doesn't mean it isn't fun for everyone either. The point of playing games is to have fun, the rest is secondary. This includes rules.

And the rules allows interesting situations and fun to emerge. sv_cheats 1 may be fun for one but not others.

Because some people enjoy playing a game with fair and consistent rules, and find playing calvinball to be frustrating bullshit that is very often obviously biased towards certain kinds of actions, decisions, player builds, even just outright biased toward specific players.

Calvinball! is that a C&H reference? ive never seen the comic but i feel like i instantly get the joke

Yes. Calvinball is a convoluted game where Calvin constantly and arbitrarily introduces new rules and addendums and exceptions to existing rules, on the spot, whenever something he doesn't like happens, so that the outcome will always bend toward what he wants it to be, ie, him winning. The strip is basically a storyboarded out version of the concept of 'moving the goalposts'.

In my eyes, the Rule of Cool is best used as the opposite of the Air Bud Clause. (For those who don't know; the "Air Bud Clause" refers to a rule in basketball that basically says "it's not allowed just because there's no rule against it".) TTRPGs are imperfect systems, and you are going to run into a scenario that isn't covered in the rules. Rule of Cool is best used here, rather than to bypass rules that *do* exist. But also; some systems can be really crunchy, and a lot of the time it can be more fun for everyone involved if you just say "you know what, that's cool, let's do it" than to pause for five minutes to leaf through some rulebook (because seriously; you can't always know the entire rulebook by heart) trying to determine if and why they can't. Of course, doing this too much is dangerous. Hence "in moderation".

Yeah, no. Giving players carte blanche to warp the world *whenever the GM feels like it* is lame. If it's part of the system, great. If not, you're playing favourites. I'd prefer using the system to involve players in the narrative. Stuff I've done: * When creating ambushes, the players draw the battlemap. * In Cyberpunk RED, a Rockerboy can use their influence to convince followers to do stuff. I ask my Rockerboy to describe their followers. * I ask my players to create locations and NPCs that aren't part of my planned sessions (or integral to the current arc). * I use player backstories and interactions with NPCs to create or add story arcs. * I've ported flashbacks from Blades in the Dark into other systems. Bending the rules when it doesn't change the world is fine. A constant stream of "meh, why not? Fine by me." seems kind of lame.

This is a reasonable take. Yep, there are instances where rules lawyering way too hard can be detrimental in a situation where the rules... just fundamentally do not well handle a rather niche situation. And likewise there are situations where disregarding the rules too often, in too many scenarios... well it can just destroy the entire point of playing a 'game', feels unfair, you might as well just be doing a collaborative creative writing session at that point. ... If you find yourself frequently running into the first situation, perhaps come up with some modified homebrew rules, made clear to all players before hand, or switch over to a different game, a different ruleset that is better tuned to your players/playstyle. If you find yourself frequently in the second situation, find a new DM/GM, or stop being a DM/GM, and just be a creative writer... or just make your own entirely new ruleset/game. If either of these situations only occur rarely, you're probably doing a good job of being a DM with the given ruleset and given players.

Ima be real, seems more like you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. A lot of you GMs do this. You seem to think rule of cool is perpetual and nonstop, that the rules are always ignored for everything. "A constant stream..." The problem isn't the rule of cool. It's you for thinking this is bigger than it is and then being upset by it. I'd suggest not making the most extreme example you can think of the default for things you don't understand.

As the title says, moderation is key. If the game is just "whatever is the most convincing right now" then I'm going to be annoyed that I sat down to play D&D/fate/gurps/whatever, and we're mostly playing improv. It's important to set expectations in or before session 0. If I was looking to join a game, and the GM was like "We're all about the rule of cool", I'd probably ask for some examples. If it's like "we let the [D&D 5e] wizard cast as many spell as he wants" then I'm not joining, because that's going to fuck up the game balance. On the other hand if it's like "we don't really care about carry weight unless it's extreme", that's fine. Stuff in the middle, like "one time we let them use create water in the bad guy's lungs to drown him!" can go either way, but I'm usually not a fan. Mostly if I ask myself "if this works, why doesn't the whole setting revolve around it?" and don't have a good answer, I won't enjoy it. Like, if everyone could do lethal damage with a cantrip, or if the "peasant railgun" worked like the joke, or "we let the real life chemical engineer make napalm and mustard gas as a 1st level rogue for massive damage", then that probably isn't for me.

ITT: a lot of DMs who don't realize you can be consistent and adhere to rules and *also* have a splash or two of cool dm thrown in.

For fuckin' real. Evidently 'In moderation, of course' isn't an 'of course' after all.

Those are reasonable points, but I'd prefer not to be told what I think ("You seem to think rule of cool is perpetual and nonstop"), how I feel ("you ... being upset by it"), or understand ("things you don't understand"). It's possible to have a fun discussion about a hobby we share without being unpleasant, so I'm going to assume you just want a friendly chat, and respond as if that comment was respectful. The original meme tied the rule of cool to being a good GM. I don't think that's sensible. There are lots of ways for everyone at the table to have fun contributing to the story - one of them is the rule of cool. But there are *many* other ways for players to contribute, I enjoy using them as a player and a GM, so I listed some. They can be used in lots of scenarios where the rule of cool isn't applicable, and they contribute to fun.

> but I’d prefer not to be told what I think I am merely going off of what you said. > A constant stream of “meh, why not? Fine by me.” seems kind of lame / Giving players carte blanche to warp the world whenever the GM feels like it is lame. > The original meme tied the rule of cool to being a good GM. I don’t think that’s sensible. And I think it's not sensible to follow the rules ad infinitum and never bend them at all. The bending of those rules is 'the rule of cool'. > But there are many other ways for players to contribute, I enjoy using them as a player and a GM, so I listed some. Which is great and all but they're not compatible. The rule of cool is something *in the moment* and you are talking about things that are pre-written and pre-planned. You said that it only works if it's "part of the system" but the entire point of the rule of cool is that it *isn't built into a system.* There are no mechanics or limitations for it which is how it can go terribly wrong. But like the title said, in moderation. If you're openly denying your players to do something cool when there is no downside to it... then that's just going a shitty experience for the vast majority of players. Best example I can think of is of a friend playing a game where the party was descending down a long pipe. It was low enough that you couldn't stand up tall but tall enough that you had to crouch to an extent. Most people slid down on their ass. My friend asked if he could slide down on his shield and the DM said no. There was no reason for saying no other than to stick to an incredibly strict set of rules that were pre-built. Sliding down on the shield would have done *nothing* other than add fun for him and the potential of things going wrong and adding for more hilarity. Like what if that banging noise alerts someone down there? Or if he fails an acrobatics check and faceplants at the bottom, making even more noise and potentially hurting himself? That is the rule of cool. Obliterating that from a game because it isn't outwardly laid out in the rules is just not fun. It's a limiting experience for your players because of an obsession with the rules as written. > It’s possible to have a fun discussion about a hobby we share without being unpleasant, so I’m going to assume you just want a friendly chat, and respond as if that comment was respectful. I am not trying to be unpleasant at all and I am sorry if it came across that way. I just feel like you do not understand what the rule of cool actually is and are being dismissive of it due to that misunderstanding.

Thanks for the response. I think we're talking about a few different things. My grumpiness about the meme is that it equates the rule of cool with good GMing. GMs do _a lot_ of stuff to try and make their games more fun - I listed a few of them above. The rule of cool has its place, but using it doesn't make a GM good or a game fun. Now, I think we're talking about different things for the rule of cool: > Best example I can think of is of a friend playing a game where the party was descending down a long pipe. It was low enough that you couldn’t stand up tall but tall enough that you had to crouch only to an extent. Most people slid down on their ass. My friend asked if he could slide down on his shield and the DM said no. There was no reason for saying no other than to stick to an incredibly strict set of rules that were pre-built. From what you described, I disagree with the DM's call. D&D's rules don't disallow sliding down pipes on shields. Shield sliding is allowed by the rules. We play TTRPGs for this kind of wackiness. What I consider the rule of cool doesn't come into play here, since there are no rules bent or broken. From what you said, it just seems to be an unfun restrictive call. When I think of the rule of cool, I'm thinking of allowing actions that significantly depart from the rules of game, balanced against how significantly it changes an outcome. Sliding down a pipe on a shield is not that - shield sliding is totally within the rules, and yes, it should lead to the complications you describe because that's where the fun is. I haven't read the DM manual in a while, but I *think* it's the first place that I read PC actions should generally be allowed and they should trigger consequences. So yeah, if I were you, I'd be annoyed with the DM, because they disallowed an action that is totally allowed by the rules. In my mind, rule of cool doesn't come into it. Totally reasonable rule of cool actions would be stuff like * a player saying they want to use more than the allowed number of actions per turn to kill the BBEG. If the enemy is basically dead anyway, or combat has turned into a slog (and the PCs are winning), then it doesn't really change the outcome, so the PC should totally be allowed to do it. I'd be less likely to say yes at the start of combat with a BBEG unless the player has a mechanical reason (which means it _isn't_ rule of cool, it's a well prepared PC). * a player changing an NPC's mind about an issue by doing something awesome or ridiculous. A barbarian can convince a hostile lordling/ladying to sleep with them by using a feat of strength? Sure, that bends how D&D5e suggests aggression/friendliness works, but if it doesn't alter the plot, go for it. If it would make a story arc less fun, then no. IMO unreasonable rule of cool actions change outcomes for the worse. Stuff like a player wants a one-off at the start of a fight where they use more than the allotted number of actions, and one-shot the BBEG - the same situation above, but with a significant consequence of preventing a dramatic fight. I'd say that changes the rules that the players (including the DM) have agreed upon when they started playing, and it doesn't add any fun. I'd be happy to homebrew a similar effect with balanced consequences out of that moment in the game, but that kind of one off is a bad use of the rule of cool.