Help phrasing a DM rule

[Jay R]

One of my Rules for DMs is:


32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and reasonable. That does not mean supporting ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and unreasonable.

a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be limited by the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".
c. If the idea is one you can see Aragorn, Conan, Captain America, or James Bond trying, allow it – for the right character. [Don’t let the Conan-clone play the James Bond stunt.]


I'm not sure that "limited" is the ideal verb for sub-rule a.
"Governed"?
"Constrained"?
"Bounded"?
Something else?

[Xervous]

The "Rule of Cool" must always be filtered through the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

Culling the outliers while keeping things below a threshold? It’s a low pass filter clearly.

[Lord Torath]

"... be balanced by..."

[StoneSeraph]

a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be tempered by the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

[Lacco]

The "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous" overrides the "Rule of Cool".

"Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous" shall be observed when applying "Rule of Cool".

[KineticDiplomat]

I feel like this is a subset of:

“In situations not covered by the rule book, the players should be 70% right, 70% of the time”.

[Duff]

I vote
"Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous" shall be observed when applying "Rule of Cool".

or maybe "must be observed"

[Kraynic]

I would say to throw out any and all references to "rule of cool". Since you already have "don't be ridiculous", anything that passes that filter is fair game.

[Composer99]

I feel like sub-rule (a) is basically redundant. If you are already saying you won't support unreasonable ideas, that should take care of anything that wouldn't pass a "don't be ridiculous" filter.

Edit to add: Sub-rule (b) has the feel of clarifying and adding to the rule, so it's fine.

[GrayDeath]

"The Rule of Cool" can only apply if a random 5 year old Girl cannot see the Flaws in the "Cool" Plan. ^^

[Jay R]

Some really good ideas here. You're all helping me think this through. Keep it coming.

Xervous, Lord Torath, and Stone Seraph have offered new phrasings that I'm considering.

lacco36 gave a phrasing that communicates well. But I think it's rhetorically stronger if the final three words of the sentence are "don't be ridiculous".

Graydeath, that's funny. But I don't object to a cool plan with flaws; I object to one that's nonsense. Jumping over the gnolls running up the stairs at you, hoping to reach the landing behind them and attack from behind? I like it; I see flaws, but it's cool. Knocking down the entire castle on them with your sword? Don't be ridiculous.

Kraynic and Composer99 are absolutely correct that it's more-or-less redundant. That doesn't bother me, but it's a good observation.

The purpose of this sub-rule is to explicitly address the "Rule of Cool". It's intentionally redundant, to address a specific misunderstanding.


I feel like this is a subset of:

“In situations not covered by the rule book, the players should be 70% right, 70% of the time”.

I like the general approach, but this can also lead the DM astray. The problem with this is that it is so player-dependent. In games I've run, Rob, April, and Wil are 95-100% right, 95-100% of the time. But I've also had players that were 30% right, 30% of the time. [These are also generally the players who think the "Rule of Cool" should allow their characters to ignore the rules.]

When the DM brings up the "Rule of Cool", it's to allow a clever, flamboyant, swashbuckling move. But all too often, when a player brings it up, he's trying to do something absurd and impossible. That's what this rule is trying to address.

[GrayDeath]

Well, you should clarify youre not palying Scion or Exalted then, cause bringing down a castle with a sword?
Eminently doable.

Jumping over the mountain high Werethingy and binding it with twine? Dont be ridiculous, its a kitty, it willö poaly with the Twine isntead ^^

[Lacco]

lacco36 gave a phrasing that communicates well. But I think it's rhetorically stronger if the final three words of the sentence are "don't be ridiculous".

At my job that comes with the territory.

Question: is there an actual "Rule of Don't Be Ridiculous"?

I assumed there is an actual rule, but if not, then the redundancy is necessary. But as a RAMS guy, I think redundancies in general are not a bad thing.


Kraynic and Composer99 are absolutely correct that it's more-or-less redundant. That doesn't bother me, but it's a good observation.

Especially in this case, where it further refines what kind of game players can expect from the GM: one where cool actions that are possible will be encouraged, but ridiculous ones will not be tolerated. Without the "Dare to Be Cool" part, the "Beware Foolish Actions" will most probably make players think it's more about being safe than cool.

[Jay R]

You've convinced me that I'm not really communicating. So now I think my sub-rule should become the main rule. What do you think of this revision?


The “Rule of Cool” must always be governed and limited by the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

a. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and reasonable. That does not mean supporting ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and unreasonable.
b. If the idea is one you can see Aragorn, Conan, Captain America, or James Bond trying, then allow it – for the right character. [Don’t let the Conan-clone play the James Bond stunt.]

This makes the strongest point the main rule, followed by two sub-rules that explain, and then give a tool for considering the question.

Is that better?



Well, you should clarify youre not palying Scion or Exalted then, cause bringing down a castle with a sword?
Eminently doable.

Jumping over the mountain high Werethingy and binding it with twine? Dont be ridiculous, its a kitty, it willö poaly with the Twine isntead ^^

That shows the limitations of my example, not my rules. Feel free to substitute an example of your own (as you in fact did).

And doesn't the title "Rules for DMs" clarify that I'm not talking about Scion or Exalted? Do those games use the term "DM"?

[To be fair, I have run several games, including Champions, Flashing Blades, TOON, Pendragon, and several versions of D&D. The principles behind these rules apply to all of them, whether they have Dungeon Masters or not. But two rules and one sub-rule are D&D-specific, and the examples I use are all fantasy role-playing examples using D&D terms.]

I considered calling it "Rules for GMs", but that titles seems less interesting, somehow. I suspect that's because I started in 1975, when D&D was the only rpg.

[martixy]

a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be tempered by the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

I like this word by far the best.

[kyoryu]

Presume good faith on the part of your players. If they propose something, they think it's reasonable. You owe it to them to take that idea in good faith and think of how it might be possible.

If it's not possible due to things unknown by the players, it does not have to be accepted. They can find out the information later!

If there are requirements the players are unaware of, inform them of what would be required. The things that are required might not be possible if the task is actually impossible!

Outside of hidden information, treat the players thinking something is plausible, and you thinking it's not, as a matter of incomplete communication, and inform them of the things that make their idea implausible.

[Devils_Advocate]

Perhaps 'The "Rule of Cool" must always be subordinate to the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".'


The problem with this is that it is so player-dependent. In games I've run, Rob, April, and Wil are 95-100% right, 95-100% of the time. But I've also had players that were 30% right, 30% of the time. [These are also generally the players who think the "Rule of Cool" should allow their characters to ignore the rules.]

When the DM brings up the "Rule of Cool", it's to allow a clever, flamboyant, swashbuckling move.
The problem with this is that it is so DM-dependent.

[Dimers]

Is that better?

I'd say so. The rule posits the existence of RoC and RoDBR simultaneously, as well as giving a rough idea of their relationship.


a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be tempered by the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

I like this word by far the best.

Ditto. It states that RoC should in fact be used, but with sensible moderation.

[Darth Credence]

I like the rule, although I would officially call out the Balki corollary to the rule of cool. That way, people as old as D&D will remember and get a chuckle, and younger people will ask and you can say in your best Myposian accent, "Don't be ridiculous" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PY2Jaljkg).

Of course, it could be only me that remembers that show.

[Nifft]

I like the rule, although I would officially call out the Balki corollary to the rule of cool. That way, people as old as D&D will remember and get a chuckle, and younger people will ask and you can say in your best Myposian accent, "Don't be ridiculous" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PY2Jaljkg).

Of course, it could be only me that remembers that show.

Of course we remember, don't be ridiculous.

[Jay R]

Thanks for all the suggestions. It really helps to have all the options laid out.

I will go with Devils_Advocate's suggestion:


The “Rule of Cool” must always be subordinate to the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

a. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and reasonable. That does not mean supporting ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and unreasonable.
b. If the idea is one you can see Aragorn, Conan, Captain America, or James Bond trying, then allow it – for the right character. [Don’t let the Conan-clone play the James Bond stunt.]


Perfect Strangers, and never knew who Balki was until I followed your link. I started playing D&D in 1975, more than a decade before Perfect Strangers. But you are free to call it anything you like.]

[Talakeal]

Seems good to me as is. Mind showing is the first 31 rules?

[martixy]

I like the rule, although I would officially call out the Balki corollary to the rule of cool. That way, people as old as D&D will remember and get a chuckle, and younger people will ask and you can say in your best Myposian accent, "Don't be ridiculous" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PY2Jaljkg).

Of course, it could be only me that remembers that show.

After watching that whole thing I am now suffering from semantic satiation and that word sounds like greek to me. Literally. Sounds like a greek given name. Hi Ridikolos, I'm dad.

[Jay R]

Seems good to me as is. Mind showing is the first 31 rules?

Here's the version I had as of last May (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612977-Rules-for-DMs-again). I'm actually up to 39 rules now.

I'll probably post the updated version in a couple of months, and ask for more feedback, but I don't plan to do that more than once a year.

[martixy]

Sitting here and nodding sagely to each and every one of them makes me feel like I have passed some great DMing milestone.

Like I have finally ascended.

[truemane]

It seems you've decided on your wording, so this might be a day late and a dollar short, but FWIW I would remove 'Don't be ridiculous' altogether. The entire reason for adding the restricting clause is to impose (slightly more) objective limits on the entirely subjective idea of 'Cool.' So, doing that by creating another entirely subjective rule is just gilding the lily.

You're basically saying saying "Go as far as you want" but also "Not too far." Skip saying "Not too far" and just tell us what too far looks like.

I would go with something like:

32. Unless the situation demands otherwise, default to supporting player ideas that are fun, creative, imaginative, and that make the game more interesting and engaging for everyone (including you), even if the rules don't strictly allow them. This is commonly known as 'The Rule of Cool.'
a. Players invoking the "Rule of Cool" should try to stay within the genre and scope of the game in question. Unless there's a good reason to suspect otherwise, James Bond probably can't use a broadsword and Conan probably can't smooth talk his way into a fancy party. And neither is likely to take raise an army and conquer all the lands (unless it's that kind of game).
b. The key element of The Rule of Cool isn't the idea, it's the impact the idea has on the game ('make the game more interesting and engaging for everyone'). Ideas, even good ones, that shut down the story ("Let's just call the eagles and have them fly Frodo to Mount Doom") should be valued less than ideas that deepen, broaden, complicate, or develop it ("I try to convince the Ents to come fight Saruman with us.").

[Jay R]

It seems you've decided on your wording, so this might be a day late and a dollar short, but FWIW I would remove 'Don't be ridiculous' altogether.

Don't worry about being late; there's no deadline. I'm not submitting these rules to a publisher. If I want to re-phrase a rule next week, or next year, then I will.


The entire reason for adding the restricting clause is to impose (slightly more) objective limits on the entirely subjective idea of 'Cool.' So, doing that by creating another entirely subjective rule is just gilding the lily.

That's an interesting guess about what my reason is, but it's not what I had in mind. Remember, clause a was the main clause last week. I didn't add that clause to the clause about "Don't Be Ridiculous"; I added the DBR clause to it. The DBR clause was originally a specific example. I just recently decided that it was really the main point -- besides being the most interesting sentence.

Primarily, I want clause a in my head to use when a player demands to be allowed to do something unreasonable. It's not really a restricting clause (it doesn't restrict); it's an explicating clause.


You're basically saying saying "Go as far as you want" but also "Not too far." Skip saying "Not too far" and just tell us what too far looks like.

I would go with something like:

32. Unless the situation demands otherwise, default to supporting player ideas that are fun, creative, imaginative, and that make the game more interesting and engaging for everyone (including you), even if the rules don't strictly allow them. This is commonly known as 'The Rule of Cool.'
a. Players invoking the "Rule of Cool" should try to stay within the genre and scope of the game in question. Unless there's a good reason to suspect otherwise, James Bond probably can't use a broadsword and Conan probably can't smooth talk his way into a fancy party. And neither is likely to take raise an army and conquer all the lands (unless it's that kind of game).
b. The key element of The Rule of Cool isn't the idea, it's the impact the idea has on the game ('make the game more interesting and engaging for everyone'). Ideas, even good ones, that shut down the story ("Let's just call the eagles and have them fly Frodo to Mount Doom") should be valued less than ideas that deepen, broaden, complicate, or develop it ("I try to convince the Ents to come fight Saruman with us.").

For what you are trying to do, that is an excellent phrasing.

But it's not what I'm trying to do.

You are trying to write a game rule -- a clear, unambiguous rule that tells strangers exactly what to do. Your description is clear and useful. But it has no zip. That's not a problem for a rulebook rule. People don't read rulebooks for enjoyment, but to learn the rules.

I'm trying to write a set of reminders for myself, and others like me, that remind me (and them) what the potential pitfalls of DM judgment are. To have value, they need to be interesting enough for me to enjoy re-reading them. "The 'Rule of Cool' must always be subordinate to the 'Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous' " is phrased to be interesting enough that I will be willing to re-read it on a regular basis.

But as I said, for what you are trying to do, that's a well-written rule.

[Cluedrew]

OK this is the structure I would use something more like this:


When applying the "Rule of Cool" remember that cool thing are often:
Plausible: Suddenly summoning Cthulhu is not cool, its just weird.
Flavourful: The coolest things a character with do usually come from the less cool things they do.
Constructive: While they might destroy a building they will not destroy the campaign.

Edit to taste and I'll explain why I presented this way. First is Rule of Don't be Ridiculous is long an unwieldy. All the "Rule of" names I know of have one or two syllables (Rule of Rose, Rule of Eleven and even rule of law), you might be able to get away with Rule of Common Sense but even that is pushing it so I recommend you drop it, but that part is definitely taste. But I do think the main point giving context and then three points within it was better than a point, with a rephrasing and an example as sub-points (is there a significant difference between don't be ridiculous and don't support unreasonable ideas). Speaking of which I threw out all the old phrasing to try and give each sub-point a label to be the snappy reminder. And I pulled the third one out of someone else's post to build on the theme of things that might seem cool but are not.

If I've gone to far how about something like "... cool things are not: ridiculous ... unreasonable ... out-of-character ..." might give you this general structure but let you keep the wording closer to what you have.

[WindStruck]

I think the reason you don't like how it sounds is that there's just no such thing as a "rule of don't be ridiculous". Cut the wordiness down and simply expand the first line to:


32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, and reasonable. These ideas should be plausible within the game's setting, not directly contradict any of the system's rules, and they should be consistent with the character's capabilities and temperament.

[Tanarii]

Presume good faith on the part of your players. If they propose something, they think it's reasonable. You owe it to them to take that idea in good faith and think of how it might be possible.
Having encountered numerous times the ridiculous things that players think in good faith is reasonable, this doesn't seem like a good baseline for judgement to me. :smallamused:

[kyoryu]

I really like the "presume good faith" phrasing.

If you presume good faith, that means that you assume that the players do, in fact, think that what they're suggesting is reasonable. As such, it's your job to look for the reasonableness. It might not be there, but that's generally going to be a matter of either hidden information (in which case you can play that out) or misaligned assumptions (which should get ironed out).

I'd probably codify it as such:

Presume Good Faith

Assume that players are acting in good faith. As such, an action that they propose should be considered reasonable by default, providing that everybody is aligned on the game and style. However, sometimes it's not. When a player wants to do something that sounds unreasonable, go through these steps:

1. Listen to the proposed action or solution. Presume it is reasonable. Unless there is a strong reason not to allow it, play it out.
2. If it is not reasonable due to information that the character has access to, inform the player of this information. They may counter with other points - listen to them, consider them, and ask the rest of the group for their input. Make a call, move on, and discuss later if necessary.
3. If it is not reasonable due to information that the character does not have access to, but would be reasonable otherwise, play it out.
4. If it would be reasonable if some criteria were met, inform the player/character of this criteria, as best as they would be able to determine. Again, be willing to listen to their points as well as the rest of the table, but make a decision quickly and table for later discussion if necessary.
5. If it is not reasonable due to not fitting the tone or assumptions of the game, make a call in the moment. Ask the rest of the table what they think. Table the discussion for later, and try to get on the same page.
6. If it is truly unreasonable without fitting into any of these categories, then it may be a matter of bad faith and looking for advantage rather than truly doing what is reasonable in the moment. If so, again, consult the table and make a ruling, and have a discussion with the player later about what is and is not appropriate.

While the GM has the final word, in general listening to the table is a good idea. If the entire table things something is reasonable, it's probably best to presume that it is.

Here's some examples:

1.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "Well, it's a granite wall, but sure, there could be enough grabholds and cracks to climb it. Give me a roll."

2.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "It's too slick to climb, there's nothing to get a rope around up top, and the material is too hard to put any kind of spikes into. You're not going to be able to climb this wall. Kinda weird that it's here, though..."

3.
Player: "I want use my telepathy to read Bill's mind!"
GM: "Sure. You start to reach out with your mind, but find some kind of mental wall. Weird."

4.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "It's too slick to climb by hand... but you might be able to get a rope over the top, or some spikes in the wall. Then you could probably make it."

5.
Player: "I want to swing on the chandelier and attack!"
GM: "That would work for a swashbuckling, cinematic game, but I thought we were going for a grittier game? What does everyone else thing?"

6.
Player: "I want to throw a dagger at him, bouncing it off of two walls so it hits him even though he's around a corner!"
GM: "No, I really don't think that works in this case, and I'm not sure why you would. Let's just say no for now and table this for later."

[FrogInATopHat]

Having encountered numerous times the ridiculous things that players think in good faith is reasonable, this doesn't seem like a good baseline for judgement to me. :smallamused:

Yeah, but your nightmares in this regard are the stuff of legend.

[kyoryu]

Having encountered numerous times the ridiculous things that players think in good faith is reasonable, this doesn't seem like a good baseline for judgement to me. :smallamused:

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

I said you start there... not that you end there....

But seriously, that's where as a GM you tell them what is the likely result of the actions or plans, so that they can learn how your world works. A lot of times players come from other tables that operate under very different basic assumptions. Their proposed actions probably are reasonable in the last game they played.

[Tanarii]

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

I said you start there... not that you end there....

But seriously, that's where as a GM you tell them what is the likely result of the actions or plans, so that they can learn how your world works. A lot of times players come from other tables that operate under very different basic assumptions. Their proposed actions probably are reasonable in the last game they played.
Agree, it's all about assumptions. IMX it's players that come from some kinds of anime that break my personal assumptions. And I recall player assumptions going wild after Crouching Tiger made a big splash ...

To mangle the words of The Architect, there are levels of wushu I am prepared to accept.

But IMC legolas would have been out of luck when he tried to run up falling stones. Changing the way gravity and time work to pull that off was fine and dandy and still utter ridiculous for the film. It's not making it into my games. Of course, elves can't walk on snow IMC either, so clearly different definitions of "elf" apply between Jackson and me.

[kyoryu]

Agree, it's all about assumptions. IMX it's players that come from some kinds of anime that break my personal assumptions. And I recall player assumptions going wild after Crouching Tiger made a big splash ...

To mangle the words of The Architect, there are levels of wushu I am prepared to accept.

But IMC legolas would have been out of luck when he tried to run up falling stones. Changing the way gravity and time work to pull that off was fine and dandy and still utter ridiculous for the film. It's not making it into my games. Of course, elves can't walk on snow IMC either, so clearly different definitions of "elf" apply between Jackson and me.

For sure - and I'd say that's still acting in good faith. And that's where same-paging is a necessary process. I think that was point #5 or so in my list ;)

In this case it's a symptom of a deeper problem that will likely rear its head in other places in the future. I know you know this, it's just such a common problem and disrupts so many games :(

[neceros]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."

It's a story. Be fluid.

[Tanarii]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."Except when it's just Yes or No.


It's a story. Be fluid.
Except when it's playing a character in a fantasy environment.

Edit: coming back to this, #2 rule for DMs should be "don't treat your campaign like a story".

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm trying to write a set of reminders for myself, and others like me, that remind me (and them) what the potential pitfalls of DM judgment are.
Does this list of reminders accompany an explanation of the principles that they're meant to be reminders of? If they're meant to work in conjunction with numerous unstated assumptions, it strikes me as almost inevitable that others with other assumptions will interpret them differently than you do, possibly even leading them to DM in ways that are in direct opposition to your preferred methods.

... which might be fine? Like, to a certain extent, one can expect that other DMs have their own senses of how they want to run things and what works for their groups, and they can judge for themselves whether your suggestions as interpreted by them facilitate or hinder what they're trying to accomplish. So, probably, it's only really an issue if you're not sharing some valuable and non-obvious insight.

Regardless, your list will probably be read by others unlike you in various ways, and you might want to consider the impact on them as well. That's kind of what my earlier "DM-dependent" response was getting at.

[Xervous]

Edit: coming back to this, #2 rule for DMs should be "don't treat your campaign like a story".

And we all know how choose your own adventures turn out if the choices only influence the explosion color at the end.

[Tanarii]

And we all know how choose your own adventures turn out if the choices only influence the explosion color at the end.hahaha well said!

Choose your own adventure is great if that's what you signed up for. But very few players have that in mind, and DMs treating their games like a story have just signed them up for it. :smallamused:

It's a sidebar though, IIRC Jay R already has multiple rules that address railroading in one form or another.

[kyoryu]

Choose your own adventure is great if that's what you signed up for. But very few players have that in mind, and DMs treating their games like a story have just signed them up for it. :smallamused:

It's a sidebar though, IIRC Jay R already has multiple rules that address railroading in one form or another.

(To be fair, there's a number of games that are aimed at doing "story-like" stuff without railroading. But that's tangenting the tangent. "The campaign is not your novel" is how I'd likely phrase that, but even that has to acknowledge that some people like that style of play)

[Jay R]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."

It's a story. Be fluid.

That has to be balanced with "It's a game. Stay within the rules." This is actually pretty much what this rule is for. It's a direct rebuttal to the idea that the Rule of Cool means that rules and reasonable limits shouldn't apply.


Does this list of reminders accompany an explanation of the principles that they're meant to be reminders of?

There's nothing but the rules, but that's part of what the sub-rules are for -- to provide additional explanation or context.

Besides, a reminder doesn't require that. When my wife reminds me of my doctor's appointment, she doesn't have to explain why I'm going to the doctor.

And fundamentally, this is the principle: Support player ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and reasonable. That does not mean supporting ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and unreasonable.


If they're meant to work in conjunction with numerous unstated assumptions, it strikes me as almost inevitable that others with other assumptions will interpret them differently than you do, possibly even leading them to DM in ways that are in direct opposition to your preferred methods.

If their gaming philosophy is in direct opposition to mine, then they should interpret things differently than I do. I'm doing what entertains my friends. They should do what entertains their friends. One of my rules includes the following:

a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.
b. Avoid having players who won't like the kind of game you're running. And then run a game your players will enjoy.


... which might be fine? Like, to a certain extent, one can expect that other DMs have their own senses of how they want to run things and what works for their groups, and they can judge for themselves whether your suggestions as interpreted by them facilitate or hinder what they're trying to accomplish. So, probably, it's only really an issue if you're not sharing some valuable and non-obvious insight.

Well, I think it is valuable and sometimes non-obvious insight. But it can't help DMs who don't share my approach. I'm quite capable of arguing in favor of my viewpoint, but if I did, it wouldn't be in a list of rules.


Regardless, your list will probably be read by others unlike you in various ways, and you might want to consider the impact on them as well. That's kind of what my earlier "DM-dependent" response was getting at.

You make an excellent point. I wrote them for my own benefit, but once I posted them here, they became a potential influence on other DMs.

For my purpose, they are reminders to stay true to the principles I already believe in. I'm not trying to convince myself to do this, but to remind myself.

[And really, a large part of it was to work my principles out in the first place. Writing is a formal process of putting thoughts in a meaningful order.]

For others, I can't have that goal. No simple set of rules will change the mind of a DM who wants the Rule of Cool to be a doorway to unreal actions that the rules don't support. If their campaign isn't intended to simulate, then the rules for my simulation simply don't apply.

I will re-think this, but at present, I'm going to stick to my goal of writing something fun to read that reminds me of what I already intend to do. If that matches other DMs' approach, and is useful for others, then great! If not, no amount of explanation will change what they believe in -- nor should it.

[DwarfFighter]

My suggested edit:


32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, and imaginative. Do not support unreasonable ideas.
[INDENT]a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be weighed against the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".


But who is the audience for this text? Who is enforcing these rules?

-DF

[kyoryu]

My suggested edit:


32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, and imaginative. Do not support unreasonable ideas.
[INDENT]a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be weighed against the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".


But who is the audience for this text? Who is enforcing these rules?

-DF

Practically speaking, I've had best results of "the GM, with table support."

Scenario A
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "Yeah, okay, hadn't really considered that but sure, why not."

Scenario B
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "You can't just 'do' the thing. You need to have meet the following gear/situational/etc. requirements first."
Player A: "Okay, cool."

Scenario C
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "You try to do the thing, but fail because of this thing you discover in the process of trying"

Scenario D
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "Okay, I do the other thing!"

Scenario E
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "No, that totally makes sense!"
GM: "Rest of table, what do you think?".
Players B-D: "Sure, it seems reasonable" or "I think he has a point" (and go from there)

Scenario F (to be used sparingly)
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "No, that totally makes sense!"
GM: "No, it really really doesn't make sense because of things. Sorry."

[dps]

Presume good faith

Horrible advice for almost any situation.

And in a gaming context, useless, because even if your players are acting in good faith, it doesn't matter unless you also presume that they aren't idiots, which is also not a good basis upon which to proceed.

[Tanarii]

Horrible advice for almost any situation.
Depends. Is "I'm only trying to abuse the rules for an advantage" good faith or bad faith?

[kyoryu]

Horrible advice for almost any situation.

No, it's great advice.

Presume good faith until you have reason to suspect otherwise.


And in a gaming context, useless, because even if your players are acting in good faith, it doesn't matter unless you also presume that they aren't idiots, which is also not a good basis upon which to proceed.

I'd say this is terrible advice.

Most people aren't idiots. What does happen is that they're working from a different set of assumptions. And under their assumptions, their ideas make sense. But under your assumptions, they're terrible ideas.

That's the point of presuming good faith (it should be "good faith and intelligence"). Until you have evidence otherwise, presume that players are suggesting ideas because they think they make sense, based on the knowledge and presumptions that they make. And be willing to entertain those plans, and look for ways that they could make sense, rather than casually disregarding them because they don't completely align with your presumptions.

Edit: I wrote this a bit ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/ip3278/gm_tip_assume_your_players_arent_dumb/


Depends. Is "I'm only trying to abuse the rules for an advantage" good faith or bad faith?

I'd say "good faith" in most cases is "this is what seems like a reasonable plan to me". In most cases, "if I do this, I can abuse a rules loophole" doesn't qualify - though at some tables it does.

At the minimum, if that's not good faith at your table, recognize that someone is doing that, tell them to knock it off, and then proceed as normal, with an extra eye out for shenanigans.

[Jay R]

I don’t have either the wisdom or the authority to accurately discern my friends’ motives. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls."

I can judge their actions. Those are right there in front of me. But I’m not going to try to guess whether their actions are “good faith” or “bad faith”. I’m not wise enough to do it, and it has no effect on my ruling anyway. Besides, most people’s motive are confused, subconscious, and complicated. Psychiatrists with years of training take months of therapy to figure them out, and they still always know that their current conclusions are tentative and incomplete.

And guessing wrong is far more harmful than guessing right is helpful.

Suppose, for example, that a player in a 3.5e game is trying to make an Illusion (figment) spell cause actual damage. I’m the DM; I have to make a ruling.

He could be doing it because:
A. He just doesn’t know the rule,
B. He generally knows the rule but just forgot, or got confused,
C. He doesn’t know the rule, and vaguely believes that pushing for the best possible ruling is what playing the game is,
D. He knows the rules and is deliberately flouting it to try to get an unfair advantage,
E. He’s used to AD&D, and believes that Major Image is the same as Improved Phantasmal Force.

Only 1½ of these is bad faith. [The ½ is C, and that’s all too common in D&D.] But my ruling in all five cases would be exactly the same. “No, unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Could somebody look up the rule on figments and show it to John? Thanks, Richard. Now, Diane, your initiative is next. What does Sophia do?”

I’m not trying to punish my friend for bad faith; I’m trying to run a fair, reasonable, fun game

I will go further:

If I know, for an absolute fact, that the player is acting in bad faith, I will still phrase my ruling as if he is simply mistaken in good faith. That’s the best way to help him start playing fairly if he wants to but was momentarily tempted, and that’s also the best way to make my ruling stick if he is adamantly trying to cheat – because if I act like he’s trying to play fairly, he can’t contradict me.

But in any case, I can’t guess what’s in his heart, and I can’t “punish” him in any case. All I can do is try to run the game with consistency and fairness.

So the “Rule of Cool” must always be subordinate to the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

By the way, I think this is a great discussion. It helps all of us to carefully work our way through our ideas in print.

[kyoryu]

So the “Rule of Cool” must always be subordinate to the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”


Absolutely.

And as I pointed out in that link, usually the best thing to do is to assume there's a misconception or gap in assumptions (or knowledge) and address the gap.

[Jay R]

Absolutely.

And as I pointed out in that link, usually the best thing to do is to assume there's a misconception or gap in assumptions (or knowledge) and address the gap.

Makes sense. Nicely written, by the way.

The iconic story of the gazebo is the story of a poor DM. Once it became clear that Eric didn't know what a gazebo is, the DM should tell him -- because the PC isn't hearing a word he doesn't know; he's looking at a wooden structure.

"Eric, a gazebo not a monster; it's just a roofed structure with an open view. Your character is looking at a wooden building."

Otherwise, the character has the PC do something that no actual adventurer standing in that location and looking at the gazebo would do.

This gets back to one of my other rules:

b. PCs should not roll for common or obvious knowledge. If the world has three moons, then they don't have to roll to remember it. They've lived under that sky all their life; they don't even have the idea of a world with only one moon.

Similarly, they know if the king puts people to death for insulting him, and when they see a wooden roofed structure with an open view, they know that it isn't a monster -- even if the player doesn't know what it's called.