I don't believe Gygax believed in the rule of cool at all and nothing about the 1e AD&D DMG would suggest otherwise, he believed in the rule of believable outcomes. With one contradiction of course, the most important rule of them all, which was that he believed that above all else every DM was in charge of their own game and firmly believed that this ultimate power superseded all other rules. More importantly that a DM never had to answer to anyone, not his players, not other DM's, not even the god who penciled the official AD&D rules.
Gygax might not have believed in the Rule of Cool, but Dave Arneson was a pretty big fan of the Rule of Cool. People give Gygax credit for inventing D&D, but that is a bit of a myth--Gygax came up with the dice system, and Arneson came up with the idea of "what if we had fun adventures outside of strictly a mechanical game, and used the mechanics to tell a mutual story?" The first D&D game was DMed by Arneson and literally started with an adventure based on a bad pun--Gygax and others were inside a tavern and every time they tried to leave, they would walk right back in... it was called the "Comeback Inn."
The part that made D&D a success, and not just another tabletop war game, was Arneson's contribution, which is every bit as important as Gygax's. We tend to forget about Arneson because Gygax is a truly awful human being who forced Arneson out of the company and then engaged in a campaign of revisionist history to paint himself as the solitary creator of D&D.
All that's to say, the Rule of Cool--and arguing over whether it should or should not be part of the game--is literally as old as the game itself. Different groups have always had different preferences, and that's perfectly fine, so long as you don't pull a Gygax and let your arrogance and general awfulness ruin the game for folks you once called your friends.
Imagine believing your hand held cannon had enough recoil to launch you over a hundred feet into the air.
Because that is how physics works, an object thrown straight up hits the ground with the same force it felt going up (not counting air resistance), so to counter the acceleration of a 100 foot fall, you need an equal force that would have thrown you 100 feet up from rest.
Though is suppose some kids playing d&d haven't learned the laws of motion yet.
What your doing is what I would call selective fantasy suspension of disbelief. You can buy the idea of Dragons Flying around, Magic Users that can shoot fireballs out of their fingers, Clerics that can raise the dead and a magic antigravity spell like Feather Fall, but Artificer Artillerist's Force Ballista firing towards the ground...That is unrealistic?
I think the kids understand how a fantasy adventure games work just fine, I think perhaps you have just forgotten.
Oh, I didn't realize the force ballista had a magical property to effect gravity, I thought it was just firing damaging force.
I know magic yadayadas the how of everything, but not the what. A fiery explosion created by magic doesn't turn lead into gold because "magic" and "rule of cool," it behaves like a fiery explosion.
The force ballista can absolutely be fired at the ground, and you can even homebrew an outcome equivalent to it's RAW effect (like reduce fall damage by 5 feet). THAT is rule of cool. There is a difference between structured fantasy and nonsensical fantasy. D&D is structured, things play by different rules, but follow those rules.
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
Not at all, though I advise following them as closely as seems reasonable.
Rule 0 of the game is that the DM can change, add, or ignore any rules. Not every rule makes sense in every situation or some groups just don't find it fun.
For the purposes of online advice, we usually assume the rules are being followed to a T as that is a common ground we can (usually) agree on.
I mean, as a DM I probably wouldn't let it work (though if they managed to get their force ballista on the ground and wanted to modify it so they could use it to slow people falling towards it I'd consider it), but as long as the people in the game are having fun I'm not going to judge, and I've certainly been in different games where exactly that kind of thing is appropriate (for example, in Mutants and Masterminds that's just an ordinary power stunt).
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
Not at all, though I advise following them as closely as seems reasonable.
Rule 0 of the game is that the DM can change, add, or ignore any rules. Not every rule makes sense in every situation or some groups just don't find it fun.
For the purposes of online advice, we usually assume the rules are being followed to a T as that is a common ground we can (usually) agree on.
Thank you so much, this helps clear up a lot of previous confusion.
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
Playing D&D is like cooking, and the rules are like recipes. It is a good idea to KNOW the recipe (you do not have to memorize it all either as long as you know how to look it up in the book; in my opinion, it is even easier and quicker to just Google it), but you do NOT need to EXECUTE it to the exact measurements nor even ingredients, you probably should not either, and you are unlikely to be able to follow it to a perfect T anyways.
You want recipes to be as clear and as exact as possible, because new cooks need that help when they first start out. It is not really helpful for new cooks if the recipe for beef stew just tells the person to season and brown the meat, pour in water, throw some vegetables in, and simmer until done. What kind of beef (filet mignon, ribeye, strip, chuck, etc.) do I use? How much meat? How can I tell if it is browned enough? I just realized I bought pork chuck instead of beef chuck, can I still use pork? And those are questions on just the meat.
But once the person is more experienced in cooking, the recipes do not have to be followed. It is good idea to know what generally goes in a beef stew and how it is cooked, so you have a point of reference when talking about it with another person, but you absolutely do not need to stick with static recipes and you should adjust the ingredients, measurements, and way of cooking to however you or the people you cook for like. There is no reason to add potatoes to a beef stew if nobody at the table likes potatoes in stew, and would much rather have barley instead. Hell, maybe the table cannot eat beef for religious reasons, but they would gladly down a lamb stew instead, so all you really need to change is just the meat itself.
Same thing with D&D. Once you know enough of the rules and feel comfortable with it, homebrew it however you and your table like.
I mean, as a DM I probably wouldn't let it work (though if they managed to get their force ballista on the ground and wanted to modify it so they could use it to slow people falling towards it I'd consider it), but as long as the people in the game are having fun I'm not going to judge, and I've certainly been in different games where exactly that kind of thing is appropriate (for example, in Mutants and Masterminds that's just an ordinary power stunt).
I find all outcomes hilarious.
Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get 15d6 damages from the fall. Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get stopped mid air. 2 rounds later, Player proceeds to shoot an enemy, get blasted in the wall behind him, gets 15d6 damages. Player jumps from the brige, player under him shoot him with ballista, falling player gets 15d6 from the blast. Other player makes a dexterity save to avoid the falling mass of flesh and equipment. Player jumps from the brige, shoots the ground, the DM says "sigh ... OK ...". The player lands on one knee. The player proceeds to modify an armor, put a ballista in each boot and gloves and hover above enemies, blasting them from above. Other player discover he can fly by launching his hammer and catching it. Other player ask his magical shield to behave like a boomerang. Other player uses repeteated shrink spells to become microscopic, enter the enemies body and kill them from the inside. DM weeps on his low fantasy high diplomacy setting notes.
I mean, as a DM I probably wouldn't let it work (though if they managed to get their force ballista on the ground and wanted to modify it so they could use it to slow people falling towards it I'd consider it), but as long as the people in the game are having fun I'm not going to judge, and I've certainly been in different games where exactly that kind of thing is appropriate (for example, in Mutants and Masterminds that's just an ordinary power stunt).
I find all outcomes hilarious.
Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get 15d6 damages from the fall. Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get stopped mid air. 2 rounds later, Player proceeds to shoot an enemy, get blasted in the wall behind him, gets 15d6 damages. Player jumps from the brige, player under him shoot him with ballista, falling player gets 15d6 from the blast. Other player makes a dexterity save to avoid the falling mass of flesh and equipment. Player jumps from the brige, shoots the ground, the DM says "sigh ... OK ...". The player lands on one knee. The player proceeds to modify an armor, put a ballista in each boot and gloves and hover above enemies, blasting them from above. Other player discover he can fly by launching his hammer and catching it. Other player ask his magical shield to behave like a boomerang. Other player uses repeteated shrink spells to become microscopic, enter the enemies body and kill them from the inside. DM weeps on his low fantasy high diplomacy setting notes.
You have won the thread. All further discussion is pointless.
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
It's a game and, just as importantly, not a computer game. You're free to do whatever you want. And you should, if it makes the game more fun for your group. The only rule in D&D, is have fun. The rules are there to help and support that, not to stop you from having fun.
My first game of D&D, the first thing we did was rip out a bunch of rules. We were both learning, and so we wanted to simplify things. As we understood more, we reintroduced more rules. The only one that we don't implement now is encumbrance. There are only two of us playing (including the DM), and so we both have multiple characters to make the game work. Encumbrance is just another burden that doesn't really help - so we ignore it. It probably has no effect anyway, but we just don't want to get bogged down every time we get loot working things out. When we do our RotFM campaign with my brother-in-law, we have the rule back since there's less of a load to deal with.
It's worth remembering that you need to know what rules are causing problems and what rules are pushing you to have more fun or preventing upsets. Take Monopoly, for example. It's a terrible game anyway, but people often have the houserule that if you land on Free Parking, you get all the money collected by the bank from fees etc. People think it helps the losing players but in reality it just prolongs the inevitable and increases the upsets and frustration (which, ironically, was part of the point of the original game, but that really is a tangent). It's a well-meaning but bad houserule.
So, yes, the rules are more like guidelines. I'd consider carefully what rules you change, but it's actually in the handbook that you should do so. Some play for realism (which always makes me smile because the very name of the game is an exercise in being impossible in reality, but if they find it fun, cool), others for "rule of cool", and so forth. Do what works best for your party. What you find fun is the important part. This idea of freedom is exactly why we play TTRPGs rather than computer games, despite all the extra work, worse graphics, slower processing speeds, extra space needed etc. A computer game will always have fundamental limits that you cannot pass, a TTRPG is designed to let you and assist you to go anywhere, not stop you.
Hence why I'm always dubious when one person tries to criticise how another table plays or tries to dictate how they should play - at least, as long as they're having fun. You can debate what the rules say, but hiw to play them is down to the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe over the years D&D tried to have more robust set of rules that can stand on their own as much as possible with as little DM adjudication needed as possible so Organized Play could be run smoothly. Since OP such as RPGA, Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Adventurer's League have always used the existing rules of the edition at the time to run, making them as robust as they can seem to have been a common goal so it can give a more unified experience from table to table, from one stores or convention to another.
Rules are still guidelines and the DM is still in charge of them, having the previledge to follow or bend them as it want. But things like initiative for exemple, went from almost unusable as written in early edition, to something that most people simply use the same way nowadays and that is just one little exemple of what more robust and clear set of rules have done.
I am playing a 1e game now. The fact that Initiative is rolled for each side on each turn changes the combat dynamic in a huge way. It is far more terrifying for the players, as it should be.
Such methid can also be done in 5E as described in the Combat Options: Initiative Variant (DMG270)
I wouldn't allow someone falling to stop their fall by firing an artificer cannon. But if all involved had fun with it, good for them. It doesn't really matter if I would allow that specific instance of rule of cool or not because I'm not at that table. They're not playing 'wrong' they're just playing differently.
As for 5E's rules, I don't think they're perfect but they don't really seem overly vague to me, so I'd be curious to have some specific examples of rules listed out that people think are unclear on how they're intended to work.
I mean, as a DM I probably wouldn't let it work (though if they managed to get their force ballista on the ground and wanted to modify it so they could use it to slow people falling towards it I'd consider it), but as long as the people in the game are having fun I'm not going to judge, and I've certainly been in different games where exactly that kind of thing is appropriate (for example, in Mutants and Masterminds that's just an ordinary power stunt).
I find all outcomes hilarious.
Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get 15d6 damages from the fall. Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get stopped mid air. 2 rounds later, Player proceeds to shoot an enemy, get blasted in the wall behind him, gets 15d6 damages. Player jumps from the brige, player under him shoot him with ballista, falling player gets 15d6 from the blast. Other player makes a dexterity save to avoid the falling mass of flesh and equipment. Player jumps from the brige, shoots the ground, the DM says "sigh ... OK ...". The player lands on one knee. The player proceeds to modify an armor, put a ballista in each boot and gloves and hover above enemies, blasting them from above. Other player discover he can fly by launching his hammer and catching it. Other player ask his magical shield to behave like a boomerang. Other player uses repeteated shrink spells to become microscopic, enter the enemies body and kill them from the inside. DM weeps on his low fantasy high diplomacy setting notes.
Precisely where the game ends up. It becomes a cartoon. Children enjoy cartoons like this, as well as adults. But adults know that no game can be played like that, unless it is called Toon.
Don’t kid yourself, the game is a cartoon to begin with, just following RAW.
A gnome with the sentinel feat and a dagger can stop a charging tarrasque.
A wild magic sorcerer can: You grow a long beard made of feathers that remains until you sneeze, at which point the feathers explode out from your face.
Dragonborn with a feat can scream so loud it scares people. Ditto leonin without a feat
There are rabbit people, cat people, like three kinds of bird people, turtle people, soon to be hippo people and bug people, elephant people, bull people, the above mentioned lion people, lizard people, snake people. The Disney cartoon about unlikely animal friends writes itself.
And that’s not even looking at what spellcasters can do.
You can turn it into some gritty, dark Joe Ambercrombie novel. Honestly, I often prefer it that way. But cartoon is fully supported by RAW.
I believe over the years D&D tried to have more robust set of rules that can stand on their own as much as possible with as little DM adjudication needed as possible so Organized Play could be run smoothly. Since OP such RPGA, Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Adventurer's League have always used the existing rules of the edition at the time to run, making them as robust as they can seem to have been a common goal so it can give a more unified experience from table to table, from one stores or convention to another.
Rules are still guidelines and the DM is still in charge of them, having the previledge to follow or bend them as it want. But things like initiative for exemple, went from barely unusable as written in early edition, to something that most people simply use the same way nowadays and that is just one little exemple of more robust set of rules have done.
I am playing a 1e game now. The fact that Initiative is rolled for each side on each turn changes the combat dynamic in a huge way. It is far more terrifying for the players, as it should be.
Terrifying in one way, boring in another if you were first in one round and the roll to be last in the next round.
I believe over the years D&D tried to have more robust set of rules that can stand on their own as much as possible with as little DM adjudication needed as possible so Organized Play could be run smoothly. Since OP such RPGA, Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Adventurer's League have always used the existing rules of the edition at the time to run, making them as robust as they can seem to have been a common goal so it can give a more unified experience from table to table, from one stores or convention to another.
Rules are still guidelines and the DM is still in charge of them, having the previledge to follow or bend them as it want. But things like initiative for exemple, went from barely unusable as written in early edition, to something that most people simply use the same way nowadays and that is just one little exemple of more robust set of rules have done.
I am playing a 1e game now. The fact that Initiative is rolled for each side on each turn changes the combat dynamic in a huge way. It is far more terrifying for the players, as it should be.
Terrifying in one way, boring in another if you were first in one round and the roll to be last in the next round.
To me it just seems like re rolling initiative every round would be a slog and bog down the flow of combat. I can find other ways to terrify the players.
It becomes a slippery slope. DM allows one thing that is outside of the rules. Next person wants to do something just a hair further outside of the rules. Player C then pushes the envelope a tiny bit further. DM says "no". Player C says "Favouritism!!! You let Player B do X and my stunt Y is almost the same."
One thing I've found about these kinds of rules debates is that the two sides tend to have a very different perspective on the relationship between the DM and the players.
The comment above paints a picture of one honorable DM fighting against a group of players that are trying to get away with as much as they can. This is not the dynamic at every table.
At many tables, everyone there is interested in fairness and verisimilitude as well as what seems fun in the moment. When someone's trying to invoke the Rule of Cool, my group will often pause the story and have a quick discussion on what's appropriate and the DM is rarely the most critical voice. We find a compromise together.
If your group has the maturity and awareness to self-regulate and everyone shares the idea that it's a bad thing for the game to devolve into some kind of meaningless make-believe contest, then this kind of thing is much easier for the DM to handle. And that DM may have a hard time seeing why another DM is clinging onto RAW for dear life.
Likewise, you may have a DM that is herding cats every session as the sole voice of reason, while the players try to outdo each other by progressively bending the rules with no regard to how it affects the game in the long term. That DM is not going to have the same opinion on applying the RAW because for them its the primary glue that keeps the game together.
It becomes a slippery slope. DM allows one thing that is outside of the rules. Next person wants to do something just a hair further outside of the rules. Player C then pushes the envelope a tiny bit further. DM says "no". Player C says "Favouritism!!! You let Player B do X and my stunt Y is almost the same."
One thing I've found about these kinds of rules debates is that the two sides tend to have a very different perspective on the relationship between the DM and the players.
The comment above paints a picture of one honorable DM fighting against a group of players that are trying to get away with as much as they can. This is not the dynamic at every table.
Agreed, it's quite strange for me to have people thinking like that. I'm not sure I'd even enjoy being part of a table like that. At my table, we're all in it together trying to make it fun - As DM, I merely have the final say on the matter if there is no consensus found. I might have more authority and I can override even a consensus, but It's only a matter of last resort when the proposal will not work later on. If others have a more adversarial relationship that's fine, but it's not to my taste.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
At the end of the day, we're all a bunch of fantasy nerds playing make-believe. Implying that one form of make-believe is somehow superior to another because of the kinds of imaginary creatures that do or don't appear in it is...silly.
To any newbies reading this thread, know that this hobby is filled with a bunch of really passionate people who (mostly) just want everyone to love the game like they do. You'll hear often that there's no wrong way to play D&D - but you'll hear less often that there are ways to play D&D that are wrong for each person. To some, the rules enhance the game. To others, rules detract from it. You'll find where you are along that spectrum as you play more, and I hope you'll find a group whose fun matches your own. Because when you do...that's real magic.
Gygax might not have believed in the Rule of Cool, but Dave Arneson was a pretty big fan of the Rule of Cool. People give Gygax credit for inventing D&D, but that is a bit of a myth--Gygax came up with the dice system, and Arneson came up with the idea of "what if we had fun adventures outside of strictly a mechanical game, and used the mechanics to tell a mutual story?" The first D&D game was DMed by Arneson and literally started with an adventure based on a bad pun--Gygax and others were inside a tavern and every time they tried to leave, they would walk right back in... it was called the "Comeback Inn."
The part that made D&D a success, and not just another tabletop war game, was Arneson's contribution, which is every bit as important as Gygax's. We tend to forget about Arneson because Gygax is a truly awful human being who forced Arneson out of the company and then engaged in a campaign of revisionist history to paint himself as the solitary creator of D&D.
All that's to say, the Rule of Cool--and arguing over whether it should or should not be part of the game--is literally as old as the game itself. Different groups have always had different preferences, and that's perfectly fine, so long as you don't pull a Gygax and let your arrogance and general awfulness ruin the game for folks you once called your friends.
Oh, I didn't realize the force ballista had a magical property to effect gravity, I thought it was just firing damaging force.
I know magic yadayadas the how of everything, but not the what. A fiery explosion created by magic doesn't turn lead into gold because "magic" and "rule of cool," it behaves like a fiery explosion.
The force ballista can absolutely be fired at the ground, and you can even homebrew an outcome equivalent to it's RAW effect (like reduce fall damage by 5 feet). THAT is rule of cool. There is a difference between structured fantasy and nonsensical fantasy. D&D is structured, things play by different rules, but follow those rules.
Hello there all, I am new to all of D&D but extremely riveted about the topic nonetheless. How exactly are the rules simply guidelines, though? I had previously assumed you had to follow them to a t.
Not at all, though I advise following them as closely as seems reasonable.
Rule 0 of the game is that the DM can change, add, or ignore any rules. Not every rule makes sense in every situation or some groups just don't find it fun.
For the purposes of online advice, we usually assume the rules are being followed to a T as that is a common ground we can (usually) agree on.
I mean, as a DM I probably wouldn't let it work (though if they managed to get their force ballista on the ground and wanted to modify it so they could use it to slow people falling towards it I'd consider it), but as long as the people in the game are having fun I'm not going to judge, and I've certainly been in different games where exactly that kind of thing is appropriate (for example, in Mutants and Masterminds that's just an ordinary power stunt).
Thank you so much, this helps clear up a lot of previous confusion.
Playing D&D is like cooking, and the rules are like recipes. It is a good idea to KNOW the recipe (you do not have to memorize it all either as long as you know how to look it up in the book; in my opinion, it is even easier and quicker to just Google it), but you do NOT need to EXECUTE it to the exact measurements nor even ingredients, you probably should not either, and you are unlikely to be able to follow it to a perfect T anyways.
You want recipes to be as clear and as exact as possible, because new cooks need that help when they first start out. It is not really helpful for new cooks if the recipe for beef stew just tells the person to season and brown the meat, pour in water, throw some vegetables in, and simmer until done. What kind of beef (filet mignon, ribeye, strip, chuck, etc.) do I use? How much meat? How can I tell if it is browned enough? I just realized I bought pork chuck instead of beef chuck, can I still use pork? And those are questions on just the meat.
But once the person is more experienced in cooking, the recipes do not have to be followed. It is good idea to know what generally goes in a beef stew and how it is cooked, so you have a point of reference when talking about it with another person, but you absolutely do not need to stick with static recipes and you should adjust the ingredients, measurements, and way of cooking to however you or the people you cook for like. There is no reason to add potatoes to a beef stew if nobody at the table likes potatoes in stew, and would much rather have barley instead. Hell, maybe the table cannot eat beef for religious reasons, but they would gladly down a lamb stew instead, so all you really need to change is just the meat itself.
Same thing with D&D. Once you know enough of the rules and feel comfortable with it, homebrew it however you and your table like.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I find all outcomes hilarious.
Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get 15d6 damages from the fall.
Player jumps from the brige, shoot the ground and get stopped mid air. 2 rounds later, Player proceeds to shoot an enemy, get blasted in the wall behind him, gets 15d6 damages.
Player jumps from the brige, player under him shoot him with ballista, falling player gets 15d6 from the blast. Other player makes a dexterity save to avoid the falling mass of flesh and equipment.
Player jumps from the brige, shoots the ground, the DM says "sigh ... OK ...". The player lands on one knee. The player proceeds to modify an armor, put a ballista in each boot and gloves and hover above enemies, blasting them from above. Other player discover he can fly by launching his hammer and catching it. Other player ask his magical shield to behave like a boomerang. Other player uses repeteated shrink spells to become microscopic, enter the enemies body and kill them from the inside. DM weeps on his low fantasy high diplomacy setting notes.
You have won the thread. All further discussion is pointless.
It's a game and, just as importantly, not a computer game. You're free to do whatever you want. And you should, if it makes the game more fun for your group. The only rule in D&D, is have fun. The rules are there to help and support that, not to stop you from having fun.
My first game of D&D, the first thing we did was rip out a bunch of rules. We were both learning, and so we wanted to simplify things. As we understood more, we reintroduced more rules. The only one that we don't implement now is encumbrance. There are only two of us playing (including the DM), and so we both have multiple characters to make the game work. Encumbrance is just another burden that doesn't really help - so we ignore it. It probably has no effect anyway, but we just don't want to get bogged down every time we get loot working things out. When we do our RotFM campaign with my brother-in-law, we have the rule back since there's less of a load to deal with.
It's worth remembering that you need to know what rules are causing problems and what rules are pushing you to have more fun or preventing upsets. Take Monopoly, for example. It's a terrible game anyway, but people often have the houserule that if you land on Free Parking, you get all the money collected by the bank from fees etc. People think it helps the losing players but in reality it just prolongs the inevitable and increases the upsets and frustration (which, ironically, was part of the point of the original game, but that really is a tangent). It's a well-meaning but bad houserule.
So, yes, the rules are more like guidelines. I'd consider carefully what rules you change, but it's actually in the handbook that you should do so. Some play for realism (which always makes me smile because the very name of the game is an exercise in being impossible in reality, but if they find it fun, cool), others for "rule of cool", and so forth. Do what works best for your party. What you find fun is the important part. This idea of freedom is exactly why we play TTRPGs rather than computer games, despite all the extra work, worse graphics, slower processing speeds, extra space needed etc. A computer game will always have fundamental limits that you cannot pass, a TTRPG is designed to let you and assist you to go anywhere, not stop you.
Hence why I'm always dubious when one person tries to criticise how another table plays or tries to dictate how they should play - at least, as long as they're having fun. You can debate what the rules say, but hiw to play them is down to the table.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe over the years D&D tried to have more robust set of rules that can stand on their own as much as possible with as little DM adjudication needed as possible so Organized Play could be run smoothly. Since OP such as RPGA, Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Forgotten Realms, Adventurer's League have always used the existing rules of the edition at the time to run, making them as robust as they can seem to have been a common goal so it can give a more unified experience from table to table, from one stores or convention to another.
Rules are still guidelines and the DM is still in charge of them, having the previledge to follow or bend them as it want. But things like initiative for exemple, went from almost unusable as written in early edition, to something that most people simply use the same way nowadays and that is just one little exemple of what more robust and clear set of rules have done.
Such methid can also be done in 5E as described in the Combat Options: Initiative Variant (DMG270)
I wouldn't allow someone falling to stop their fall by firing an artificer cannon. But if all involved had fun with it, good for them. It doesn't really matter if I would allow that specific instance of rule of cool or not because I'm not at that table. They're not playing 'wrong' they're just playing differently.
As for 5E's rules, I don't think they're perfect but they don't really seem overly vague to me, so I'd be curious to have some specific examples of rules listed out that people think are unclear on how they're intended to work.
Don’t kid yourself, the game is a cartoon to begin with, just following RAW.
A gnome with the sentinel feat and a dagger can stop a charging tarrasque.
A wild magic sorcerer can: You grow a long beard made of feathers that remains until you sneeze, at which point the feathers explode out from your face.
Dragonborn with a feat can scream so loud it scares people. Ditto leonin without a feat
There are rabbit people, cat people, like three kinds of bird people, turtle people, soon to be hippo people and bug people, elephant people, bull people, the above mentioned lion people, lizard people, snake people. The Disney cartoon about unlikely animal friends writes itself.
And that’s not even looking at what spellcasters can do.
You can turn it into some gritty, dark Joe Ambercrombie novel. Honestly, I often prefer it that way. But cartoon is fully supported by RAW.
Terrifying in one way, boring in another if you were first in one round and the roll to be last in the next round.
To me it just seems like re rolling initiative every round would be a slog and bog down the flow of combat. I can find other ways to terrify the players.
One thing I've found about these kinds of rules debates is that the two sides tend to have a very different perspective on the relationship between the DM and the players.
The comment above paints a picture of one honorable DM fighting against a group of players that are trying to get away with as much as they can. This is not the dynamic at every table.
At many tables, everyone there is interested in fairness and verisimilitude as well as what seems fun in the moment. When someone's trying to invoke the Rule of Cool, my group will often pause the story and have a quick discussion on what's appropriate and the DM is rarely the most critical voice. We find a compromise together.
If your group has the maturity and awareness to self-regulate and everyone shares the idea that it's a bad thing for the game to devolve into some kind of meaningless make-believe contest, then this kind of thing is much easier for the DM to handle. And that DM may have a hard time seeing why another DM is clinging onto RAW for dear life.
Likewise, you may have a DM that is herding cats every session as the sole voice of reason, while the players try to outdo each other by progressively bending the rules with no regard to how it affects the game in the long term. That DM is not going to have the same opinion on applying the RAW because for them its the primary glue that keeps the game together.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Agreed, it's quite strange for me to have people thinking like that. I'm not sure I'd even enjoy being part of a table like that. At my table, we're all in it together trying to make it fun - As DM, I merely have the final say on the matter if there is no consensus found. I might have more authority and I can override even a consensus, but It's only a matter of last resort when the proposal will not work later on. If others have a more adversarial relationship that's fine, but it's not to my taste.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
At the end of the day, we're all a bunch of fantasy nerds playing make-believe. Implying that one form of make-believe is somehow superior to another because of the kinds of imaginary creatures that do or don't appear in it is...silly.
To any newbies reading this thread, know that this hobby is filled with a bunch of really passionate people who (mostly) just want everyone to love the game like they do. You'll hear often that there's no wrong way to play D&D - but you'll hear less often that there are ways to play D&D that are wrong for each person. To some, the rules enhance the game. To others, rules detract from it. You'll find where you are along that spectrum as you play more, and I hope you'll find a group whose fun matches your own. Because when you do...that's real magic.
Disclaimer: it's not actually real magic, please do not try to conjure a Fey creature in your mother's kitchen