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.
Have their vaccination rates fallen, or were they never all that well-vaccinated but were guarded by herd immunity amongst local non-Mennonites
IIRC, previous CBC reporting indicated that the current Ontario outbreak is due to a bunch of people who travelled to NB for a wedding, which included guests from outside Canada, who had measles. It sounds like Mennonites are maintaining their longstanding anti-vax behaviour, but, in this case, they mixed with a population who had measles.
Canada has an anti-vaccination problem. It’s wiiiiiild how quickly the alt-right in the US (and the big money, mainstream media, and social media amplifying them) have normalized unintelligent, selfish, anti-civilization behaviour like being anti-vaccination.
The implication from the podcast is that the specific measles outbreak in southern Ontario is not due to new anti-vax behaviour, but previous anti-vax behaviour that has been around for decades. I generally agree with your statement, but it sounds like that wasn't the cause for this outbreak.
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.
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.
"The big bump in core [inflation] was driven heavily by food prices, which have been running hot on a seasonally adjusted basis in the past three months," Porter wrote.
Yeah. At this point I try to prepare scenes rather than plots, so hopefully I'll be able to use my painstakingly prepared battlemap later, rather than not at all.
But it's fun when the players throw a total curveball, and I need to come up with something on the spot.
When you're saying "real world" you mean mobile devices where your actual position dictates your position in the game world, right?
I really like the idea of these. Ingress started out cool, but didn't hold my interest. I think the actual play loop kinda sucked, but it built up a decent community around the novelty.
We don't do that here. The GM provides the model of physics the players accept and expect. If the GM just says "nah" when stuff is inconvenient, players don't know what to expect, and the world becomes inconsistent.
A big part of the GM's fun in TTRPGs is improving off that. Players always ruin my plans, but that's part of the game.
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:
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
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.