Not “the rule of cool,” but “the rule of reasonable”

The “rule of cool” is basically a philosophy on how to handle situations not covered by the rules.  If something seems cool then there should be a discussion with the players, assign odds and let them decide if they want to take the chance to roll for it.  Players can then use that to judge their odds and their amount of risk they are willing to accept.

While a lot of people act like this is a great revelation, it’s how things have been handled in roleplaying since the 1970s.  The key difference is that back in the day there were many fewer rules in books, so there were more things left up to this discussion.

A lot of players use this idea to push the envelope on “the rule of cool” idea of there’s always a chance to create unreasonable situations in the game or give rise to a wuxia, videogamey play style.  That’s not really the kind of game I want to run, though.

Towards a more grounded, old-school game that is less wuxia superhero videogame, so I like to think of it more as the “rule of reasonable.”

• If a player suggests an action that is reasonable in context and could well succeed, then generally let them succeed and experience the reasonable consequences that follow from that success.

• If a player suggests an action that is possible but unlikely in context, determine what the player has in mind to clarify and a percentage for success will be assigned.  The player can then decide if they want to roll for it or not.  If they do not, they lose their action (if in a situation where that is relevant, such as combat) due to indecision and weighing their choices but then not acting.

• If a player suggests an action that is impossible in context, well… all I can do is tell you no, and we can still discuss it.  If you say you’re doing it anyway, I may roll just to see how badly it turns out