Bottom right.

You need to talk to your players about this. Explain the kind of stuff that can happen in Paranoia, and ask them if they’re down for those shenanigans. Ask them what kind of stuff they don’t want to do - maybe someone really hates paperwork, so that would ruin their fun, but they’re cool with everything else.

This kind of pre-game agreement is called Session Zero. Searching for it should give you some ideas on how to prepare for it.

They could all be the same numbers. Like the same, you know. Numbers

“And we’re sooooooo evil! We don’t have any friends, family, loved ones, children, pets, or other responsibilities! Here we are, a victimless crime waiting to happen!”

10 months is enough of a cool-down time for this meme.

The rogue did it. We all saw her. She’s always burning things.

As a player, I loved it when the DM would have secondary fires burning as part of the effect. It’s really fun when your actions change the world.

But then the building might collapse. 🤷‍♂️

(Which is also fun)

Totally fair. Every table is different.

I’ve learned that NPCs should have the bare minimum of background necessary for my sessions. If the players like the NPC, it they become useful later on, that’s when I start fleshing them out. Of course, the NPC needs to survive long enough for that to happen.

After some of my sessions, a couple of players will say “thanks! That was fun!” It’s always the same ones.

I’m not sure if they’re being polite or if they’re legit enjoying it. I try to believe the latter.

In his defense, he didn’t try to seduce anyone.

My response was (is?) tongue and cheek.

Generally, I think it’s best for the GM to give the players an accurate, understandable, and consistent view of the world. If the local townsfolk have said The creature up the hill turns people to stone when they gaze upon it! then this is a perfectly reasonable course of action, even if the monster doesn’t have a gaze attack, so long as the PCs trust the villagers. The villagers just happen to be wrong in this case.

If the PCs have a reason to doubt their senses (in D&D/Shadowrun that might be due to a charm, etc; or in Cyberpunk/Shadowrun it could be cyberpsychosis) then it’s also pretty reasonable.

Can the GM do it once to troll the players? Sure.

Would it be annoying if the GM made a habit of it? Probably.

Is it funny for a meme? Yes.

New favourite NPC!

That sounds really nice. I used to play (modern) board games in a cafe, and it was ok. I’d feel weird with some themes in a public space. A semi public place sounds great.

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.

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.

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.

always with the metagaming…

Neat! I’ll have to take a look sometime. Thanks for the explainer.

I GM a fair bit, so the idea of a healthy collection of modules is compelling.

Is Gonzo DMing this one too?