Jon Peterson discusses the origins of Rule Zero on his blog. It featured as early as 1978 in Alarums & Excursions #38.
But, yes, there should be some more attention paid in the various DM's advice books as to when to use a Rule 0 and how. I've seen far too many games go pear shaped because the DM figured he or she knew better than the rules, invoked Rule 0 to change the rules, only to make the game worse because the DM didn't understand the rules in the first place. The more complex the system, the easier it is to make mistakes like that.
This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to see. Practical, "best practices" discussion about Rule 0 and when it is good for the game that you NOT use it, etc.You need to be careful with rule 0. An important advise is that you should announce rule changes ahead of time. Only optional rules that favour players might be held in secret, as they can give a surprising edge to them.
These are social issues that game rules can't solve.
This is exactly the kind of conversation I was hoping to see. Practical, "best practices" discussion about Rule 0 and when it is good for the game that you NOT use it, etc.
Such talk seems rather thin on the ground when the surging popularity of D&D is driven by a system that actually needs wise use of Rule 0 to function properly (which, as many have made clear, is an intentional feature).
You are wrong. You put the rule books into a good sturdy pillowcase. And beat the player with them. EVIL GRIN.I don't know what that means. Rule 0 is about game rules. Your post was about apparently abusive social dynamics. I don't turn to D&D books to deal with the latter.
Rule 0 is undeniably part of the books, as evidenced by the very fact that it's in the books.But Rule 0 isn't part of the books either. I mean, they describe it, but by definition--from even those descriptions!--Rule 0 stands outside the rules.
There's a leap of logic there that's a bit too long.It is part of the social structure surrounding the rules. It seems obvious to me that saying "don't do things that make no sense" and "no set of rules can ever be totally complete" means "engage your group socially to resolve anything that can't be resolved inside the rules given."
This is not correct. The rules say that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. That's not a social issue. The abuses you described earlier in the thread have nothing to do with Rule 0 at all. They are bad DM issues that would be present even if Rule 0 wasn't.But Rule 0 isn't part of the books either. I mean, they describe it, but by definition--from even those descriptions!--Rule 0 stands outside the rules. It is part of the social structure surrounding the rules. It seems obvious to me that saying "don't do things that make no sense" and "no set of rules can ever be totally complete" means "engage your group socially to resolve anything that can't be resolved inside the rules given." It would seem to be literally the POINT of "proper use of Rule 0" to talk about social dynamics.
I think it's a strength of Classic Traveller's design that its range of subsystems is pretty solid in its coverage of the sorts of fiction the system can produce, and that some of them generalise nicely (eg we have generalised the system for small craft evasion to work for other contexts, like ATVs trying to evade orbital bombardment). Conversely, I think a reason that "rule zero" figures so prominently in the context of "classic" D&D is that the classic D&D subsystems are pretty narrowly focused - eg there is no system for races/chases other than the outdoor evasion rules - and generalise poorly (eg due to different rules for dice, for stat mods, for the importance of level, etc).
This is a False Dichotomy and wrong to boot.A group of friends playing a game together is free to adopt whatever rules they prefer.
A group of strangers playing a game together will need some sort of framework (eg Hoyle) to settle on the rules that govern the game, if they want to avoid potential instability and even fallings out.
Rule zero is pointless pedantry for the first group. And is unhelpful for the second group.