Jon Peterson discusses the origins of Rule Zero on his blog. It featured as early as 1978 in Alarums & Excursions #38.
I know this is a tangent, but I think this is an assumption we make that’s not always the case. It’s likely wrong in many cases. It’s true rules often become more intricate, more involved, more precise, more detailed, etc with each iteration, but they don’t often become more elegant. I think this is an assumption we make. The new isn’t always or inherently better than the old.Rule 0 still needs to be there, but, frankly, it's becoming more and more corner case as the rules become more elegant with each iteration.
A GM acting unilaterally doesn't need Rule 0. She can just offer up whatever game s/he wants.This is a False Dichotomy and wrong to boot.
For the first group, the group isn't always(often really) adopting rules together. The DM will often use Rule 0 on his own to improve upon the game.
I have doubts about this, for the reasons given by other posters in this thread. If I turn up to play a particular RPG, I'm not turning up to play a GM's version of Calvinball.For the second group, the DM can use Rule 0 in the same way, to make the game better by avoiding ridiculous situations that the rules often comes up with if you apply them verbatim to every situation. It is often helpful for the latter group type.
I disagree.I know this is a tangent, but I think this is an assumption we make that’s not always the case. It’s likely wrong in many cases. It’s true rules often become more intricate, more involved, more precise, more detailed, etc with each iteration, but they don’t often become more elegant. I think this is an assumption we make. The new isn’t always or inherently better than the old.
Rule 0 isn't about choosing the game. It's about altering the rules of whatever game was chosen.A GM acting unilaterally doesn't need Rule 0. She can just offer up whatever game s/he wants.
This is a Strawman of Rule 0. The rule doesn't even come close to resulting in "Calvinball." It can be grossly abused to result in "Calvinball," but that's very unlikely to happen.I have doubts about this, for the reasons given by other posters in this thread. If I turn up to play a particular RPG, I'm not turning up to play a GM's version of Calvinball.
Initiative in 5E is three paragraphs long and requires understanding a second subsystem (“every participant makes a Dexterity check”) which is an additional three paragraphs to five pages depending on how you want to count.I disagree.
Look at the rules for pretty much anything in AD&D and then compare the same rule in 5e. By and large, the description of that rule will be half as long, far more comprehensive and far less open to abuse or interpretation. Whether you want to talk about initiative rules (over a page long in 1e, less than a paragraph in 5e), combat rules (several pages, spread across both the PHB and the DMG in 1e vs a page or two in the PHB in 5e) or whatever.
It is very rare that a rule becomes more complex over time and iteration.
I think what was meant is that if a Game Master were to Rule Zero a game (perhaps with a lot of rule changes), then perhaps there is another game that addresses the problem the GM is trying to solve.Rule 0 isn't about choosing the game. It's about altering the rules of whatever game was chosen.
I took @pemerton to mean that the rules, as contained in a rule book that both players and GM have purchased, constitute a shared set of rules that everyone has (and hopefully have familiarised themselves with), and a GM who has chosen to change a number of rules can surprise the players because they expected to be playing Game X, not Game sort-of-X-but-with-these-quote-fixes-end-quote. This is likely more pertinent to a group of people who have just met than a group that has been together for a few years, but I wager there have been a few groups surprised by their GM presenting their list of rule fixes to a game on the first day.This is a Strawman of Rule 0. The rule doesn't even come close to resulting in "Calvinball." It can be grossly abused to result in "Calvinball," but that's very unlikely to happen.
Rolling a d6 for initiative. Is not elegant, it’s simple.Initiative in 5E is three paragraphs long and requires understanding a second subsystem (“every participant makes a Dexterity check”) which is an additional three paragraphs to five pages depending on how you want to count.
Examples of things more complicated in 5E than AD&D: Character creation. Spells. Spellcasting. Classes. Class abilities. Saves. Combat. Dying. So...the majority of the game.
But picking AD&D as the comparison is kind of a strawman. Notoriously overwritten, disorganized, incomplete, and confusing...especially if you try to play it RAW. Look at B/X’s initiative for a better comparison. It’s actually three paragraphs which contain not only the complete rules for initiative, but a list of everything you can do in a round, a lot of redundancy, and explanations.
To me B/X is infinitely more elegant than 5E. How’s B/X initiative work? Each side rolls a d6, high roll goes first. Done. What’s 5E again? Everyone makes a DEX check, modified by ability modifier, class features, feat bonuses, spell effects, magic items, then arrange in order, then run them each in order. How about searching for secret doors? B/X it’s 1d6 modified by race or class. How’s it work in 5E again? Well, that all depends on how you run passive perception.
Elegance isn’t an inherent quality to new things. Elegance is simplicity and ease of use. Rules that are short and sweet. Fewer rules more broadly applied, not more rules that are narrowly focused. Fewer words to explain the concept. Was 3E more elegant than 2E? 4E more elegant than 3E? Nope. Less elegant each time. Except ascending AC replacing THAC0. That was elegant. Longer and longer spell descriptions? That’s not elegant. 5E is absolutely more elegant than 3E and 4E, granted. That doesn’t mean it’s the most elegant version of D&D. Nor does it mean all newer games are inherently more elegant or better than all older games.
Non-D&D example: WFRP. 4E is the newest, therefore it must be the most elegant, right?
I agree that the new is not inherently better than the old; however, a lot of recent TT game design has been increasingly oriented towards sleek, cohesive, and focused design, particularly with more generalized systems in place that can handle corner cases.I know this is a tangent, but I think this is an assumption we make that’s not always the case. It’s likely wrong in many cases. It’s true rules often become more intricate, more involved, more precise, more detailed, etc with each iteration, but they don’t often become more elegant. I think this is an assumption we make. The new isn’t always or inherently better than the old.
Ten years ago your thesis would likely have been laughed off this forum, but even if this a limited participation from the forum, it does seem far more acceptable to suggest that Rule 0 is increasingly becoming redundant or at least re-contexualized in ways that make it less prone to GM abuse as a principle. I don't particularly see the need for it myself. The idea that one can make house rules or that the GM/table can override the rules? It's not as if people playing card or board games in their homes need a Rule 0 to do the same.The need for Rule 0 has been shrinking more and more over time.
Remarkably Rule Zero is even absent in a number of OSR products. I cannot find any mention or discussion of anything remotely approaching a Rule Zero in Beyond the Wall & Other Adventures. Likewise Stars Without Number, for example, doesn't mention or discuss Rule Zero, though it does note the obvious point that GMs can obviously change the rules at their table, which comes across more as an admission that he can't control what you do at your table, but Crawford actually encourages first playing by the rules as written. Then he proposes a list of some possible house rules. I cannot find mention of Rule Zero in Mork Borg nor can I find it in Index Card RPG. It's also completely absent in Forbidden Lands.I think that Rule 0 is an ad-hoc patch, applied to essentially board-game rules that allows for more ad-hoc patches. PbtA and FitD don't have rule zero at all and work just fine. Fate seriously downplays rule 0 (called the Silver Rule there and talks about applying other rules in unusual circumstances, rather than bypassing rules altogether) and works fine too.
Rule 0 is needed only in rules-first games without solid generalized framework. And even there, it's something to be used carefully, when you actually know what you're doing.