The Origins of ‘Rule Zero’

Jon Peterson discusses the origins of Rule Zero on his blog. It featured as early as 1978 in Alarums & Excursions #38.

 

[aco175]

Good read, only complaint font's a little small for old eyes.

 

[Blue Orange]

Control-plus will zoom in, increasing font size, on Chrome and Edge at least. I had to use it myself.

 

[Blue Orange]

It's an interesting philosophical point though. I mean, we all know it on some level--ultimately they can't stop you from running your game the way you want to. (As I recall Hackmaster made a joke about this, encouraging people to snitch on people playing illicit Hackmaster to the company.) Having it officially in the rules might make some people feel more comfortable about doing it, though.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Cool, though I prefer Kam-Pain's "GM's Cloak." Sounds much more mysterious and sinister.

Interesting that over the years Rule 0 went from being on the 1st page (Basic D&D 1980) to buried at page 263 in the DMG as "you aren't limited by the rules," so here's some more rules you can use.

 

[Blue Orange]

They have to sell books, no? They have to pay all those writers and artists who make those nice hardbound volumes.

If they encouraged everyone to make up their own rules for everything they'd sell the basic 3 books and nothing else.

 

[MGibster]

Rule 0 was also a good way to prevent players from pulling silly stunts that were technically within the rules but made little sense in context.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The only real problem I have with Rule 0 is when it is used abusively--because a lot of people talk about players using all the other game rules abusively, and pretty much never talk about DMs using Rule 0 abusively.

By which I mean: When the world can change underneath the players' feet, not simply without them noticing but preventing even the possibility that they ever COULD notice, you're treading on some real thin ice. Or if you capriciously override the rules in one situation but do not do so in a seemingly-identical later situation, such that the players now don't really have any ability to prepare for the future. Or when the DM's rulings deviate from the rules in biased or manipulable ways (e.g. always favoring their spouse/SO, being bribed with out-of-game benefits, giving IC punishments for OOC actions or events, etc.)

Again, none of this is to say that Rule 0 shouldn't exist. Just that it should be employed very carefully, a judiciously-applied fix, avoiding both deficiency and excess in its use. In that way, it's a lot like salt. The right amount of salt elevates a dish, making it so much more flavorful and pleasant. Too much, and the dish becomes inedible. Too little, and while the dish may still be edible, it will not taste very good. Yet where "the right amount" lies is a judgment call.

 

[Morrus]

The only real problem I have with Rule 0 is when it is used abusively--because a lot of people talk about players using all the other game rules abusively, and pretty much never talk about DMs using Rule 0 abusively.

By which I mean: When the world can change underneath the players' feet, not simply without them noticing but preventing even the possibility that they ever COULD notice, you're treading on some real thin ice. Or if you capriciously override the rules in one situation but do not do so in a seemingly-identical later situation, such that the players now don't really have any ability to prepare for the future. Or when the DM's rulings deviate from the rules in biased or manipulable ways (e.g. always favoring their spouse/SO, being bribed with out-of-game benefits, giving IC punishments for OOC actions or events, etc.)

These are social issues that game rules can't solve.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

These are social issues that game rules can't solve.

Surely Rule 0 itself is in that same space?