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.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

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.

A GM acting unilaterally doesn't need Rule 0. She can just offer up whatever game s/he wants.

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 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.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.

 

[Hussar]

See, this was the point I was trying to make earlier. Back in the early days of the game, we just didn't know what rules would be a good idea and what wouldn't. And, then, we got AD&D. A system where virtually no one (yes, yes, you in the back I KNOW you did, but, I'm painting with a broad brush here) actually played by the rules of the game. And, as time went on, and we went into 2e, we wound up in a position where it was very difficult to trust the game designers because there was just so much dreck out there that was exploitable, badly written, outlandishly over or under powered and about as balanced as a concussed polar bear on roller skates.

So, yeah, Rule 0 made perfect sense. The rules certainly couldn't be relied on.

Then 3e rolled along and then 4e as its successor. Where the rules actually worked. Where, more often than not, table balance issues were caused by the DM NOT following (or knowing) the rules and trying to Rule 0 his or her way through. 5e largely lives in the same neighborhood. There's a reason we don't have binders full of house rules anymore. We can and do trust the game designers more or less to provide decently balanced material. And, within a certain variance, they do.

The need for Rule 0 has been shrinking more and more over time.

 

[TheSword]

There are three reasons I believe rule zero is useful and important.

Firstly it speeds up in/table arguments. Any game as complex as d&d and its clones (yes even a streamlined D&D is complex) is going to bog down at some point with disagreement over rules interactions. If there is an ‘ultimate arbiter of the rules’ then it allows the game to continue in a timely manner. For instance our group had a disagreement about whether initiative order was reset when a person was revived from combat. Remember it isn’t always that a rule doesn’t exist, just that players might not know it, or understand the full implications. Anyone who says it isn’t complex can go back and read these forums in the first 3 years of release or see the Sage advice Twitter.

Secondly, it allows the DM to find their own style and tone. Being a DM has many challenges. Sometimes you want cool stuff to happen but don’t have a rule to reference it too. Sometimes the DM needs to just decide what they want to have happen and hand wave it. I have a DM who tends to start every fight in media res. So roll initiative and the enemy are standing 15 feet away and surrounding us. I think it probably stems from excessive buffing/sniping in 3e/Pathfinder days, but it actually keeps the combats tense, and dynamic. Rather than the tactically sound option of standing in a 5’ wide gap and killing the enemy 4 on 1. It’s a different style to mine, but I respect it and enjoy it. Neither setup is defined in the rules, and frankly I don’t care. The DM should be able to make these calls. If they want to give a creature max hp then they can, or invent a new ability, or a spell, or give extra spells to a particular NPC etc, or decide it only take 4 days to do a journey not 6 then that’s all for the good.

Lastly, and for me the most important impact is it discourages an adversarial approach. If the DM is not forced into slavishly obeying the rules (in the broader sense) then they become more than just a guy playing the bad guys in a board game. It is impossible for players to be in competition with the DM, because the DM can work outside the rules. Rocks fall you die in the most extreme case. Once that is off the table people can get on with the game and have fun.

To be clear, none of this is forced on players. They can vote with their feet and choose not to play if they don’t like the style. Yes some of this can be discussed up front and pre-warned in a session zero or players guide but it’s hubristic to think you can catch everything.

 

[Maxperson]

A GM acting unilaterally doesn't need Rule 0. She can just offer up whatever game s/he wants.

Rule 0 isn't about choosing the game. It's about altering the rules of whatever game was chosen.

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.

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.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

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?

 

[Crusadius]

Rule 0 isn't about choosing the game. It's about altering the rules of whatever game was chosen.

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.

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 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.

Plus if I were to have purchased game, I'd like to play it as is otherwise I might feel that I've wasted good money.

 

[TheSword]

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?

Rolling a d6 for initiative. Is not elegant, it’s simple.

Elegant is not the same as simple.

Anyone can write a simple Rpg. Roll a D6 on a 5 or 6 you do a wound. I’m not sure that simple method would be satisfying.

Elegant rules achieve a satisfying process with the minimum of fuss.

I’d argue that the Success Level system in WFRP is quite elegant actually particularly for combat. Two opposed rolls that model hitting, location and damage, defender skill, a wide variety of methods of defense, critical hits and fumbles, and that removes the whiff factor of earlier editions is very elegant.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

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.

The need for Rule 0 has been shrinking more and more over time.

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.

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.

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.