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.

 

[MGibster]

But the idea that Rule Zero is somehow necessary to run any TTRPG seems absolutely ridiculous given the sheer number of TTRPGs of various complexity, genre, or system that do not fall back on this notion and work swimmingly well.

For the most part, when I run games I run them as written. After all, if I need to radically change the rules to enjoy the game why would I even be playing? But I'm hard pressed to think of any rule system I've used for any length of time without invoking Rule 0 at some point. I suppose it's not necessary for every game (it's not like I use it every session) but at some point I know I'll be using it in the future.

 

[loverdrive]

What if you're in a game where people just think it's really cool to use two lances?

Then, in a fiction-first game, people using ridiculous combat styles would be established as something normal and using two lances is going to be reasonably effective within the context of people swinging Guts' swords.

Sure, but that's an opinion, not a fact. It may be a problem to you, but it's a welcome feature to me.

I don't get how needing to do work is a welcome feature over... Not having to do any work.

 

[Maxperson]

And these rules were incomplete in a weird way that requires patches to complete them.

If you're talking about 5e, you're incorrect in the depiction of it as being "in a weird way." They are incomplete, because they wanted DMs to make the game their own and meet their vision. It's a rulings OVER rules edition, not a rules edition.

No patches are required to complete the rules, because a patch implies that there is something broken and in need of fixing. The rules are vague and incomplete to help make the game fit each table better. Rather than clobber every table with the same rigid and complete rules, which don't work for everyone, they made them more fluid and porous so that they match more tables.

 

[Maxperson]

Then, in a fiction-first game, people using ridiculous combat styles would be established as something normal and using two lances is going to be reasonably effective within the context of people swinging Guts' swords.



I don't get how needing to do work is a welcome feature over... Not having to do any work.

Why do you think that it's "work?" I'm betting that it's about as easy for me to make a quick ruling, as it is for you to use a rule from a fiction-first game to accomplish the same end state. I do very little when I use Rule 0 to change something, though that might be because I've been playing for decades, so I've seen a lot and learned a lot.

 

[Minigiant]

Rule Zero was always just a "fill in the Blanks" and a "Tweak to the Genre" rule.

It was never meant to be used willy billy and was mostly to make the infancy of RPGs work.

As RPG design developed, the blanks were mostly filled and the games tweaked to match genre. So Rule Zero is still needed but it shouldn't be used often without consent of all at the table.

 

[loverdrive]

Why do you think that it's "work?" I'm betting that it's about as easy for me to make a quick ruling, as it is for you to use a rule from a fiction-first game to accomplish the same end state. I do very little when I use Rule 0 to change something, though that might be because I've been playing for decades, so I've seen a lot and learned a lot.

"So, you wanna pull the rug from under the bad guys? Ok, give me a Strength check, on a success they gonna fall prone" is easy, but "You pull the rug from under the bad guys, but one of them trips the table and a lamp is about to fall to the ground! The whole room will catch fire fast if it shatters! What ya gonna do?" is easier.

Or "injected with Tiberium, he mutates horibly, his skin gets thicker and he grows a pair of additional arms, so I guess he now has more HP and does two additional attacks" is easy too, but "injected with Tiberium, he mutates horibly, his skin gets thicker and he grows a pair of additional arms" is easier.

If you're talking about 5e, you're incorrect in the depiction of it as being "in a weird way." They are incomplete, because they wanted DMs to make the game their own and meet their vision. It's a rulings OVER rules edition, not a rules edition.

No patches are required to complete the rules, because a patch implies that there is something broken and in need of fixing. The rules are vague and incomplete to help make the game fit each table better. Rather than clobber every table with the same rigid and complete rules, which don't work for everyone, they made them more fluid and porous so that they match more tables.

The rules can be vague in an effective way, or they may be vague like "I'm done here, figure it out".

Something like "wizard needs two free hands to cast spells, but you can change that if you want" allows for making the game your own, but directing the question "how does the magic work?" at the reader calls for it. And doesn't require redoing something from their part, just filling the blanks.

Also, vague rules can have a framework on how to fill in blanks, with effective lenses through which that should be done, or they can leave you stranded.

 

[overgeeked]

Elegant is not the same as simple.

But they are synonyms. To me, simple is elegant. Especially when it comes to RPG game rules.

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.

Yes, and it’s just about the only elegant thing about 4E. The rest is monstrously bloated and inelegant.

 

[overgeeked]

But there’s obviously something there that makes people choose d&d, I don’t believe that is Brand name... or Critical Role.

Considering the increasing number of people who insist on using D&D when a smaller game would more suit the style of play those same groups are after, it does appear that this edition’s popularity is a large part brand loyalty and a large part Critical Role. Not a complaint at all. More people playing games is good.

 

[Maxperson]

"So, you wanna pull the rug from under the bad guys? Ok, give me a Strength check, on a success they gonna fall prone" is easy, but "You pull the rug from under the bad guys, but one of them trips the table and a lamp is about to fall to the ground! The whole room will catch fire fast if it shatters! What ya gonna do?" is easier.

Or "injected with Tiberium, he mutates horibly, his skin gets thicker and he grows a pair of additional arms, so I guess he now has more HP and does two additional attacks" is easy too, but "injected with Tiberium, he mutates horibly, his skin gets thicker and he grows a pair of additional arms" is easier.

Not easier by enough to matter. And in D&D, the rules allow for pulling the rug out with no roll as well. It's in the rules even. In more than one place.

The rules can be vague in an effective way, or they may be vague like "I'm done here, figure it out".

Something like "wizard needs two free hands to cast spells, but you can change that if you want" allows for making the game your own, but directing the question "how does the magic work?" at the reader calls for it. And doesn't require redoing something from their part, just filling the blanks.

Also, vague rules can have a framework on how to fill in blanks, with effective lenses through which that should be done, or they can leave you stranded.

The DMG gives advice for how to fill in the blanks, some of the various styles of play, and different options for the DM to see and weigh. 5e does not leave the DM stranded. It might not be the best advice in the world, but it's pretty solid as a base and the DM can grow and decide how to change things further using that base.

 

[TheSword]

Considering the increasing number of people who insist on using D&D when a smaller game would more suit the style of play those same groups are after, it does appear that this edition’s popularity is a large part brand loyalty and a large part Critical Role. Not a complaint at all. More people playing games is good.

How do you explain Pathfinders success as the most popular RPG in the world with an unknown brand and no critical role? (Or rather CR was no where near the current popularity in the early 2010’s) I don’t believe it can be attributed purely to 3e players carrying over when that market was split three ways between 4e, 3e and pathfinder. The grew their brand proposition massively beyond this. The world famous d&d branded counted for very little when fundamentally the game rules were better.