Jon Peterson discusses the origins of Rule Zero on his blog. It featured as early as 1978 in Alarums & Excursions #38.
Secondly, it’s a truism to say simplified, generic rules that can be applied in any circumstance don’t require a rule zero. If nothing is specific then nothing will come into conflict. That kind of approach doesn’t work with D&D.
I this is partially because everyone has horror stories about abusive DMs. Rule 0 is just one of many things these DMs have used improperly, so I think it all gets wrapped in the same package. With players, the only thing the DM has to stop abuse by players is Rule 0 (at least without being abusive themselves), so that's how it's remembered.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.
Not sure if I entirely agree with that. That's probably closer to the truth for the straight-up OSR retro clones, and a number of OSR games also include Rule Zero, but I'm not sure about some of the others. There is certainly a "DIY approach" that is part of the culture, but I don't think that we should conflate Rule Zero with an openness to kitbash the game. Fate, for example, does not have Rule Zero, but it also encourages people to tinker with the game and make the game their own.
I also recall reading that the only time that Pathfinder surpassed D&D 4E was when WotC basically dropped support of 4E and stopped publishing for it as it began in-house development of D&D Next. 4E may be regarded as D&D's "New Coke," but New Coke still outsold more than Pepsi, which did its best to capitalize on the backlash against New Coke. And brand loyalty to Coke resulted in grassroots organizing to bring back "Old Coke."
I this is partially because everyone has horror stories about abusive DMs. Rule 0 is just one of many things these DMs have used improperly, so I think it all gets wrapped in the same package. With players, the only thing the DM has to stop abuse by players is Rule 0 (at least without being abusive themselves), so that's how it's remembered.
Well, the GM needs to make a soft move first and only then they can hit the bastard where it hurts. As of how it works, see below.I meant on the same footing at the table: that everyone there is operating on the same basis as to how this two-lance business is likely to go.
I'm talking about guidelines on, well, invoking rule zero, if we count making judgement calls as such (though I disagree with it, but that's beside the point).You quite correctly used the word 'guidelines' two or three times in your post; and it's that they're guidelines rather than rules which in part makes Rule 0 necessary: it's Rule 0 that turns guidelines in the books to rulings (and thus rules) at each individual table.
I'd say if there's no agreement on shared fiction, then it's either can be fixed with a brief clarification, or these people shouldn't play this particular game together — some people don't "get" some genres, and that's okay.I agree with this statement, but I'd expand it to include what @Lanefan was saying.
Systems that are more generic (abstract) or rely on frameworks and guidelines (as opposed to "rules") don't rely on a "Rule 0" because the concept of a Rule 0 is baked into the system. "Rule 0" is the social adjudication (by the GM, by the players, or by both) of issues that arise from applying the framework and guidelines to particular situations.
I think of this as the common sense conundrum. To use the two lance example provided above-
Some systems (like D&D or even more rules-heavy systems) would adjudicate this by examining specific rules with regard to initiative, and dual-wielding, and possibly even more specific rules regarding use of two lances while mounted.
Other systems would just have the DM and player make determinations (as illustrated by loverdrive) as to what effects this would have with generic game terms (soft move, hard move, golden opportunity) and explain this in terms of the fiction.
Here's the thing, though; have you read many threads on enworld? Maybe one involving the divide between crunch and lore? Or players asking about the way a rule is phrased? Possibly the effect of a silence spell on bats? Or, heck, players who want their druids to wear metal armor and are worried they might explode? Maybe someone wondering about swimming in plate?
What you run into is the common sense conundrum. People don't always agree on what constitutes "common sense." That's why more codified rule systems tend to have an advantage for some types of tables - disputes can be handled through an objective rule.
On the other hand, abstract rules or ones that rely on guidelines require that there is significant table buy-in and avoidance of the common sense conundrum.
To use the example above, as absurd as it might seem, the GM and the players are in general agreement about the effect of dual-wielding lances on horseback (it would be bad). In a rules-heavy game, this would be explicit and known within the rules. In a guidelines game, however, this would be up to the instant social adjudication; arguably, it is resolved easily (the GM is not preventing the player), but it still requires that the table is in general agreement that, for example, the GM should burden the player in any way for that choice. It might seem like common sense, but people often disagree on that.
In short, the common sense conundrum (as I refer to it) tends to lurk at the edge of these debates; there needs to be significant table buy-in about the shared fiction and the effects that does not need to refer to an agreed-upon referent for guidelines and frameworks to work.
I'd say if there's no agreement on shared fiction, then it's either can be fixed with a brief clarification, or these people shouldn't play this particular game together — some people don't "get" some genres, and that's okay.
Also, it may be obvious, but what makes sense and what doesn't largely depends on the genre, the tone and the previous events.
A gallant knight on a mighty steed, wielding a shiny shield and master-crafted sword would make sense in a LotResque game, but but very little sense (at least, if played straight) in Monty Python and the Holy Grail — so someone who really wants to play a gallant knight shouldn't be at the table where a game about the Order of Silly Martial Arts is played, and a rule, no matter how objective and well-worded that requires everyone to practice ridiculous martial art isn't going to make them accept the shared fiction. At best it's going to be like "ugh, okay, I guess" sigh.
And then... We shouldn't play together.To you, the idea that something does, or doesn't, happen in a shared fiction due to it being a particular genre ... well, if someone doesn't agree with you, then they don't "get" it. Because it's common sense! Of course, it is equally plausible that the other person thinks that you are the one that doesn't "get" it.
This. Every time I see the fiction first rules describe, they have described a game that lives entirely within Rule 0.And that's the point. A more rules-heavy game (like a D&D) tends to have more of these disputes handled by RAW. That is the external referent. A game that relies more on guidelines and frameworks is going to depend on the buy-in of the GM and the players and on the agreement on shared fiction.
Which is to say that the "Rule 0" (the discretionary part) is actually happening on an ongoing and negotiated basis, with the negotiation either implicit (the GM and players modeling their actions on what they think is acceptable for the group shared fiction) or explicit (conversations and clarifications to determine how to resolve a dispute between different people as to what the shared fiction would entail).
That seems like good advice. Personally, I reskin on some occasions and create from scratch on others, but I've been doing this for a very long time, so I've made most of my large mistaked decades ago.that's besides the point. Even D&D could benefit from a solid framework for invoking rule 0, like:
- Try to reskin existing stuff first
Good advice.
- Don't hand Advantages on attacks easily
This I don't agree with. Advantage/Disadvantage gives a greater bonus/penalty on most occasions than a bonus or penalty does usually does. Sometimes it's better to give Advantage/Disadvantage and other times it's better to give a bonus/penalty. The rules should talk about the cough advantages and disadvantages of both methods.
- Prefer Advantages and Disadvantages over bonusi and penalties
Wise advice.
- Keep Bounded Accuracy in mind
And again something I don't agree with. You should be careful if/when you hand out core abilities, but they can and do sometimes make sense to give out. Especially when there isn't a player at the table with the particular class/subclass core ability in question.
- Don't allow things that are core abilities of other classes/subclasses
This doesn't exist. Even in 3e, the rigidiest of D&D editions, rules often failed to cover a situation due to a hole in the rule, were vague, or just didn't make sense to apply to a particular situation. Then there were also times where an addition of a rule, subtraction of a rule or blanket alteration of a rule would improve the game for the group.Even the rigidiest of rigidiest rules have meta-rules, that determine how, when and why they should be used.