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.

 

[Lanefan]

Rule Zero is more of a patchwork fix for rules (or even rulings). DYI Kitbashing is more about treating the game as a toolkit. But I would still say that we should not conflate the two.

Why not, though? They're the same thing, in that they involve changing rules; also kitbashing can most certainly involve both patchwork-fixing existing rules and-or inventing new ones. The only difference is that kitbashing is rarely if ever done during the run of play.

The boundaries of Rule Zero are already murky as it is (and I suspect intentionally so in regards to ever-expanding the bounds of GM authority).

How can you expand that which is already infinite?

I suppose you hear what you want to hear, but that's not really the case. Fate is more akin to a system toolkit with some key tech (e.g., aspects, four actions, fate point economy, etc.) and some optional ones (e.g., skills). Not all skills will be relevant for all games, so you can rename them, remove them, or regroup them. We see this all the time in their Fate spotlight mini-settings. FWIW there is not a magic system in Fate. It's free to the table or designer to establish with the various mechanics what magic may look like in their game. But this is hardly a Rule Zero nor is a charitable reading for D&D GMs to constantly read Rule Zero into games where there isn't one.

Charitable or not, the way you put this tells me Fate (about which I otherwise know nothing) is a kitbasher's system - and is thus almost built around that aspect of Rule 0. The difference then - by the sound of it - becomes one of whatever kits get bashed for a given campaign then become locked in along with the rest of the rules once that campaign starts.

So, I'd better ask: if something comes up in a Fate game that the rules don't cover, and there's no Rule 0 to allow the GM to sort it out, how do things proceed?

 

[R_Chance]

Not by the fall. I could point to massive chunks of active SF fandom who were playing it who'd never touched a wargame, let alone a miniatures game in their life playing it by then. It was a very well developed subset of fandom. There was some overlap of course, but I'll go as far as to say in some areas wargame players were the minority of D&D players even by then.

At the time the three original books dropped, and I'd guess for the first six months you were probably right, but the heavy spread of the game was not through wargamers, even if they were the first ones to see it.

I think there's issues of scale, however; when you have people doing whole extra subsystems and character classes, I'd be willing to bet that's beyond the degree of houseruling most wargamers were doing (though I can only speak of the hex-and-chit end of it, not the miniatures end of it).

But the real buildup of the system, the place where most people were encountering it was not at the beginning of that. I also should note that there was already a great degree of third party support for the game by then, so that the upward pressure was reduced; people who found OD&D insufficient could be buying Arduin or a million more obscure add-ons, because the hobby was still small enough for that to propagate around a bit during that period.

Given that there were only a thousand copies of D&D in that first print batch (1974) and as I understand it they took a year to sell out, I doubt there was a massive infusion of anyone playing the game. I knew about 12-15 players and there were three boxed sets among us. I don't think they had any distribution outside of hobby channels at the time. Some of the guys I played historical miniatures with (even medieval) just didn't go for fantasy too. I was busy absorbing every fantasy and science fiction book I could get my hands on myself If you were talking later in 1975 when the next couple of print runs were done or 1976 when the white box was produced in fairly large numbers I might agree. At least I'm pretty sure there was only one printing of D&D in '74, but I might be wrong. Those years kind of melt into a haze of high school / gaming / college I am occasionally amazed that I managed to graduate from high school and wonder on into college. Still, the evidence I have is only anecdotal, my memory is subject to error, ad this is for two groups I played with in one town. So, can't say anything for sure.

And I wish I still had one of the originals. We literally wore them out and some booklets were misplaced / borrowed and boxes destroyed by time and casual abuse while playing. One guy moved out of town with a bunch of our stuff. That was annoying. The oldest we (me and my brother) have left is, I think, a third printing woodgrain box set, ? 1975. I have a white box set too, 1975-6 probably. There were things added to the 1977 white boxed cover iirc.

As for house ruling board wargames, for some games we altered rules and used spare counter to produce units, etc. We were producing other nations navies for use with the Jutland game / rules for example and doing our own strategic maps etc. That game was half way to a miniature set though. Played it later with 1/2400 scale miniature warships. Most of the house rules were miniature rules though. It was easier to find a RAW board game group, although interpretations of the rules might vary. A lot in some cases

Judges Guild was the first "third party" D&D support I remember and that was 1976 (iirc). There were APA 'zines too, and probably a lot of stuff made that didn't see wide distribution. The Strategic Review / The Dragon, and the D&D supplements were out but that's not third party. I'm not sure what year White Dwarf dropped just off hand, but post 1976 I think. I have a couple of the Arduin Grimoires volumes boxed around here somewhere. Not sure when they came out.

Most of the "add on" content we used was what we home brewed. It was as good as anything else we were likely to find (I think). And creating it was fun. OK, I am having a massive nostalgia attack here A sure sign of advancing old age...

 

[Aldarc]

Why not, though? They're the same thing, in that they involve changing rules; also kitbashing can most certainly involve both patchwork-fixing existing rules and-or inventing new ones. The only difference is that kitbashing is rarely if ever done during the run of play.

I don't think that equivocating on terms through shallow, superficial comparisons is particularly helpful for discussion for understanding the key ideas, principles, and meanings of terms.

How can you expand that which is already infinite?

I don't think that it ever was infinite, though it says quite a bit that you think it is.

Charitable or not, the way you put this tells me Fate (about which I otherwise know nothing) is a kitbasher's system - and is thus almost built around that aspect of Rule 0. The difference then - by the sound of it - becomes one of whatever kits get bashed for a given campaign then become locked in along with the rest of the rules once that campaign starts.

If you know nothing about Fate by this point after at least 2 years of regular discussion with me and others who bring it up, I would say that's as good of proof as anything that you never listen, which would certainly explain why you are one of those posters that we constantly have to re-explain basic concepts and gameplay of other systems to.

Also, this has the same problem as above where you are conflating kit-bashing with Rule Zero.

So, I'd better ask: if something comes up in a Fate game that the rules don't cover, and there's no Rule 0 to allow the GM to sort it out, how do things proceed?

If only someone has already discussed this before in this thread...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why not, though? They're the same thing, in that they involve changing rules; also kitbashing can most certainly involve both patchwork-fixing existing rules and-or inventing new ones. The only difference is that kitbashing is rarely if ever done during the run of play.

Though I don't quite follow Aldarc's way of saying it, I have to agree with him that you seem to be looking at only the most superficial similarity and calling that equivalence.

Rule 0 isn't, as far as I'm concerned, about inventing new rules. I would even go so far as to say that no application of Rule 0 that anyone has ever actually described to me would qualify as inventing new rules. It is, instead, "Okay well this rule did a dumb thing on this one special occasion, so we'll bend/ignore it just for this one moment, but it still holds in general." Hence why I said earlier that "Rule 0" really isn't--and, IMO, cannot be--a "rule" proper of the system. Because it's not a rule. It's a reminder that this thing we call "gaming" is a social activity, and thus not beholden purely to arbitrary rules on a page. Being a social activity, "gaming" admits dynamic understanding of its own structures. That doesn't mean there can never be (contextually) objective answers; what it means is that that context includes self-reflection and the ability to see the higher purpose which the rules try to pursue but will (by definition!) fail to pursue at least some of the time.

It is exactly analogous to the idea that there can be unjust laws, but that the existence of unjust laws does not make the concept of law self-contradictory. Laws exist to serve some purpose, by definition. But, being the product of mortal hands, they cannot be perfect. It is possible for mortal hands to write mortal laws that conflict with the purpose for which they were designed. An otherwise good law which has suddenly run into a particularly rare special case is (one reason) why we have courts--the courts are the Rule 0 of law, so that living, thinking minds can review and provide relief if a law has erred. A law that has an egregiously open flaw may thus be discovered by the application of the courts (the Rule 0 of law), but--and this, again, is perfectly analogous to the RPG rules structure--it is not the place of the courts (Rule 0) to create new law. That's the job of the legislature.

It just so happens that, for a D&D-style RPG, the equivalents of judiciary and executive are vested in the DM, and significant but not absolute legislative power is also vested in the DM. (Even for those who advocate "absolute" DM authority etc. whatever you want to call it, recognize that a real and functional group requires keeping the players on board with the DM's house rules and choices, and that genuine sustained pushback from the players is commonly recognized by DMs worthy of the title as a clear sign to back off and re-evaluate.) But this does not mean that the judicial powers and the legislative powers are equivalent just because they are both exercised by the same person and both relate to laws/rules.

How can you expand that which is already infinite?

Given your wink, I assume this means you recognize that there are limits on the appropriate and judicious use of Rule 0?

Charitable or not, the way you put this tells me Fate (about which I otherwise know nothing) is a kitbasher's system - and is thus almost built around that aspect of Rule 0. The difference then - by the sound of it - becomes one of whatever kits get bashed for a given campaign then become locked in along with the rest of the rules once that campaign starts.

So, I'd better ask: if something comes up in a Fate game that the rules don't cover, and there's no Rule 0 to allow the GM to sort it out, how do things proceed?

Fate...isn't a kitbasher's system. Kitbasher implies inventing new rules; you don't do that with Fate. You use the one(ish) rule in a consistent and symmetric manner. I don't know it well enough to give an in-depth explanation, but I do know it well enough to say that the two are DEFINITELY different.

Since I'm fairly sure you have more knowledge of 4e, consider Page 42. Page 42 was meant to have rules for all possible attack-like and skill-like actions. It offers DCs which are appropriate to actions that should be easy, medium, or hard for a character of a given level, so if you've decided that climbing a glass mountain should be hard for a 14th-level Rogue, you can get an accurate number for what that "means" in-world. There is no need to "kitbash" anything within the realm of attacks or skill-use actions, because Page 42's extensible framework is applicable to all possible uses of either mechanic. Now, you would be right to say that if all you had was Page 42, you might need to kitbash rules for something that wasn't the use of a skill or an attack, but given how broad 4e skills are, it's hard to think of example actions that couldn't, in some way, cash out as some kind of skillful endeavor.

Now, take that same concept, but generalize it even further. Fate's aspects are literally "why X person/place/thing is important," its skills are a very nearly comprehensive list of "stuff people can do" (such as "deceive" or "fight"), its stunts are ways to make skills do things they normally don't (backstab is a given example: you can Attack using Stealth, but only if your target can't see you), Compels and Invokes cover effectively all possible forms of having-your-weakness-exploited and finding-an-advantage-from-the-world. The extremely broad four actions (Overcome, Create an Advantage, Attack, and Defend) cover pretty much all possible things you could want to do (since you can Overcome your depression or Create an Advantage through your art or whatever), and the four Outcomes (Fail, Tie, Succeed, and Succeed with Style) cover with reasonable granularity all possible results of an attempted action.

I'm just not seeing where the room is to kitbash anything. Fate is literally designed to be the RPG equivalent of "algebraically closed." I don't see where there's room to kitbash any totally new rules. You'd end up just re-building the rules you were already using, or ceasing to play Fate entirely (because you wouldn't have these universal mechanics still being universal anymore.)

 

[Aldarc]

I'm just not seeing where the room is to kitbash anything. Fate is literally designed to be the RPG equivalent of "algebraically closed." I don't see where there's room to kitbash any totally new rules. You'd end up just re-building the rules you were already using, or ceasing to play Fate entirely (because you wouldn't have these universal mechanics still being universal anymore.)

The core mechanics are generalized and integral, but outside of that? A fair amount is fairly mutable: e.g., Skills vs. Approaches vs. Roles vs. Rated Aspects. And additional mechanics can be built on top (e.g, Mantles, magic sub-systems, stress types, etc.). But the generalized core system form the foundation or skeleton for the rest of the game.

 

[pemerton]

I can't speak for Forged in the Dark,, but none of the Cortex games I'm familiar with would be in the least difficult to play with just Discord if you're not super fussy about being able to supervise dice rolls.

We found a free online dice roller that works well for Cortex+ online play. We used it together with Zoom (and screen sharing so everyone can cheer or boo the rolls) to play sessions of Cortex+ Heroic LotR. Zoom chat is a good way to share Scene Distinctions and the current size of the doom pool.

There's no need for a virtual table top in any literal sense.

 

[TheSword]

Though I don't quite follow Aldarc's way of saying it, I have to agree with him that you seem to be looking at only the most superficial similarity and calling that equivalence.

Rule 0 isn't, as far as I'm concerned, about inventing new rules. I would even go so far as to say that no application of Rule 0 that anyone has ever actually described to me would qualify as inventing new rules. It is, instead, "Okay well this rule did a dumb thing on this one special occasion, so we'll bend/ignore it just for this one moment, but it still holds in general." Hence why I said earlier that "Rule 0" really isn't--and, IMO, cannot be--a "rule" proper of the system. Because it's not a rule. It's a reminder that this thing we call "gaming" is a social activity, and thus not beholden purely to arbitrary rules on a page. Being a social activity, "gaming" admits dynamic understanding of its own structures. That doesn't mean there can never be (contextually) objective answers; what it means is that that context includes self-reflection and the ability to see the higher purpose which the rules try to pursue but will (by definition!) fail to pursue at least some of the time.

Rule zero absolutely can be about inventing new rules if that makes the game more fun.

Some applications of rule zero I can think of off the top of my head.

• giving characters an extra feat at first level (not uncommon as far as I can tell)
• Increasing starting hit points.
• Creating extra skills proficiencies for a specific campaign that required them.
• Creating a new special ability for a monster that isn’t featured in the DMG. Perhaps porting it over from Pathfinder or another edition.
• Adjudicating outcomes that don’t fall within the the rules of the game. For instance making a deal with a warlocks patron to un petrify a colleague in exchange for a dark deal.
• Allowing Gestalt PCs where they can carry abilities over from two classes. Particularly where there are only one or two players in a campaign.
• Adding kingdom building elements to the campaign such a Pathfinders Campaign Guides, or Birthrights domain management.

All these are examples of Rule Zero creating rules that aren’t in the game. I’ve used all these at some point in 5e, with the exception of the petrification which came from the Nerdarchy blog on Rule Zero. Rule Zero is RPG Storytellers’ Best Friend

As has been said, Players vest authority to use rule zero when they nominate/accept a DM. Players can register dissent on a variety of levels with applications of rule zero: simple protest; after game conversation; group discussion; player quits the campaign; group says they don’t want to play that campaign anymore.

In reality the players can exercise greater control as a collective to check the ‘unlimited’ power of a rogue DM. A DM can do anything in the game, but they can’t force players to sit there and take it. This balance is there because the ultimate driving need for the DM is to keep the game fun, because their existence depends upon it.

@loverdrive quoted a list of principals and agendas for a DM in the game being described. I would say that that list can equally be used for D&D if you replace rule related principals with their equivalents. They are just advice for a way of playing any rpg.

 

[pemerton]

@loverdrive quoted a list of principals and agendas for a DM in the game being described. I would say that that list can equally be used for D&D if you replace rule related principals with their equivalents. They are just advice for a way of playing any rpg.

I don't see very many posts about D&D games that play like Dungeon World or Apocalypse World games play. And mostly when I see responses to posts about DW or AW play from posters who are primarily or exclusively D&D players they seem non-plussed or express objctions to the way DW or AW works.

So I don't really believe that 5e can be played in the way that DW is, or by application of the DW principles.

 

[Aldarc]

Rule zero absolutely can be about inventing new rules if that makes the game more fun.

Some applications of rule zero I can think of off the top of my head.

• giving characters an extra feat at first level (not uncommon as far as I can tell)
• Increasing starting hit points.
• Creating extra skills proficiencies for a specific campaign that required them.
• Creating a new special ability for a monster that isn’t featured in the DMG. Perhaps porting it over from Pathfinder or another edition.
• Adjudicating outcomes that don’t fall within the the rules of the game. For instance making a deal with a warlocks patron to un petrify a colleague in exchange for a dark deal.
• Allowing Gestalt PCs where they can carry abilities over from two classes. Particularly where there are only one or two players in a campaign.
• Adding kingdom building elements to the campaign such a Pathfinders Campaign Guides, or Birthrights domain management.

All these are examples of Rule Zero creating rules that aren’t in the game. I’ve used all these at some point in 5e, with the exception of the petrification which came from the Nerdarchy blog on Rule Zero. Rule Zero is RPG Storytellers’ Best Friend

As has been said, Players vest authority to use rule zero when they nominate/accept a DM. Players can register dissent on a variety of levels with applications of rule zero: simple protest; after game conversation; group discussion; player quits the campaign; group says they don’t want to play that campaign anymore.

In reality the players can exercise greater control as a collective to check the ‘unlimited’ power of a rogue DM. A DM can do anything in the game, but they can’t force players to sit there and take it. This balance is there because the ultimate driving need for the DM is to keep the game fun, because their existence depends upon it.

@loverdrive quoted a list of principals and agendas for a DM in the game being described. I would say that that list can equally be used for D&D if you replace rule related principals with their equivalents. They are just advice for a way of playing any rpg.

From what I gather from the way you talk about Rule Zero, the Rule Zero of Rule Zero is that Rule Zero involves shifting the goal posts of the definition so liberally that Rule Zero that can be anything the GM wants Rule Zero to be.

 

[loverdrive]

From what I gather from the way you talk about Rule Zero, the Rule Zero of Rule Zero is that Rule Zero involves shifting the goal posts of the definition so liberally that Rule Zero that can be anything the GM wants Rule Zero to be.

I invoke rule zero so tonight we play Smash instead of D&D