Jon Peterson discusses the origins of Rule Zero on his blog. It featured as early as 1978 in Alarums & Excursions #38.
Stop right there. Not a good start, as we already have a possible strawman. Please stop, slow down, and take time to read/understand what people are arguing rather than getting upset about what you think they are saying. Until you do that, there is little point trying to hold a conversation. I am more than happy to clarify my position and you are welcome to ask me questions to that end, but I personally prefer responding to an actual, sincere engagement of my posts. You have posed four different heavily-loaded queries. To put it another way, what is the one question you really want answered?can you please explain to me in what way D&D rules prevent or discourages a person from any of the following.
I find the whole outlook weird: as if everything anyone might ever say is good about a RPG has to be true of D&D, even if those things aren't things the poster actually cares about or wants in a game!There are fair number of people, whether here and elsewhere, who try to make D&D as the game that can do anything and everything well but then get upset at either the idea that other non-D&D games may do those things better or when those other non-D&D games actually do the things that they claim that D&D can likewise do. Plus, this is all far too regularly said and done by people without any actual play experience of these other games so it's transparently mostly just about defending the bubble people encase D&D in from any criticism.
How does anyone of the stuff you respond with - “your sword draws a red line across the ogres chest”, “the arrow thunks into the wood of the table”, “the fireball explodes, crisping scorching the giant’s hair and clothing and leaving their skin a mass of blisters”, “Alaric is still breathing shallow, you bind his wounds and stop the bleeding, he seems to be stable” - affect the resolution that follows?My player says I want to charge at the ogre, flip the table and hide behind it, throw a fireball at the giants, run over to Alaric and check his wounds. That then gets translated into attack rolls, cover saves, saving throws, heal checks. I then respond with “your sword draws a red line across the ogres chest”, “the arrow thunks into the wood of the table”, “the fireball explodes, crisping scorching the giant’s hair and clothing and leaving their skin a mass of blisters”, “Alaric is still breathing shallow, you bind his wounds and stop the bleeding, he seems to be stable”.
The mix of rules and fiction is one of the things that makes D&D satisfying and feel real.
Here are some problems I think an AD&D GM is likely to encounter trying to follow the DW principles. I am not as familiar with 3E or 5e D&D as I am with AD&D, but I think the same sorts of problems are likely to be encountered:can you please explain to me in what way D&D rules prevent or discourages a person from any of the following. Or please explain how DW encourages this with its rules in a way that D&D can’t. To put it another way are these anything other than a stylistic choice of a DM rather than unique to a game system. Or to put another way, is Dungeon World just not spelling out as ‘rules’ a list of things that can happen any way (exactly the criticism I’ve seen of rule zero). Ive edited out three references to Dungeon World mechanics specifically to use generic terms but that leaves plenty of other principles I modified.
How do DW rules mean you can think off screen better in DW than in D&D? How do DW rules mean you can name characters more regularly?
- Make the world fantastic
- Fill the characters' lives with adventure
- Draw maps, leave blanks
- Address the characters, not the players
- Embrace the fantastic
- Give every monster life
- Name every person
- Ask questions and use the answers
- Be a fan of the characters
- Think Dangerous
- Begin and end with the fiction
- Think offscreen, too
It doesn't. Just like D&D doesn't encourage you to compare result of attack roll with the target's AC. It expects you to follow the principles and spells them out in a clear way, so you don't need to figure them out on your own through experience or by reading forums, watching youtube videos.Or please explain how DW encourages this with its rules in a way that D&D can’t.
Now, please, point to where does D&D state these things.can you please explain to me in what way D&D rules prevent or discourages a person from any of the following. Or please explain how DW encourages this with its rules in a way that D&D can’t. To put it another way are these anything other than a stylistic choice of a DM rather than unique to a game system. Or to put another way, is Dungeon World just not spelling out as ‘rules’ a list of things that can happen any way (exactly the criticism I’ve seen of rule zero). Ive edited out three references to Dungeon World mechanics specifically to use generic terms but that leaves plenty of other principles I modified.
How do DW rules mean you can think off screen better in DW than in D&D? How do DW rules mean you can name characters more regularly?
- Make the world fantastic
- Fill the characters' lives with adventure
- Draw maps, leave blanks
- Address the characters, not the players
- Embrace the fantastic
- Give every monster life
- Name every person
- Ask questions and use the answers
- Be a fan of the characters
- Think Dangerous
- Begin and end with the fiction
- Think offscreen, too
Just being helpful.What's your point? Are you querying my memory?
Well I literally just told you the rulebook and page number for the 3.5 rule zero in the post you responded to immediately above this one. And no, none of the books use the label rule 0. They simply spell out the rule by which all other rules can be changed, removed and new rules added. The players have dubbed this rule, rule 0 since it overrides all other rules.Where do I find this stated? What rulebook? Does that rulebook use the label "rule zero"?
Cool. A lot of people aren't comfortable adding, removing and changing rules like that unless the game tells them that they can do it. That you do it regardless of such a rule doesn't negate the need for it to be codified in the rule books.Why do I need a rule published by a game publisher to play an RPG that I want to play? They're not the police!
I just do it.
That's a simplistic approach to the situation.The fact that it seems this entire community adamantly asserts "SYSTEM MATTERS BECAUSE I HATE X, Y, AND Z ABOUT THIS CRAPPY GAME AND APPROACH TO GAME DESIGN THAT NEEDS TO DIE IN A FIRE" while simultaneously asserting "SYSTEM DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE MY IDEA OF THE INFINITE EXPANSE OF RULE ZERO AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS HOLISTIC, INTENTFUL, FOCUSED GAME DESIGN" might just be ENWorld's biggest hurdle to functional conversation on the post-mortem of our play and coherent game design around varying desired experiences.
I have a pretty strong recollection that the 3E PHB does have a rule labelled "rule zero", in the character build rules.none of the books use the label rule 0.