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.

 

[prabe]

I have a pretty strong recollection that the 3E PHB does have a rule labelled "rule zero", in the character build rules.

I no longer have my 3.0 books, but the 3.5 PHB has "Check with your Dungeon Master" as the first step, the text of which also talks about making sure your character fits in with the rest of the party. The steps for character creation aren't numbered.

It's plausible shading to probable that the 3.0 PHB is different.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a pretty strong recollection that the 3E PHB does have a rule labelled "rule zero", in the character build rules.

It doesn't. It just says to check with the DM for changes, which is not rule 0. Rule 0 is the mechanism by which the DM would make those changes and is found in the DMG.

 

[loverdrive]

Also, I can't give myself a head, so I'll do the next best thing: quote myself.

Here're the first words of a very brief GMing section of my Miraculous RPG.

Also my explanation for Be a fan of the PCs principle, as I feel like it's misenderstood.

 

[Maxperson]

I no longer have my 3.0 books, but the 3.5 PHB has "Check with your Dungeon Master" as the first step, the text of which also talks about making sure your character fits in with the rest of the party. The steps for character creation aren't numbered.

It's plausible shading to probable that the 3.0 PHB is different.

I just checked and I see @pemerton's confusion. The 3e book lays out the steps of character creation from 0 to X, and the step 0(as in before you start creating the character) is the same as 3.5, but 3.5 omits the list of steps. Rule 0 is not part of a "step process" and so the PHB confused him. The 3.0 PHB does not have rule 0.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Thing is, both are true.

SYSTEM MATTERS as far as the system goes; but not even the rulesiest rule-for-all-occasions system* can hope to account for everything that might come up in a game. And once you move outside* those system parameters you're into the infinite expanse of Rule 0.

* - a system built on just a few intentionally-loose rules might cover more ground and be more difficult to move outside of, but in return it's in effect asking Rule 0 to do a lot of work within itself to fill in the gaps.

 

[Lanefan]

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:

* Making the world fantastic will be burdened by the idea that many if not most magical effects are - in the fiction - the result of discrete, learnable packets called "spells". This is less of an issue in the "classic" approach to D&D, which one still sees reflected in Gygax's DMG with its lists of weird tricks and its random dungeon generation tables that contain circular rooms with magical pools; but the general tendency of AD&D since c 1980 has been away from that sort of ad hoc "whimsy" towards world-building systematisation which spells form a part of.

Thing is, one can quite easily have both; and even have it work consistently within the fiction.

I do rather mourn the loss of whimsy in the more recent editions.

Embrace the fantastic can face similar problems, and is also not helped by the general approach to "mundane" character abilities (eg the rules for resolving hide in shadows in AD&D, or for resolving Stealth in 5e D&D, do not encourage embracing of the fantastic but tend to push towards emphasis on the prosaic).

This runs into the old saw, here modified: if everything is fantastic, nothing is.

For "fantastic" to matter and really be fantastic, there has to be a base of prosaic for it to rest upon. This prosaic base is what some people (including me) label - however inaccurately - as realism. But yes, once that realistic base is established the fantastic can be embraced fully!

* I've already discussed drawing maps and leaving blanks. The resolution mechanics for D&D don't support this. For instance, resolving travel is done by measuring distance on a map, reading terrain from a map, reading a movement rate of a "miles per day for a given terrain" chart (or maybe multiplying a base movement rate by a terrain modifier taken from a similar sort of chart) and then dividing the measured distance by the ascertained rate to calculate a travel time. This method is inherited from wargaming. It breaks down if drawing maps and leaving blanks. The point generalises to the various other D&D resolution procedures for actions that relate to architecture and travel.

When I read "draw maps and leave blanks" I probably get a different impression than you do.

When I draw a map and leave blank space that blank space is there to be filled in later. Sometimes I've already got a vague idea of what might be there, other times not; but the blank space gives me places to put adventure sites, hidden cultures, odd forgotten features, and so forth that the PCs can discover as they travel, should they ever decide to try going through said blank space*.

The resolution mechanics don't impinge on this at all. The blank spaces remain between the paths the PCs have travelled.

* - in a game I played in, another player had a PC whose express motto was "Where the map is blank, I'll go"; and he did, at every opportunity. That PC forced the DM of that game to do a hell of a lot of mapping!

* I have never seen a D&D module that embraces giving every monster life. Random encounters, encounters with N kobolds or orcs or gnolls or . . ., and the like all push against this. This is intimately connected to the combat and XP rules, which strongly encourage encounters with multiple relatively "faceless" creatures.

That's more a question of DM style. Modules generally present monsters and foes as no more than a collection of stats and numbers, other than maybe one or two key elements and the "boss" if there is one; and it's on the DM to add "life" to them. Some DMs are better at this than others, and trying to add life to some monsters (e.g. oozes, zombies, lurkers above) is kind of a hopeless task in any case.

* Asking questions and using the answers is at odds with the sort of preparation of maps, keys and the like, which are advocated by key D&D texts (eg AD&D, B/X, the 3E DMG). It is not a technique that is easily integrated with the AD&D or similar approaches to things like searching for traps, secret doors and the like, to listening at doors, to the use of detection magic, etc. These rules elements are all presented as working in a way that presupposes the GM has a map, key and notes to turn to to provide answers to player questions. That's the opposite of the DW technique.

It depends which questions you're asking, and in what framework.

Something as basic as asking the players during PC downtime what their PCs are doing next will (or should!) always get an answer the DM will then use in determining what happens. "We're going to hire a ship and sail south" is quite different from "We're going to check out that ruined castle we passed on our way into town" is different again from "We're going to take the winter off from adventuring and set about building ourselves a party base and stronghold". This all uses the established map and setting yet is still asking questions and using the answers.

The divergence comes in whether or not setting-defining player answers are expected to be used by the DM or not, and-or whether the DM is even going to ask questions that allow for such.

* Beginning and ending with the fiction is something I've already discussed. D&D combat does not do this - the turn structure, the action economy, the damage and hit point subsystem, the saving throw subsystem, etc are all at odds with this.

The basic play loop pretty much begins and ends with the fiction, even in combat.

Player: <declares in-fiction action for PC> (I swing my mace at the Kobold)
DM: <adjudicates by whatever means, which might include insertion of mechanics if required> AND-OR
Game: <adjudicates by forced insertion of player-facing mechanics if required> (roll to hit, DM/game adjudicates success, roll damage)
DM: <narrates in-fiction result of declaration-plus-adjudication> (the Kobold staggers from your blow and looks about ready to collapse)

The only variant on this is when it's an NPC's turn, in which case the DM takes on her role as player of the NPC or monster and ends up narrating both the action declaration (the dazed Kobold tries to back away defensively) and, probably after some mechanics that might involve both DM and player, the result (it stumbles over a fallen branch and is now lying prone in front of you).

 

[Jaeger]

D&Desque rule zero boils down to "figure it out", ...

Compare it with PbtA games, where the GM has Agenda, Principles and Moves, which provide solid framework for making good judgement calls. I'm gonna use Dungeon World as an example, since it's in the same genre as D&D, and also kinda cosplays it.

You do have a point in that I think it would be very beneficial for many if D&D did something similar to the DW chap 19 guidelines on how to change the game. But they would be a bit different than the ones for DW.

D&D basically does just say "change what you want!".

The reason why D&D has such a short blurb, is due to the cultural assumptions of D&D.

I know I am going to express this idea a bit imperfectly here, so try to read in to the spirit of what I am trying to convey...

Culturally D&D has a long history of a vibrant rules hacking DiY/Homebrew culture. It is culturally assumed people who mess around with the rules have figured out how things work.

I recently played a 5e D&D campaign for the first time in decades. My last experience with D&D was with B/X in the 5th grade.

In prep I bought the 5e rules. And IMHO 5e succeeds because there are a ton of people to teach newbies how to play the game. I could make a list of issues, but suffice it to say that looking at D&D after decades of playing different non-d20 systems, (And writing my own homebrew system for my current star wars campaign I run.) to me there was a lot of unwritten rules assumptions about how things are supposed to work. Some things are just not that clear on first read through if you are new to the concepts 5e presents.

And for me a good part of it was my Stat+Skill die-pool conditioned brain, having trouble wrapping around the class/level structure the game mechanics bounce off of. Not hard to figure things out, but on my first read through a lot of "Why would you do it like that!?" ran through my head...

I am an outlier!

For most of the RPG hobby all they play is some edition/form of D&D! So they are conceptually familiar with how things are supposed work. So what to me seemed a rather odd way of doing things; for long time players it is all quite straight forward.

D&D is successful because of, and IMHO subconsciously relies on, a lot of cultural assumptions of how things should work.

Which is why IMHO why Rule 0 get just a paragraph or so in 5e: It is culturally assumed that people who want to change things around are going to dive into the mechanics and figure things out.

he 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.

My Opinion:

SYSTEM MATTERS: Different systems bring a different feel to gameplay at the table. They feel different systems can actually add to immersion with a given settings genre conceits through the way the players interact with the game mechanics. And to many they like seeing how different game mechanics influence the way player play their characters at the table.

SYSTEM DOESN'T MATTER: The roleplay, group dynamic, and social interaction of gaming come BIG first with this camp. They do not care to learn new game mechanics (for varying reasons) because whatever their system of choice is they can modify it to be "Good Enough" so they can just "get on with it" to start the game and have fun. They are simply not interested in learning other systems, as they tend to view time spent figuring out a new system as time wasted that could be spent playing the game.

I fall more into the system matters camp. To a degree I understand why the system doesn't matter types have the views they do. I can and have enjoyed gaming of this type with people. I know I would have gotten more enjoyment if a different system was used, because I have played lots of different systems to be able to make that value judgement. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't a good gaming experience overall anyway.

Personally, I don't think learning new systems of similar complexity is all that difficult. But it is a point not worth debating as I have learned the other camp will not be moved. They simply value their non-gaming time differently, and for them the potential of "additional enjoyment" from using a different system just isn't there for the time it would take to learn a new system.

That is their privilege.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thing is, both are true.

SYSTEM MATTERS as far as the system goes; but not even the rulesiest rule-for-all-occasions system* can hope to account for everything that might come up in a game. And once you move outside* those system parameters you're into the infinite expanse of Rule 0.

* - a system built on just a few intentionally-loose rules might cover more ground and be more difficult to move outside of, but in return it's in effect asking Rule 0 to do a lot of work within itself to fill in the gaps.

Wait, so is rule 0 inside the system or not?

If it's not inside the system, it's not a rule. That's literally what I said earlier that you quibbled about.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You’re trying to twist rule zero into a specific definition to suit what you want it to be.

Nope. I, and he, have laid out a logical argument for why the term "Rule 0" should be used in the more restricted sense, to promote clear discussion and avoid conflation of legitimately different actions ("infrequent rules override" vs "house-ruling" vs "kitbashing" etc.) There is no "twisting" involved. I am not at ALL saying that the other tools in the DM's toolbox are wrong, bad, inappropriate, or anything else. I'm just saying that important utility is lost when we gloss that whole toolbox with a term that, as explicitly cited in multiple places, has both narrow and broad meanings.

Rule Zero is as simple as the rules are guidelines and the DM can change them to improve everyone’s fine.

I (and others) call this the Golden Rule. I find it both frustrating and unnecessary to require that every possible application of "alter or deviate from the rules" be called "Rule 0." It promotes confusion rather than clarity; in the pursuit of a unified understanding, it instead creates an impenetrable wall because the term can mean so many really distinct things. It is like trying to sum up moral behavior with the single phrase "do good things." Yeah, in principle, that's what moral behavior is. But it is impenetrable and useless as a principle, because it doesn't communicate anything. It's borderline tautological. We are much, much better equipped to think and talk about moral behavior when we can be more specific than "do good."

The fact that you like rule zero in one circumstances and dislike it in another, is even more of an argument for having rule zero. So you can play the way you like and I can play the way I like.

Now you're arguing with straw. I haven't seen a single person say they DISLIKE any of these specific actions you're trying to force under a single universal umbrella. What gave you the idea that either of us opposes the use of kitbashing or house-ruling?

I just want "Rule 0," the term, to be useful for discussion. I have laid out my argument for why it is more useful to use the term, "Rule 0," in a narrow sense. I have recognized that there are two competing uses of the term, one narrow and one broad. And I have argued that a key reason we should use the narrow meaning is that there aren't any other good, well-known phrases for the thing to which the narrow use of the term refers.

If you see opposition or hostility in that argument, that emotion is something you inserted, not something I or Pemerton have said.

 

[Jaeger]

This runs into the old saw, here modified: if everything is fantastic, nothing is.

Sayings become old saws because they contain Truth!

I am a big proponent of this paradigm.

If every nation has griffon riding cavalry; griffons are not special or fantastic. They are just a common flying mount.

Too often I find most fantasy settings to be just different versions of the Flintstones setting, but with magical a ren-faire veneer.

For "fantastic" to matter and really be fantastic, there has to be a base of prosaic for it to rest upon. This prosaic base is what some people (including me) label - however inaccurately - as realism. But yes, once that realistic base is established the fantastic can be embraced fully!

I like to use the term genre, when establishing the baseline realism of my virtual game world/setting.

What makes something Fantastic - is how much it contrasts with the mundane world.

I define the degree of 'realism' in my mundane worlds through the genre conventions I establish for a given setting.

Am I going for Grimdark? Cinematic action? Pulp fantasy? high fantasy? Some blend?

Only once that reality is set, and I have established the genre rules that govern the setting, then I have a solid guide to how much "Fantastic" I can incorporate into the setting without breaking genre or "Jumping the Shark" if you will.

If I am going for a more grounded gritty setting where other humans are the most common opponent; then when the party encounters a Werewolf after several game sessions - it is a Big Deal! And several more game sessions may go by before they encounter another fantastical creature.

If in the next session I then introduce a group of plane-hopping dragon riders that have come to find the chosen one, and can the PC's please help them on their Realm-spanning quest to free Asgard form the Daemon Horde? - I just broke the established genre of the setting in a big way. We are now playing a very different game. And my players would be well with in their rights to go: "Dude, WTF!?"