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.

 

[Aldarc]

That doesn’t change the fact D&D is improved with such a rule.

If you are honestly arguing that D&D's success is indebted to Rule Zero, then I'm afraid that such an extraordinary claim would require compelling extraordinary evidence to support it.

 

[TheSword]

Monopoly is almost universally recognized (if not reviled) by board game enthusiasts as a crappy game, but it's still probably one of the best selling board games out there. Nostalgia, price point, nearly ubiquitous market availability, and mass familiarity all play strong contributing factors into that continued success of an otherwise crappy game. I'm not saying that D&D is the Monopoly of TTRPGs, but I am saying that argument ad populum isn't an inherent indicator of a game's quality.

Perhaps board game enthusiasts aren’t understanding why Monopoly is successful then.

I think you are doing Monopoly a disservice if you think price, nostalgia and familiarity are the reason it was successful. Guess what... it’s fun. People enjoy holding property, counting cash and charging their parents rent!

In contrast, for a fair old time Pathfinder was the number one selling TTRPG in the world, with a brand name that no one had ever heard of before. If you googled Pathfinder you got several pages on an obscure action film. The price point was equal to D&D. Surprise surprise... it was also fun.

 

[TheSword]

If you are honestly arguing that D&D's success is indebted to Rule Zero, then I'm afraid that such an extraordinary claim would require compelling extraordinary evidence to support it.

What an odd logical step. How is being improved by something equating to being successful because of something.

D&D is successful because people like the rules. If people didn’t like the rules, it wouldn’t be successful. Rule zero supports and facilitates a complex game like D&D - that people like.

I’ll let you into a secret. Most people like rules, they give you a framework of expectations. in a group game, if a person can do anything they want, any time they like then generally the group gets paralyzed by options or ends up going on wild tangents.

The DM is allowed in reasonable circumstances to interpret, bend, and break these rules in certain circumstances... where there is a block in the flow of the game, where it is more appropriate for their style of DMing, and where it improves the game and keeps people coming back for more. The social contract and the voluntary nature of DM-Player relationship is the oversight of this

 

[pemerton]

They speak to the DM and make the suggestion and they decide. Just like an actor making a suggestion to the director in a play. You wouldn’t expect the actor to go changing the script without getting it approved.

After all, we don’t want to go encouraging That Guy.

When I play a RPG I don't think of myself as an actor speaking someone else's script. To the extent that "rule zero" in its modern interpretation adopts that sort of perspective, that's another reason for me to be sceptical about it!

 

[pemerton]

There are three reasons I believe rule zero is useful and important.

That doesn’t change the fact D&D is improved with such a rule.

So you mean "useful and important" for D&D?

Which is to say you're agreeing with those of us who have posted that rule zero is not important to RPGing per se.

EDIT: And not even for all of D&D. 4e doesn't need it because it has universal resolution mechanics that can be applied fiction first out-of-combat, and are supported by p 42 in combat.

 

[loverdrive]

That doesn’t change the fact D&D is improved with such a rule.

And that doesn't change the fact that rule 0 itself is an ad-hoc patch (and each application of it is an ad-hoc patch too) either.

 

[Lanefan]

Rule 0 would seem to be part of what makes a game system flexible such that it can handle a greater variety of playstyles, game types, and other demands GMs and-or players my put on it.

An RPG without a Rule 0, or which says its rules must be adhered to without alteration, limits its own scope. For a niche game that's only ever intended by its designers to be a niche game - i.e. to do one thing but try to do that thing as well as it can - this could be fine. But for something that wants to be more broad-based and-or generic, the more flexibility it can have the better; and Rule 0 helps grant this as it flat-out tells the GM to make whatever changes she likes in order to make the game her own.

 

[loverdrive]

D&D is successful because people like the rules. If people didn’t like the rules, it wouldn’t be successful. Rule zero supports and facilitates a complex game like D&D - that people like.

Y'know if that was the case, the most popular RPG out there would be GURPS. Or Riddle of Steel. Or Phoenix Command.

Besides, "Be a fan of the PCs", "Think Dangerous" and "Give every person a name" are rules as much as "At level 5, when you take Attack action on your turn, you may make an extra attack".

 

[Aldarc]

Perhaps board game enthusiasts aren’t understanding why Monopoly is successful then.

I think you are doing Monopoly a disservice if you think price, nostalgia and familiarity are the reason it was successful. Guess what... it’s fun. People enjoy holding property, counting cash and charging their parents rent!

Or perhaps you are vastly underestimating the role that nostalgia, price point, nearly ubiquitous market availability, and mass familiarity play in popularity and sales. IME, Monopoly is rarely, if ever, considered a "fun game." Games of Monopoly are rarely finished: they are endured until someone (or everyone) decides to quit. Again IME, it's more often than not the used, banged-up game with missing pieces that people have sitting covered in dust on their shelves for lack of better alternatives that is then forgotten once people are exposed to other games. But I doubt that there is anything I can do to stop you from making fallacious ad populum arguments: I guess there must be something you find fun about those arguments too that I don't understand.

In contrast, for a fair old time Pathfinder was the number one selling TTRPG in the world, with a brand name that no one had ever heard of before. If you googled Pathfinder you got several pages on an obscure action film. The price point was equal to D&D. Surprise surprise... it was also fun.

You mean the game that was publicly advertising itself as a continuation of 3.5 D&D rule set and created by the publishers of Dungeon & Dragon magazines and published concurrently against the most controversial edition of D&D? Yeah, talk about a real zero to hero story there.

What an odd logical step. How is being improved by something equating to being successful because of something.

Sorry that I bothered putting your assertion in context with an earlier insinuation you made regarding why people choose D&D:

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

The implication here based on what you are replying to pemerton about niche games lacking a Rule Zero seems to be that D&D's popularity is a result of Rule Zero. I'm not sure what other conclusion I am meant to draw from it.

D&D is successful because people like the rules. If people didn’t like the rules, it wouldn’t be successful. [LOGICAL LEAP] Rule zero supports and facilitates a complex game like D&D - that people like.

You keep making a leap of logic (added for emphasis in bold) that you don't really support or substantiate. That's the problem.

I’ll let you into a secret. Most people like rules, they give you a framework of expectations. in a group game, if a person can do anything they want, any time they like then generally the group gets paralyzed by options or ends up going on wild tangents.

The DM is allowed in reasonable circumstances to interpret, bend, and break these rules in certain circumstances... where there is a block in the flow of the game, where it is more appropriate for their style of DMing, and where it improves the game and keeps people coming back for more. The social contract and the voluntary nature of DM-Player relationship is the oversight of this

Thank you for letting me in on that secret, TheSword. In return, I'll let you in on one of my own: Rule Zero is not necessary in the slightest to enable what you are describing and there is likewise NO NEED to get so sensitive about people criticizing Rule Zero in D&D.

 

[TheSword]

Rule Zero has been in almost every edition of the game since inception. It’s also present in some of the other RPGs I love to play. The fact that it may not of been in 4e only reinforces my opinions of 4e. I am perplexed by the pushback on it. I suspect part of this is for the same reasons as the pushback on the DM Authority thread. I notice it’s roughly the same people drawing the same lines in both. To many people to reply to individually.

The basic premise of “This is a complex game but don’t let the rules get in the way of a good fun” seems the most obvious thing to me. It’s such a harmless, non contentious approach, though it bucks against the traits of some players who want to classify, quantify, and be able to predict with certainty how things will pan out. I don’t think those posting here are That Guy, but That Guy is a real possibility. I’ve also seen players who aren’t That Guy turn into That Guy when the games rules are presented as the gospel.

Some of arguments I’ve seen here... along the the lines of “it should be possible to design a game that doesn’t require rule zero” remind me of the contempt vented at Games Workshop because the 24 factions in 40k when pitted against any one of the other 23 factions sometimes aren’t perfectly balanced. When each faction has 4-8 subfactions, plus relics, model types, equipment load outs. Absolute balance or rule simplicity is a pipe dream and even if we got it, im pretty sure we wouldn’t like it.

Complexity is not a vice when the complexity is fun. People like choices. When rules are homogenized into generic terms like has been described by Lowerdrive (and to a lesser extent 4e) any choice becomes no choice because there are no more meaningful differences. I believe this is one (only one) of the reasons 5e has been successful. There is a spectrum and 5e gives people a healthy balance of meaningful choice/complexity and streamlining. When I say people like 5e because of the rules... that’s what I mean.

If you want meaningful variation in options (be it spells, class abilities, feats, equipment) then you have to accept there will be conflicts. 99% will be fine but 1% will need considering. As forums go I find we spend a hell of lot of time arguing to throw out the 99% because the 1% doesn’t fit. The 1% dominates our discussions in fact.

My preference is to solve the 1% with rule zero.