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.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I find the inherent power imbalance of the DM role* is much more responsible than Rule 0, and that DMs have MANY more tools than just Rule 0 to deal with abusive or coercive players. Otherwise, we'd never even have started talking about RAW, and no DM ever would have gone online and asked, "is my player full of crap, or are they actually right about this rule?" Sure, Rule 0 is the end of the line, but being the final option does not make it the ONLY option.

*This imbalance is not inherently bad. But it does appear that far less teaching, outreach, and best-practices talk occurs about the DM role than about DMs (and players) dealing with other players.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Interesting. I see freedom-to-kitbash as a part of the Rule 0 mentality, that being "do whatever you need to do to make the game the best fit for you and your table".

Fate, for example, does not have Rule Zero, but it also encourages people to tinker with the game and make the game their own.

To me this says it does have Rule 0, but only as a part of GM-side pre-campaign prep rather than on the fly during play.

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.

I seem to remember there was also a big Pathfinder spike right when it first came out, and it might have (?) passed D&D then for a short time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And then... We shouldn't play together.

And that's fine! But off-loading more into a ruleset that is objective (an external referent) prevents things from always becoming, "Either we can agree, or we can't play together."

Because sometime people can't agree on subjective things (or even "common sense") but they can agree on an external rule.

Again, it's a difference in approaches, with none being the "best" or even "better." You view other systems as like board games with a Rule 0 needlessly affixed; whereas other people might view your system as a nebulous patchwork of guidelines, mediated by the constant negotiation of competing Rule 0s between participants.

Six of one, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

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'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).

D&Desque rule zero boils down to "figure it out", and in newer editions (well, since AD&D 2E at least, lol) presumes undoing existing rules and replacing them, instead of filling the blanks.

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.

In Dungeon World, the GM has agenda:

• Portray a fantastic world
• Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens

And they have principles:

• Draw maps, leave blanks
• Address the characters, not the players
• Embrace the fantastic
• Make a move that follows
• Never speak the name of your move
• 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

So whenever the game master needs to open their mouth, they have a solid framework to evaluate what they're gonna say. Does it push forward my agenda? Does it follow principles?

Much of that advice could apply to a D&D (any edition) DM as well. There's only really about two clauses there that stand out as different: "play to find out what happens"* and "be a fan of the characters"**.

* - as opposed to having things prepped in advance.
** - as opposed to presenting the setting and obstacles as a neutral arbiter, which is more what D&D expects.

Though it's great advice, I know I fail hard on "name every person" as I'm terrible at coming up with names on the fly and then, when I do I promptly forget what I just said!

Also, there're GM moves, which are ready to use prompts. I'm not gonna list all of them, as this post is already full of lists, but I'll give a couple of examples (again, from Dungeon World):

• Show signs of an approaching threat: This is one of your most versatile moves. “Threat” means anything bad that’s on the way. With this move, you just show them that something’s going to happen unless they do something about it.
• Separate Them: There are few things worse than being in the middle of a raging battle with blood-thirsty owlbears on all sides—one of those things is being in the middle of that battle with no one at your back. Separating the characters can mean anything from being pushed apart in the heat of battle to being teleported to the far end of the dungeon. Whatever way it occurs, it’s bound to cause problems.
• Put someone in a spot: A spot is someplace where a character needs to make tough choices. Put them, or something they care about, in the path of destruction. The harder the choice, the tougher the spot.
• Tell them the requirements or consequences and ask: This move is particularly good when they want something that’s not covered by a move, or they’ve failed a move. They can do it, sure, but they’ll have to pay the price. Or, they can do it, but there will be consequences. Maybe they can swim through the shark-infested moat before being devoured, but they’ll need a distraction. Of course, this is made clear to the characters, not just the players: the sharks are in a starved frenzy, for example.

I like the second and third of these. I'm not married to the first one; sometimes threats pre-announce themselves and sometimes they sneak up on you when you don't expect. I'm dubious about the fourth one, in that sometimes (some of) the consequences aren't immediately obvious, and I don't like giving information the player/PC shouldn't have.

And it applies to all situations, not only to theoretical Ronald the Madman. When a dragon unleashes its stone-melting fire breath, in D&D the DM asks for save vs. breath (or Reflex save, or Dex save, doesn't matter), but in Dungeon World the GM says "The beast inhales air into its massive lungs and its about to turn you into a well done steak. What ya gonna do?".

Yeah, both in D&D and in DW a wizard can say "I'm gonna teleport away with my magic!", but in D&D you need to break the rules to allow it. In DW it's a normal, natural action, just like dodging out of the harms way.

The DW version fails for me in one way: as written, the wizard always gets away with it. I'd prefer a more granular resolution, where the wizard tries to teleport and then have something mechanical (even a simple timing roll) determine whether she's fast enough in getting the spell away. (I also prefer systems where spells take measurable time to cast, but that's a side issue here that it seems neither system answers)

In turn-based D&D something like this would be impossible - teleport can't be cast as a reaction (that I know of) - and if it's the dragon's 'turn' the wizard's options are limited. Now if the DM said that bit about the dragon inhaling as a lead-up to the wizard's turn, then ol' Wizzy can do whatever she likes to get out of there. (did I mention I'm also not a big fan of strictly-turn-based combat as presented in 3e-4e-5e? )

 

[Maxperson]

I find the inherent power imbalance of the DM role* is much more responsible than Rule 0, and that DMs have MANY more tools than just Rule 0 to deal with abusive or coercive players. Otherwise, we'd never even have started talking about RAW, and no DM ever would have gone online and asked, "is my player full of crap, or are they actually right about this rule?" Sure, Rule 0 is the end of the line, but being the final option does not make it the ONLY option.

*This imbalance is not inherently bad. But it does appear that far less teaching, outreach, and best-practices talk occurs about the DM role than about DMs (and players) dealing with other players.

I agree with this. Rule 0 is the wrong tool to use when a player is abusive or coercive. There really is no game tool that is appropriate. Behaviors like that are social and exist outside the game and that's where they should be handled. Sometimes by the DM alone and sometimes by the group, depending on the circumstances surrounding the issue.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because sometime people can't agree on subjective things (or even "common sense") but they can agree on an external rule.

If someone actually goes to the trouble to read the ruleset in any detail, it also functions to set expectations; if someone has problems with what sort of play experience the ruleset is going to give, they can see it right up front rather than finding out in play, which is a much worse way to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

If someone actually goes to the trouble to read the ruleset in any detail, it also functions to set expectations; if someone has problems with what sort of play experience the ruleset is going to give, they can see it right up front rather than finding out in play, which is a much worse way to do so.

Yes, and one of those expectations that the 5e PHB sets forth is that the DM changes rules and to ask him what is changed.

 

[pemerton]

"Rule zero" in the sense of adding house rules or changing things is part-and-parcel of game play. It is in no way unique to RPGs - for instance, when my daughter and I play backgammon we don't use the doubling die in its standard fashion, but we do use it to mark games as double (or quadruple, etc) games if the roll to see who goes first is a tie.

No one needs permission from the game's designer or publisher to do that sort of thing.

But "rule zero" as an approach to action resolution is a completely different thing. 4e D&D doesn't have it - it uses p 42, which is a set of guidelines for the adjudication of "actions the rules don't cover". Burning Wheel doesn't have it. And it's not because either of these is a "simplified" or non-complex game. Each is at least as complex as D&D 5e.

It's because neither game is built on the design principle of discrete, non-generalisable sub-systems used to resolve narrow categories of fictional action. In BW the resolution process for meeting a friend, finding a secret door, sneaking through a forest, and ramming one galley with another, is the same in each case. So there are not corner cases or instances of rule incompatibility. This is completely different from AD&D, where even really basic questions like does being a high level fighter help one command a galley that is trying to ram another have no canonical answer; and if someone decides the answer is "yes" there's no straightforward way to determine how a character's level should interact with the ramming rules, because the only device for turning character level into combat expertise is the to-hit/THACO chart, and the ramming rules are completely independent of those charts.

It's that sort of RPG design that makes "rule zero" necessary. And as I posted upthread, that sort of design is a legacy of wargame design.

 

[loverdrive]

The DW version fails for me in one way: as written, the wizard always gets away with it. I'd prefer a more granular resolution, where the wizard tries to teleport and then have something mechanical (even a simple timing roll) determine whether she's fast enough in getting the spell away. (I also prefer systems where spells take measurable time to cast, but that's a side issue here that it seems neither system answers)

And there's such thing.

There are Player Moves (which are different from GM Moves and I think the Bakers kinda dropped the ball with naming here) -- basically, rules for resolving common situations, though they are triggered by fictional events, as opposed to mechanics.

In this case, the wizard is weaving the magic, thus triggering Cast a Spell move:

When you release a spell you’ve prepared, roll+Int.

✴ On a 10+, the spell is successfully cast and you do not forget the spell—you may cast it again later.

✴ On a 7-9, the spell is cast, but choose one:

• You draw unwelcome attention or put yourself in a spot. The GM will tell you how.
• The spell disturbs the fabric of reality as it is cast—take -1 ongoing to cast a spell until the next time you Prepare Spells.
• After it is cast, the spell is forgotten. You cannot cast the spell again until you prepare spells.

The players don't choose an action from a list of available options on their turn, they describe what their character is doing and based on that description, rules are applied.

To illustrate it better, here's Hack&Slash move

When you attack an enemy in melee, roll+Str.
✴ On a 10+, you deal your damage to the enemy and avoid their attack. At your option, you may choose to do +1d6 damage but expose yourself to the enemy’s attack. ✴ On a 7–9, you deal your damage to the enemy and the enemy makes an attack against you.

Hack and slash is for attacking a prepared enemy plain and simple. If the enemy isn’t prepared for your attack—if they don’t know you’re there or they’re restrained and helpless—then that’s not hack and slash. You just deal your damage or murder them outright, depending on the situation. Nasty stuff.

The enemy’s counterattack can be any GM move made directly with that creature. A goblin might just attack you back, or they might jam a poisoned needle into your veins. Life’s tough, isn’t it?

Note that an “attack” is some action that a player undertakes that has a chance of causing physical harm to someone else. Attacking a dragon with inch-thick metal scales full of magical energy using a typical sword is like swinging a meat cleaver at a tank: it just isn’t going to cause any harm, so hack and slash doesn’t apply. Note that circumstances can change that: if you’re in a position to stab the dragon on its soft underbelly (good luck with getting there) it could hurt, so it’s an attack.

If the action that triggers the move could reasonably hurt multiple targets roll once and apply damage to each target (they each get their armor).

Some attacks may have additional effects depending on the triggering action, the circumstances, or the weapons involved. An attack could also knock someone down, restrain them, or leave a big bloody splatter.

Now compare it to attacking in D&D, where you're rolling to hit and then deal damage, regardless of what exactly you're attacking, and then these rules need to be overridden (by other rules or by an invocation of rule 0, doesn't matter), if its normal application doesn't make sense in the fictional context.

 

[Aldarc]

Interesting. I see freedom-to-kitbash as a part of the Rule 0 mentality, that being "do whatever you need to do to make the game the best fit for you and your table".

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. 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).

To me this says it does have Rule 0, but only as a part of GM-side pre-campaign prep rather than on the fly during play.

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.