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.

 

[TheSword]

I think these two posts are right. It's unhelpful to run together these different things - house ruling (and who is in charge of that); how fictional positioning is managed, and (related, but not the same) the role of GM judgement in adjudication; the ability of one or more participants to override the rules (when confined to the GM, this is WW's "golden rule"); who gets to pitch the "big picture" of a campaign and the extent to which other participants are expected to work with, or perhaps push against, this; etc.

I remember reading "rule zero" in the 3E PHB which, as Campbell has posted, is an aspect of the PC build process (ie check with your GM first about house rules and "big picture" of the campaign). I was puzzled when, over the course of the past 20 years reading ENworld, I started to see "rule zero" used to describe a general principle that the GM can suspend or override action resolution rules in the interests of "fun", "the campaign", etc. These are not the same thing.

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

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

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.

Regarding your questions about DW. I will never play Dungeon World, it’s far too loose, far too ephemeral, and essentially involves making it up as you go along. My players enjoy my worlds because they feel real and have verisimilitude. Exploring loses all wonder when you’re telling everyone else what they discover. They don’t won’t to play Pass the Story. They tell their stories through determining their characters action.

It doesn’t mean that these (the bulk of the principles listed) are unique to Dungeon World. I’ve removed references to DW rules

• Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
• Tell the players outcomes not their action.
• Draw maps, leave blanks
• Address the characters, not the players
• Embrace the fantastic
• Describe actions not rules
• Give every monster life
• Name every person
• Ask questions and use the answers
• Be a fan of the characters
• Think dangerous
• Think offscreen, too

 

[pemerton]

Rule 0 is in the 3.5 DMG on page 6.

What's your point? Are you querying my memory?

 

[pemerton]

Regarding your questions about DW. I will never play Dungeon World, it’s far too loose, far too ephemeral, and essentially involves making it up as you go along.

In that case why are you asserting that you play your D&D game by applying the DW principles? You've just told us that you reject a number of them!

My players enjoy my worlds because they feel real and have verisimilitude. Exploring loses all wonder when you’re telling everyone else what they discover. They don’t won’t to play Pass the Story.

DW is not "pass the story". And for what it's worth, I'll put the reality and verisimilitude of the "no myth" games I run up against any poster on ENworld. (I have dozens of actual play threads that can be found easily enough.)

But in any event what you're saying here is that you do not draw maps and leave blanks, nor ask questions and build on the answers. So why, upthread, did you say the opposite?

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

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

Where do I find this stated? What rulebook? Does that rulebook use the label "rule zero"?

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.

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.


EDIT: Can you explain how you run D&D combat by applying the principles begin and end with the fiction and describe actions, not rules?

 

[Aldarc]

Is there anyone in this thread who has played both DW and D&D and thinks that they play the same in respect of drawing maps and leaving blanks, asking questions and building on the answers, playing to find out, beginning and ending with the fiction, and describing actions and not rules? Or are those who are saying this just making it up?

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.

 

[TheSword]

In that case why are you asserting that you play your D&D game by applying the DW principles? You've just told us that you reject a number of them!

I reject some of them. DW does not have a monopoly on bringing Monsters and NPCs to life or embracing the fantastic. Or indeed any of the ‘principles’ you mention. Most of these are good for any roleplaying game if that’s the style you like.

DW is not "pass the story". And for what it's worth, I'll put the reality and verisimilitude of the "no myth" games I run up against any poster on ENworld. (I have dozens of actual play threads that can be found easily enough.)

It reads like it. When a player says I’m going to the desert to find the tombs that are there (without indication that there is a desert nearby or indeed any tombs) thats Pass the Story.

But in any event what you're saying here is that you do not draw maps and leave blanks, nor ask questions and build on the answers. So why, upthread, did you say the opposite?

I can ask the players, how did you get to this place? Have you been to this city before? What do you feel about this organization? Why are you willing to work with these other people? Why are the [X organisation] looking for you? The answers are use. I’m not talking about character generation here.

I play a lot of adventures in Cities and the wilderness... they are almost all blanks. If the PCs need a healer, or an expert metal worker, or a sewer access, or a manor house to buy (that will have a ghost) then there will be one when there needs to be one. I have a lot of locations that can be dropped into a campaign as required. It’s one of the reasons I particularly like a book like Tomb of Annihilation because of the multiple locations it provides.

Where do I find this stated? What rulebook? Does that rulebook use the label "rule zero"?

It’s been in every edition of D&D and White Wolf, and Warhammer and plenty of other rule books. If you wiki rule zero you’ll get all the relevant quotes and references.

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.

Good for you. Other people may feel they need express permission. Particularly if they’ve come from board games and/or are new to the game. It’s very odd that you object to a rule that you claim to follow anyway.

EDIT: Can you explain how you run D&D combat by applying the principles begin and end with the fiction and describe actions, not rules?

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.

 

[TheSword]

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.

Or perhaps people claiming a gaming system has a monopoly on a particular style of DMing is clearly incorrect. DW embraces a particular style. It didn’t invent blanks on a map, naming NPCs, or embracing the fantastic.

 

[Aldarc]

It’s been in every edition of D&D and White Wolf, and Warhammer and plenty of other rule books. If you wiki rule zero you’ll get all the relevant quotes and references.

Rule Zero cannot be found on Wikipedia. The top answer in RPG.Stackexchange summarizes it as "the GM has ultimate say in all rules matters." TV Tropes cites it as "The Game Master is always right." 1d4 Chan summarizes it as "these rules are only a guideline" and says that this is often confused with the Golden Rule: i.e., "whatever the DM says, goes." It does cite examples, but its conception of Rule Zero follows the more restricted sense, and its citations show that different TTRPGs have differing "Rule 0s". So there are definitely plenty of mixed messages out there and not as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But as the article in the OP points out: Rule Zero is never described as Rule Zero really anywhere until a much later time in the game's culture, by which point, much as @Campbell says, it gets conflated with a bunch of related principles and powers pertaining to a GM's authority/god-complex (e.g., White Wolf's Golden Rule, etc.), much as it is in this thread.

Or perhaps people claiming a gaming system has a monopoly on a particular style of DMing is clearly incorrect. DW embraces a particular style. It didn’t invent blanks on a map, naming NPCs, or embracing the fantastic.

Or perhaps the idea that a gaming system has a monopoly on a particular style of DMing is a strawman argument you have clearly constructed. Let's be clear here: arguing that D&D may not support those principles as solidly with its rules, rulings, or guidelines as other games does not mean that people are arguing that DW has a monopoly on those principles. What people have argued is (1) that these principles are explicitly listed and detailed in DW and supported by its rules* and (2) that D&D does not provide a similar framework of principles for making rulings beyond "you can change naughty word if you want to," to quote loverdrive.

* As @loverdrive clarified (and you have not engaged) is that whether one can play by these principles in D&D as well is not even her point. It's just easier for you to bellow smoke at the idea that DW has a monopoly on this style of GMing than actually engage her arguments.

 

[Manbearcat]

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 see you know "the first rule" of "Rule Zero Club!"

...man...should I get involved in this thread...

Not sure yet. Presently I'm not feeling the word count I'd inevitably put in to Return on Investment maths working out.

 

[TheSword]

1d4 Chan spells it out pretty clearly. I don’t think there is any inconsistency with these quotes. They all say essentially what I and others have claimed they say.

The fact that the phrase rule zero was coined to describe the rule, doesn’t change the fact that the rule existed as it is understood to be, through out the games history.

• In Basic D&D in 1980, the book says on the first page:

"Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable -- anything, that is, that the DM thinks should be changed... The purpose of these 'rules' is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

• In AD&D, the player's handbook has on page 8:

"This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only."

• Dungeons & Dragons 3e doesn't explicitly state the rules can go hang, but it does have a section for changing the rules to suit your group (DMG, pg 11).
• D&D 3.5 states in several places that the DM can treat any rule as a mere suggestion at any time. Examples: bottom of page 64, Player's Handbook (Access to Skills), and most directly in the DMG on page 6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."
• D&D 4e also has a section on creating house rules (DMG, pg 189).“The D&D rules cannot possibly account for the variety of campaigns and play styles of every group. If you disagree with how the rules handle something, changing them is within your rights.”- 4e DMG pg 192
• D&D 5e talks about adding optional rules and how the rules are "guidelines" in Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop (DMG, pg 263).

 

[TheSword]

Or perhaps the idea that a gaming system has a monopoly on a particular style of DMing is a strawman argument you have clearly constructed. Let's be clear here: arguing that D&D may not support those principles as solidly with its rules, rulings, or guidelines as other games does not mean that people are arguing that DW has a monopoly on those principles. What people have argued is (1) that these principles are explicitly listed and detailed in DW and supported by its rules* and (2) that D&D does not provide a similar framework of principles for making rulings beyond "you can change naughty word if you want to," to quote loverdrive.

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.

• 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

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?