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 that Rule 0 is an ad-hoc patch, applied to essentially board-game rules that allows for more ad-hoc patches. PbtA and FitD don't have rule zero at all and work just fine. Fate seriously downplays rule 0 (called the Silver Rule there and talks about applying other rules in unusual circumstances, rather than bypassing rules altogether) and works fine too.

Rule 0 is needed only in rules-first games without solid generalized framework. And even there, it's something to be used carefully, when you actually know what you're doing.

Rule 0 isn’t a patch. It’s a foundation, that reminds us that this is a creative game that shouldn’t be limited if a written rule doesn’t make sense in that moment for that GM.

The niche games may have different approaches. They are still niche and as long as they remain so they aren’t a reasonable comparison. Obviously there are other things that make D&D more satisfying for people to play than Fate.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling a d6 for initiative. Is not elegant, it’s simple.

Elegant is not the same as simple.

Anyone can write a simple Rpg. Roll a D6 on a 5 or 6 you do a wound. I’m not sure that simple method would be satisfying.

Elegant rules achieve a satisfying process with the minimum of fuss.

I’d argue that the Success Level system in WFRP is quite elegant actually particularly for combat. Two opposed rolls that model hitting, location and damage, defender skill, a wide variety of methods of defense, critical hits and fumbles, and that removes the whiff factor of earlier editions is very elegant.

Well said.

 

[pemerton]

Was 3E more elegant than 2E? 4E more elegant than 3E? Nope. Less elegant each time. Except ascending AC replacing THAC0. That was elegant. Longer and longer spell descriptions? That’s not elegant.

Huh? Spell descriptions in 4e D&D are not long. The spell description for Fireball in 4e is nearly identical to B/X.

The brevity of rules elements in 4e was in fact a frequent source of complaint.

 

[pemerton]

I think what was meant is that if a Game Master were to Rule Zero a game (perhaps with a lot of rule changes), then perhaps there is another game that addresses the problem the GM is trying to solve.

I was meaning that a GM who is unilaterally going to make changes doesn't need "rule zero" to facilitate that. S/he can just make changes! The same for a group who know one another already: I played a game of Blokus with my family yesterday. Blokus doesn't have a rule zero, but that didn't stop us changing a rule about the order of play by colour.

I took @pemerton to mean that the rules, as contained in a rule book that both players and GM have purchased, constitute a shared set of rules that everyone has (and hopefully have familiarised themselves with), and a GM who has chosen to change a number of rules can surprise the players because they expected to be playing Game X, not Game sort-of-X-but-with-these-quote-fixes-end-quote. This is likely more pertinent to a group of people who have just met than a group that has been together for a few years

I agree with the last of your sentences I've quoted, yes.

The niche games may have different approaches. They are still niche and as long as they remain so they aren’t a reasonable comparison. Obviously there are other things that make D&D more satisfying for people to play than Fate.

I just checked. This thread is in General, not D&D.

And 4e D&D was not a "niche" game. And had no need of "rule zero". As @loverdrive explained, rule zero is an element of a particular sort of game design. Not of RPGs in general.

Rule 0 isn’t a patch. It’s a foundation, that reminds us that this is a creative game that shouldn’t be limited if a written rule doesn’t make sense in that moment for that GM.

You can see the assumption about design here.

Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic is a pretty creative game. But it doesn't need rule zero, because it uses a general resolution system that is not reliant on situation-specific subsystems. So there isn't such a thing as "a written rule that doesn't make sense in that moment for that GM".

I'd also add - players are pretty creative too. What happens if a player is playing a subsystem-heavy game like AD&D and, in that moment for that player, a written rule doesn't make sense. Does the player get to invoker rule zero?

 

[pemerton]

The idea that one can make house rules or that the GM/table can override the rules? It's not as if people playing card or board games in their homes need a Rule 0 to do the same.

Right. That's a big part of the point I was making upthread.

 

[Aldarc]

Right. That's a big part of the point I was making upthread.

It seems like if there ever was a Rule 0 it should be that the participants first decide what game they are playing as well as how it will be played and the principles they will adhere to.

 

[TheSword]

And 4e D&D was not a "niche" game. And had no need of "rule zero". As @loverdrive explained, rule zero is an element of a particular sort of game design. Not of RPGs in general.

4e wasn’t a niche game but Marvel Heroic RP / Cortex / Forged in the Dark certainly are if they represent less than half of one percent of games played on Roll20. I’m not saying they aren’t good or fun, or that this isn’t a lot of games - there are a lot of people on Roll20.

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

You can see the assumption about design here.

Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic is a pretty creative game. But it doesn't need rule zero, because it uses a general resolution system that is not reliant on situation-specific subsystems. So there isn't such a thing as "a written rule that doesn't make sense in that moment for that GM".

That’s for them to decide. The fact that these rule sets dont have complex interlocking combinations of conflicting rules doesn’t mean that a system like D&D doesn’t need a rule zero.

I'd also add - players are pretty creative too. What happens if a player is playing a subsystem-heavy game like AD&D and, in that moment for that player, a written rule doesn't make sense. Does the player get to invoker rule zero?

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.

 

[loverdrive]

Rule 0 isn’t a patch. It’s a foundation, that reminds us that this is a creative game that shouldn’t be limited if a written rule doesn’t make sense in that moment for that GM.

And it's needed only because of rigidity of said rules in rules-first games. In fiction-first games you don't need rule zero, because the rules cannot not make sense.

In rules-first games, rule zero is needed, because there's "translation": fiction => mechanics => fiction and nuances inevitably get lost in this translation.

So, if Atob swings her sword at Rorke Black-Blade, who is wielding a Shatterspike, it gets translated to "Atob takes an attack action against an enemy with AC 15". And then Rorke uses Parry reaction, which gets translated to "Rorke gets +3 AC". Since there are no rules on parrying with Shatterspike, its nature is not taken into account, Atob's sword doesn't get shattered into a million of pieces, like it's supposed to -- and you need to invoke rule zero in order to close the gap between mechanics and fiction.

In fiction-first games, there's no such translation and we always operate in the realms of fiction.

If the same situation would take place in, say, Dungeon World, a lightning-fast parry and Atob's sword shattering could be a GM move on 6- roll, or, if Rorke was shown on-screen as very skilled swordsman, just Golden Opportunity exploited -- and there's never any discrepancy between mechanics and fiction, because they are inherently inseparable, so you just don't need to invoke rule 0.

 

[Aldarc]

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

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.

 

[TheSword]

After all

And it's needed only because of rigidity of said rules in rules-first games. In fiction-first games you don't need rule zero, because the rules cannot not make sense.

In rules-first games, rule zero is needed, because there's "translation": fiction => mechanics => fiction and nuances inevitably get lost in this translation.

So, if Atob swings her sword at Rorke Black-Blade, who is wielding a Shatterspike, it gets translated to "Atob takes an attack action against an enemy with AC 15". And then Rorke uses Parry reaction, which gets translated to "Rorke gets +3 AC". Since there are no rules on parrying with Shatterspike, its nature is not taken into account, Atob's sword doesn't get shattered into a million of pieces, like it's supposed to -- and you need to invoke rule zero in order to close the gap between mechanics and fiction.

In fiction-first games, there's no such translation and we always operate in the realms of fiction.

If the same situation would take place in, say, Dungeon World, a lightning-fast parry and Atob's sword shattering could be a GM move on 6- roll, or, if Rorke was shown on-screen as very skilled swordsman, just Golden Opportunity exploited -- and there's never any discrepancy between mechanics and fiction, because they are inherently inseparable, so you just don't need to invoke rule 0.

The claim that an ephemeral rule style that doesn’t use specifics or rules interactions is a bit of a truism.

Gin Rummy, Hopscotch and I spy with my little eye don’t need a rule zero either.

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