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]

And I think your posts say more about your feelings towards D&D than they actually substantiate about Rule Zero.


I think this is where I see a noticeable difference between people who can't handle any criticism of games they like and those who can.


I am no designer so you will have to find a different excuse to dismiss my opinion as you are doing now with Loverdrive's. I like playing different card games, board games, video games, and TTRPG games because I also like cultivating different gaming experiences and some games are better suited for certain play styles, game types, etc. than other games. Simple as that. But the idea that Rule Zero is somehow necessary to run any TTRPG seems absolutely ridiculous given the sheer number of TTRPGs of various complexity, genre, or system that do not fall back on this notion and work swimmingly well.


Because it's how most other games already operate. The thousands of house rule variations of Monopoly, again for example, did not require Rule Zero to empower. People simply did it, and then Milton Bradley was super surprised to learn from their own internal research that people were not necessarily playing with the rules as written.

You are unusually hostile today?

Firstly I didn’t dismiss Loverdrives opinions, I just said I disagreed and said why. I then gave a suggestion for why there wasn’t much common ground on the issue.

Secondly I didn’t say all TTRPGs needed it. I said TTRPGs of the complexity of D&D/Pathfinder do. Incidentally I disagree with your claim that 4e didn’t have a rule zero.

“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

Monopoly has a rule zero. It’s implied in the culture of the game. It just hasn’t been spelled out in the rulebook.

The reason it’s particularly needed in games like D&D and Pathfinder is that That Player comes along and says to the GM. That Minotaur is dead, minotaurs have 43 hp and we’ve collectively dealt 47 points of damage. Or player A criticized player B for being allowed to use shield after knowing the outcome of the roll which is the only way the spell makes sense on a VTT that Calculates outcome. To allow the DM to play a game that suits the style of them and their table, and to speed up discussion of unusual corner case rules contradictions.

 

[loverdrive]

@loverdrive also got it wrong when she said that Rule 0 is for rules forward games. It's actually used more for her style of gameplay. She once gave an example in a thread where the DM ignored a rule, because it would be cool for the scene if the rule didn't take effect like it was supposed, and the game was about cool story. That's a prime example of Rule 0 in play. Ignoring/changing/adding to the rules to make a cool scene like roleplay forward gameplay likes to do, uses Rule 0 far more often than a rules forward game does. People liking rules forward games tend to stick to the rules more often and use Rule 0 less.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Rule 0 is only needed in rules-first games, because only in rules-first games there may be a situation where the results of rules at work don't make sense -- because rules exist separately from the fiction.

In rules-first, rules represent fictional concepts and events. Examples:

• Lance theoretically can be used when unmounted, but it's supposed to be used by mounted warriors, who wield it in one hand. So, we come up with a rule: "a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted."
• Using two weapons should allow making more attacks than you can do with one weapon. So, we come up with a rule: "When you take the Attack action and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand".

In a fiction-first game, a lance is just a lance, a heavy weapon, used by mounted knights and holding two weapons means just holding two weapons -- the character "on screen" is using a lance (or two daggers) in a way that makes sense within the fictional context.

So a situation like "ok, so there's nothing in the rules that forbids me from dual-wielding lances if I take a Dual Wielder feat and ride a horse" just can't happen -- because riding a horse with two lances doesn't get translated into "I'm using Mounted combat rules and dual-wielding two D12 Piercing weapons with Reach" -- the character on-screen is wielding two lances, which on-screen would lead to a spectacular failure, unless the character in question is an enhanced super-soldier or something.

In a rules-first game you need to invoke rule 0 in order to forbid ridiculous knight with two lances who can fight even more effective than a reasonable knight with one lance. In a fiction-first game you don't need to invoke rule 0, because dual-lanced knight is gonna get reasonably screwed already.

Your opinion about rule 0 is not a fact. It's also not a patch, but rather a DM tool. There's a difference.

Hm, TSR had a game with rigid, boardgamesque rules, but intended the game to work in various fictional circumstances. So they come up with a rule that allows to bypass the other rules if they don't produce sensible results, as opposed to building the game and embraces fiction from the ground up.

If that isn't a patch, I don't know what is.

 

[Maxperson]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Rule 0 is only needed in rules-first games, because only in rules-first games there may be a situation where the results of rules at work don't make sense -- because rules exist separately from the fiction.

It isn't needed at all. You can play rules-first games completely by the book. I've seen it done..........rarely. Most people want to use the tool to tweak the game and make it match their vision, not because of some need for it to exist.

In rules-first, rules represent fictional concepts and events. Examples:

• Lance theoretically can be used when unmounted, but it's supposed to be used by mounted warriors, who wield it in one hand. So, we come up with a rule: "a lance requires two hands to wield when you aren't mounted."
• Using two weapons should allow making more attacks than you can do with one weapon. So, we come up with a rule: "When you take the Attack action and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand".

In a fiction-first game, a lance is just a lance, a heavy weapon, used by mounted knights and holding two weapons means just holding two weapons -- the character "on screen" is using a lance (or two daggers) in a way that makes sense within the fictional context.

So a situation like "ok, so there's nothing in the rules that forbids me from dual-wielding lances if I take a Dual Wielder feat and ride a horse" just can't happen -- because riding a horse with two lances doesn't get translated into "I'm using Mounted combat rules and dual-wielding two D12 Piercing weapons with Reach" -- the character on-screen is wielding two lances, which on-screen would lead to a spectacular failure, unless the character in question is an enhanced super-soldier or something.

In a rules-first game you need to invoke rule 0 in order to forbid ridiculous knight with two lances who can fight even more effective than a reasonable knight with one lance. In a fiction-first game you don't need to invoke rule 0, because dual-lanced knight is gonna get reasonably screwed already.

I was with you until this point. In a game like D&D there are rules that make two lances a no no, so Rule 0 doesn't have to be used. I've also seen DMs who, if there were no rules preventing the use of two lances, would allow it, so Rule 0 wouldn't need to be used even then.

Rule 0 is a tool for the DM, not just to change the rules like in the lance example above that some people would find ridiculous, but also just to improve upon something in the game. Maybe the DM just wants to give the lance a bit of armor piercing, given the momentum of the horse added to the mix, so he "improves" on the game by making that tweak.

If that isn't a patch, I don't know what is.

It's not a patch. As I said, it's a tool.

 

[loverdrive]

In a game like D&D there are rules that make two lances a no no, so Rule 0 doesn't have to be used.

There isn't. And I brought that up specifically for that reason.

Lances in 5E have a special rule that imposes disadvantage against targets within 5ft. and that they are two-handed weapons when unmounted. That's it.

Take Dual Wielder and smack people with two lances. Be a kobold for additional ridiculousness.

Maybe the DM just wants to give the lance a bit of armor piercing, given the momentum of the horse added to the mix, so he "improves" on the game by making that tweak.

That's still closing the gap between fiction and mechanics.

It's not a patch. As I said, it's a tool.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear again. The existence of rule 0 itself is a patch, slapped on a game with a rigid ruleset in order to make it more flexible.

This "tool" exist solely because of earlier design decisions (well, not exactly, since it was before game design was an actual thing). It's a temporary fix to a problem that can be solved for good.

 

[Maxperson]

There isn't. And I brought that up specifically for that reason.

Lances in 5E have a special rule that imposes disadvantage against targets within 5ft. and that they are two-handed weapons when unmounted. That's it.

Take Dual Wielder and smack people with two lances. Be a kobold for additional ridiculousness.

Except for the rule that prevents it of course

Two-Weapon Fighting(PHB pg.195)
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Lances are not light melee weapons, so you can't use two of them.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear again. The existence of rule 0 itself is a patch, slapped on a game with a rigid ruleset in order to make it more flexible.

This "tool" exist solely because of earlier design decisions (well, not exactly, since it was before game design was an actual thing). It's a temporary fix to a problem that can be solved for good.

I understand you. I just don't agree with you. It just wasn't put in as a patch, but rather as a tool. And no, it's not there just fixing problems. It's a tool used just as often, perhaps even more often, just to tweak or add to the game to make it the DM's own.

 

[loverdrive]

Two-Weapon Fighting(PHB pg.195)
"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand."

Lances are not light melee weapons, so you can't use two of them.

And that's why you need Dual Wielder feat that allows using two non-light weapons.

And no, it's not there just fixing problems. It's a tool used just as often, perhaps even more often, just to tweak or add to the game to make it the DM's own.

And the fact that you need to change rules to make game your own sounds like a problem to me.

You can restrict spellcasting with rule zero, but you don't need rule zero if "how does the magic works and what one needs to use it?" is a question that needs to be answered.

 

[increment]

As @loverdrive has posted not far upthread, the useful function of "rule zero" is to acknowledge the limitations of a certain sort of game design, that has its origins in wargames and so (i) is oriented towards a limited range of fictional concerns (eg terrain matters; the colour of shoelaces typically doesn't) and (ii) has a tendency to work by way of "subsystems" - for movement, for fire, for morale, for casualty clearing stations, etc.

This. "Rule Zero" wasn't a patch slapped on to a rigid boardgamesque ruleset, it was a holdover from an era of miniature wargame design when people self-consciously published a loose framework or set of guidelines with the intention that players (and referees) around the table would flesh them out. Those "rules" were supposed to be incomplete, and that wasn't a bug, it was a cultural practice bestowing control over the system to the people sitting around the table. 1974 D&D literally identified itself on its box cover as a game in that tradition. RPGs that followed D&D inherited that attitude toward design of prior wargame designers. That was the entire point of the original article linked here, and the book it excerpts goes into how this process happened in the 1970s in far more scathing detail.

 

[Maxperson]

And that's why you need Dual Wielder feat that allows using two non-light weapons.

So you're engaging an optional rule to create a "problem"(in quotes because not everyone sees it as a problem) that needs to be fixed? What if you're in a game where people just think it's really cool to use two lances?

And the fact that you need to change rules to make game your own sounds like a problem to me.

Sure, but that's an opinion, not a fact. It may be a problem to you, but it's a welcome feature to me. I've played exactly 0 RPGs in my lifetime where I liked 100% of the rules and didn't want to change something about it. Not because of "problems," but rather just to improve it a bit and make it my own.

 

[TheSword]

There isn't. And I brought that up specifically for that reason.

Lances in 5E have a special rule that imposes disadvantage against targets within 5ft. and that they are two-handed weapons when unmounted. That's it.

Take Dual Wielder and smack people with two lances. Be a kobold for additional ridiculousness.



That's still closing the gap between fiction and mechanics.



Maybe I'm not making myself clear again. The existence of rule 0 itself is a patch, slapped on a game with a rigid ruleset in order to make it more flexible.

This "tool" exist solely because of earlier design decisions (well, not exactly, since it was before game design was an actual thing). It's a temporary fix to a problem that can be solved for good.

I’m sorry but I disagree. You’re assuming that there is a right way or wrong way to use the 5e system. The reason it exists is because I want to play x rule different to you. Saying that it is a patch implies that rule isn’t fit for purpose when in fact it’s just a different preference. There will be plenty of people who disagree with my adjustments.

It’s an ideology of how the designers built the game from a selection of choices that would appeal to different people.

Me deciding that monks don’t exist in my campaign isn’t a patch. Neither is me allowing Con score instead of Con bonus Hp at 1st level, or saying the rope trick spell isn’t an option in my games.

 

[loverdrive]

This. "Rule Zero" wasn't a patch slapped on to a rigid boardgamesque ruleset, it was a holdover from an era of miniature wargame design when people self-consciously published a loose framework or set of guidelines with the intention that players (and referees) around the table would flesh them out. Those "rules" were supposed to be incomplete, and that wasn't a bug, it was a cultural practice bestowing control over the system to the people sitting around the table. 1974 D&D literally identified itself on its box cover as a game in that tradition. RPGs that followed D&D inherited that attitude toward design of prior wargame designers. That was the entire point of the original article linked here, and the book it excerpts goes into how this process happened in the 1970s in far more scathing detail.

And these rules were incomplete in a weird way that requires patches to complete them.

"When you attack someone, and you're willing and able to hurt them, roll..." accomplishes pretty much the same thing as "When you swing your weapon at whatever, roll..." combined with "if rules don't make sense, change them", but much more elegantly.