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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Seeing Gygax's own advice in dragon magazine, Gygax advocated for a somewhat toxic "punish your players for knowing the rules" approach. I often wonder how much of that was wanting the company to fail?

I suspect it was simply tunnel-vision and one-true-wayism.

 

[MGibster]

Seeing Gygax's own advice in dragon magazine, Gygax advocated for a somewhat toxic "punish your players for knowing the rules" approach. I often wonder how much of that was wanting the company to fail?

The past is another country and they do things differently there.

 

[Hussar]

In this metaphor the script is the rules of the game, not what characters do.

But, that's still an issue. You are saying that the director (DM) can change the rules of the game, but, the players must not. I'm saying that the best movies allow EVERYONE to contribute to the script (ie rules of the game) and don't especially privilege anyone. A great GM, just like a great director, will permit players, like actors, to contribute all sorts of things to the game outside of simply what their characters do.

Granted, this is a very different approach to gaming than what would have been seen back in the early 80's. We have learned that insisting that only the DM must have control of the rules is not the only way to play and not even the best way to play.

 

[Lanefan]

Granted, this is a very different approach to gaming than what would have been seen back in the early 80's. We have learned that insisting that only the DM must have control of the rules is not the only way to play and not even the best way to play.

For you.

Personally, as a player, the more rules and under-the-hood mechanics the DM takes care of the better I like it.

 

[aramis erak]

The past is another country and they do things differently there.

Except that similar but less explicit versions are peppered throughout the DMG.

 

[aramis erak]

But, that's still an issue. You are saying that the director (DM) can change the rules of the game, but, the players must not. I'm saying that the best movies allow EVERYONE to contribute to the script (ie rules of the game) and don't especially privilege anyone. A great GM, just like a great director, will permit players, like actors, to contribute all sorts of things to the game outside of simply what their characters do.

Agreed.

Granted, this is a very different approach to gaming than what would have been seen back in the early 80's. We have learned that insisting that only the DM must have control of the rules is not the only way to play and not even the best way to play.

Wrong. Some of us were doing group-think on rules in 1981. I know that Aaron and I were doing so.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed.

Wrong. Some of us were doing group-think on rules in 1981. I know that Aaron and I were doing so.

Really? What games were you publishing in 1981 that I can peruse?

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, because in general people buying OSR games don't need to have rule zero spelled out for them in print.

The only reason any kind of "Rule Zero" is spelled out in D&D is because it is the gateway drug into the hobby. And new people may have little to no cultural assumptions about the RPG hobby.

Not sure if I entirely agree with that. That's probably closer to the truth for the straight-up OSR retro clones, and a number of OSR games also include Rule Zero, but I'm not sure about some of the others. 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. Fate, for example, does not have Rule Zero, but it also encourages people to tinker with the game and make the game their own.

I think you're seriously underestimating how big D&D was even at its weakest (probably in the 4e period). All that happened during that period was that a lot of people stuck to 3e or 3.5 period D&D, or played some other immediately recognizable offshoot, because the D&D network was still well established. No one was really challeging it other than perhaps PF, and as noted, PF was riding the success of 3e era D&D. But it was still about the established extent D&D network.

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. 4E may be regarded as D&D's "New Coke," but New Coke still outsold more than Pepsi, which did its best to capitalize on the backlash against New Coke. And brand loyalty to Coke resulted in grassroots organizing to bring back "Old Coke."

 

[pemerton]

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.

That strongly suggests that you play games like D&D (other than 4e), GURPS, HERO, Rolemaster, perhaps RuneQuest. And that you don't play games like Burning Wheel, any PbtA system, any Cortex+ system, HeroWars/Quest, Over the Edge, etc. etc.

Some of the systems in the former category are pretty simple (eg Moldvay Basic). Some of the systems in the latter category are pretty complex (eg Burning Wheel, 4e D&D. What differentiates them, besides - I am conjecturing - your preferences, is that the first category are "rules first", with the fiction being read off the rules at every point, and that the latter category are "fiction first", in the sense that the mechanical processes of the game take the fiction itself, and not just a mechanical expression of the fiction, as input.

Systems of that latter sort don't have any need for "rule zero" as a method of adjudication. They may be houseruled or "kit bashed" from time to time (some actively encourage such an approach, eg HeroQuest revised, Over the Edge, recent Cortex+ publications) but no one needs a game to state a rule in order to be permitted to alter its rules.

 

[TheSword]

That strongly suggests that you play games like D&D (other than 4e), GURPS, HERO, Rolemaster, perhaps RuneQuest. And that you don't play games like Burning Wheel, any PbtA system, any Cortex+ system, HeroWars/Quest, Over the Edge, etc. etc.

Some of the systems in the former category are pretty simple (eg Moldvay Basic). Some of the systems in the latter category are pretty complex (eg Burning Wheel, 4e D&D. What differentiates them, besides - I am conjecturing - your preferences, is that the first category are "rules first", with the fiction being read off the rules at every point, and that the latter category are "fiction first", in the sense that the mechanical processes of the game take the fiction itself, and not just a mechanical expression of the fiction, as input.

Systems of that latter sort don't have any need for "rule zero" as a method of adjudication. They may be houseruled or "kit bashed" from time to time (some actively encourage such an approach, eg HeroQuest revised, Over the Edge, recent Cortex+ publications) but no one needs a game to state a rule in order to be permitted to alter its rules.

Firstly 4e D&D did have a rule zero. It can be found on pg 192 of the 4e DMG. I quoted it earlier but here it is again.

“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

Secondly, it’s a truism to say simplified, generic rules that can be applied in any circumstance don’t require a rule zero. If nothing is specific then nothing will come into conflict. That kind of approach doesn’t work with D&D.