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.

 

[Lanefan]

Since when did house rules fall under Rule 0?

Since forever, I'd say.

 

[Aldarc]

It is when you're trying to limit the definition of Rule 0 to one specific subset of what it covers; and if you want to call that "shallow" and "superficial" then sorry, that's on you.

"Conflating" kit-bashing with Rule 0 is only a problem in your eyes due to your limited definition of what Rule 0 covers.

System-level kitbashing, house rules, on-the-fly rulings to covers things not hit by the rules - all of these are part of Rule 0, which in itself boils down to "make the game your own".

When everything is Rule Zero, then nothing is.

OK, so Fate just hides its version of Rule 0 under a different name. Got it.

The Silver Rule is a different principle.

 

[Maxperson]

Since when did house rules fall under Rule 0?

Since its inception. Rule 0 is just the ability to add, subtract or change rules as the DM sees fit.

 

[Maxperson]

When everything is Rule Zero, then nothing is.

Good thing RAW is part of everything, then.

 

[pemerton]

You don’t believe these principles can apply to D&D?

• Portray a fantastic world
• Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
• Play to find out what happens
• 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
• Begin and end with the fiction
• Think offscreen, too

You don’t think D&D can play this way? I’m surprised because most of my campaigns run this way.

Could you explain how this is not possible?

My impression is that much or even most D&D play, of 5e at least, is AP-based and hence is not playing to find out what happens.

When posters on this board talk about drawing maps, leaving blanks the typical response from those who play D&D primarily or exclusively is "Schroedinger's <whatever>" - as best I can tell the canonical approach in D&D is for the GM to draw maps in advance, to adjudicate action declaration by referring to those maps and keys, and if forced to improvise to as much as possible assimilate that to working from a prepared map and key. The same thing is true of asking questions and using the answers.

D&D does not very well support describing actions not rules because of the nature of the rule-set - for instance, it seems to me very hard to resolve a D&D combat without primarily describing rules (attack attempts, attack rolls, damage rolls, changes in hit point totals, bonus actions, saving throw numbers, etc). For similar reasons D&D does not typically begin and end with the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

My impression is that much or even most D&D play, of 5e at least, is AP-based and hence is not playing to find out what happens.

There's no way that you can know what happens. You MUST play to find out what happens. Even if the goal is save the princess, you don't know if it will be a success or the path that will take them there, or even if they will go another direction and leave her to rot.

 

[Lanefan]

When everything is Rule Zero, then nothing is.

If everything was Rule 0 both my bookshelves and my hard drive would be a whole lot emptier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since forever, I'd say.

Okay so...since it's a lot easier to respond to this than pick apart the full posts etc. from earlier...

What's your justification for this, beyond your bald assertion of it? Because it's pretty clear that at least some of the cited examples...and in particular, the image we see heading this thread...don't include any of those other things in Rule 0. "Gamer's First Law: If a rule is silly, change or ignore it--just so long as everyone knows that's what your preference is ahead of time." That's got nothing to do with house-ruling the game, and everything to do with addressing the situations where the rule falls down. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with kitbashing, playtesting, or a variety of other things DMs can and should do when they desire.

A problem here is that there have (apparently always?) been two different definitions, stretching way back. In one, Rule 0 is specific: it admits the rules can't be perfect, and that DMs should do what makes sense when that happens. In this definition, other specific terms exist for the other tools in the DM's toolbox, including house-ruling, kitbashing, adjudication, etc. This specificity is desirable to those who use this definition because without that specificity, there really isn't a singular term for "the goal/spirit of the game is paramount, and DMs not only can but should ensure the rules don't conflict with that," at least not that I'm aware of. "Infrequent rules-override," maybe?

In the other definition, Rule 0 is as broad as possible: it is identical to what is in other places called the Golden Rule, "Whatever the DM says, goes." Under this definition, literally every action the DM takes is an application of Rule 0, because following a rule from the book is itself a DM preference. This, if I understand correctly (since I don't hold this position), is valued because it presents the DM's role in a unified way, noting that judgment, foresight, social contract, and the ever-nebulous "fun" are always what should drive DM action, with the game rules as mere tools to achieve that end.

Personally, I don't find the latter definition of Rule 0 very useful. I think it actively muddies discussion by making what are pretty clearly distinct actions ("infrequent rules-override" vs. "inventing new rules to be adhered to" is about as opposite as you can get), and because, as stated, we don't really have a good, established term for what the narrow definition of Rule 0 covers, but we do have established terms for all the other stuff: kitbashing, house-ruling, adjudication, even controversial stuff like fudging and illusionism. They're all part of the DM's toolbox, even the controversial tools, and equating the entire toolbox with the name commonly (though, I admit, not exclusively) used for just one specific tool makes it a lot harder to discuss that one tool, or indeed any other specific tool in the toolbox.

So: Why should I accept the ultra-broad definition, particularly in light of many of the things cited in the blogpost that triggered this thread?

If everything was Rule 0 both my bookshelves and my hard drive would be a whole lot emptier.

I mean, I don't really see how that isn't what you're saying....

 

[pemerton]

There's no way that you can know what happens. You MUST play to find out what happens. Even if the goal is save the princess, you don't know if it will be a success or the path that will take them there, or even if they will go another direction and leave her to rot.

That is not what play to find out what happens means when stated as a principle for Dungeon World. As the rulebook makes clear. (Have you read it?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There's no way that you can know what happens. You MUST play to find out what happens. Even if the goal is save the princess, you don't know if it will be a success or the path that will take them there, or even if they will go another direction and leave her to rot.

Okay, but how does that square with running an adventure path that has a defined sequence of events? Paizo and our own ENWorld have made bank on them. If you truly never know whether things can go in any new direction, adventure paths and first-to-max campaigns don't work.

To some extent, you do know what can happen. But I would argue you are taking "play to find out what happens" to an out-of-context degree, particularly given Dungeon World's enthusiastic embrace of "fail forward" resolution. Failure has costs, preferably real and lasting ones, but that doesn't mean the path or destination is gone.