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]

Wait, so is rule 0 inside the system or not?

If it's not inside the system, it's not a rule. That's literally what I said earlier that you quibbled about.

Yes and no at the same time. Yes it's inside the system as that is where it's either stated or (more commonly) implied, but at the same time it mostly functions outside the system as the system's means of dealing with whatever might be found there.

 

[TheSword]

Nope. I, and he, have laid out a logical argument for why the term "Rule 0" should be used in the more restricted sense, to promote clear discussion and avoid conflation of legitimately different actions ("infrequent rules override" vs "house-ruling" vs "kitbashing" etc.) There is no "twisting" involved. I am not at ALL saying that the other tools in the DM's toolbox are wrong, bad, inappropriate, or anything else. I'm just saying that important utility is lost when we gloss that whole toolbox with a term that, as explicitly cited in multiple places, has both narrow and broad meanings.


I (and others) call this the Golden Rule. I find it both frustrating and unnecessary to require that every possible application of "alter or deviate from the rules" be called "Rule 0." It promotes confusion rather than clarity; in the pursuit of a unified understanding, it instead creates an impenetrable wall because the term can mean so many really distinct things. It is like trying to sum up moral behavior with the single phrase "do good things." Yeah, in principle, that's what moral behavior is. But it is impenetrable and useless as a principle, because it doesn't communicate anything. It's borderline tautological. We are much, much better equipped to think and talk about moral behavior when we can be more specific than "do good."


Now you're arguing with straw. I haven't seen a single person say they DISLIKE any of these specific actions you're trying to force under a single universal umbrella. What gave you the idea that either of us opposes the use of kitbashing or house-ruling?

I just want "Rule 0," the term, to be useful for discussion. I have laid out my argument for why it is more useful to use the term, "Rule 0," in a narrow sense. I have recognized that there are two competing uses of the term, one narrow and one broad. And I have argued that a key reason we should use the narrow meaning is that there aren't any other good, well-known phrases for the thing to which the narrow use of the term refers.

If you see opposition or hostility in that argument, that emotion is something you inserted, not something I or Pemerton have said.

You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t rule zero. It’s in print, pretty clear in each edition of d&d.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You don’t get to decide what is and isn’t rule zero. It’s in print, pretty clear in each edition of d&d.

Except that, as noted, it's often NOT in print. And where it is in print, different editions differ on what it actually is. That's literally half of my argument that you keep summarily ignoring.

 

[TheSword]

Except that, as noted, it's often NOT in print. And where it is in print, different editions differ on what it actually is. That's literally half of my argument that you keep summarily ignoring.

Okay we’re going round in circles. If you’re going to ignore what has been written in successive DMGs for the last 25 years to replace it with what you think it should be, then probably best to do it without me.

 

[pemerton]

When I read "draw maps and leave blanks" I probably get a different impression than you do.

The impression I get is based on a reading of the rules for Dungeon World, together with a reading of the rules for the system that inspired it, namely, Apocalypse World.

The basic play loop pretty much begins and ends with the fiction, even in combat.

Player: <declares in-fiction action for PC> (I swing my mace at the Kobold)
DM: <adjudicates by whatever means, which might include insertion of mechanics if required> AND-OR
Game: <adjudicates by forced insertion of player-facing mechanics if required> (roll to hit, DM/game adjudicates success, roll damage)
DM: <narrates in-fiction result of declaration-plus-adjudication> (the Kobold staggers from your blow and looks about ready to collapse)

The "staggering from the blow" is irrelevant to the actual process of resolution. The GM could just as easily narrate "the kobold takes your mighty blow on its shield - it's alive, but wrongfooted!"

Also, I think every edition of D&D at least since Moldvay Basic has as the basic action declaration for D&D combat not I swing my mace but I make an attack, which is a technical term in the game system.

And Game in your sequence is quite bizarre. The game isn't an actor or a participant. I think what you might be pointing to is something like GM calls for a to hit roll because that's what the rules state is meant to happen.

 

[Lanefan]

The "staggering from the blow" is irrelevant to the actual process of resolution. The GM could just as easily narrate "the kobold takes your mighty blow on its shield - it's alive, but wrongfooted!"

Obviously. The point remains, however, that at that point the DM is expected to narrate something relevant to the fiction.

Also, I think every edition of D&D at least since Moldvay Basic has as the basic action declaration for D&D combat not I swing my mace but I make an attack, which is a technical term in the game system.

The idea and intent is the same, however it's phrased.

And Game in your sequence is quite bizarre. The game isn't an actor or a participant. I think what you might be pointing to is something like GM calls for a to hit roll because that's what the rules state is meant to happen.

For 'game' substitute 'rules' if you like. Just an attempt to recognize that sometimes resolution bypasses (or never reaches) the DM and is entirely driven by the rules, or game, before going either back to the player for another action declare or over to the DM* for a fiction narration.

* - or, in the case of pure PvP, possibly another player.

 

[Aldarc]

Okay we’re going round in circles. If you’re going to ignore what has been written in successive DMGs for the last 25 years to replace it with what you think it should be, then probably best to do it without me.

Ummm...You wanted us to "wiki it." On 1d4 Chan, which you likewise appeal to, it even says that several related principles of GM fiat get inappropriately conflated together as part of Rule Zero. The definitions in the past editions of the game attest to the more restricted sense. So what are you babbling on about when you accuse @EzekielRaiden of ignoring what's been written?

 

[pemerton]

Obviously. The point remains, however, that at that point the DM is expected to narrate something relevant to the fiction.

That the GM might be expected to narrate something relevant to the fiction - which, by the way, is not anything spelled out in B/X, or AD&D, or 3E as best I recall, or 4e (I can't comment on 5e) - is not the same as what DW means by begin and end with the fiction. DW is setting out required steps in a resolution process, not some advice on how to increase the immersive or "colourful" aspect of the game.

Vincent Baker had a long series of blog posts on exactly this issue - here's one of the main ones. He summarises the point, with reference to do of his own games that predate AW (and therefore DW), in this way: "Dogs in the Vineyard's rules ground play solidly in the immediate details of the game's fiction. In a Wicked Age's rules allow play to float above the game's fiction, more abstract."

AD&D's combat resolution (and in this respect 3E and 5e D&D are not much different) allows the resolution of combat to "float above the game's fiction". Dungeon World doesn't. That's a fundamental difference which is relevant to @TheSword's claim that D&D can be played in accordance with the DW principles.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Obviously. The point remains, however, that at that point the DM is expected to narrate something relevant to the fiction.

A big gap remains. Your very phrasing shows it. With D&D, the mechanics are "in control." Sometimes via R0 or w/e, the DM overrides them if they push the fiction too far. But when "working normally," the fiction follows after the mechanics, esp. in combat and the like.

Proper DW play should never work that way. Fiction triggers rules, never the other way around. Rules are only for when it is truly necessary to keep the fiction going. That mostly means success isn't guaranteed, or there's been a setback (e.g. player ignored "the ground trembles under you," so char is injured when it collapses--injury invokes HP loss.) You return purely to the fiction the moment the mechanics resolve the ambiguity/setback/etc.

With D&D, you often start from mechanics and then determine the fiction. If no determination makes sense, you go back and fix the mechanics until one does. With DW and (afaik) all PbtA games, you only and always start from the fiction. Ultra-simple ex: in D&D etc., many DMs outright say, "Give me a Perception check" on first entering a room. In DW you (at least should) never do that. DW's Perception is called Discern Realities, and is never just "asked" for. If and only if a player has described their character as actively searching, closely interacting with it, and doing more than just disengaged looking. When a group has gotten pretty casual about it (as mine has), you will sometimes have players name the move as they act, but the point is to get them thinking as much as possible about the action of the character, and only trigger mechanics when that action demonstrably means a move is happening.

The idea and intent is the same, however it's phrased.

No, it's really not, and that's the whole point here. How you phrase it and whether you start from the mechanics and tailor the fiction to fit, or whether you start from the fiction and only apply the rules when you need them, is a big, big difference.

For 'game' substitute 'rules' if you like. Just an attempt to recognize that sometimes resolution bypasses (or never reaches) the DM and is entirely driven by the rules, or game, before going either back to the player for another action declare or over to the DM* for a fiction narration.

* - or, in the case of pure PvP, possibly another player.

This never happens (or, as stated, never should happen) in DW play. There are no things driven purely by the rules--by design. The rules only come in when the fiction specifically requests them, and go away literally as soon as they've resolved whatever needs resolving. If it is possible (meaning logical, consistent, appropriate, etc.) to resolve things without invoking the mechanics at all, you should always do so in DW. Such an attitude is quite rare in D&D, even in OSR, where a love of numerous disparate (some would say fiddly) subsystems is commonplace.

 

[aramis erak]

Sure, Rule 0 is the end of the line, but being the final option does not make it the ONLY option.

The end of the line isn't rule 0; the end of the line is players walking because the GM apparently thinks rule 0 allows being an ass. Player veto by ankle express is the true end of the power curve. Something that Gygax mentions in the DMG for AD&D but far undersells.