Zero System - Resolution (In Progress)

[Andrew Martin]

Here's the resolution system for Zero System. Please feel free to rip it to bits!

Zero System is designed for almost any genre/setting roleplaying. It's best suited (with it's current resolution system) for story like roleplaying. It's not suited for highly tactical or high combat genres for now.

Resolution
**********
Resolution is all about how to work out who's the winner in a conflict. Note that descriptors include written character description and spoken character actions, though the spoken descriptors aren't used in the examples following.

Dramatic Resolution
===================
Just decide who is the winner of the conflict. If you don't like this option, try one of the systems below.

For example, Alphonse is arm wrestling Beatrice. Alphonse wins.

Karmic Resolution
=================
Sum appropriate positive and negative descriptors on each side of the conflict then compare. Highest total wins the conflict for their side.

For example, Alphonse who's very strong is arm wrestling Beatrice, who's strong. Alphonse has two appropriate descriptors, while Beatrice has only one appropriate descriptor, so Alphonse wins.

Fortune Resolution
==================
There's several varieties depending upon the situation:

Odd-based, Single die resolution, PC vs NPC;
Odds based, Two dice resolution, PC vs PC;
Odds based, Multiple dice resolution, Gradual Revelation;
Multiple Rerolls, Gradual Progress; and
Obscurement Range.


Odd-based, Single die resolution, PC vs NPC
-------------------------------------------
Add all the positive appropriate descriptors on one side of the conflict and add one, then all the positive descriptors on the *other* side of the conflict and add one. Appropriate negative descriptors are added to the *opponent's* total. Sum the descriptors involved in the conflict and roll one dice with at least these many sides. If the result is less than or equal to the highest side, that side wins the conflict. If the result is higher than the total of the descriptors involved, then reroll the dice. Otherwise, the other side as won.

For example, Alphonse who's very strong arm wrestles Beatrice who's strong. Alphonse has two positive descriptors ("Strong" and "very") together while Beatrice has only one. That's:

Alphonse is Very Strong = 2 descriptors + 1 base
Beatrice is Strong = 1 descriptor + 1 base
Total is 5.
Roll 1D6, getting "6"
The roll of "6" is higher than 5 so reroll D6 getting 4.
4 is higher than Alphonse's descriptor total, so Alphonse doesn't win.
4 isn't higher than total of 5, so Beatrice wins the arm wrestling!


Odds based, Two dice resolution, PC vs PC
-----------------------------------------
For each side of the conflict:

Add all the appropriate positive descriptors;
Subtract all appropriate negative descriptors;
Add the result of the roll of 1D6;
Compare each side's total;
If results are equal, either reroll or accept a tie, otherwise,
Highest total wins the conflict for their side.

For example, Alphonse, who's very strong arm wrestles Beatrice who's strong. Alphonse has two appropriate positive descriptors and no negative descriptors. Beatrice has only one appropriate positive descriptor and no negative descriptors. Alphonse's player rolls 1D6, and gets 2, for a total of 4. Beatrice's player rolls 1D6, gets a 5, for a total of 6. Beatrice wins the arm wrestling.

Odds based, Multiple dice resolution, Gradual Revelation
--------------------------------------------------------
Each side of the conflict rolls 1D6. Highest roll wins the contest for that side. By revealing one positive descriptor that's applicable to the contest, that side may reroll their 1D6; their former dice roll is ignored. By revealing one negative descriptor of an opponent that's applicable to the contest, that side forces the opponent to reroll their 1D6; their previous dice roll is ignored. These processes can repeat until all sides have run out of descriptors, or are unwilling to force a reroll. Again, highest roll wins the contest for that side.

For example, Alphonse, who's very strong arm wrestles Beatrice who's strong. Both players roll 1D6 each, with Alphonse getting 3 and Beatrice getting 5. Alphonse's player wants to win the contest, saying, "Alphonse is strong", and rolls again, getting 6. Beatrice's player doesn't want to loose, so says, "Beatrice is strong, too!". and rolls again, getting a 4. Still not wanting to loose, Beatrice reveals, "Alphonse has a old war injury." Alphonse reluctantly admits this is in his hidden description and rerolls the 1D6, getting 1. Then Alphonse reveals, "Alphonse is very strong" and rolls again, getting 2. So Beatrice wins the arm wrestling. Evidently the pain of the old war injury proved too much for Alphonse to bear at this time.

Obscurement Range
-----------------
For fog, mist and darkness, determine the visual range as follows:

Very thick/dark = 1D6 * 1 metres
Thick/Dark = 3D6 * 1 meters
Foggy/Dim = 3D6 * 10 meters
thin/grey = 3D6 * 100 meters
misty/gloomy = 3D6 * 1000 meters


Why not use Fudge or Fuzion? :D Some had to ask it! :)

It's far more suitable for novices and newcomers. Because with Zero System, one doesn't have to learn any game system; one just simply describes their character. The description of the character directly gives appropriate game attributes.
Stymies munchkins. It's very hard to min-max characters in Zero System, when the best way to get a powerful character is to describe it effectively...
Ease of use of historical and fictional resources. Just quote the character, tool, vehicle or place from any work of history or fiction, and the game attributes are automatically determined.
No disfunctional game settings because system is firmly attached to character description, effectively becoming no system.

[Desperado]

I like the idea . . . but is it possible that the characters would lose some congruency? I'd think both positive and negative descriptors should be, to a degree, moderated. While it's easy to compare someone who's dexterous as compared to agile other things may become a little hazy.

<i>Carter's knowledge in firearms is rather affluent. While Steven's skill in the use of a pistol is practiced and precise, if not veteran worthy.</i>

So in this example should we say Knowledge equals skill, or is knowledge just that; knowledge? In that case does it still apply as a positive descriptor? Also, how do we compare Affluence and practiced and precise. Does the fact that his skill isn't veteran worthy give him a negative descriptor. I believe saying his skill is practiced and precise is almost the same thing as saying it's not worthy of a veteran's skill. So i guess the simplest way to ask this quiestion would be as follows:

<b>Will there be a standard set of positive and negative descriptors in order to compare characters quickly and without a thesaurus?</b>

[Andrew Martin]

Desperado wrote:
> I like the idea...

Thanks!

> ...but is it possible that the characters would lose some congruency?

All characters should fit the setting (eg cowboys in a western game) or share the appropriate context (outsiders in a strange land).

> I'd think both positive and negative descriptors should be, to a degree, moderated.

Moderation comes about through the action of the GM or players.

> <i>Carter's knowledge in firearms is rather affluent. While Steven's skill in the use of a pistol is practiced and precise, if not veteran worthy.</i>

> So in this example should we say Knowledge equals skill, or is knowledge just that; knowledge? In that case does it still apply as a positive descriptor?

Knowledge, to me, indicates just book learning rather than practise. So in a setting where most people are unarmed, Carter is better than most, but lesser than people who actually use skill of firearms.

> Also, how do we compare Affluence and practiced and precise.

I wouldn't know. "Affluence" seems like the wrong word to use in this situation. "Affluence", to me, indicates a degree of wealth, not level of skill.

> Does the fact that his skill isn't veteran worthy give him a negative descriptor?

Describing one's character in negative terms isn't a usual method of authors. Try using more positive terms.

> I believe saying his skill is practiced and precise is almost the same thing as saying it's not worthy of a veteran's skill.

Basically, the trick is to write one's character description, so that all people in the group are happy with it. If playing a game like Amber, then the GM must be happy with it. This is done by successive refinement and refactoring of the character description.

> Will there be a standard set of positive and negative descriptors in order to compare characters quickly and without a thesaurus?

No. But GMs and game setting designers can feel free to create recommended lists of descriptors, much like one can find skill lists in some adventures and setting books now.

[Mithras]

Hi Andrew,

I really do like ZERO and I've just printed it off again (lost my older copy...). Its my kind of intuitively simple game. But I wonder at the use of randomizers - is that a cop out or a design consideration?

Does it not scream 'diceless?'

[Mithras]

Actually, forget that! Bill White has just answered that question with his ideas for descriptor resolution under 'No stat no skill'.

Should read these posts before I have my say!

[Andrew Martin]

Mithras wrote:
> I really do like ZERO and I've just printed it off again (lost my older copy...). It's my kind of intuitively simple game.

:cool: Thanks!

> But I wonder at the use of randomizers - is that a cop out or a design consideration?

> Does it not scream 'diceless?'

:) Some players like to have control over their characters, and to succeed or fail, not seemingly at the whim of a GM, but at the hands of impartial chance. In other words, they prefer a Fortune resolution mechanic. I've also included Dramatic and Karmic resolution for other style of play.

Also, using randomizers is a good way of simulating the presence of a GM, when play doesn't involve a GM; I'm looking towards collaborative roleplaying, where players can determine the results of their character's interaction with unimportant NPCs without the need for significant GM interaction.

[Bill_White]

I think the distinction among dramatic, karmic, and random resolution modes is a good one. I'd suggest that the choice about which one to use in a particular instance is what I'm going to call a potential "metagame conflict," requiring some mechanism for resolving/negotiating, even if it's only "GM's Choice."

Also, I'm opposed to allowing the use of "very" as a descriptor: either you're strong enough to warrant noting being strong as something that distinguishes you, or you're not. Thus:

Example: Alfred is "strong". Bart is "very muscular". They arm wrestle for the first time. Who wins? Why should tacking a "very" on to the descriptor "muscular" necessarily beat out "strong" as a descriptor? That lets quantification in through the back door.

Dramatic Resolution: If Alfred doesn't win, the plot stops in its tracks. The GM says that Alfred wins. Nobody argues.

Karmic Resolution: Each player can use <i>any</i> of his character's descriptors to describe a sequence of events or actions leading to his character's victory. The action description that contains the most descriptors succeeds. GM's call as to whether a particular descriptor is invoked correctly. So: Alfred is strong and untiring. His player says, "Alfred exerts all his <b>strength</b> and maintains his grip <b>tirelessly</b>, so that eventually <b>Bart becomes exhausted</b> and loses the match." That's a winner unless Bart's player can work "very muscular," "musically talented," and "has keen eyesight" into a statement about arm-wrestling.

Fortune Resolution: As above, except that the GM uses each player's descriptions to slide the victory scale towards one player or another.

Note that different kinds of probability mechanics can be included to reflect different sorts of contests -- a footrace is different from a chess match is different from a duel with pistols, etc. This will matter for making metagame arguments about fatigue, endurance, and so forth.

Bill White

[Andrew Martin]

Bill White wrote:
> I think the distinction among dramatic, karmic, and random resolution modes is a good one. I'd suggest that the choice about which one to use in a particular instance is what I'm going to call a potential "metagame conflict," requiring some mechanism for resolving/negotiating, even if it's only "GM's Choice."

Yes. It's the same kind of conflict about what game to use, what setting to play in and so on. Usually I'd see this kind of decision made at the start of the campaign.

> Also, I'm opposed to allowing the use of "very" as a descriptor: either you're strong enough to warrant noting being strong as something that distinguishes you, or you're not.

I've kept this in because I've come across description by fantasy authors that include "Very" frequently. Fritz Leiber in the Lankmar books is just one.

> Karmic Resolution: Each player can use <i>any</i> of his character's descriptors to describe a sequence of events or actions leading to his character's victory. The action description that contains the most descriptors succeeds. GM's call as to whether a particular descriptor is invoked correctly.

This is an example of tactics coming into play. The player brings the resources of the character to bear (the character's descriptors), then adds appropriate tactics as additional descriptors. As you indicate, it's like an author's description of events.

> Note that different kinds of probability mechanics can be included to reflect different sorts of contests -- a footrace is different from a chess match is different from a duel with pistols, etc. This will matter for making metagame arguments about fatigue, endurance, and so forth.

I plan to add these kind of mechanics soon.

Thanks for your comments, Bill.