[Zero ] Dingo for dinner
Ron Edwards:
Hey guys,
Sorry about missing the order/action request until now.
David, the book's pretty up-front about the starting scenario, which is always supposed to be the moment when the characters get mentally separated from the Hive. Since the reason for this event is wholly left up to the GM, that also means that the circumstances and any apparent cause are left for individual prep. The example has it happen inexplicably right in the middle of ordinary tasks and daily life.
The explanatory text for how to set up later scenarios is ... well, it's of its time. Speaking again as someone who was grappling with precisely these issues at precisely that time, I can sympathize with some of Smith's choices in phrasing and content. It was really not cognitively or communicatively possible, then, to say, "You have all the material you need for stories to emerge through play, so just do it." You can see the wheels turning in the text as sentences are posed, then seem to hang there, then are 'resolved' through slightly contradictory references to planned outcomes.
You can see the same thing in the Sorcerer text too, which had been released in its first form a year before Zero came out. I wrote a little bit about how I only worked my way out of the morass through play itself, in The First Ever campaign setting.
Regarding the order/action issue, Zero works like this.
1. Everyone announces actions, i.e., commits their characters, no going back.
2. Everyone rolls and finds their numbers by multipling the dice.
3. Actions go in order of the numbers, high to low. Note that this is sort of interesting because depending on whether you're using Focus, Prior, or untrained abilities, the order does not exactly track to most successful rolls.
4. If an action occurs, targeting you, before you act, then you have a choice:
i) take the damage itself, hard-core, without any defense applied, and go ahead and penalize your upcoming action and existing roll accordingly (damage merely modifies the rolled dice so this is mathematically easy and requires no unknowns or additional techniques).
ii) abort your planned/initiated action and roll dice for a defensive ability appropriate for the attack, whether Dodge, Brawl, or Will.
4'. If an action targets you after you've already acted, you get the defensive roll hands-down, and you get as many of these as you need.
So the group just works its way through all the actions in order, with some of them probably getting aborted along the way.
You can see Sorcerer's complex conflict system here with almost no modification. The only really significant changes are that the 4(i) option includes a one-die defensive roll rather than totally sucking it up, and the penalties applied to one's upcoming roll, if you miss the defense, can become additional dice for the attacker to add to the initial roll.
Best, Ron
David Berg:
Ron,
Thanks for the action/order description. Those specifics are new to me (when I played Sorcerer at a con, the guy running it wasn't quite fluent), but the basic idea of "commit, determine order, resolve in order (sometimes preempting later actions)" seems quite familiar.
Regarding scenario prep, that link is a fun read! I've had plenty of individual sessions like that -- "Hey, we're good to go! Any prep would just be shoehorning." -- but it's never been perfectly sustainable. As for Zero, it sounds like there's sort of a group kicker ("You just lost the hive!") as opposed to personal, character-specific kickers. Given Zero's premise, it seems hard for any PC not to be motivated into action by this, so perhaps that's a step up from the traditional GM pseudo-kicker of "Your arch enemy has stolen your infinity gem and now threatens to destroy the world!" or some other impersonal situation.
Not sure if "personal" is the key here, or whether "authored in collaboration with each player" is more to the point...
What you've described of Zero thus far leaves me wondering, "What might the characters do now that they're hiveless?" without being fully confident that, as GM, I could facilitate whatever they decide. Am I going to enable a detective mission to find out how the link works and what broke it? Am I going to poke them with issues of individuality via aberrant NPCs? I imagine the self-defined attributes might serve as flags in this respect, and once we got some momentum going, it could be easy. The first few sessions could be quite an improv challenge, though, absent further guidance or pre-play agreements.
All that's speculation. I guess it depends on the group's background; whether the players are primed to proclaim, "Now we care about this!" and whether the GM has an eye for what elements he'll need to introduce to give himself traction and situation fodder. In my experience, none of that is safe to assume, so I wonder what Zero does to help.
Ps,
-David
Callan S.:
I was thinking of asking what issues the whole idea of a hive and sudden reflection of individuality (if any) has in connection with real life society. As in what the author was trying to convey, what reaction upon reading the text gave, etc. But I thought it might be shoving in a demand for a connection so I let it go. However in the bliss stage such a connection was drawn to teenage sexuality, quite directly. So I'd ask about what connection this has to real life issues. I could think of a few.
Side note: I didn't know extreme vengence was tied to zero in some way. I own EV - bought it because it did have mechanics which I didn't yet own and might play differently from how play had been. The luck mechanics were interesting (though in the end, more dice, IIRC). I liked that for each 'pip' that came up on a die, your guy got another fan (and fans were somewhat like XP). Dice always meant a result and one that was atleast to some extent, always positive and tied tightly back into the system. Making going to dice fun in a particular way, rather than something that you'd rather utterly avoid or simply go through to keep the status quo.
I actually distinctly remember picking up a copy of zero in an Australian store to look at it. Sadly the premise put me right off - it seem to take the very concept of 'the GM's whole world wants to kill you' and ramped it up infintesimally. It's actually interesting to compare what came to my mind to the account here, as what came to my mind is that the disconnection with the hive would happen within it - so your surrounded by hundreds of motherfuckers and your completely out of your head disorientated. There seemed no play there at all, bar 'the GM toys with his food' play. Indeed the blurb said something like your chances being zero...and I fully agreed and put it down. In this account - hey, the disconnect happens outside the hive. Sure, with some dangers around, but not absolutely surrounded by fuckers. Perhaps shows how a blurb can make a difference.
Ron Edwards:
Hi Callan,
You wrote,
Quote
I was thinking of asking what issues the whole idea of a hive and sudden reflection of individuality (if any) has in connection with real life society. As in what the author was trying to convey, what reaction upon reading the text gave, etc. ... So I'd ask about what connection this has to real life issues. I could think of a few.
I am obviously not Lester Smith, so I can't tell you what he was trying to convey. I can only talk about what's there in the book, and I do think that a lot of the text across several chapters speaks directly to this. These are some examples out of many:
Quote
Zero is, at heart, a game about individuality versus community, self-determination versus conformity, freedom versus obedience. Cast out of "paradise," the central characters long to return, on the one hand, but recognize that to do so would be suicide to their newfound sense of self. Like William Blake's "Tyger," they have fallen from blissful Innocence into the realm of painful Experience. No longer lambs, they do not belong within the Equanimity any more. Even if they could find some way to return to the fold, that really isn't an option. Having lapsed from the Equanimity once, they have tasted freedom, and would surely lapse again.
(bolding is from the text)
Quote
Characters in this game, then, are "rebels without a clue," at least at the start. They never asked to be expelled from the group, and they haven't had any prior experience at thinking for themselves. ... Now, without that guidance, they have to deal with fear, hope, desire, and rage all on their own.
And there is certainly plenty for the player characters to be angry about. To start with, it's pretty obvious that Zero has used them as little more than machines. While she lives eternally, they and their fellow hive members slave away for little more than her psychic approval. Now that they can see beyond the illusion of peace and tranquility, they find that the hive is actually a harsh, cold place filled with discomfort and danger.
Quote
Some mysteries are never truly answered. Where do we come from? Why are we here? What is our purpose? Why is there evil? What is good? What is our responsibility to others? What is their responsibility to us? Questions like these have been debated in every human culture since the beginning.
With questions like these, we may guess and suppose, but may never really know. Still, it seems to be human nature to ask them, and to suggest answers, and to struggle with one another over those proposed answers.
Zero is all about that struggle.
(bolding is from the text)
Again, without getting into issues of author's intent, I read that as least compatible with, and perhaps proactively instructing towards, Story Now priorities in play.
As a related point, I mentioned above that the Hive back-story is deliberately placed in the current GM's hands, without textual instructions. There is no "Zero universe," just as there is no Sorcerer universe. It may be that we as authors did that for the same reasons. Speaking for me and Sorcerer, I think that the character-centric Premise potential is already so solid that any canonical setting would only distract from it. Or to put it better, I want each GM using my game to use the setting he or she thinks will be most effective and fun to help "awaken" or perhaps exacerbate the character-centric Premise. I cannot know whether Lester Smith had the same creative notions when writing Zero as I did with Sorcerer, but I do think the text above, and many examples, point to some similarities. Every time I've played the game, others besides myself have become extremely excited about exactly that Premise.
You wrote,
Quote
I actually distinctly remember picking up a copy of zero in an Australian store to look at it. Sadly the premise put me right off - it seem to take the very concept of 'the GM's whole world wants to kill you' and ramped it up infintesimally. It's actually interesting to compare what came to my mind to the account here, as what came to my mind is that the disconnection with the hive would happen within it - so your surrounded by hundreds of motherfuckers and your completely out of your head disorientated. There seemed no play there at all, bar 'the GM toys with his food' play. Indeed the blurb said something like your chances being zero...and I fully agreed and put it down. In this account - hey, the disconnect happens outside the hive. Sure, with some dangers around, but not absolutely surrounded by fuckers. Perhaps shows how a blurb can make a difference.
As a minor point, I do not think that awakening within the Hive would instantly be a death sentence, especially since the characters are already very familiar with at least some of its layout. It might be require a little bit more prep and some techniques concerning players' information, but such a beginning isn't unimaginable. I grant you that the book provides no heplp with that, and starting instead at the Hive's periphery removes the question.
I definitely see your point about the blurb. I almost automatically discount blurbs when I look at a product of any kind, so I didn't have the same reaction. It's also possible that you and I had (at that time, 13 years ago) different hot-buttons about how a game might not be fun, so my take on GMing was different, leading me to read the blurb as a come-on rather than a threat.
Also, it's true that not all the text in the game is as Premise-centric, and the chapter about scenario prep and play is arguably if vaguely more compatible with Participationist play. My personal take on that is that it reflects the difficulty of writing about that stuff at all at that time, but I also recognize that another reader might see that material as front-and-center and not tune into the more Premise-y stuff as much. I do think that the latter material is written more emphatically and is more consistent throughout.
Best, Ron
P.S. I completely agree with your points about Extreme Vengeance. I recommend you try it out with some friends as soon as you can. One of these days, I should post about my games played back in 1998-99.
Callan S.:
Hello Ron,
Quote
Again, without getting into issues of author's intent, I read that as least compatible with, and perhaps proactively instructing towards, Story Now priorities in play.
Fair enough, I just wondered if the author explicitly tied it into real world events as well. I was curious as to what he might have been shooting at.
Quote
I think that the character-centric Premise potential is already so solid that any canonical setting would only distract from it.
I thought that "there is a hive, they are dangerous and the break in connection" is the setting? The setting is the two (or more) main things running into each other and in conflict with each other over that. Or perhaps that's just how I remember settings, come to think of it - I'm not really into the minutae detail like whether people X wear red hats and people Y speak with a lisp, or whatever. It may be a side topic, but I'm trying to grasp what 'canonical setting' means, as opposed to what I think of in terms of the word 'setting'? Does it mean really, really sweating the small details?
Quote
As a minor point, I do not think that awakening within the Hive would instantly be a death sentence, especially since the characters are already very familiar with at least some of its layout. It might be require a little bit more prep and some techniques concerning players' information, but such a beginning isn't unimaginable.
In terms of my estimates, I don't think it's a point. Your describing your own reaction to the text, that doesn't mean some other GM is going to react in the same way as you. Granted, my estimate of what reaction would generally occur might be incorrect. But that'd be determined by some survey, covering say atleast 50 people (preferably thousands, but whens that ever gunna happen?).
Perhaps peversely on topic, but what is it to try and transmit the idea that the procedure involved doesn't lead to a death sentence? I mean, if you convinced everyone, say, who is involved in the roleplay hobby that the procedure isn't that - well, it'd be technically true, as the procedure everyone practiced, if they ever played zero, is a non death sentence procedure. But say it wasn't true to begin with and the procedure, on contact with how most people think by default in 1997+ was that it's a death sentence (or GM plays with his food play) - in that case it was the merely an assertion of a truth, a false one (procedure A is actually the one that'd happen), that lead to an actual truth (people start practicing procedure B). I was wondering if the author was getting at this stuff? Certainly it's not psychic, but it happens in a perceptual blindspot enough to make it mystical. Also, not picking you out in particular on this - I'm describing what possibly is a widespread human behaviour and in concert with that behaviour, vulnerability. Roleplay seems to produce bonsai versions of global phenomena.
Quote
It's also possible that you and I had (at that time, 13 years ago) different hot-buttons about how a game might not be fun, so my take on GMing was different, leading me to read the blurb as a come-on rather than a threat.
For what it's worth as I said, I just didn't see any play in it, rather than a threat. Play comes from atleast two oppositional forces and their tussle - and I could only see one force, in my reaction to the blurb. On blurbs, I'm not so sure about ignoring them. How does one go in informed, at all? I did also flip through it, I'm pretty certain, but I saw the usual - stats, skills (I think?), fluff text (fictional descriptions). Ironically, the more text there is, the less it informs in the moment. I didn't exactly sit down in the game store and read it (not permitted by the store owner, I'd guess), so I didn't read any chapter that seemed more participationist. I just scanned and I didn't see that second oppositional force.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page