Taking Zero

FUDGE_4dF_probabilityMost RPGs are predicated on the 50% success rule. Heroes will succeed half the time they attempt a task. Fate Core takes a quantitatively different approach by predicating on the 100% success rule. Heroes are equal to any task which they attempt to undertake. The static skills test throws the differences between the two approaches into stark contrast and highlights the effectiveness of each.

The 50% rule is seen most clearly in skill tests against a static difficulty. Pathfinder and the d20 games even have an option for players to automatically succeed at tasks within a certain difficulty range. This is known as Taking Ten or Taking Twenty because it assumes an average die roll. This type of mechanic evolved from the roots of the game as a tactical simulation, under the philosophy that success should be based on tactical choices rather than luck. When adapted for dramatic simulation, the die roll represents the effort of the characters in a very real way.

Fate Core also includes the option to bypass the die roll in order to assume success of any static difficulty which is equal to or less than the character’s skill. We will call this rule “Taking Zero”. Like Pathfinder, it also assumes an average die roll. The Fate Core book instructs players that dice should only be rolled when the outcome is in question or degrees of success or failure will make the game more interesting. It is, in effect, the same rule.

How does this change our approach to the game?

IdealIf this were an exam, Pathfinder would be Pass/Fail, and Fate Core would grade on a curve. When you Take Ten or Take Twenty, your character may succeed at progressively more difficult tasks without undue stress. The opportunity is limited by the circumstances under which a character may choose to Take Ten or Twenty. If your skill is insufficient, you simply fail at the task. Another solution must be found.

The key difference lies in the way that Fate Core penalizes failure. By Taking Zero, your character succeeds at a task, but there is a minor cost. That cost may be expressed as a small penalty to a future action or as a complication within the story. But in Fate Core, success is always an option. Did your character fail the skill test by three shifts? No problem. He succeeds, but the price is progressively higher the greater the extent of failure.

This changes our approach to the game by allowing the characters to always succeed at static tasks but at the cost of future complications. Because the Fate Core system relies primarily on dramatic simulation rather than tactical simulation, the penalty for failure is seldom as straightforward as the loss of Hit Points. In this way, characters accrue penalties and complications to be leveraged against them during the course of the game. Because later penalties are directly related to previous success, this form of resolution creates stronger storytelling by using a callback to previous events. It is one of the tenets of circular storytelling.

Application in Action

In the early game, characters trade initial success for a more difficult challenge down the road. The easiest way to do this is to apply the cost of Taking Zero as an Aspect against the characters that opponents can tag for free in the late game, we’ll call this Stacking Consequences. But this is Fate, and players may well wish to bank negative Aspects which they can tag for Fate points when they start to run low.

In the mid game, Taking Zero keeps the characters on track and prevents derailing due to unexpectedly difficult challenges. It works the other way around as well. When prepping for the endgame, players can accept higher difficulties when Creating Advantages too be used later. In this case, a die roll is still required, but a quick glance at the probability chart shows that even when the target difficulty number is zero the chance of success on the die roll is about 60%.

In the endgame, this principle prevents the action from getting bogged down when a single task becomes critical. Fate Core has a related mechanic built into the system; characters may concede a conflict and retain some control over their fate. Extending this concept against static skill checks lets players essentially “concede” to the difficulty of the task and continue to participate in the story even when their skills have failed.

Taking Zero and conceding a conflict both manage the difficulty of an adventure as it progresses. If the point of the game is to move the action forward and keep the party from getting bogged down in the details, you will find them to be essential tools in your GM toolbox.

“Opposing Forces” is a tactical manual and bestiary of foes for Fate Core. Now funding on Kickstarter! Check it out!

OF Logo - small

A Defense of Superman

I understand that some people think Superman is creepy and he makes them a little uncomfortable – he does wear his underwear on the outside of his pants after all. But I want to address this idea of Superman as the Nietzchean ubermensch, when in fact, the character hasn’t ever really represented that ideal.

The identification of Superman with Nietzsche’s ubermensch started in the 50s with the famous book Seduction of the Innocent by Frederic Wertham. Wertham in fact disregarded the notion of ubermensch as “Superman” specifically because the character was not the epitome of the ideal. There are a few important differences in both origin and application of the Superman character.

1) Superman comes from Jewish and Greek roots. Siegel and Schuster were both Jews with a classical education. Their rendition of Superman in the 30s and 40s was meant to evoke Hercules and Samson. The costume came from circus strongman acts popular at the time. It is important to note that both Hercules and Samson derived their strength from a divine source outside of themselves, and so Superman was given an extraworldly origin. Which leads to:

2) Superman is not human. He comes from another planet, and it is due to this non-human status that he has great power, not due to his own efforts or his own virtue.

Though more than 70 years old, and handled by hundreds of creators in that time, these two qualities have been consistent.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche specifically created the concept of the ubermensch as a way to constrast with an supersede metaphysics in general and Christianity in specific. The ubermensch is a self-created being, using his own strength of will or body to transcend the limits of society and religion. The concept of Will to Power was never fleshed out by Nietzsche, and his modern students can come to no consensus on what he meant by the term, although personally, I agree with you that he meant it as the act of imposing one’s will on another. Unfortunately, without a unifying treatment of the character over the years, I don’t see the “will to power” concept as applying to Superman (or any other superhero) as a defining factor, although it has certainly been used as such in individual stories.

There is a literary device called transposition, where one character seems to uphold a certain value while projecting its opposite on another. In his post-millenial series “Luthor”, Brian Azzarello makes exactly your argument against Superman – that we are dependent solely upon his good will for our safety. This argument is placed in the mouths of self-made men Lex Luthor and Bruce Wayne (Batman), and serves to highlight the virtue of Superman as an external savior whose presence reveals the failings of the best of men (Luthor and Wayne).

Surely, we are far better off looking to Superman as a point of identification when drawing men’s attention to the need for an external savior? Superman is the best of all things, he is everything to which we aspire, and he comes literally from the heavens. This is a fundamental literary device designed to draw one’s attention to the need for an external savior, and I think that serves as an excellent introduction to the one, true savior of humanity.

By the way, if it helps at all, in DC Comic’s “New 52” reboot, Superman will no longer be wearing the red shorts over his pants.