The Walking Dead

[Dannyalcatraz]

A game isn't the fiction it is meant to emulate in that the players/characters have freewill and can, and will, act unlike the characters from the fiction on which it is based. To do otherwise would be boring and not a game.

While I agree, my point is this: unless I were playing a PC with an amoral streak myself, the actions that the OP's PC took would put me in fear for my own long-term survival (and the survival of those I care about) in his presence, and I would look for a way to get him killed or kicked out of the adventuring party.

The PC's actions marked him for death or exile. End of story. Roll up a new PC.

 

[Mark CMG]

As far as the show is concerned . . .

Spoiler

Until Rick shows up in Atlanta, the group put up with Merle (and his brother) for quite some time and it is only because a key falls down a grating that he is not currently with them (apparently). With his drug use and bigotry and threats of violence against other group members, he was as big a threat as anyone in the show openly displays.

Without more details of the game night, it is hard to know if one could claim that the NPC who was killed could have been trying to get everyone to vote on a plan that would have gotten everyone killed. I wasn't there but the justification the OP seems to allude to is something along those lines. I'm further interested in why it is an NPC stepping up to act as leader and also interested in how many NPCs there were in the "cool room" and yet further interested in whether the NPC would have garnered enough votes among the other NPCs to essentially have the party set up to follow what would have been a plan put forth by a GMPC. The whole set up seems to me like a heavily-controlled GM narrative from the airport being cleared by the military and sending the NPCs and PCs to a place that was already overrun. Didn't the military call ahead before the sending busses there? Didn't the bus convoy have any way to be in touch with the place they were heading to make sure it was still safe? Heading back to the airport seems like a very good move given what they knew on the ground and considering it was a likely place for supplies and vehicles (many which would have been just sitting there with gas). The more I review what we know from this thread, the more I think the OP was getting frustrated with a GM who seemed to have mapped out a linear campaign and was using NPCs to move things from one set enounter to the next. On examination, this seems like much more than simply some simple campaign guidelines running up against a player who was unfamiliar with the show and/or graphic novels. As I have mentioned repeatedly, what the OP did in the game is really not far off from what some of the main characters in the show have done while under pressure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As far as the show is concerned . . .

Spoiler

Until Rick shows up in Atlanta, the group put up with Merle (and his brother) for quite some time and it is only because a key falls down a grating that he is not currently with them (apparently). With his drug use and bigotry and threats of violence against other group members, he was as big a threat as anyone in the show openly displays.

What you (accurately) describe there is different from outright murder that happens right in front of me.

I'm a black guy, and I could put up with Merle for quite a while in high stress situations...because I've had to do so. So have blacks and other minorities who have served in the armed forces.

But when a racist's bigotry and threats turn to actual manifested homicide? I'm not tolerating him anymore. He's gone or I am, and I'll do my damnedest to make sure it's him.

it is hard to know if one could claim that the NPC who was killed could have been trying to get everyone to vote on a plan that would have gotten everyone killed

True, but that's no excuse for killing him for suggesting it.

Look at Romero's classic Night of the Living Dead: towards the end, the group splits over 2 plans on how to survive in the house. However, despite one person pointing out that one of the plans would be virtually certain death, he does not kill the man who suggests it.

 

[Janx]

While I agree, my point is this: unless I were playing a PC with an amoral streak myself, the actions that the OP's PC took would put me in fear for my own long-term survival (and the survival of those I care about) in his presence, and I would look for a way to get him killed or kicked out of the adventuring party.

The PC's actions marked him for death or exile. End of story. Roll up a new PC.

and thats why as players, you avoid that situation so as to avoid wasting everybody's time and making people angry (once it goes PvP, somebody's likely gonna get mad).

As to what the GM did, like the OP's post about his own behavior, we can only speculate.

I imagine a ZA scenario is going to have extra NPCs to complicate things and stuff. So their presence alone isn't a clue.

The one NPC calling for a vote doesn't mean he's a GMPC. Somebody facilitating a discussion also calls a vote. That doesn't mean they're controlling what the party does. Having an NPC call for a vote may easily be the GM just trying to get the group going and working together (as in, y'all been dicking around for an hour. What are the choices, and let's vote).

Generally, I would have most the NPCs be quiet types. They'll help out but not volunteer to take charge, etc. That's for the PCs. I might have an NPC be the bully figure, so the party can hate him together.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

and thats why as players, you avoid that situation so as to avoid wasting everybody's time and making people angry (once it goes PvP, somebody's likely gonna get mad).

There are ways to play a party jerkwad without getting to PvP, of course, and if done right, can add a nice texture to the game.

 

[Mark CMG]

What you (accurately) describe there is different from outright murder that happens right in front of me.

I'm a black guy, and I could put up with Merle for quite a while in high stress situations...because I've had to do so. So have blacks and other minorities who have served in the armed forces.

But when a racist's bigotry and threats turn to actual manifested homicide? I'm not tolerating him anymore. He's gone or I am, and I'll do my damnedest to make sure it's him.

I'm not qualified to venture an opinion on your personal experience, since I wasn't there nor in your position. However, regarding what the writers put into the show, the group, before Rick joined them, was putting up with a whacked out bigot on drugs who seemingly regularly pointed a loaded weapon and professed that he though some of the group members were less than human. That would seem to pose an imminent life-or-death danger to some members of the group. Yet, in that setting and for those characters, they put up with Merle, perhaps because he was not a walker and they figured having an extra gun against the walkers was worth the risk. Plus, it might be that they were not prepared to take a human life themselves and telling someone to leave who was like that was risking that he would kill them himself, if only to take all of their stuff. Seems to me that in the OP's game the other players could just as easily play up the fact that they are not murderers and don't feel they have the right to take the OP's character life, even if some of them are doing it out of fear of retaliation or fear of becoming the very thing they condemn, or any number of other reasons that might prevent them from having to boot the OP's character from the group. If the OP is now aware of the show's dynamics and is getting more on board with that mentality, there's no need to retrofit anything. The incident at the Cool Room just becomes an important part of their early story and a regretable freak out moment for the OP's character for which he now has to atone.


People keep bringing up PvP but it is my understanding that PvP isn't part of what has happened here. Did I miss something?

 

[Janx]

People keep bringing up PvP but it is my understanding that PvP isn't part of what has happened here. Did I miss something?

player vs. party? It's an escalation issue when a PC attacks one of the group (an NPC), it can turn into PC vs. PC when somebody else resists the bully.

Now, you're right that the other players could hunker down, in fear of retaliation by the bully. That's always fun.

 

[Mark CMG]

player vs. party? It's an escalation issue when a PC attacks one of the group (an NPC), it can turn into PC vs. PC when somebody else resists the bully.

Now, you're right that the other players could hunker down, in fear of retaliation by the bully. That's always fun.

PvP is player versus player, from my understanding of the standard use of the term, and an NPC is not a player. Stretching the meaning seems to be feathering the nest a little, since for all we know the NPC was a secret zombie sympathizer. But serially folks, as I posted above, the NPC was clearly doing something at the behest of the GM, and when an NPC tries to take a leadership role it is problematic in an RPG.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

However, regarding what the writers put into the show, the group, before Rick joined them, was putting up with a whacked out bigot on drugs who seemingly regularly pointed a loaded weapon and professed that he though some of the group members were less than human.

100% correct.

That would seem to pose an imminent life-or-death danger to some members of the group.

Correct to a point. He's definitely a threat, but not as imminent as the walkers.

Yet, in that setting and for those characters, they put up with Merle, perhaps because he was not a walker and they figured having an extra gun against the walkers was worth the risk.

Yep. And were I in that situation, that's the calculus I'd make. Especially since I'm no mind reader and have no idea how many others in the group sympathize with his position.

Plus, it might be that they were not prepared to take a human life themselves and telling someone to leave who was like that was risking that he would kill them himself, if only to take all of their stuff.

Yes, which is why, if he so egregiously violates the unwritten social contract of the group by actually being violent towards the group, he either gets killed outright or you have a blanket party to disarm him before exiling him.

Seems to me that in the OP's game the other players could just as easily play up the fact that they are not murderers and don't feel they have the right to take the OP's character life, even if some of them are doing it out of fear of retaliation or fear of becoming the very thing they condemn, or any number of other reasons that might prevent them from having to boot the OP's character from the group.

Sure.

But I was speaking for myself in that situation. Someone violent enough to kill over dissent- especially dissent in the form of asking for a vote in a group with no acknowledged leader- is not someone I'm going to trust with my back. We're parting ways, one way or another. And given the totality of circumstances, I would do ny best to make sure I was the one who got to stay with the group.

If the OP is now aware of the show's dynamics and is getting more on board with that mentality, there's no need to retrofit anything. The incident at the Cool Room just becomes an important part of their early story and a regretable freak out moment for the OP's character for which he now has to atone.

Sure. But again, unless I saw actual evidence of in-character contrition, he's on my hit list because my distrust of him would be at least as great as my fear of walkers.

People keep bringing up PvP but it is my understanding that PvP isn't part of what has happened here. Did I miss something?

No, technically, PvP's not what happened between the PC & NPC, but it would be one possible consequence of that killing.

Frex, shocked and scared by the diner incident, my PC would try to kill the murderous PC, leading to PvP. The questions would be how, when and how obvious would I be, not whether...and all would be answered by in-campaign dynamics.

I say that having done so before, a couple of decades ago, in a scenario only slightly less serious than this one.

when an NPC tries to take a leadership role it is problematic in an RPG.

Asking for a group vote on a path of action isn't taking on a leadership role, IMHO.

And even if it were, it doesn't rise to the level of a capital offense.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yes, which is why, if he so egregiously violates the unwritten social contract of the group by actually being violent towards the group, he either gets killed outright or you have a blanket party to disarm him before exiling him.

This is problematic because what is really at issue is that the player violated what the GM and the other players thought was a social contract among the players.

Sure. But again, unless I saw actual evidence of in-character contrition (. . .)

Yes. We agree that this needs to happen moving forward if the OP is to continue playing the same character.

No, technically, PvP's not what happened between the PC & NPC, but it would be one possible consequence of that killing.

It seems that those condemning the OP are advocating that this does actually happen but from the side of the other players, not from the OP.

Asking for a group vote on a path of action isn't taking on a leadership role, IMHO.

And even if it were, it doesn't rise to the level of a capital offense.

If the OP's character is in a high stress situation (as did exist) and the NPC is advocating taking action in a manner that would jeopardize the lives of all and if it appears that there are enough other NPCs that this position would win the day (particularly since the GM is having an NPC put it forth and controls all of the other NPCs), then I could see how the OP might feel that the GM was forcing the game in a particular direction and might feel that extreme measures needed to be taken. I don't know that this was the case but I can see how this could have been the case based only on what we know.


Nevertheless, what has happened is unfortunate but it was a miscommunication between the GM and the OP prior to the campaign that had consequences in-game that the GM and the OP need to deal with out of game. What happened in-game was regrettable but really wasn't all that dissimilar from what I have seen on the show. The details of how the GM is running the game seems suspiciously restrictive beyond what one might expect even if they are familiar with theshow, which the GM knew the OP was not. There's plenty of blame to go around here and there are some simple fixes going forward but the fixation on taking retribution on the OP in-game seems to be both counter-productive and antithetical to the actual restrictions the GM wants to impose.

This is the kind of thing that could lead to PC versus PC so let's have all the other player characters kill the OP's character to avoid it!