The Walking Dead

[S'mon]

What is the disconnect here people? The disconnect is people think the actions are evil, despite never having actually been faced with that type of life and death situation...

We don't have to have experienced something personally to know it's evil.

 

[Arrowhawk]

well, one of the annoying things of this thread (myself included) is the absolute nitpicking of exactly what each person said and not seeing the bigger picture.

Yes, RR's behavior is the kind of scene I might expect in a ZA story.

Generally, it is the bad guy who does it.

Even a group of bad guys does not want to be victimized by a member.

RR did not appear to appreciate he hurt the group. So in-game or out of game, expect some trouble.

This is where the group dynamic comes in. if your group doesn't want PvP, then the antagonist is always an NPC. So normally it would be an NPC who starts bullying and trying to kill somebody, and that's where the PCs step in.

Once RR became the bad guy, that upset the social contract. Spoken or not, people got upset and that's a clue that somethings wrong.

For RR, sounds like he's going to change or drop out. And that's probably the smoothest way to get things in order.

If he kept on the course of being a bad guy, and they played it out. He could expect confrontation, and likely attacks by PCs or even getting stuck in a room with a zombie accidentally.


I suppose some RR could have fun with that. But that may not be what the others came for. And that means the game may not be fun anymore as it become an antagonistic fight with RR.

Think I was out of line with what I said to RR? Imagine being one of the players in his game.

Janx, you have a particular penchant for infusing your own fabrications into the actual facts. You are clearly emotionally affected by the idea of playing ZA with RR. As such, there's not much point in responding to your post.

 

[S'mon]

Janx, you have a particular penchant for infusing your own fabrications into the actual facts. You are clearly emotionally affected by the idea of playing ZA with RR. As such, there's not much point in responding to your post.

And yet, you just did.

 

[Arrowhawk]

We don't have to have experienced something personally to know it's evil.

During the Vietnam war, there were many reported incidents of soldiers shooting their CO's in the back when ordered to march into a cross fire or certain death situations. Stress causes people to act in ways that they would not otherwise. Do you fully understand the implications of stress on an organism?

More to the point...it's a game.

 

[Mercutio01]

Based on what RR said, this GM is not willing to tolerate something that is different than what he had planned on = Railroad.

And, conversely, the players is unwilling to work within the bounds that the GM set up.

I think we're at cross-purposes for good here. I see the GM setting a scene, giving the source, and effectively setting a stage for the kind of game he would like to run. The other players, except RR, understand what the setting is and agree, implicitly at least, to partake of that world as though they were participants in the world, choosing to portray "heroes" as set out by the basic literature. RR was unfamiliar with the source material and did nothing to educate himself on it before the game session.

When the game proved itself to not be what he thought it would be, rather than accept the social construct that he was observing, chose to rock the boat against the wishes of everyone else at the table. After the session ended, the GM took the RR aside and told him that his play style was not suitable to the game the GM intended to run.

You call that rail-roading. I call that setting the bounds for the game and establishing the social contract that the GM would like to set. RR is free to accept that contract, attempt to modify it, or reject it out of hand. If the GM is unwilling to accept changes to that contract, then RR is left with two options--fall under the contract and accept it despite his preferences, or reject it and sit out the game.

Frankly, as I said, were I the GM, I would find a way to allow RR's character into the game with the express understanding that he is playing a very specific type of character, and that his clashes IC with the other members of the group would be good fodder for the game. But I'm not the GM, and I can understand a GM who would rather not allow "evil" characters in a game where he wants everyone to be "good."

Since you think my analogies are out of whack, I will leave it at that.

 

[Mercutio01]

During the Vietnam war, there were many reported incidents of soldiers shooting their CO's in the back when ordered to march into a cross fire or certain death situations. Stress causes people to act in ways that they would not otherwise. Do you fully understand the implications of stress on an organism?

More to the point...it's a game.

So let's say the GM wants to run "Apocalypse Now" and one player hasn't seen it, but knows it's about the Vietnam War. He then shows up with character, and when presented with a moral quandary, he instead goes Rambo and ruins the mood the GM was shooting for.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You call that rail-roading.

If the GM tells a player how to play a character that is operating within the framework of the genre, that is railroading. Trying to confuse the issue with disanologies and suppositions about how the other players feel doesn't change make your case any stronger, it says you want to debate something completely different.

If the facts are as you see them, then I would agree.

 

[Arrowhawk]

... he instead goes Rambo and ruins the mood the GM was shooting for.

That's it. Right there....the heart of the matter. You're upset because the player ruined the mood you were shooting for. What do the Jedi teach?

Let go.

 

[S'mon]

During the Vietnam war, there were many reported incidents of soldiers shooting their CO's in the back when ordered to march into a cross fire or certain death situations. Stress causes people to act in ways that they would not otherwise. Do you fully understand the implications of stress on an organism?

More to the point...it's a game.

I don't want to argue the Vietnam war with you. I'm pretty sure that'd fall under politics. Not that your analogy is very close to throwing a dissenting civilian to the zombies, anyway.

 

[Mercutio01]

If the GM tells a player how to play a character that is operating within the framework of the genre, that is railroading. Trying to confuse the issue with disanologies and suppositions about how the other players feel doesn't change make your case any stronger, it says you want to debate something completely different.

If the facts are as you see them, then I would agree.

The facts are as I see them. The GM did NOT tell the player how to play the character within the framework of the game. He allowed the player to do exactly what he wanted to do. You are reading the situation in a completely different fashion from how I'm reading it. I see the GM helpfully explaining that the player's actions are not what the game is going to be about and then providing helpful evidence to assist the player on how to proceed going forward. You see the GM as being a dick, artificially limiting a player's actions, and essentially not allowing any kind of player freedom. Which is obviously not the case since the players control the game, with the majority of them choosing to do one thing that one player did not.

Setting up the game world and explaining the way that the game will be run and the expectations for the players is not railroading.