The Walking Dead

[Arrowhawk]

It's no secret- the entire table was pissed off at what he did- he said as much in the first post.
.

Here is what he wrote in the OP

One of the NPC's controlled by the GM tried to do the lets be all diplomatic and vote crap so i stamped my displeasure into him with my foot. Everyone at the table is up in arms that i cant do that.​

That's it. I don't know how you go from "I can't do that" to "pissed off at what he did." Did he later write that people were pissed off in another post? If so, I missed it and I stand corrected. If not, you're making assumptions.

The OP is the outlier at the table, and continuing to act as he did may well cause not only PvP, but a rift in the gaming group.

Maybe. I certainly would be tempted to kick his character to the curb, but at this point it's pure speculation, especially since, according to RR, the other players had no problem with him as a GM in a previous session.

Maybe everything you wrote is 100% correct if the real facts where known. I don't see it in what's written.

EDIT:

You added an edit, so I'll respond

1) had I been the GM, I'd have said essentially the same speech as his GM, handed the OP a DVD of TWD (if I owned one)...and let the players handle the repercussions unless there was a logical reason for me to step in. Like, say, the next NPC he uses as zombie bait has buddies who are willing to avenge him. (Which, FWIW, is why I'm pretty sure it's not railroading.)

On this I think we can agree. It really boils down to what was actually intended by the statement, "that is not how the game is going to be played." If it's just a suggestion, as you seem to interpret, then we are on the same page.

 

[Mercutio01]

This is a 100% complete disanalogy. This is the crux of the differences in our opinion. In your mind, it's A. What is being described is B.

So you pick the weakest part of my argument (and I admit it is that), ignoring the far more apt description, and then cast my entire argument as just the weakest bit. Please, try to address the real issue. The GM, and all of the other players, showed up to play A game (to use your terminology) while the OP showed up to play B game. He was then told that B game was not what was going on, and that he should read up on A game to get a better feel for what the goal is.

That is my actual argument. The GM and the other players set up a social contract to play a Walking Dead inspired GURPS game, and came into it with all the expectations as set by that show. The OP wasn't familiar with the show, and so didn't understand the social contract as agreed upon by everyone else at the table. After the game, the GM did the right thing, gave the OP copies of the show to watch to better understand what the social contract of the game entails, and was asked to try to adhere to that contract.

So, the GM failed the initial explanation. The OP didn't take it upon himself to resolve the problem. He acted counter to the social contract (which wasn't fully explained), and as a method of explaining the contract after the game, the GM provided the source material.

There are now two (well, there are always more than two choices) choices for the OP. Adhere to the social contract as he now understands it, or skip out on the game since he's unwilling to sign on. Both are legitimate responses to the situation.

 

[Rechan]

If I declare "This is a heroic game where you are playing Knights of the Realm under chivalric code" and a player says "Ok - I'm playing an assassin and I burn down the inn, rape and pilledge", it's not railroading to say "That is not how you're going to behave in this game".

That's pointing out the player didn't get the message that the tone, genre, style, and expectations are out of wack. In fact, that kind of behavior would be not cool with most games period, regardless of what the DM said ahead of time.

Just because people are playing an RPG does not give a person the excuse to be an expletive.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Please, try to address the real issue. The GM, and all of the other players, showed up to play A game (to use your terminology) while the OP showed up to play B game. He was then told that B game was not what was going on, and that he should read up on A game to get a better feel for what the goal is.

Mercutio, you have a polite and friendly tone. So let me apologize profusely if I unintentionally come off as dismissive or condescending or in any way offensive. I will try to preserve the friendly nature of our discussion.

I read your entire post and it is, imho, a disanalogy. I don't see the Punisher as a 4C type of character from the get go. The Punisher is baggage. That's his whole schtick. If you're going to allow that character, you can't turn around and say, "Oh, you can't actually play like the Punisher would." Telling a player he can't play a character is fundamentally different from telling someone how to play that character. But this situation is not analogous.

RR is playing a "farmer." TWD deals with average people. RR did something which has been repeated confirmed as within the range of actions of characters on the show. RR plays a big thick guy, "built like a tank." Many men who have imposing physical qualities, will often use those qualities to impose their will, you know, like people in guns will often use the implied threat of the gun to impose their will? I ask again in earnest, what is the disconnect here?

I don't get it. I've never seen the show but when several people come into the thread and say, "Yeah, that's something that might happen on the show" how is it analogous to someone playing The Punisher in a Silver Age comic book game?

That is my actual argument. The GM and the other players set up a social contract to play a Walking Dead inspired GURPS game, and came into it with all the expectations as set by that show.

And RR took action that people have repeated said are within the moral framework contemplated by the show.

The OP wasn't familiar with the show, and so didn't understand the social contract as agreed upon by everyone else at the table.

Exactly where does RR talk about an agreement by everyone "else" at the table? Did RR says this somewhere else in the thread?

and was asked to try to adhere to that contract.

I'm not sure how you come to this interpretation from the statement "that's not how the game is going to be played" ?

So, the GM failed the initial explanation. The OP didn't take it upon himself to resolve the problem.

RR watched the DVD. How is that not attempting to resolve the problem? The session ended immediately after the "doing it wrong" actions were taken. What else could RR do at that point?

He acted counter to the social contract (which wasn't fully explained), and as a method of explaining the contract after the game, the GM provided the source material.

What social contract? Contracts, by definition, are not unilateral. I don't see any stated agreement by the players on what the range of allowable actions is going to be. Agreeing to play in a genre does not constitute a social contract on what is acceptable behavior. It's merely a backdrop in which the story takes place. At that point, PC"s are then allowed to respond to the environment.

All I can say is that it is a mystery to me why so many posters read into the facts things that are not stated.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't get it. I've never seen the show but when several people come into the thread and say, "Yeah, that's something that might happen on the show" how is it analogous to someone playing The Punisher in a Silver Age comic book game?

<edit>

And RR took action that people have repeated said are within the moral framework contemplated by the show.

Not really.

Nobody in the show has been killed for mere verbal disagreement. Shane is the only recurring character who has intentionally killed a living person, he did so when alone with his victim, and even he knows he did wrong. If he ever gets found out, he'll be out of the group...vertical or horizontal would be the only question. Had Shane done what the OP did, he wouldn't be on the show right now, in all probability.

And that is all about genre expectations.

 

[Mercutio01]

Mercutio, you have a polite and friendly tone. So let me apologize profusely if I unintentionally come off as dismissive or condescending or in any way offensive. I will try to preserve the friendly nature of our discussion.

Much appreciated.

I read your entire post and it is, imho, a disanalogy. I don't see the Punisher as a 4C type of character from the get go. The Punisher is baggage. That's his whole schtick. If you're going to allow that character, you can't turn around and say, "Oh, you can't actually play like the Punisher would." Telling a player he can't play a character is fundamentally different from telling someone how to play that character. But this situation is not analogous.

Okay, so say he shows up with Captain Marvel, but then has him kill a person.

I've never seen the show but when several people come into the thread and say, "Yeah, that's something that might happen on the show" how is it analogous to someone playing The Punisher in a Silver Age comic book game?

It is something that happens in the show, but those people are then killed fairly quickly after doing so, the Shane character being the one and only exception so far, and that's mostly because he's been underhanded and sneaky about it, doing such things when there is no one else around to call him on it. I would say, in game terms, that those people are either players whose characters were killed in game because they didn't adhere to the basic social construct of the other characters, or else were NPCs set up by the GM to add heft to the game.

Exactly where does RR talk about an agreement by everyone "else" at the table? Did RR says this somewhere else in the thread?

Never in so many words, but "the group decided they were going to head down the highway looking for more people to help" and "Everyone at the table is up in arms" certainly implies that everyone else was on the same page as the GM. And the way he phrased "group" also implies that he was the outsider in that group, and he actually says as much: "I was out voted."

RR watched the DVD. How is that not attempting to resolve the problem? The session ended immediately after the "doing it wrong" actions were taken. What else could RR do at that point?

I'm not arguing he didn't. He even later said that he talked to his GM and was considering bowing out. That's a legitimate answer. He doesn't like the way the show runs and gets angry at the main characters. That says to me that he doesn't want to join in with the social contract, now that he understands what it is. And that's fine.

What social contract? Contracts, by definition, are not unilateral. I don't see any stated agreement by the players on what the range of allowable actions is going to be. Agreeing to play in a genre does not constitute a social contract on what is acceptable behavior. It's merely a backdrop in which the story takes place. At that point, PC"s are then allowed to respond to the environment.

I addressed this above, but this is beyond genre. Genre would be "zombie apocalypse." This is a narrower subset of the genre, which does imply allowable, or at least palatable, actions, and those that would put the character as an outsider to the group.

Now, if I were the GM, I would allow this player back and his character as is, with the express understanding that he is playing the part of the heel of the group. Personally, I think that would be an interesting setup.

 

[Janx]

If I declare "This is a heroic game where you are playing Knights of the Realm under chivalric code" and a player says "Ok - I'm playing an assassin and I burn down the inn, rape and pilledge", it's not railroading to say "That is not how you're going to behave in this game".

That's pointing out the player didn't get the message that the tone, genre, style, and expectations are out of wack. In fact, that kind of behavior would be not cool with most games period, regardless of what the DM said ahead of time.

I don't think the OP ever gave enough real evidence that the game was a railroad.

Obviously somebody disagreed with how the OP acted in a situation (me? the NPC?). I'm pretty sure the NPC who died objected in character and his friend has some pretty strong feelings on the subject.

When a disagreement happens, you can deal with it in character or out of character. Out of character can still mean in-game (plenty of parties talk about combat out of character but still in-game).

telling somebody what you expected and how you expect them to behave isn't railroading. Otherwise your parents would be guilty of it.

The GM and the group have a right to certain expectations of behavior. They do not have to tolerate it. Some things can be solved in-game. Some things are better solved out of game. it depends on the problem.

What no player should expect is that they are free to do as they please and violate the social expectations of the group without consequence.

A GM is not a free simulation engine to process whatever commands a player orders. If he does not want to simulate somebody's attempt to commit a pedophile act (trying to name something so deplorable that we can all hopefully agree in concept that this should not be done), he is not obligated to do so.

It's not railroading to refuse to run that kind of game. he is not required to let the PC get away with it. He is not required to skim over it and then play out how the body was hid and how the crime was investigated. He is not obligated to show his disapproval in-game by swarming the PC with police.

He just simply says, "No. That's not what this game is about."

The same goes for the other players. If the players do not want PvP action, they can declare it and agree not to do it. Or they could in-game punish the culprit. Most often, in-game punishment craters the campaign (because the kind of person who goes PvP usually has the strongest PC in the group). As a result, it is actually better to solve the problem out of game and get the player to change his behavior or exit the game.

There is most definitely not a requirement that any kind of behavior at the table must be accepted. The group and the GM sets that.

There is no requirement that they manage this expectation and disruptions in-game. And in fact there are good reasons why that may be a bad idea.

 

[Janx]

And RR took action that people have repeated said are within the moral framework contemplated by the show.

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.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Not really.

Nobody in the show has been killed for mere verbal disagreement. Shane is the only recurring character who has intentionally killed a living person, he did so when alone with his victim, and even he knows he did wrong. If he ever gets found out, he'll be out of the group...vertical or horizontal would be the only question. Had Shane done what the OP did, he wouldn't be on the show right now, in all probability.

And that is all about genre expectations.

You need to take that up with the various people who have already said RR's actions were similar to those on the show.

Your description of how you played seems to be one of the options the television show would consider on the table, though you'd likely die in a few episodes.

and here again:

Originally Posted by SiderisAnon
Now as far as your reaction: Giving orders, feeding a dissenting NPC to the zombies, going all gung-ho, just may not be appropriate to the game.

Yet, all of this has happened in the show, and with some characters that are still part of the show.

That fact that the person might die for his actions is part of the game.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Much appreciated.

Okay, so say he shows up with Captain Marvel, but then has him kill a person.

It is something that happens in the show, but those people are then killed fairly quickly after doing so, the Shane character being the one and only exception so far, and that's mostly because he's been underhanded and sneaky about it, doing such things when there is no one else around to call him on it. I would say, in game terms, that those people are either players whose characters were killed in game because they didn't adhere to the basic social construct of the other characters, or else were NPCs set up by the GM to add heft to the game.

Never in so many words, but "the group decided they were going to head down the highway looking for more people to help" and "Everyone at the table is up in arms" certainly implies that everyone else was on the same page as the GM. And the way he phrased "group" also implies that he was the outsider in that group, and he actually says as much: "I was out voted."

I'm not arguing he didn't. He even later said that he talked to his GM and was considering bowing out. That's a legitimate answer. He doesn't like the way the show runs and gets angry at the main characters. That says to me that he doesn't want to join in with the social contract, now that he understands what it is. And that's fine.

I addressed this above, but this is beyond genre. Genre would be "zombie apocalypse." This is a narrower subset of the genre, which does imply allowable, or at least palatable, actions, and those that would put the character as an outsider to the group.

Now, if I were the GM, I would allow this player back and his character as is, with the express understanding that he is playing the part of the heel of the group. Personally, I think that would be an interesting setup.

Here's what I see. A bunch of people in this thread who GM, interpreting the factual statements in a way that is closely linked to some situation they have been a part of in the past. DA, you, Janx, are all quick throwout these situations which are not analogous, but clearly indicate the framework with which you are parsing the data. Let me give you a perfect example:

Okay, so say he shows up with Captain Marvel, but then has him kill a person.

He isn't playing Captain Marvel. Such a comparison constitutes a disanology. And yet, you keep offering it. Why? Most likely because this describes some situation you were involved in and this is how you are relating to RR's rant. You see it as Captain Marvel wanting to be evil. If that were the situation, I would agree with your social contract statement. But it's not. Nevertheless, I get where you are coming from and why you and I are on different pages.

Good people do bad things when stressed. Nobody knows how one will react when faced with unthinkable horrors. Not only were RR's actions plausible in the scope of human reactions, it has been confirmed to be within the scope of the genre.

The bottom line is my perspective depends on what is meant by "that is not how the game is going to be played." If the GM is telling the player that in the future, he will not allow the character to take such an action, that is a railroad.

The fundamantal problem is the GM expects the characters to act like characters that were written by an author. THAT is a railroad. I'm going to repeat Ogre's statment which captures my sentiment:

To me it sounds like the GM is one of those I'm telling a story and not playing a game types. Telling a story as a GM leads to crappy games.

If my players want to sit down and be spoon-feed a story they will go read a book. Instead I come up with as cool adventure idea,fun locations and bad arse villains and situations.

The players are the ones that decide what the (story) is going to be.

Sure I might have a idea of how I would like things to go but I have yet to EVER see them go exactly like I would like.

Most of the time its far far different than i plan on.​

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