Ah, I read that as an in-game objection. There is the source of our disagreement on this matter. If it was OOC, then I would generally agree with your conjecture about the other players.
The Walking Dead
- Thread starter Ringlerun
- Start date
Ah, I read that as an in-game objection. There is the source of our disagreement on this matter. If it was OOC, then I would generally agree with your conjecture about the other players.
You just did.
Mercutio01
First Post
You always allow people to play every alignment and never restrict them to being only good or neutral? That's rare. I don't usually allow evil alignments in my games.
I think there are two discussion going on...
1) What it means for a GM to tell a player "that is not how the game is going to be played"?
the other...
2) What do you do about someone choosing to play a character that ruins the mood?
I have no comment on how people should manage players who play in a manner disruptive to the campaign. But if you allow the character then restrict their actions, you're railroading them into playing their character the way you want. Do other players like that or want that? It seems evident some would say yes. So be it.
I wouldn't restrict a player's alignment choice. They just might not have much of long lifespan depending on the nature of the game. I do agree that people generally need to observe protocols when gaming. The characters, not so much. But if that's what/how people want to play, more power to them.
malcolypse
First Post
This.
The position of GM is one that none of my group of friends relishes. Part of our unspoken social contract is that we take turns biting the bullet and running a game, so that our friends can have fun.
We take care to craft a game that we think everyone will enjoy, and work with them to make any appropriate character they choose to play work.
If the GM creates a game that he thinks everyone will enjoy, tells them what it's about and gives them examples, and one player still (through ignorance, apathy or both)shows up with a game plan directly opposing everyone else in the game...well, they're at fault.
Not the GM, who put so much work into planning the game. Not the other players who are aware of what to expect from the game the GM has toiled over.
The player who acts counter to the spirit of the game is wrong.
The OP apparently made the mistake out of ignorance (perhaps apathy as well, since even glancing the wikipedia article on Walking Dead would have informed him within two paragraphs that the survivors flee from the zombies in fear). With no knowledge of the comics or show, he went to a character driven drama expecting Left 4 Dead. The GM made the effort to correct the oversight and illuminate him as to the precept the game was founded on.
I think the OP made the right decision to bow out of the game.
Last edited:
malcolypse
First Post
1) You call them on it, preferably in private, and ask if it's intentional. If it's not, and they really believe that their character is acceptable, then you have to explain things to them much more thoroughly. If it's your fault they didn't understand, you apologize, extensively detail your thinking behind the construction of the plot of the campaign, and offer to let them make up a new character or play their current one in a non disruptive manner. If it's their fault, you ask if they really want to play in a game like the one you're running, and if they do you give them the same two character options.
If they don't correct the behavior after that, then it's obviously intentional, and you exclude them from the game.
For me personally: I don't require my players to submit to an in character psychological test or give me an exhaustive list of pre-established reactions to things, but I do expect they'll be respectful of the other players, myself, and the game that I've put together for them.
2) Explain to them how to correct their behavior so that you don't have to boot them. See answer number one.
For me personally: I would expect that if I told any of my players, "the game will by like X," and they had no idea what X was about, they'd say something along the lines of, "I have no freaking idea what X is about, and I'd like to not look like a donkey at the first session by showing my ignorance in a star-like blaze of donkey-holery. Please give me a basic rundown of what X is like."
If I were the OPs GM and I wasn't completely flabbergasted by what he'd just done, the party probably would have escaped and run to some place marginally safer than outside (like, say, a cooler full of food, with only one easily defended entrance) and done exactly what this party was doing: discussing options.
But if none of the players spoke up against murder, I'd have an NPC pull a revolver from their waistband and put the construction worker down like a rabid dog. If none of the PCs still spoke up against that, I'd have the NPC toss the gun to the PC that I'd pegged as the leader-type while saying, "I know that I'm no better than him now, but stuff like that, he'd be just as dangerous to us as those walkers, so you do what you have to do to keep these people safe. It's still got four rounds in it."
That last bit would be said as he turned around and closed his eyes. Now the players should be thinking about what lengths it's acceptable to go to in pursuit of their goals. At least if they've bought in to the game properly.
I would not assume IC or OOC would be distinguishable or actually different.
And in this situatuion, the concern is in both the player and pc's interst to not have a hostile party member.
On your later post about the gm accepting a character concept, potential player action is not something easily foreseen.
The OP. described a construction worker with some driving skills. Sounds like a fine candidate to survive a ZA.
The GM accepted that character. Not a guy who was going to murder a party member and bully the group.
There's not some fine line of in character and out of character. Nor does acceptance of a character even reveal potential group problems.
I think it's kind of hard to judge what was meant by #1, since we only have the viewpoint of the frustrated player. From the OP, he thought he was entering a zombie kill fest similar to a video game and got frustrated when the game wasn't like that.
Was the DM actually telling the OP, "My way or the high way"? Or, was he helpfully offering the player some guidance into what is expected so the group can continue the game? I think the first would definitely be railroading, while the second is not. And, we're seeing it from the viewpoint of a disgruntled player, which could be slanting the view (i.e., did the DM think he was being helpful, while the OP took it as an ultimatum?)
No he took action against a NPC and saved the party.
I think he did the right thing. The party's decisions were weighing them down w/a bunch of useless mouths to feed and people who lose their weapons and get eaten. Theyw ere trapped and needed to survive. If there's a zombie apocalypse, I'm protecting my wife and kids first, my friends next and anybody else as far as helping them helps us stay safe. That isn't being evil, it's being pragmatic and survival focused.
The high octane action expectations are incorrect generally speaking, but your group reacting to the threats presented and working together or becoming argumentative in their disagreements of whose vision will lead to survival for more people is exactly what we should be seeing. This won't be an intra-party fighting to the degree of say, a World of Darkness game, but it won't be a group of LG Paladins and Clerics working together for the good of one specific god either.
That NPC served his purpose, he saved the group so they could reach safety after some boneheaded decisions. Some characters will be against the actions, but they all have to agree they were effective.
