The Walking Dead

[NewJeffCT]

There has been a vote of no confidence. He ended up being judge, jury and executioner, but he didn't think someone's leadership was working well and didn't think there was time for a discussion. He could have been right about that, we don't know. *shrug* I'm actually really curious to hear about what happens at the next session.
.

No, there was no vote of no confidence. He unilaterally declared himself the leader and when somebody tried to discuss options, he stomped them and tossed them to the zombies. He never even gave them a chance to discuss other possibilities. Other than voting not to go to the airport, there hadn't been other votes.

At this stage i was not a happy camper so i decleared myself the leader and everyone better toe the line or else. (my character was a construction working built like a tank) 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. I said i had and that i was going to use the unconscious person as a meat shield literally. So i popped the door and threw the guy over the counter. The zombies go after the snack and i get everyone else out the back door. Thats were the session ended.

 

[Janx]

Never said it was morally or ethically right, just that from a survival perspective, it worked. He's alive, zombies didn't eat him.

Surviving one encounter is the shortview.

The long view is, when you take hostile action like he did, the OP is the kind of character who will hurt and kill more party members. Therefore it is not in anybody else's interest to have him around.

Nobody in that party is thinking "Yay! RR saved me!"

They are thinking "RR picked somebody to sacrifice today to save himself. Tomorrow he will pick another person and it might be me."

Once you come to those thoughts, you have no choice but to get away from RR.

 

[Mark CMG]

Therefore it is not in anybody else's interest to have him around.

That's the gaming vs fiction conundrum. While the characters in fiction would likely send him on his way (or tolerate him if the writer's feel that is the sort of conflict they want to foster), in an RPG a player is relatively secure in the knowledge that his friends will go out of their way to try and keep the player but get the character to change. I mention this in my first post in this thread as problematic with all RPGing and this is really a classic example of the problem. It is a GM's job, out of game, to clear things up with the one player (assuming there's been miscommunication) if the other players have a problem with the one. Alternately, the players, justified by the actions of the one character, can certainly find some remedy in-game through their own characters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's the gaming vs fiction conundrum.

...for those unwilling to act as their PCs should act.

Like I said- unless I was like minded- that PC would be on my PC's "human race can't afford you no more" list.

 

[S'mon]

...for those unwilling to act as their PCs should act.

Like I said- unless I was like minded- that PC would be on my PC's "human race can't afford you no more" list.

I'm with Danny on this. Not having my PC react appropriately (for OOC reasons) would destroy the integrity of my own player character and make any semi-serious game not worth playing. I'd either have to act against the murderous PC or drop the game.

 

[Janx]

That's the gaming vs fiction conundrum. While the characters in fiction would likely send him on his way (or tolerate him if the writer's feel that is the sort of conflict they want to foster), in an RPG a player is relatively secure in the knowledge that his friends will go out of their way to try and keep the player but get the character to change. I mention this in my first post in this thread as problematic with all RPGing and this is really a classic example of the problem. It is a GM's job, out of game, to clear things up with the one player (assuming there's been miscommunication) if the other players have a problem with the one. Alternately, the players, justified by the actions of the one character, can certainly find some remedy in-game through their own characters.

I forget if I covered this here, or another thread, but your point plays into it.

Generally speaking, every players gets free admittance into the group. As such, this bypasses the "normal" security check a group would do with an NPC. You wouldn't let an NPC into the group who is going to bully you. So when a player brings behaves in a way that violates this OOC trust.

It also puts them in a social quandary of not liking the behavior, but not wanting to confront the player.

Mark's point is why I generally advocate the group agreeing to behave a certain way (be good guys) because it then avoids this problem. Player vs. player conflict can get out of hand.

Now the OP attacked an NPC. [MENTION=5202]SSquirrel[/MENTION] seemed to think that was fine, because it was an NPC. Properly role-played, an NPC and PC should not be differentiated. So of a group of 10 people, 5 are NPCs and 5 are PCs, when RR kills one, the reaction of each character should be comparable.

So when RR killed somebody, each NPC and PC should be wondering "will I be next?" Especially because none of them were already aligned with RR's way of doing things. The next time RR needs more bait, he's going to pick somebody and just do it. He will never sacrifice himself, because that kind of guy wouldn't be sacrificing others first.

If you play it that it's OK for RR to kill NPCs and use OOC that he won't hurt PCs, that's equally unrealistic, if not more so that controlling PC behavior by group agreement to not cause PCvParty conflict.

 

[Mark CMG]

...for those unwilling to act as their PCs should act.

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. Other than that, my previous post discusses solutions without taking pot shots at any individuals which seems ot have become the order of the day for many in this thread on both sides of the issue. I'm surprised this thread hasn't been shut down by some of the bahavior being displayed.

 

[Mark CMG]

Mark's point is why I generally advocate the group agreeing to behave a certain way (be good guys) because it then avoids this problem. Player vs. player conflict can get out of hand.

Agreed. I make it clear up front in most RPGs that players cannot play "evil" characters (with some exceptions in one-shot games where PCs are monsters or villains). I'm not sure the GM in this case made it completely clear just what were going to be the acceptable parameters for this campaign. Even the source material makes it unclear just how far the PCs can stray into grey areas when times of stress prevail.

 

[S'mon]

If you play it that it's OK for RR to kill NPCs and use OOC that he won't hurt PCs, that's equally unrealistic, if not more so that controlling PC behavior by group agreement to not cause PCvParty conflict.

I agree. However in this zombie apocalypse situation it's plausible that a group of incompatible people could be thrown together without any 'entry screening'. When one player character then turns out to be a psycho... This can be plausibly dealt with either by the GM saying 'no', or by allowing the natural consequences, ie PvP. My own preference for the genre would be the second. Then most likely either the player of the psycho can bring in a non-psycho PC, or he can leave.

I don't think "We'll pretend you didn't kill that NPC, let's go on" is a good approach for a serious game, though.

 

[Janx]

I agree. However in this zombie apocalypse situation it's plausible that a group of incompatible people could be thrown together without any 'entry screening'. When one player character then turns out to be a psycho... This can be plausibly dealt with either by the GM saying 'no', or by allowing the natural consequences, ie PvP. My own preference for the genre would be the second. Then most likely either the player of the psycho can bring in a non-psycho PC, or he can leave.

I don't think "We'll pretend you didn't kill that NPC, let's go on" is a good approach for a serious game, though.

Well, my assumption is that each person in the cooler, really didn't know anybody else until the ZA started. So the PCs aren't some biker club of brutes vs. the world.

As such, in reality or in game, I would think most people who just got thrust together would be extremely threatened by a thug in the group.

Tactically, I think it is in their best interest to not be around the thug.

Eventually, the thug is going to bully or get them killed for his own benefit.

Am I right in that assessment?

This is by which I based my statements. The thug is so dangerous, that he will likely get me killed or kill me. He's most likely the strongest in the group, so attacking him will be very costly. He will probably justify holding the weapons, making the group unable to overthrow him.

And the next time he needs a distraction, he will grab another group member and throw them to the zombies.

This is actuall the point of enlightend self interest.

Each member of the group behaves, because no matter how strong one is individually, the group will find a way to thwart you if you become a threat.

Therefore it is not wise over the long term to be a threat to the group.

RR's PC has become such a threat. As is, that means the party needs to get rid of him ASAP. That's going to be a fight, and no doubt RR's PC will cause a lot of damage before he goes down (assuming he does). This will then pretty much crater that party.