The Walking Dead

[Mercutio01]

Now we've run off the rails for sure.

You're seriously implying that there is no racism, spousal abuse, or incest in Australia and that Americans are somehow monopolizing those character faults? Or are you suggesting that those people wouldn't survive in the ZA? If the latter, you will note, or maybe not, that neither of the social misfits you mentioned is part of the group anymore, and that their behavior was considered anathema to survival, so they were, in fact, let go, so to speak.

 

[Ringlerun]

By all means, the situation can be fixed. Like you said, it can be explained away.

But if the OP continues with his behavior, his fellow players will resent him and ask him to leave.

This was the first game session and i have already posted that i was wrong in my assumptions of what the game was going to be like. I talked with the GM after the game and again this week. So i dont know what all the fuss is about and why you keep reading into my post information that isnt there.

This is why they tried talking to him after the game. Regardless of how sucessful their approach was (they may have fumbled that). There was clearly a disconnect in group expectations.

The GM was the only one to talk to me about what happened, not the players. Please read post carefully and not make assumptions.

Here's the deal, everything I'm saying can of course vary from group to group. But until you KNOW the standards the group holds, you should follow best behavior guidelines. thus, until you KNOW how the game is actually playing out, don't assume what i say below is an exception. Assume it is the rule until verified otherwise.

• GMs consider NPCs to be the same as PCs. They generally hate it when PCs think it's OK to treat them like crap.
• Groups need to stick together, that means you may NOT get to do what you wanted to do if the group doesn't want to do it
• Do not violate the social mores of the group with your PCs actions
• Do not assume this new campaign is played like your last campaign with the same people

Let me make it clear, there are plenty of groups that don't follow these tips. But if you don't KNOW that by watching them, you should not assume you can do whatever the smurf you want.

Assume what you say is the rule? Your condicending tone is noted but since you dont know my group, have never met them, have never met me, have never played a game with me or my group. Maybe you are the one who should not be making ASSUMPTIONS.

By following these tips, you should not offend any reasonable person. Once you've seen how the group rolls on these points. Additionally, to get the game rolling, it helps that you DO cooperate.

If you read my post you would have known i had just finished running a campaign with the group. And again if your did read my posts you would have known that i had gone with the group up until they lead us into a cool room of a diner surrounded by zombies.

Once you get some traction, then it might make sense to test a boundary.

But never start a new game, break all these guidelines and then call it "I was just playing my character"

The reason is that attitude justifies jerky behavior toward your friends, not just characters in a game.

Additionally, you've violated through meta-gaming the principle of group selection. With REAL people in the same story situation, they would have avoided such a jerky person. But because you are a player at the table, you are given a free pass to smuggle a jerk into the party and now you put them in the social awkward situation of what to do about their friend who is acting like a jerk.

Your assumptions are astounding not once in any of my posts did i state that the other players had a problem with what i did. They were shocked that i did it yes but they didnt have a problem with it. You are allowed to have your opinion but please make your opinion on the actual posts not assumptions.

This is where you got mad at me for saying my PC would probably kill yours because of your actions.

By becoming a direct threat to the party (and my PC) you put me in the conflict of how to handle a dangerous threat (your PC) and my fellow player.

Think about it. You got mad at me. How do you think your fellow players at that table felt about you. You initiated an inter-party conflict that makes them have to consider killing your PC. They should be furious at you.

The fact that your actions caused people to be angry with you, and consider killing your PC should be what gives you pause to reflect.

Now your just making stuff up. Not once did any group member consider killing my PC

Now I do recognize, that you were frustrated with not getting to pursue your airport idea. And being stuck in a box and having the party argue adnauseum and never take any action does suck.

The better RPG challenge in that situation is how do you get the group to take action and not attack the group?

I am sure i could have done the encounter differently but that is hindsight. It is always easier to say i would have done something differently but in the heat of the moment you act.

Improving your own personal persuasion skills might help.

Seriously? I am not going to respond to that

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Merl the redneck beat down the sole black character
The other redneck beat his wife and had lustful intentions to his 12yo daughter

The farm owner thought his barn was a great meeting place for flesh eating zombies

I've had a few years of formal study of human psychology at the graduate level. One thing that gets drummed into the students is that, for all our claims of rationality, the brain's limbic system- our irrational emotions- are what goes into action first under stress. Training lets us reel it in faster.

The first 2 people here are written as classic modern American villains, a violent racist and a wife-beating proto-pedophile. In addition, they are being classically human- acting on their irrational impulses before controlling them...arguably, not controlling their irrationality because those aspect of their being are- to them- normal and natural.

And besides, bad people will be among the survivors of any extinction level event.

The farmer is, by his very nature, a man who feels so very deeply an empathy towards humans that, again, the irrational limbic system- plus a probable case of some severe PTSD- has overriden his rational mind and training. Surely he has smelled and seen rotting flesh in his capacity as a farmer and a veterinarian...but his traumatized mind will not let him accept what his life experience and training has surely taught him.

Are you saying that Aussies are superhuman in this regard? That they are immune to prejudice and the trauma of mental anguish?

 

[Arrowhawk]

Ringlerun,

Assuming things are as you described them...I empathize. Both with your rant and your being confounded by posters like Janx. I think Ogre??? made some observations I agree with. Players should be allowed to play. An RPG isn't a theatrical show where you are told what to say or how to act. The GM creates the environment and it is up to the players to decide how they want to react to it.

From what little you've described, it feels like the GM has some vision in his head how the game should go, which is to be expected. What is unfortunate is that he feels the need to exert control over you OOC, instead of having the environment influence your PC, in-game. Of course, you may return to find the NPC's have taken another vote

While I would probably force your PC out of the group in-game, for fear of you imposing your will on me, I think that's the whole part of why playing a ZA game would be interesting...exploring the trade-off between morals and instinct to survive. If something like this were to really happen, it would be no picnic.

You say you play with a regular group. I would sit down with the GM and the group and have an open discussion. The whole point of playing is to have fun. Let the other players weigh on how they feel about the GM's request. Maybe he'll realize he's got the wrong mindset, or maybe you'll realize this isn't the type of campaign you're going to enjoy.

Best of luck.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

From what little you've described, it feels like the GM has some vision in his head how the game should go, which is to be expected.

Clue #1: he's the GM.

Clue #2: he said the campaign was based specifically on The Walking Dead.

As others have said, if a GM says the campaign he's running is based on "X" source, it's probably a smart move to inform yourself as to some of the details of what "X" is.

I've run into this more than once from the GM's chair myself. A PC in my recent M&M Supers:1914 game had a PC who was built around using a very large and powerful custom made supergun with great skill.* The obvious disconnect: carrying a big rifle through the streets of Torquay and not expecting INTENSE police scrutiny. That wouldn't even be a realistic expectation in modern-day Dallas, much less in England with its well-known history of restrictions on firearms. Every other person at the table was unsympathetic.




* I should have expected this somewhat- he almost always plays "snipers" of some sort, though in fantasy games, they have bows.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Clue #2: he said the campaign was based specifically on The Walking Dead.

I think we're on a different page here. It's one thing to say this campaign is in a specific setting, like Jurassic Park or Futureworld. It's entirely another to pre-determine how the characters are going to act and what actions they are not allowed to take...even when characters in the show act like that according to other people in this thread.

The way it's described by RR is that the DM wants the players to act within a certain range of behavior and then he's taking it OOC when they don't...instead of having the NPC's in the campaign respond appropriately.

The obvious disconnect: carrying a big rifle through the streets of Torquay and not expecting INTENSE police scrutiny.

Yup. You let him do what he wants and then he suffers the consequences, in-game.

Now if the GM wants to run some special sort of you-do-what-I-want-you-to-do-or-else rpg....well, maybe RR will work on his next project as he suggested. Honestly, its sounds like his GM has control issues, but maybe this is the first time this has cropped up.

 

[Janx]

This was the first game session and i have already posted that i was wrong in my assumptions of what the game was going to be like. I talked with the GM after the game and again this week. So i dont know what all the fuss is about and why you keep reading into my post information that isnt there.

The GM was the only one to talk to me about what happened, not the players. Please read post carefully and not make assumptions.

As usual, i was unclear. I'm glad you seemed to have worked out the problem. Hopefully youcan have fun and not get stuck in an icebox.

I was mainly speaking to your story and the reaction some of us had. You did act as the bad guy. You should expect standard bad guy protocol from others.

My points weren't assumptions, they were generalizations. The facts of who talked to you don't matter. You freaked somebody out and its pretty obvious why.

Sounds like you got it resolved. Sorry for being harsh and unclear.

As to this new guy, calling out how sucky people from one country are and how awesome people from another country are is insulting and disrespectful. Its a significant grade of not cool behavior that violatesmoderating rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think we're on a different page here. It's one thing to say this campaign is in a specific setting, like Jurassic Park or Futureworld. It's entirely another to pre-determine how the characters are going to act and what actions they are not allowed to take...even when characters in the show act like that according to other people in this thread.

Nah, we're actually on the same page. I don't believe in out of game consequences either. However, I'm not so unawares to think that some may actually hold RW grudges over in-game actions. I've actually seen it happen, albeit usually player vs player, not GM vs player. Usually, it's about how the "offending player" ruins the fun of others.

In this case, though, the OP described rather Shane-like actions in this TWD-based campaign. He mugged the GMPC who was trying to come up with a democratic solution, then used that NPC as zombie bait. He thus exposed himself to the same kind of potential repercussions Shane could face. Arguably more so, since he acted thusly in full view of his comrades. Their witnessing of the act will make it more immediate & real than merely hearing a confession. He will, in this context, appear even more monstrous to his party mates than Shane does to the average viewer.

And what did the GM do? He told the OP to watch his DVD of the show to get a better feel for the setting. This isn't exactly railroading.

The OP's next post mentions playing fetch a dynamite-strapped dog and zombies (in jest?)...more grindhouse than TWD.

BTW, Before this goes ny further, I have to say I liked the combine harvester idea- one of the better civilian vehicles for going through zombies, IMHO...as long as you've got gunmen to protect your flanks.

 

[malcolypse]

Why does everyone keep pretending that Azryl isn't Ringlerun?

He just so happened to join Enworld on the day that his Roleplaying Lifemate is being told he's being bad.

Both from Australia and both in the same age group?

He posts nothing except defense for his newly discovered bff?

I for one don't buy it, and will henceforth refer to him as Sockpuppet Azringle.

Seriously Sockpuppet Azringle, bad form treating your gaming buddies like they're the bad guys in this situation. Apologize to them. Save the friendships, if not the game.

I love to play the character that gives the party a hard time, but if I ever overstepped common tact to the point that I was interfering with their enjoyment of the game, I would expect (and possibly accept) nothing less than a blanket party to straighten me back out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Why does everyone keep pretending that Azryl isn't Ringlerun?

I never think like that until I have unassailable proof.

I used to post on a (now defunct) website devoted to the black community. I had frequent and heated disputes with 2 posters in particular, both of whom had very similar rhetorical styles. And who tended to make the same logical errors.

Then one day one of them referred to tangling with me in another thread over a certain issue...except it had been the other poster. The other ID had not participated in that thread at all; his dual identity had been revealed. From that point on, I always addressed him by both names. As news of his dual accounts spread through the community, he began to retreat. Seems nobody Liked that kind of duplicity.