The Walking Dead

[Arrowhawk]

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.

Really? You must be deciphering something from the OP that I am not. Let's see what RR said in his OP.

After the game i was told thats now how the game is going to be played and that i need to watch The walking dead to get a feel of what the game is going to be about.​

Emphasis added.

I can't say I have the same interpretation that you've come away with. Now I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly how the GM talked to RR. So I'm just going off what RR wrote...but it comes across like RR is being told what this game is going to be about, rather than letting RR be a part of creating it.

Just going off of what was written.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? You must be deciphering something from the OP that I am not. Let's see what RR said in his OP.

After the game i was told thats now how the game is going to be played and that i need to watch The walking dead to get a feel of what the game is going to be about.​

Emphasis added.

I can't say I have the same interpretation that you've come away with. Now I wasn't there, so I don't know exactly how the GM talked to RR. So I'm just going off what RR wrote...but it comes across like RR is being told what this game is going to be about, rather than letting RR be a part of creating it.

Just going off of what was written.

I must have, because I'm just working with what's in front of me as well. Right before that section you quoted was this:

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.

IOW, the GM tried to use an NPC to initiate a TWD type solution- "Let's vote!"- and the GMPC got mugged and murdered for his trouble. Not got angry. Not "I shouted down the NPC". Beat. Down. And. Killed.

"Everyone at the table was up in arms" about the actions of the OP's PC.

instead of dictating what the PC could do by nullifying the OP's actions, the GM let them stand as told and then ended the session. He then gave the OP a DVD to get him familiar with the source material.

That is not railroading. Railroading would have been preventing the OP's actions from taking place; retconning; giving the GMPC some kind of plot invulnerability.

None of that happened.

Instead, the only reaction was giving the OP a chance to familiarize himself with TWD so that future sessions would be less prone to grindhouse-type misunderstandings.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Being told "that is not how the game is going to be played" is railroading a player. Others in this thread would undoubtedly agree. You seem keen on ignoring that part of it and want to insist the GM only wants the RR to "familiarize himself" with TWD.

IOW, the GM tried to use an NPC to initiate a TWD type solution- "Let's vote!"- and the GMPC got mugged and murdered for his trouble. Not got angry. Not "I shouted down the NPC". Beat. Down. And. Killed.

And several people on this thread have said these actions are within the framework of TWD. So I fail to see your point. The GM has decided that despite the fact that RR's behavior is consistent with the show, it's not going to be allowed. Refusing to allow behavior is railroading. The fact that the GM allowed it initially doesn't change the nature of the campaign the GM intends to run...based on RR's version of events.

As I said in my first response, we are on different pages...no, we are reading different books.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Being told "that is not how the game is going to be played" is railroading a player.

Not really- that's the GM distinguishing between the player's genre expectations and subsequent actions vs the presumed TWD setting's tone.

And several people on this thread have said these actions are within the framework of TWD

OK, I haven't read the comics, so I'll just go with what I know- the entirety of the TV show's run.

At no point has a living human NOT been punished for violence against other living humans. The racist? He got chained to a pipe, pending judgement for his actions. Missing and presumed dead after a Walker attack.

The wifebeater only got tolerated because his wife defended him...for a while. Eventually, Ed got beaten by Shane for beating Caroline in front of everybody, then got killed by Walkers while recuperating from the beating.

And Shane? If they ever find out what he did to Otis, he's either dead or on his own. That was a rogue act and Shane knows it.

The other casualties are all pretty much Walker* related.

So...no, beating up and killing dissenters is NOT the way things are done in TWD. Fights? Yeah, there have been a few. But no actual MURDERS for merely speaking up.

Which means that the OP's PC's actions were NOT really within the scope of TWD's setting.









* No, Chuck Norris, not YOUR Walker.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Not really- that's the GM distinguishing between the player's genre expectations and subsequent actions vs the presumed TWD setting's tone.

Telling a player "that is not how the game is going to be played" is not distinguishing between expectations. It's an ultimatum. Why you choose to re-characterize this as the GM simply wanting the player to "familiarize" himself with the genre is, admittedly, a complete mystery. Perhaps RR can clarify what he was trying to convey when he wrote those words.

OK, I haven't read the comics, so I'll just go with what I know- the entirety of the TV show's run.

At no point has a living human NOT been punished for violence against other living humans. The racist? He got chained to a pipe, pending judgement for his actions. Missing and presumed dead after a Walker attack.

The wifebeater only got tolerated because his wife defended him...for a while. Eventually, Ed got beaten by Shane for beating Caroline in front of everybody, then got killed by Walkers while recuperating from the beating.

And Shane? If they ever find out what he did to Otis, he's either dead or on his own. That was a rogue act and Shane knows it.

The other casualties are all pretty much Walker* related.

So...no, beating up and killing dissenters is NOT the way things are done in TWD. Fights? Yeah, there have been a few. But no actual MUDERS for merely speaking up.

1) He didn't personally kill the guy.

2) Because nobody in TWD has exhibited this specific type of violence, the PC shouldn't be allowed to do it? Really? Because the TV show hasn't has someone beat someone up and throw him to the zombies specifically in front of others, it's not to be allowed and requires the GM to go OOC and tell the player?

An RPG works because players are allowed to decide their own actions. They aren't going to act like everyone on a TV show whose characters are based on an author trying to tell the author's story. Players are interested in telling their own story. If the GM expects the players to mimic the behavior of characters who were written by an author, and that same GM is pulling a player aside OOC and admonishing them...I would call that a railroad.

But hey, YMMV

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Telling a player "that is not how the game is going to be played" is not distinguishing between expectations.

I think it is. In fact, I think it was more a warning about what to expect from his fellow players than what the GM would do. Because remember, the GM didn't stop him from doing anything.

He did nothing to change or prevent the PCs actions as stated. By giving him the source material, he's letting the OP see how actions like the ones his PC took have- so far- been handled in TWD. Namely, those who act thus may well face a death penalty of their own.

For all we know, the only reason the other players' PCs didn't kill his PC is because the GM told them he was giving the OP the DVD to watch.

He didn't personally kill the guy.

Really? That's what you're going with?

The "Your Honor, my client just threw Mr. McTasty in the tiger cage- it was the TIGER that killed him!" defense will win you precisely ZERO murder trials.

Look it up in a law book- that kind of action will get you convicted of 1st degree murder in any court.

Because nobody in TWD has exhibited this specific type of violence, the PC shouldn't be allowed to do it?

That's just it- he WAS allowed to do it.

But by giving the OP the DVD, the GM has let the OP know what the probable in-game repercussions would be for continuing to act that way. Watching it informed him that this wasn't Resident Evil or other ZA-type movies, but is instead focused on people trying to maintain their civilized ways in the midst of an extinction level event without totally descending into barbarism. Even Shane has acted to prevent the living from harming the living...until he went out on the mission with Otis.

And given how his fellow players reacted, it's highly probable that the next NPC he murders or assaults will get him lynched or exiled.

 

[S'mon]

Getting away from the specifics here - I played in a zombie horror campaign recently, and got slapped down by the GM who said I was initiating Player v Player conflict, which was not allowed. I was pointing a gun at the other PCs to try to stop them blowing up a ship full of innocent people (and zombies). I said that I had thought that PC vs PC conflict was inherent to the zombie horror genre.

I think that the extreme morality questions the genre raises do make it dangerous, especially if the group don't know each other well. If some people are expecting 'Night of the Living Dead', explorations of morality under extreme stress, and others want video game zombie-massacring, there is going to be trouble.

 

[Mercutio01]

I don't think a GM having an out-of-game conversation about play-style is "railroading." I think that's explicitly part of the social contract of gaming. Obviously there was a problem with player buy-in for the OP, which the other players appear to have missed until the problems at the diner. But blaming the GM for explaining the social contract of the game and then trying again to get the player to understand the social contract after the game ended is more about table dynamics than it is about railroading.

It's important not to forget that there is an implicit construct (and in some games, it's actually written and explicit) surrounding the way a game is created, run, and played. It would be out of line railroading if the GM said to the OP, "No, you can't kill the NPC and throw him to the zombies." It is not railroading if, after the game, the GM says, "Hey, seriously. Take a look at the show to get a better feel for the kind of game we're playing."

When you sit down for a supers game, and the rest of the group is thinking 4C golden or silver age stuff, but one player insists on making an iron age anti-hero, the disconnect is not for the other players and attempts to talk to the outlying player about the setting are not railroading. What the GM appears to have failed to do, is fully explain the setting/game to someone who isn't familiar with it. So, the GM failed part of the social contract, and the player acted on that failure by breaking his part of it.

 

[SiderisAnon]

Being told "that is not how the game is going to be played" is railroading a player. Others in this thread would undoubtedly agree. You seem keen on ignoring that part of it and want to insist the GM only wants the RR to "familiarize himself" with TWD.

I very strongly disagree with your defining this as railroading. Setting up the game that is going to be played, the genre and setting, the style of game, the characters allowed is all part of what a GM does when pitching a new game. That's not railroading, that's simply the starting point.

If I'm running a fantasy game without gunpowder, it's not railroading to not let someone play a Pathfinder Gunslinger (even if it's in a rulebook). If I'm running a superhero game where everyone is a genetic mutant, it's not railroading to prevent someone from playing an alien or extra-dimensional being (even if they're both common to some types of comics).

Or to put it another way: If I'm running a Vampire: The Masquerade about politics, it's not railroading to tell a player that major intentional violations of the masquerade are not part of the game that's being run.



The problem here is not that the GM is railroading the OP. The problem is that the GM declared what type of game was being run and the OP had no frame of reference for what the game was about. The OP has stated in their posts that they were basically looking to play a typical zombie video game or even some of the hack-n-slash zombie movies, which is really not what The Walking Dead is about at all.

The fact that the other people at the table were "up in arms" over what the OP did in the game says that the rest of the table is not cool with what the OP did either and are probably on board for what the GM is trying to run.

That's not railroading. Everyone else is playing one game, the OP is playing another. They're all creating one story, the OP is trying to play a video game in the middle of it. It doesn't mesh, conflict occurs, and to keep the story running the way the majority want it, the GM gave the OP some material to try and explain what they were looking for.

That leaves the OP with two reasonable choices: Adjust to the game that's being run or sit out until the next one. Just as a player who really wants to play a Jedi has to wait until someone runs Star Wars, someone who really wants to play what truly amounts to an evil character may have to wait for a game where evil is allowed.

 

[SiderisAnon]

2) Because nobody in TWD has exhibited this specific type of violence, the PC shouldn't be allowed to do it? Really? Because the TV show hasn't has someone beat someone up and throw him to the zombies specifically in front of others, it's not to be allowed and requires the GM to go OOC and tell the player?

To be fair, someone in the comics has thrown a person to the zombies in order to escape a place. The people doing the throwing are generally the bad guys, though I can think of one case where someone left a really, really bad person to get eaten rather than just killing them.

The point that should be focused on is not simply that the PC threw someone to the zombies, but that the PC didn't like what the rest of the table was doing, stomped an innocent NPC unconscious, and then threw that innocent to the zombies. That makes the OP's character an evil jerk. (Not quite the words I'd use, but they're forum safe.) It's thuggery plain and simple.

Would that kind of thing happen in a zombie apocalypse? Yes. Is that the kind of person you want in your group? Absolutely not. Is it the kind of game that the rest of the group wants? From the GM and player reaction, clearly not.

That last point is all that really matters. Most of the table wants X; the OP wants Y. The two really aren't compatible, so either the OP changes to X or waits till the next game.