The Walking Dead

[Janx]

Sock puppetry in action. Both viewers got so made watching the show they yelled at the TV.

I have watched the "the walking dead" tv-show and I must confess to never before yelling so much at a tv screen in all my life. The characters and the situations are so frustrating! Most of them deserve to die for being moronically stupid!

and from his first post under Ringlerun

I dont think i have yelled and been so frustrated with a tv show ever in my life. So today i had to inform my GM if he wants to have a game that runs like the tv show that i will have to decline.

Same user account. Not cool.

 

[Janx]

Let's look at every mean thing I said in this thread from a different angle.

I read what Ringlerun/Azrl said. It made me mad.

Like at least one of the people stuck in that icebox with him.

So yes, my PC is going to kill his PC.

And he's going to nail him from behind because that is how you take out the strong bully.

The OP has played the bad guy, and then can't fathom why anybody else
wants his PC dead?

Yes, the OP is free to play his PC anyway he wants. I'm not talking about violating game rules.

By violating the social rules of the tribe and being a bad guy, he should expect to be treated like one (killed, and looted for his stuff).

So if you don't want your PC killed by the group, don't act like a bad guy.

It is standard protocol n ZA to get rid of the abusive controlling person who will easily kill you to save his own life.

It should not be a shocking concept that if you object to that fate, then you should avoid being the bad guy.

 

[Umbran]

Sock puppetry in action.

The next time you suspect such a thing, please report the issue to the moderators, rather than make a public scene out of it. Thanks.

 

[Arrowhawk]

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.

That's not what was said. You're adding your own narrative to the events. Now maybe you have some sort of special powers that allow you to know what was said?

When some one tells you that is "not how the game is going to be played" that is an ultimatum.

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

He let him do it ONCE. Every GM has been caught off guard by someone's actions and allowed stuff that later they realize they shouldn't have. The GM stopped the session immediately after this event. I read this as the GM clearly wanting to railroad the player OOC, rather than do it in game. Makes the GM look like less of a tyrant. Nevertheless, there is little difference. It's a railroad. You're restricting player actions. Your rationale in this instance is mind-boggling. Allowing something once and then telling someone they can't do it again is still railroading.

There's nothing you've offered that changes this except completely ignoring what RR wrote.

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.

This irrelevant assertion is probably the key to understanding your mindset. Nowhere does he say or even suggest the other PC's want to kill him. In fact, he later chastised Janx for suggesting this and directly refuted this. He said the other PC's told him he couldn't take charge. According to RR, none of the PC's have said squat to him about his in-game actions. So apparently, none of the other players have yet to voice an OOC problem with his actions.

However, you seem to be reinterpreting what was written to support this idea that a player isn't be true to the genre. You seem to want to color the GM as being low key about it and making friendly suggestions. The only rational explanation is that this strikes close to home for you and by defending the GM in this case, you're somehow defending yourself.

I get that feeling from a lot of the responses in this thread.

 

[Arrowhawk]

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.

Wow. This whole post is talking about A while referring to B.

1) None of what you describe is railroading in my book either.

2) None of what you say describes what RR wrote, imo.

Like DA, you are reinterpreting what RR wrote in a way that lets you argue against it. If things were/are as you describe them, then I would agree with you. As I was not there, I can only go off what he wrote

- The GM went OOC to let him know "that is not how the game is going to be played." Translation: I won't let you do those things again.

- None of the other players are described as having an OOC problem with the guy. He plays in a group and there is no indication that anyone has a problem with his personality or his play style in general. Now maybe he's left out details...but I'm taking his statements as verities until proven otherwise.

- The fact that the PC's reacted in-game to his actions is exactly what one would expect. I'd have the same in-game reaction. So what? This is exactly what one would expect in a ZA type of campaign. The PC's were trapped in cooler surrounded by zombies. You think everybody is going to act normally and want to vote on things?

 

[Arrowhawk]

To be fair, someone in the comics has thrown a person to the zombies in order to escape a place.

***

Would that kind of thing happen in a zombie apocalypse? Yes.

So not only has a similar thing happened in TWD, you also agree that it is a likely outcome?

And when the GM pulls him aside and says, you're doing it wrong and you won't be allowed to play like that...you think that's kosher?

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.

This is, imo, the crux of it all. You and several others have become emotional about the players actions and it clearly clouds your rationale about the events described.

NOWHERE does he say the players have a problem with his play style. He said the players told him he could not take charge. At least to RR's knowledge, none of the other players have expressed any dissatisfaction with him as a player outside the game. But you want to color it as so.

That last point is all that really matters. Most of the table wants X; the OP wants Y.

Here it is. Here is the culprit. You've completely fabricated the reality of what was described and it exposes the bias. Nowhere does he say "most of the table wants X." What he said was the GM wants X. But by convincing yourself that the other players are against him, you can attack him and put him in the wrong.

Grant it, maybe that is how the other players feel. But that's not what he's conveyed. Could the other players secretly hate his play style and want him to conform to their idea of what he should be doing and how he should be playing? If the other players are like you, I would say most certainly. Which is exactly why I suggested he sit down with the group and determine if he is the odd man out.

But a GM telling you OOC that you're not going to be allowed to do something in the future, when it is clearly within the range of plausible behavior for the setting, is railroading or some other undue restraint, if the word means something different for you.

 

[Mercutio01]

When some one tells you that is "not how the game is going to be played" that is an ultimatum.

- The GM went OOC to let him know "that is not how the game is going to be played." Translation: I won't let you do those things again.

I'll go back to my 4C golden age supers analogy. The GM, and the other players, show up to play 4C, clear black-and-white, superheroes with none of the modern baggage. One player shows up with The Punisher, because he heard comic book, but didn't understand the term 4C. In the course of the game, he kills an innocent to help make his escape. After the session, the GM hands him some 4C comic books and says, "We're not playing iron age anti-heroes. That's not how the game is going to be played."

The above scenario is exactly equivalent. The GM says 4C (Walking Dead), player comes away with comic books (zombies). The rest of the players have 4C (Walking Dead) appropriate heroes. In one scene, breaking from the 4C (Walking Dead) standard, the player kills an innocent. The GM decides that player doesn't really understand the game's 4C (Walking Dead) social contract and tells the player to read up (watch) to get a better understanding of the way the game is going to run.

So, is that railroading, at least by your definition? And even if it is (it's definitely not MY definition of railroading), is that a bad thing?

I read this as the GM clearly not want to railroad the player OOC rather than do it in game. There is no difference. It's a railroad. You're restricting player actions. Your rationale in this instance is mind-boggling. Allowing something once and then telling someone they can't do it again is still railroading.

So is it railroading when I, the GM, decide to play a high fantasy game but you show up to the game with Han Solo? I mean, I'm limiting player actions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

At any rate, Arrowhawk, we're obviously reading the OP's account- the only one we have- completely differently, and neither of us will ever convince the other of his position. Thus, I'm content to let our conversation lie as is.

I'll say this though:

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.)

2) had I been a player in this game, I'd probably have set his PC as the rear guard in the diner escape...then kneecapped him. Barring that- because maybe I don't have a gun- I'd definitely be looking for a way to find justice for McTasty every session.

 

[Arrowhawk]

So is it railroading when I, the GM, decide to play a high fantasy game but you show up to the game with Han Solo? I mean, I'm limiting player actions.

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.

RR did not show up with Han Solo to a high fantasy game. He played farmer. He took actions that several people have said are within the range of actions/reactions of people on the actual show. The GM says you're doing it wrong?????

What is the disconnect here people? The disconnect is people think the actions are evil, despite never having actually been faced with that type of life and death situation, and are passing judgment on RR (which maybe accurate in RL for all I know) and then ignoring what RR actually wrote to justify an argument against him as a person...not as a character.

Look, anyone who thinks it's acceptable to use a living dog as bomb, is probably going concern me as a player too, but in a ZA campaign focused on survival, you're going to test the limits of morality.

 

[WHW4]

Reading the thread, it kind of sounds like the GM had this idea of "survivors being scared pants-less while scrambling to survive, being driven/chased from scenario to scenario" and the OP wanted to take charge of his own destiny rather than be cast about on the winds of chance.

I mean, this is a form of escapism right? I know a session of searching a torn-up diner for a couple cans of beans might sound fun, but if I were in that game, as soon as he threw the guy to the zombies and took off, I'd have followed him: I WANT TO LIVE!

I humbly suggest the other player's were not RPing the human desire to preserve their own lives correctly. Hmph. Also, the irony of them being stuck in a walk-in fridge is not lost on me.