Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

[shnar]

With the new Hero6 coming out, I was thinking about using this system to do a Zombie Survivor game, similar to Left4Dead. Has anyone tackled this before? Pointers on how to handle infection, basic zombie stats, etc?

 

-shnar

[Dino]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Post Apocalypse Hero has a good section on running a "Zombie Apocalypse" setting. You might also want to check out this website.

 

I've run a number of zombie games over the years and I've found the most important thing is to have a definate idea for long term story development. You should think about things like "Where did the zombies come from" and "how do they work". If your zombies are the result of a virus then that leads to different plotlines than if you go with a supernatural explanation. The shock of haveing to fight zombie hordes can carry a game for many sessions, but eventually your players are going to ask "what next".

[Remjin]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

a good reference is also All Flesh Must be Eaten. Lots of good info. in there.

[Veldruk]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

I ran a zombie game once.

 

I thought about going the 50 base 50 disad route for a bit, but we had just done several campaigns in a row like that and it was getting old, soooo.....

 

Picked up the action as if the players themselves were the character. Let them make their own character sheets. Ruled that 10 stats across the board with 3 pts to put in anything they'd like (Str for the guy that lifted weights, Int for the mensa wanna be) and then gave them 45 (if memory serves) to put into skills.

 

I was dealing with a mature bunch of players that put 1 or 2 pts into OCV levels and the rest were KS's and other practical skills, like electronics for the guy going to school for it and breakfall for the guy that would jump off the roof from time to time.

 

If I were to give you one word of advice, it would be this:

Don't go for the slow "Dead Rising" zombies. The shufflers and moaners. That had detracted from the horror factor so much that the game turned into a turkey shoot for zombies rather then a "you gotta survive"

 

I ended up having to throw massive amounts of zombies at the characters and when I did that, they just went to open ground. I had a time table set up for the zombie infection rate which dealt with % of the population being zombies over a 3 day period.

 

At first, the goal was just survive. After they did that well enough I ran into the "what now". Looking back I could have handled the "what now" part a little better. I set it up to where there were "safe" locations across the US and roughly planned out geographical and population obstacles to overcome along the way, but all the gas stations and grocery stores weren't densely populated, or rather, should have been more populated then they were.

 

As far as zombie combat goes. Give the zombies a higher str then normal, but slower movement speed. And if we are going classic slow zombies, have them grab first, then bite. Adds to the "Oh #!@$" factor. It also added for some great teamwork and very close calls concerning a shotgun, a zombie head and an ally head"

 

It was a hell've alotta fun. And there are different entertainment values to each class of zombies.

1: Slow Zombies- Low stress for players, more on the light side of zombie apocalypse, but a pain in the bum for the GM to keep up with all the individual stats of each zombie. I used the "zombie is still alive until you sever the head or do substaintial damage to the head itself. Otherwise, the zombie will just fall and use it's next phase to get back up.

2: Fast Zombies- Don't need as many to put the fear in your players. This tends to be a higher stress game and I'd make the zombies not want to go for the bite first. Throw some claws into the mix to give the players a chance to act. I didn't go this route because, to me, zombies are dead people. Rigor mortis has set in and it's a miracle that these dead things are moving at all, unless 72 hours have passed, then rigor is gone.

 

I suppose you could have a mix of the two. Call the initial infection the "fast zombie" stage where rigor hasn't set in yet, this will last at most 7 hours. So if you need some fast movers to get the players pulse going, you could do that. Then slow the zombies down after 7 hours to the normal shuffling sort.

 

As far as the orgin of the zombies, hell, pick any zombie movie and copy/paste. Medical treatment gone wrong, military "super soldier" gone wrong, bio chemical attack gone right, or straight up voodoo of sorts.

 

But having a set goal in sight is a good thing. Perhaps saving a mutual friend for the short term and finding safe haven for the long.

 

Sorry for the length, I get carried away.

 

-V

[shnar]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

That's all good talk. I was picturing the fast zombie kind, i.e. 28DaysLater/Left4Dead. I just wasn't sure how to handle the "bite" factor. Having the players play themselves is an excellent idea though. After playing L4D for a couple weeks straight, a couple of our guys had started planning escape routes, spotting things like gas cans and propane tanks along the way, wondering if a shotgun would fit in their backpacks, etc. So I think they'd dig a play-yourself-zombie-survival game.

 

-shnar

[sinanju]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Max Brooks' "Zombie Survival Handbook" and "World War Z" are both excellent resources for a zombie game.

 

The handbook goes into how zombies work--in his world, at least, with lots of grisly details. Lots of good ideas there for ways to build scary zombies. Lots of discussion of tactics for escape and evasion, and for fighting zombies when you have no choice, best types of weapons, etc. And things NOT to do. (Don't use flamethrowers or napalm, for instance. It _sounds_ like a good idea, but zombies don't feel fear or pain, and they'll just keep advancing. Then you're being attacked by a FLAMING zombie and YOU have to worry about burning now, in addition to everything else.)

 

World War Z (in addition to being a hell of a novel) is another gold mine of ideas for scenarios in a zombie-infested world. I can't recommend it enough.

[Beast]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

the heroes in left for dead are immune to the disease

they are fast zombies where enough damage will kill

head shots are just a faster kill

 

while a good read WWZ and The Zombie Survival Guide

Max Brooks does not have a good grasp of tactics or weapon effects

his preference of the AK-47 over the M-16 is weird as he wants a more accurate rifle

which the M-16 is

yes it needs a bit more care but the AK needs care also

 

My preference for his slow zombie genre would be the new 9mm carbines that have come out in the past few yrs

good to 150m to 200m

same ammo as your back up pistol(some also use the same clips as in the beretta)

light(1/2 the weight of a AK or M16

 

I would be up for a zombie game if you ran it on Hero Central

 

Last Night on Earth with Growing Hunger is a great zombie board game

[shnar]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Most of the Zombie board games are pretty good. Zombies!!!, Last Night on Earth, heck I'd even through Doom: The Boardgame in that category (Fatties are Zombies, right? ). My group has just loved L4D so much that it's got us thinking maybe a table-top RPG would be fun to try. Of all the systems, Hero is the one I think I want to try, though D6 doesn't sound too bad either...

 

-shnar

[Veldruk]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Well, for fast zombies your players are gonna shit themselves.

 

It'll be great =D

 

As far as stats go tho, give the zombies a normal movement speed and have them move at non-combat speed when attacking. This will be somewhat forgiving for the players because non-combat speed will half the zombies DCV so it shouldn't be to bad throwing more then a handful of zombies at a time.

 

Then if you really wanna make em run, throw 100 or so and watch the gears turn.

 

I'd still go with a higher str. Maybe not a 20, but at least a 15. Because everyone knows that zombies gain unnatural str after turning. =P But remember, since these are fast zombies, you might not wanna go for the bite right off, maybe some clawing, or a move thru or so before the "grab" phase. But I think that keeping the "Grab then Bite" attitude is still a good mechanism for survival and the "fun factor". Cause who wants to play a game where the first zombie charges you, you fail one roll and the zombie bites you

 

Ah hah! Speaking of bites. If a player does get bitten, how will you turn them? If their BODY falls to 0 it could be one of tho's instant change type things where everyone is gathered around their friend's corpses wondering what they should do now... (Or if your friends have been preparing they'd of already discussed what everyone needs to do incase one of them gets bit.) and then BAM zombie-friend!

 

Buuuut, if the bite/struggle with the zombie doesn't reduce their BODY to 0 (Or perhaps go -10 Body or whatever their max body will be) then the "zombie venom" would take a set amount of time to run it's corse. Depending on how long you want this campaign to run you have a couple of options.

 

1- Make up an arbitrary time for no other reason then "I say so"

2- 7 hours. Thats when rigor mortis starts to set in so they'd need to be a zombie before that, so perhaps right as rigor is setting in, bam, they'd turn zombie

3- 72 hours (for the long term campaigns) they would basically be suffering from muscle stiffness durring that time and maybe for the last hour of their life they "aren't as feeling as stiff. In fact, you feel downright good, like your body has worked all the pains out from itself and everything is OK" then BAM!

 

Their vision starts to tunnel out, they pass out and are maybe down for 12 phases (Might even think about going to phase 12 after the party has seen this happen before. It would be a nice way of letting the group have some sort of upper hand over their former friend turned zombie as the turning process is going and also be a humorus turn of events for the guy holding the axes to miss the zombies head while it's down. Or hell, have them make an ego roll to be able to do harm to their friend!

 

It's funny. Talking about a zombie game has started making me wanna run another one. I do have a new group of players (they've played hero system once, got them converted from DnD =D ) and they are really enjoying the freedom of being able to run any campaign with the rule set. Now I'll make them piss their pants and be afraid of the dark for a while =D or at least I would if these friends didn't keep their home defense systems up to date with shotguns, various assault rifles and more pistols then you could shake a stick at. Which I suppose is great for them because every other survivor is going to be braving the isles of Zombie Wal-Mart for the last of the shotguns and ammo =D

 

Everyday low pric.... BRAINS!

 

Post here and tell us about the game or any other brainstorming ideas you have. I'll be running my new and improved zombie game here within a week or so. If you have any thing that you think will step the game up a notch, feel free to tell me.

 

-V

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Shnar go the Twilight of the Dead link it has what you are looking for. You'll find it by going to hero game links then under misc. genres. He has the zombie "venom" already written up. And it is aswefully powerful. (P.S. thissetting is based on Gearge Romaro's vision, but he tells you how to make the slow zombies scary.)

 

I have never got to run a zombire game though I played around with the concept as a one-shot, and the only thing I think I would do which isn't part of the movies is a least give the Heros a CON roll to avoid the effects of the dreaded zombie bite.

 

Two main reasons are 1) It does give the PCs a chance if they get hosed and are bitten. As a PC I would appreiciate this. Rember CON of 8-12 is only an 11- Roll, CON 12-17 is only 12- Roll. 2) Just trying to make the roll can be agonizing in itself.

 

And of course you can do several things to the roll. One could be that the power is a gradual effect, and the PC must make three rolls to AVOID turning into a zombie, or perhaps a halfway where they make a roll and not become a zombie BUT are very near death. Hopefully you made friends, because you will need them !

 

Anyways good luck !

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

while a good read WWZ and The Zombie Survival Guide

Max Brooks does not have a good grasp of tactics or weapon effects

his preference of the AK-47 over the M-16 is weird as he wants a more accurate rifle

which the M-16 is

yes it needs a bit more care but the AK needs care also

It’s not really weird considering the AK-47 vs M16 argument is still widely debated and there is still not a general consensus. Even people who actually have experience with both still disagree on which is better. I mean, the average person, as far as accuracy is concerned, anyone not military trained, or at least a very competent civilian shooter, won’t benefit from the improved accuracy over 100 meters.

[GhoulMaster]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Post Apoc HERO is something you'll ready want.

 

Perhaps do something different, like the "zombies" are people infected with an "advance wave" of aliens who are going to attack Earth once things are disrupted enough. How about: the infected people are almost like they were before being infected, only they have uncontrollable urge to destroy and kill. Then the PCs can't be sure who's infected.

[Remjin]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

It’s not really weird considering the AK-47 vs M16 argument is still widely debated and there is still not a general consensus. Even people who actually have experience with both still disagree on which is better. I mean' date=' the average person, as far as accuracy is concerned, anyone not military trained, or at least a very competent civilian shooter, won’t benefit from the improved accuracy over 100 meters.[/quote']

 

It, perhaps, depends a lot upon its use more than capability. The AK-47 was designed to be used by troops with less training and was made for foremost use in automatic with reliability being higher on the list of important things than accuracy. The reason the AK, stock, isn't as accurate is because the gas system make the barrel flex. This can be remedied to make the AK much more accurate. The safety isn't exactly a quick flick of the thumb, and it goes from safe to automatic to semi. The reason most people praise the AK is because it can take a lot of debris and operate anyway. It was designed to be made cheaply and easily and work when maintenance isn't exactly spectacular. Thus all the stamped sheet metal and poorly cast versions. A machined/milled from bar stock version is out there, but are much harder to get and are also significantly more expensive. They are also much harder to adapt or change, and the standard AK has poor provisions for any kind of enhanced sights (dot or scope) or any of the various other stuff that all the "high speed, low drag operator" types like to have.

 

Being in the military doesn't mean you can shoot well. Being infantry does usually make for being better than your average civiliian, with your average civilian being a very poor shot with no necessity to qualify for anything.

 

The reason the AR-15/M-16 system is often said to be unreliable is it takes more maintenance because of its direct gas impingement system. In essence, gasses from the expended round are used directly on the bolt face to push back the action, thus leading to a lot of carbon fouling that is difficult to remove. The AK uses a piston system which is somewhat self-cleaning. On the other hand, the M-16 and ARs are also built to a much higher standard and has a much stiffer barrel and is primarily designed for semi-automatic, accurate fire at a pretty good fire rate. It goes from safe to semi to three-round burst in the M-16 version, and to fully automatic in the M-4 carbine version. Obviously, all AR variants are semi-auto only as they are for civilian consumption. The AR benefits from a modular construction and the ability to be infinitely modified to user preferences. This is one of the big things about the platform that makes it so popular. You can attach all sorts of jiggly-ball catastrophe-makers to the thing, as shown by the various version with 3 or 4 forms of light, lasers, sights, secondary weapons, and the like.

 

There is a reason that the most popular new development for the AR/M rifles is the gas piston versions of the rifle. Last time I looked, there were a dozen different versions of it from various manufacturers, including H&K and FN's which went under some trials. It significantly reduced action fouling and were recorded as firing 30,000+ (depending on who made it and who tested it) rounds without cleaning without malfunction. In essence, they took what was great about the AK and put it in the AR/M platform, making for a superior rifle in my personal opinion. Its just a bit more expensive than a standard AR/M and significantly more expensive than any AK. =)

 

Just 2 cents from a semi gun-nut.

 

I did enjoy WWZ and Zombie Survival Guide, though. I think the suggestion of just using a .22 LR was probably the best. =) I also liked in WWZ where they had a rifle named SIR. =)

 

As for zombie survival games... I think if you get too much into the minutia of guns you lose the point of the game unless you're playing some kind of Resident Evil game, I suppose. Then, I think video games have contributed way too much to the whole moron scene when it comes to anything martial.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

I did enjoy WWZ and Zombie Survival Guide, though. I think the suggestion of just using a .22 LR was probably the best. =) I also liked in WWZ where they had a rifle named SIR. =)

I actually brought up the .22 argument in another thread a while ago.

As for zombie survival games... I think if you get too much into the minutia of guns you lose the point of the game unless you're playing some kind of Resident Evil game, I suppose. Then, I think video games have contributed way too much to the whole moron scene when it comes to anything martial.

Very true.

[Remjin]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

I actually brought up the .22 argument in another thread a while ago.

Very true.

 

I think the only problem with the .22 LR is possibly penetration if you're using the headshot zombies. Then again, in a game, that hardly ever comes into play. =) Honestly, I can't say I'm real up on .22 LR ballistics, as the only penetration I ever need is through paper or perhaps some cans or bottles. =)

[GhoulMaster]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

I've always wondered why all the concentration on head shots when fighting zombies.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Because the modern 'virus zombie' generally requires a headshot to kill it.

[shnar]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Modern nuthin. It's been that way for a /long/ time, since Night of the Living Dead III I think. The lore was effectively established that only destroying the head/brain would truly kill the zombie. I recall a helicoptor scene killing a zombie that was slowly walking up the hill. Slice by slice his head was coming off till finally enough came off and killed the creature.

 

-shnar

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Um, Night of the Living Dead 3 is modern. Night of the Living Dead 1 is modern. Not modern would be the Haitian voodoo version, based on necromantic type magic, with roots in some African religions and magic.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie

 

A zombie is a mythical creature that appears in folklore and popular culture typically as a reanimated corpse or a mindless human being. Stories of zombies originated in the Afro-Caribbean spiritual belief system of Vodou, which told of the people being controlled as laborers by a powerful sorcerer. Zombies became a popular device in modern horror fiction, largely because of the success of George A. Romero's 1968 film Night of the Living Dead.[1]

Popular culture

Main article: Zombies in popular culture

Zombies from George Romero's Night of the Living Dead, considered by many to be one of the definitive zombie films

Modern zombies, as portrayed in books, films, games, and haunted attractions, are quite different from both voodoo zombies and those of folklore. Modern zombies are typically depicted in popular culture as mindless, unfeeling monsters with a hunger for human brains and flesh, a prototype established in the seminal 1968 film Night of the Living Dead. Typically, these creatures can sustain damage far beyond that of a normal, living human. Generally these can only be killed by a wound to the head, such as a headshot, and can pass whatever syndrome that causes their condition onto others.

Usually, zombies are not depicted as thralls to masters, as in the film White Zombie or the spirit-cult myths. Rather, modern zombies are depicted in mobs and waves, seeking either flesh to eat or people to kill or infect, and are typically rendered to exhibit signs of physical decomposition such as rotting flesh, discolored eyes, and open wounds, and moving with a slow, shambling gait. They are generally incapable of communication and show no signs of personality or rationality, though George Romero's zombies appear capable of learning and very basic levels of speech as seen in the films Day of the Dead and Land of the Dead.

Modern zombies are closely tied to the idea of a zombie apocalypse, the collapse of civilization caused by a vast plague of undead. The ideas are now so strongly linked that zombies are rarely depicted within any other context.

There are still significant differences among the depictions of zombies by various media; for one comparison see the contrasts between zombies by Night of the Living Dead authors George A. Romero and John A. Russo as they evolved in the two separate film series that followed. In some zombie apocalypse narratives, such as The Return of the Living Dead and Dead Set, zombies are depicted as being as quick and nimble as the living, a further departure from the established genre stereotype.

 

EDIT: In other words, it is a modern genre convention.

[shnar]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Bah, nobody knows what a "real" vodoo zombie is, even those who have seen The Serpent And The Rainbow. When most people talk about 'modern' zombies, they're referring to post 28 Days Later zombies, fast running creatures that you see in the Dawn Of The Dead remake...

 

-shnar

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

While 28 Days Later is commonly called a zombie movie, I've never considered the infected in it zombies. They aren’t dead. Reanimation is generally considered a staple of what makes a zombie a zombie, whether magical or pseudo-scientific, even if that is not, in fact, a requirement of the “original” zombie. So while you may consider speed a factor in what makes a “modern zombie” I’ve not heard it that way and don’t buy that it is the new common definition.

 

And what does seeing Serpent and the Rainbow have to do with anything? It’s a fictional story, directed by Wes Craven of all people, based extremely loosely on a non-fiction book, which itself has been punched full of holes by the scientific community. That, and I never said anything about “real” zombies, I merely made reference to the much more modern, virus/scientific zombie, versus the classic voodoo/folklore versions that have existed for hundreds (in voodoos case) and thousands (in the case of folklore from around the world regarding the rising dead) of years. So yeah, I call the Romero version from only 40 years ago “modern” versus the magical idea of them from hundreds of years ago.

 

P.S. Night of the Living Dead came out only 5 years before you were born, so by your own definition you're going to be a "classic" (or at least, "not modern") pretty soon yourself:p

[shnar]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

The Serpent And The Rainbow is the only 'modern' mainstream film that used Zombies in a classical sense that you are referring to. The vast majority of people think of Zombies as reanimated corpses that are looking for brains to eat. So, talking to the average layperson, the 'classic' zombie is George A. Ramero's version from Night of the Living Dead, slow, mindless creatures. the 'modern' zombie are those that took elements of 28 Days Later (a movie that Danny Boyle has said is an homage to classic zombie films) and used them throughout. Some examples of this are Dawn Of The Dead, Left4Dead video game, and the upcoming Zombieland (excited for that one ).

 

So I'm apologize, my terminology wasn't aimed at the highly educated in the lore of zombies, but rather to the average schmoe who plays Left4Dead and wants to do so inside the HERO framework.

 

-shnar

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Actually, the classic sense I am referring to is not the voodoo zombie made with poison or what not, but the magically created zombie, common in folklore throughout the world. Traditionally even believers in voodoo believed it was "magic". And the classic magic zombie is found in plenty of modern fiction. It's a staple in fantasy (necromancy anyone).

My terminology wasn’t aimed at anyone with a PHD in zombie myth either. I specifically said “modern ‘virus zombie’”. I didn’t just say modern, I qualified my statement to show that by modern I was referring to the pseudo-scientific zombie of this century, not the magical monsters of the past. Your idea of “modern” equals “speedy” seems strange to me. Plenty of classic undead/reanimated/zombie type creatures throughout myth and legend have been speedy. If that is how it is commonly used, I at least, have not seen it. And my social circle definitely fits the “average schmoe who plays Left4Dead” description.

Regardless, the argument is becoming (well, really it started as) one of semantics, and probably shouldn’t take up anymore of this thread.

[GhoulMaster]

Re: Zombie Horror Survivor (Left4Dead)?

 

Man, I'm sorry I said anything. Oh, and I must of been 90% asleep to forget why its all about head shots. I know that, really, I just went brain dead.

 

 

That's not the best thing to say in a zombie conversation is it.