Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

[Trencher]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Its just the way life is... There is never a 81mm mortar or an industrial shredder around when you need one.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Combine Harvester?

[Susano]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Combine Harvester?

 

That'll be in Half Life 3, just you wait.

 

(Actually... that's not a bad idea for a new creature.....)

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Line up multiple shots with heavy AP ammo?

 

Heh. I was thinking along similar lines - fire a Weatherby Mark V from cover and hold off on pulling the trigger until you've got 2 or 3 skulls in conjunction along your barrel.

[Martin2]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I am doing a zombie campain now and I need some suggestions for some quick and easy rules for determing how much ammo the characters spends when killing zombies en masse from a safe position. Taking into consideration shooters fatiuge, they skill level and their ocv. Rules both for expert snipers and regular folks and everyone in between.

 

I am thinking figuring out the roll they need to hit them in the head, counting up the zombies they need to shoot, figuring out the numbers of rolls they need to hit and do a die roll to find out how lucky they are today. So I know how many zombies they killed and how much ammo they used doing it.

 

Basically I dont want to have the characters roll every shot when they are on a roof surrounded by two hundred zombies and have five boxes of ammo with hundred bullets each.

 

Your running a zombie game and the group has got up to a safe high place and have ACCESSS TO 100's of rounds of ammo!!!! You have failed as a GM!!!!!!

 

 

This never happens in the movies, well usualy just at the end.

 

It would get a bit boring if you just do this and the players just get to shoot lots of zombies. Also as a game plot what does it do? I think I would just use it as a method of depleting their ammo.

 

But if the game has access to lots of ammo and it is not the end of the world situation this is what I keep saying should happen. You just get a group armed in riot gear head to toe with riot shields and have them backed up with people with lots of ammo and are good shots and then you clear an area.

 

I am currently watching Walking Dead TV serries which is good background for these sort of games.

 

Anyway back to the situation on the roof. How secure was it? Firing hundreds of times will get more zombies moving towards the area and a secure place is never secure for long as some zombies will find a route up to the roof. I think at least one or two should find a route to their place or at least test their defences.

 

So several hours later you will have 300+ rounds expended (I would go through a few rounds with each player firing at a reasonable range and get the results and then extrapolate to an hour, this will give you a kill rate to ammo usage rate, then tell the players this approximate kill rate) , you have killed less than that zombies but looking around have the numbers increased due to all the noise? Also are those noises coming from the door you barricaded nearest the zombies??

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Your running a zombie game and the group has got up to a safe high place and have ACCESSS TO 100's of rounds of ammo!!!! You have failed as a GM!!!!!!

 

 

This never happens in the movies, well usualy just at the end.

 

It would get a bit boring if you just do this and the players just get to shoot lots of zombies. Also as a game plot what does it do? I think I would just use it as a method of depleting their ammo.

 

But if the game has access to lots of ammo and it is not the end of the world situation this is what I keep saying should happen. You just get a group armed in riot gear head to toe with riot shields and have them backed up with people with lots of ammo and are good shots and then you clear an area.

 

I am currently watching Walking Dead TV serries which is good background for these sort of games.

 

Anyway back to the situation on the roof. How secure was it? Firing hundreds of times will get more zombies moving towards the area and a secure place is never secure for long as some zombies will find a route up to the roof. I think at least one or two should find a route to their place or at least test their defences.

 

So several hours later you will have 300+ rounds expended (I would go through a few rounds with each player firing at a reasonable range and get the results and then extrapolate to an hour, this will give you a kill rate to ammo usage rate, then tell the players this approximate kill rate) , you have killed less than that zombies but looking around have the numbers increased due to all the noise? Also are those noises coming from the door you barricaded nearest the zombies??

 

Here's the problem again. The parameters of zombiedom as we understand them say that this situation is easy to avoid with some forward planning. Zombies re mindless things that, per our actual understanding of human physiology, can't even home on sounds, much less find their way through locked and barricaded doors. If the writer/GM is on the side of the zombies, however, these things change.

 

But let's back up for a moment: if the narrator is on the side of the zombies, any part of that can change. There is nothing the players/characters can do. There are comic books where Thor becomes a zombie, and movies where dismembered hands crawl up your clothes and choke you to death. If the PCs are in a position proof against anything but a tank, the zombies can show up driving a Sherman tank. If the PCs have a Sherman, the zombies can have a Leopard 2.

 

This is how stories work to maintain the narrative. It's not how a fair post-apocalyptic zombie RPG ought to work at the point where the PCs embrace the "rebuilding civilisation" stage of things. At that point, the zombies have to stop developing new powers as the story requires and recede into the background as menaces to be overcome. All campaigns have their natural stopping point. If your PCs want to end their last session looking down on a peaceful New Uruk, with the crops in bloom, their best girl at their side, that's what you give them, as opposed to a mounted horde of Mongol-Zombies riding down with fire and sword.

 

There are two branches to this meditation. The first is the old "crapsack world" problem, where the rules of existence are stacked against the players, and nothing they can do is going to change anything. If your PCs want to play in a crapsack world, by all means make the zombies invincible.

 

Second, there is the "little red dress" problem. According to this paradigm, the zombies are invincible except against the character in the little red dress --the protagonist. Nothing that supporting characters can do will prevent them from falling to the zombies one-by-one, while the character in the little red dress can kill a mall's worth of zombies with a katana in 90 seconds of hyperkinetic, lovingly-shot bullet-time action. This makes for fun movies, but, as a picture of the world simply enables narcissism.

[Martin2]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Here's the problem again. The parameters of zombiedom as we understand them say that this situation is easy to avoid with some forward planning. Zombies re mindless things that, per our actual understanding of human physiology, can't even home on sounds, much less find their way through locked and barricaded doors. If the writer/GM is on the side of the zombies, however, these things change.

 

But let's back up for a moment: if the narrator is on the side of the zombies, any part of that can change. There is nothing the players/characters can do. There are comic books where Thor becomes a zombie, and movies where dismembered hands crawl up your clothes and choke you to death. If the PCs are in a position proof against anything but a tank, the zombies can show up driving a Sherman tank. If the PCs have a Sherman, the zombies can have a Leopard 2.

 

This is how stories work to maintain the narrative. It's not how a fair post-apocalyptic zombie RPG ought to work at the point where the PCs embrace the "rebuilding civilisation" stage of things. At that point, the zombies have to stop developing new powers as the story requires and recede into the background as menaces to be overcome. All campaigns have their natural stopping point. If your PCs want to end their last session looking down on a peaceful New Uruk, with the crops in bloom, their best girl at their side, that's what you give them, as opposed to a mounted horde of Mongol-Zombies riding down with fire and sword.

 

There are two branches to this meditation. The first is the old "crapsack world" problem, where the rules of existence are stacked against the players, and nothing they can do is going to change anything. If your PCs want to play in a crapsack world, by all means make the zombies invincible.

 

Second, there is the "little red dress" problem. According to this paradigm, the zombies are invincible except against the character in the little red dress --the protagonist. Nothing that supporting characters can do will prevent them from falling to the zombies one-by-one, while the character in the little red dress can kill a mall's worth of zombies with a katana in 90 seconds of hyperkinetic, lovingly-shot bullet-time action. This makes for fun movies, but, as a picture of the world simply enables narcissism.

 

Sorry I always assumed = this is bit before is a joke so dont take it too seriously. It as ment to be a joke comment, so I appologise if anyone took offence (call it British sence of humour).

 

As you say everything is down to the GM and zombies can be how ever powered as the GM wants.

 

In some games they do not get much more powered and the numbers increase and in some they can get more powerful.

 

In situation it sounded like a duck shooting situation with mindless / not very intellegent zombies similar to the ones on your not OTT films (the ones that are not belching fire etc). The ones that may move towards gun fire and try to get to the roof through windows and doors (the ones in most situations do). In most systems they do not just stand there unless ordered by there masters. They normally are hungry and move towards noise as it could be possibly food. And 10 zombies battering on a standard locked door usually means locked door is broken in some sort of time frame in most gaming systems (unless its a metal door etc).

 

After they have killed off hundreds of zombies it could be turned both ways of either you kill all the zombies and everyone is happy or the opposite of they have killed all these zombies and they have not achieved anything as the rest of the area is just full of zombies.

 

But what ever you want in your particular game.

[csyphrett]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Here's the problem again. The parameters of zombiedom as we understand them say that this situation is easy to avoid with some forward planning. Zombies re mindless things that, per our actual understanding of human physiology, can't even home on sounds, much less find their way through locked and barricaded doors. If the writer/GM is on the side of the zombies, however, these things change.

 

But let's back up for a moment: if the narrator is on the side of the zombies, any part of that can change. There is nothing the players/characters can do. There are comic books where Thor becomes a zombie, and movies where dismembered hands crawl up your clothes and choke you to death. If the PCs are in a position proof against anything but a tank, the zombies can show up driving a Sherman tank. If the PCs have a Sherman, the zombies can have a Leopard 2.

 

This is how stories work to maintain the narrative. It's not how a fair post-apocalyptic zombie RPG ought to work at the point where the PCs embrace the "rebuilding civilisation" stage of things. At that point, the zombies have to stop developing new powers as the story requires and recede into the background as menaces to be overcome. All campaigns have their natural stopping point. If your PCs want to end their last session looking down on a peaceful New Uruk, with the crops in bloom, their best girl at their side, that's what you give them, as opposed to a mounted horde of Mongol-Zombies riding down with fire and sword.

 

There are two branches to this meditation. The first is the old "crapsack world" problem, where the rules of existence are stacked against the players, and nothing they can do is going to change anything. If your PCs want to play in a crapsack world, by all means make the zombies invincible.

 

Second, there is the "little red dress" problem. According to this paradigm, the zombies are invincible except against the character in the little red dress --the protagonist. Nothing that supporting characters can do will prevent them from falling to the zombies one-by-one, while the character in the little red dress can kill a mall's worth of zombies with a katana in 90 seconds of hyperkinetic, lovingly-shot bullet-time action. This makes for fun movies, but, as a picture of the world simply enables narcissism.

 

I tend to use the third option myself. The world is dire straights but the heroes can save it with a little bit of work.

CES

[Trencher]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Your running a zombie game and the group has got up to a safe high place and have ACCESSS TO 100's of rounds of ammo!!!! You have failed as a GM!!!!!!

Nah, I have failed if I make them roll for every shot. In any case there is always more zombies..

This never happens in the movies' date=' well usualy just at the end. [/quote'] When it happens its usually in montage form. Or they start to shoot, close up to their faces and guns while when they fire and then fade to black. When we come back we see the carnage.

It would get a bit boring if you just do this and the players just get to shoot lots of zombies. Also as a game plot what does it do? I think I would just use it as a method of depleting their ammo.

That is the idea.. Making it only one roll to speed up the game and deplete their ammo as well. Win win.

 

Your a fan of the walking dead Martin2, how long time do you think it would take to play out the scene where they shoot all those zombies in the hero rules?

[Martin2]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Your a fan of the walking dead Martin2, how long time do you think it would take to play out the scene where they shoot all those zombies in the hero rules?

 

I am sure I posted to this already. It must have got miss posted. OK here it is again:

 

Which one is that one. Do you mean the last episode of season 2? The one which is to run in the UK next week .

 

I have just watched the one before last (I think) where two main characters died and the end of episode trailer for the next one you see a swarm of undead moving towards the house .

 

So I can tell you what I would do next week. I am still not sure if they will get to season 3 (do not tell me ).

 

With a TV series it spreads it out and there is no need to have the constant action of a film. So this is a good example of a RPG based end of world zombie game. Possibly a little slow for some players. Grim and with a world of zombies do you have enough ammo?

[Trencher]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I try to avoid spoilers but there is one scene, very dramatic and good that have the whole group are shooting at a large group of zombies. I will pm you which episode it is.

I am sure you understand that replaying that scene in the hero rules would take a up a lot of real time and get boring after a while. Also crafty players WILL find a way to get into a situation where they have the opportunity to shoot a bunch of zombies from a safe position.

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

speaking of Zombie Cardio' date=' I've always assumed if fluid transfer occurs in any significant way (which is one of the big zombie complaints, carrying energy to the systems) the virus would use the lymphatic system, as its has no pumping organ and uses body motion.[/quote']

 

I forget which setting but one used this as an explanation for one zombies were such slow walker but otherwise moved more normally. Their lower extremities tended to be bloated with collected fluid

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I've been thinking for quite some time now that it's quite appropriate to give Zeds something like this...

 

No Survival Instinct -Physical Complication: Zombies don't defend themselves, don't take evasive action, and move predictably most of the time. All Hit Location Penalties are halved for purposes of aiming, just as if they had been Surprised Out of Combat

 

Nice call.

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Nice call.

 

Agreed. Nice use of the system

[Major Tom 2009]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

This would be why they invented that artillery stuff. Stand on the roof, survey the assembled hordes, get snugly under cover, call in a round or two of 81mm mortar fire. You probably don't want to fire phosphorus rounds into a built environment adjacent to your building, but a few rounds of HE should be devastating. There'll be a lot of direct headshots from the fragments, and you really have to have the writers on your side to make a limbless zombie dangerous. In the aftermath, take a short stroll through the scattered remains putting 9mm pistol rounds into intact crania, and get to high ground again before another herd shows up.

 

Or be completely merciless and hose the remains with SAW fire or incendiary grenades.

 

Again, the reason that zombies are dangerous is that the writers are on their side.

 

 

The best way to deal with hordes of zombies (before they can get really dangerous) is to

find some way of getting off of the planet, then nuke the writers from orbit before they

can give the zombies ideas.

 

It's the only absolute way to make sure that the zombies -- and the buttinskis that insist

on making them next-to-invincible -- are well and truly dealt with.

 

 

 

Major Tom 2009

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Just to be really contrary here, I don't think there's any problem with invincible zombies. In genre. If you're running a horror setting, scary zombies work. Victory means getting onto that helicopter. Or you don't win at all. Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia both work in their own way, too.

 

Or the game can gradually turn from horror to post-apocalyptic. As a genre, post-apocalyptic roleplaying is handicapped by the convention that the climax comes first. One way of getting around that by having the action take place during the apocalypse, which is pretty hard to distinguish from the horror genre. The other is to go well past the apocalypse, in which case you pretty much end up doing the whole "rebuilding civilisation" thing. It seems pretty clear to me that this is a pretty exciting challenge to players.

 

The problem for roleplayers starts as a general one. Some GMs have a problem distinguishing bosses from DMNPCs. It's annoying, and a personality flaw in the GM, and who wants to deal with that crap. The special problem for the zombie post-apocalypse game is that the impulse seems to be licensed by fiction. For a number of reasons ranging from the director wanting to make a sequel to the director wanting to make some kind of artsy point,* the zombies have Plot Assisted powers that help them win in the end.

 

Again, fine: that actually works in horror roleplaying. The problem comes when the DM (or writer) has let things slip into the "post-apocalyptic survivors rebuild civilisation" mode and then decides that it's time that his DMNPCs need a power up. Hey, it works in the sequels to zombie movies! Only the problem is that it doesn't work. Zombie movie sequels are new stories. This isn't a new story. It's the same old campaign. You, oh DM, have just found a rationalisation for indulging your narcissistic investment in your DMNPC.

 

I'm not, quite, using "narcissistic" in the DSM-IV sense. Let's face it, we're all a little too invested in ourselves. We all have this temptation to indulge the little DMNPCs that live in our head too much. That's why criticism exists. It's a chance for someone who is not you to say, "hey, this character is getting to be a bit of a Mary Sue." The zombie thing, like the vampire thing or the werewolf thing going back to one ancient Roman slapping the other ancient Roman with the fringe of his toga and saying, "Aren't you making a bit much out of this Hannibal guy" is popular, and that's why we tend to see a great many zombie Mary Sues.

 

And, conversely, a fair number of threads like this one, where the critics stop the discussion and say, "no, zombies/vampires/infidels/Carthaginians/whatever aren't all that. Stop being all into yourself and let your players have some fun, too."

 

 

*Often, I've noticed, zombies stand in for the conformity of consumer culture. No, really. That's why that one zombie movie is set in a mall. You may now praise me for my profound insight into deep literary themes'n stuff.

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Are you're saying having the zombies evolve, change or some new type of creature come along later in the always GM power wanking?

 

Edit: And who in ths thread suggested that the zombies should invincible?

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Here's the problem again. The parameters of zombiedom as we understand them say that this situation is easy to avoid with some forward planning. Zombies re mindless things that' date=' per our actual understanding of human physiology, can't even home in sounds...[/quote']

 

Why not? Humans can home in on sounds and, from I've, are pretty good at it. Not as good as some other creatures, but not totally unable. A human can certainly hear gunfire and follow it back to its origin, particularly repeated shots. For that matter, humans can track by scent just most people aren't used to the idea and dismiss their sense of smell. It's not unreasonable;e gming to say that repeatedly firing a gun or making noise from the same location is going to attract attention. The players plans should take that into account.

 

In any case, define the abilities of zombies by whatever you think human limits are is a little off. Zombies aren't humans. They -were- but there something different now. Their abilities are pretty strictly a matter of conjecture from however they're defined in a particular story.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying, I think he's saying that if the campaign has shifted into "rebuilding civilization" mode, the GM should probably just roll with it instead of morphing zombies into this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42487[/ATTACH]

[Susano]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying, I think he's saying that if the campaign has shifted into "rebuilding civilization" mode, the GM should probably just roll with it instead of morphing zombies into this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42487[/ATTACH]

 

I think that if you're going to have 'evolving zombies' you need to establish the concept early on. As seen in the opening to Left 4 Dead, in which Bill states the infected are changing so they don't know what to expect from here on out. In Resident Evil, the virus seems to mutate the zombies, leading to all sorts of strange creatures. On the flip side, the zombies seen in World War Z and Half Life 2 don't seem to evolve in any fashion. You have "x"-type zombie and that's it. Granted, HL2 helps by having different headcrabs, and this different headcrab zombies, but you don't see a headcrab zombie mutate further into something more dangerous (although they do introduce the Combine Zombie, or 'zombine'). Now, a zombie with a minigun is a bit extreme (well, a lot really). But, if you origin is a deranged scientist trying to take over the world (or some such) then you can see zombies getting upgrades as the PCs get their act together.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I kinda like the idea that later-appearing zombies are smarter, stronger and faster precisely because these are longer-term survivors who are getting turned--i.e., whatever was in their makeup to allow them to survive the ZA longer gets retained when they get infected. Even so, if you get to a point where the Z's are smart enough to communicate and negotiate, then you still enter a different phase of the campaign.

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying, I think he's saying that if the campaign has shifted into "rebuilding civilization" mode, the GM should probably just roll with it instead of morphing zombies into this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]42487[/ATTACH]

 

I haven't seen anyone suggest this. And even that depends on the nature of the setting. There's a difference between having the zombies magically sprout chain guns and having someone "weaponize" some of them. Telling an interesting story or providing a new challenge isn't Killer GMing by default. "Rebuilding Civilization" doesn't mean things can't change, there might not be surprises or will be easy because the Players have develpped "perfect plans".

[megaplayboy]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

I haven't seen anyone suggest this. And even that depends on the nature of the setting. There's a difference between having the zombies magically sprout chain guns and having someone "weaponize" some of them. Telling an interesting story or providing a new challenge isn't Killer GMing by default. "Rebuilding Civilization" doesn't mean things can't change' date=' there might not be surprises or will be easy because the Players have develpped "perfect plans".[/quote']

 

Well, to the extent that periodic "upgrades" get too much in the way of the PCs accomplishing something significant(every time they establish a "safe haven", the latest iteration of "Zombie X.0" shows up and forces them on the run again), besides merely surviving, I think LB has a point about the whole "DMNPC" thing. When it gets to the point that the latest version of the Zombie menace would be a challenge even for a superhero team, then, imo, unless that's the campaign the players wanted to play, it's probably gone overboard.

[phoenix240]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

Well' date=' to the extent that periodic "upgrades" get [i']too much [/i]in the way of the PCs accomplishing something significant(every time they establish a "safe haven", the latest iteration of "Zombie X.0" shows up and forces them on the run again), besides merely surviving, I think LB has a point about the whole "DMNPC" thing. When it gets to the point that the latest version of the Zombie menace would be a challenge even for a superhero team, then, imo, unless that's the campaign the players wanted to play, it's probably gone overboard.

 

Well, I haven't seen any "super team" challenging zombies appear in anything other than video games. But again, it depends on the nature of the game: its background and the story. Yes the GM could be trying to maliciously screw over his players. They might also be able to provide an interesting game or there might actually be a -reason- that this is happening, aomething the players could investigate, stop or alter if they'd stop complaining about the GMPCs or whatever. Being a PC doesn't guarantee success and sometimes unexpected things are going to happen. Sometimes the haven is going to turn out not to be so safe, sometimes the enemy (human or zombie) is going to pull something new.

 

Honestly, sitting on top of building session after session, popping zombies with a sniper rifle, while it night be a step in "rebuilding civilization" sounds like a pretty dull rpg (or video game for that matter). I'd want something to new to happen or just cut to the epilogue. It's not the idea that the gm can be a douche but the assumption that that always the motivation fot any change or unexpected hardship the PCs face. Or even just extropolating an interesting variation. As far I can tell, the idea that zombies might hear and close in on the position of someone fire a rifle repeatedly was too much prompted this line of discussion. That's hardly giving them jet packs and miniguns.

 

Edit: The other alternative is generally to end the campaign since it tends to become repetitive and boring. IMO, Zombie horror works best as a short term game or with a limited outbreak with definite victory condition (Get off the island, find the hidden cure, etc) than as a prolonged campaign.

[Trencher]

Re: Killiing a lot of zombies from a safe position.

 

 

Honestly, sitting on top of building session after session, popping zombies with a sniper rifle, while it night be a step in "rebuilding civilization" sounds like a pretty dull rpg (or video game for that matter).

With my new rules popping zombies with sniper rifle is done in one roll and we can go right on to the rebuilding roleplaying part. Very fun for people who like strategy games like civ and stuff. Roleplaying, task management getting and losing allies, lots of stuff to do after the zombies are (for now) cleared out.

 

I am planning for a long term game and the main enemy is going to be the traitor general and his evil soldiers which is the reason the millitary did not manage stop the zombie plauge in the first place. Off course the bad guys have understimated the zombie plauge too so in the end the hordes of hungry dead might be the final victor.