Zombie Outbreak

[Ron Edwards]

Playtest + rinse + repeat!

And if you get the urge, try out the plot-structured version too, the one you presented through the link above. Then you can decide how much of that sort of thing, if any, that you want to keep.

At first glance, I think your new design is more consistent with your stated goal, but glances are glances and play is play.

It strikes me that you should also become familiar with Dead Meat by Sean Wipfli, which was the first in-Forge successful zombie game design and has influenced just about everything since. Let me trawl my hard drives and see if I can find it. It was notable among other things for a really interesting character-replacement mechanic, making fictional deaths fun.

Best, Ron

[dreamofpeace]

Thanks Ron!  I will definitely try to playtest both versions.  I searched for Dead Meat online but couldn't find it (but I did find your review).

Best Wishes,

Manu

[Ron Edwards]

Here's Dead Meat, by Sean Wipfli: Original and refined a bit (Word files).

[dreamofpeace]

Thanks!  Much love.  Lately I'm thinking making relationships part of the core mechanic...

[dreamofpeace]

OK, so I feel the need to test my understanding of some basic concepts, so I wrote the following simple game, which I will post here and then ask questions about in my next message.

Zombies Simplex 1, by Manu Saxena.  Inspired by Shlopoto's Pirates! And Sean Wipfli's Dead Meat.
Setting & situation: trying to survive after the zombie apocalypse.

(1)   Find a GM somewhere and get some players.  Chargen: divide 6 points between Fight, Run, and Think, 1 minimum in each.  Pick a name and description.

(2)   The GM chooses a Problem for the players, usually involving needing something.  If you need inspiration, roll on the following table:
1=food or water; 2=medicine, a specific type; 3=weapons or ammo; 4=fuel or transport; 5=a person; 6=shelter, or information

(3)   The players describe what their characters do to try to solve the Problem.  The GM then puts obstacles in their path.  If you need inspiration, roll: 1-2 = lots of zombies;  3-4 = other humans; 5-6 = environmental (a dangerous area like a burning building, a killer storm, a deteriorating bridge, wild beasts).

(4)   When trying to overcome an obstacle, the player rolls a # of dice = the most applicable trait and takes the highest value.  The GM rolls a # of dice = the current obstacle's Threat Level.  The highest die wins (on ties, go to the next highest die and so on; if it's still a tie all the way through, the player wins).  The GM narrates the result of a player win, the player narrates their loss, in accordance with the following rules:

If the player wins using Fight (or Think, if appropriate), the obstacle's threat level goes down by 1; at a TL of zero, the obstacle is overcome.  Once the obstacle is overcome, each player gets 1d6 Stuff.

If the player wins using Run when Fight was an option and used by another player, the obstacle' s  TL does not go down, but the player will get an additional 1-3 Stuff (cumulative with each Run success), if the obstacle is eventually overcome.  This does not apply when the only way to overcome the obstacle is for everyone to Run.

If the player loses, they take a wound.  If they lose and roll a 1 while fighting zombies, they got bitten and are now infected. 

When taking a wound, make a Shock roll by rolling Think >= current wounds, or Pass Out or Freak Out (the player gets no more rolls to overcome the obstacle and cannot Run until you make this roll).  If rolling a 1 on a Shock roll, the character dies (also if total wounds >=7).  If failing a Shock roll while infected, they become a zombie; everyone seeing this new zombie must make an immediate Shock roll.

If failing any roll, one can take a Supply point (if any remain) to reroll one die or add one die to the roll.

In a character vs. character conflict, the same rules apply except the winner narrates the results, which can include taking the loser's Stuff if they've been beaten unconscious or are freaking out.

Supply Pool: starts = 2 X the number of players, and never goes above this.  This one pool is shared by all the players.

Overall Threat Level: starts at 4, and increases by 1 every half hour of real time.  This will be the TL of whatever obstacle the players next encounter.

Stuff: use Stuff to improve a stat, by spending 3 X the current value; or get some useful gear by defining some of it as:

Supply Pool: 2 Stuff replenishes 1 Supply Pool point.

First Aid: 2 stuff = 1 unit, which heals 1 wound.

Weapon: 2 Stuff = 1 blunt weapon (crowbar, hammer), which adds +1 die to Fight rolls; 3 Stuff = 1 medium weapon (baseball bat, shovel), which adds +2 dice, or 4 Stuff = 1 big honking weapon, handheld (chainsaw, katana), which adds +3 dice, or 5 Stuff = 1 small ranged weapon, adds +3 but you can use your Think stat to fight; 6 Stuff = 1 large ranged weapon (shotgun, rifle, etc.), adds +4 dice (also to Think stat while fighting).

Ammo:  2 Stuff = 1 ammo clip.

Losing a roll with any weapon and rolling a 1 means it's lost or destroyed; with a ranged weapon any 1 rolled, even on a winning roll, means it's out of ammo.

edited to fix display - RE

[dreamofpeace]

OK so here are my questions.  The reward system in ZS1 as I understand it focuses on character effectiveness, so the reward for the player is the enjoyment of overcoming obstacles and improving their character so that they can be still more effective at overcoming obstacles and eventually solving the Problem.  So if I understand things correctly this is a standard Gamist reward system.  This is fun in its way, no bad thing, but not what I'm trying to do.

Now where I get confused is with what a good Narrative reward system should do.  Narrative fun has nothing directly to do with character effectiveness at overcoming obstacles, the fun is in exploring them more deeply as characters, including seeing how they change or how they respond to extreme or difficult choices.  So does all such a reward system need to do is provide a mechanism to encourage such action?   For example in Sorcerer, is a Bang a reward in itself?

Suppose in ZS1 the characters also had an Issue they struggle with, and we change the Supply replenishment method to something like: 'every time player characters have a conflict where at least one of them struggles with their Issue, the Supply Pool replenishes by 1-3'.  This is different from a Bang for several reasons, one of which is it tries to encourage Story Now by rewarding the group with some resources when it happens.  I wonder if it's like Fanmail in PTA in that respect.   But is this a fundamental  mistake, because I'm using a Gamist-type reward for Narrative play?

Best Wishes,

Manu

edited to fix display - RE

[dreamofpeace]

Oh, when I mentioned rolling a 1 in the game above, I was talking about on any of the dice the player rolled (not the highest one).
:-)

[dreamofpeace]

Rules addendum, just for the heck of it:

When your character dies, you get to carry over any stat increases for your next character.

Do something "horror movie stupid", get 1d6 Stuff; if you die, this carries over to your new character.

Betray someone and get 1d6 Stuff; if you're betrayed by another player, get 1d6 Stuff, if you're betrayed and die, get 2d6 Stuff.

:)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Manu,

I apologize for letting this sit for a couple of months - a lot of things got out of hand ...

Anyway, if you're still interested, I suggest that you should revise your thinking about Narrativist rewards. What you wrote above toward that end is itself compatible with (and probably insufficient for) any of the three Creative Agendas.

The core concept of Narrativist play is a genuine conundrum - what romantics might call "the human condition," or any situation in which actions taken are dicey both in terms of whether they'll succeed or and whether anyone (in the story or in the audience, especially the latter) thinks its good or bad to do.

So the whole thing about your game in the February 9 post is - bluntly - there's not much Narrativist there. It's still about dodging zombies and hitting them back. What's interesting about Dead Meat is that character survival is no longer a core concern, and what matters - in play, as it turns out - is what particular profile of currently-allied individuals can hold true to their shared survival, instead of threatening it from within. If indeed such a profile can be found at all. This is a pretty cool question! And one doesn't even have to address it cerebrally or abstractly, merely play and it's likely to be "found" collectively by the group. Dead Meat does this primarily through its character-replacement mechanic, especially since (in the version I played) every character you play has the same numbers, so in-play strategizing at that level is of no interest. Zombie Cinema cements this factor down hard in a different way, through its utter disregard for the success or failure of "I hit the zombie" mechanics, such that character safety becomes a function of small-group decision-making.

I really do think your best bet is to playtest both your original version and the modified one you described in the February 5 post.

Best, Ron

[dreamofpeace]

Hi Ron,

No worries, thanks for your reply.  Just to be clear, the Feb. 9th game wasn't supposed to be narrativist, I was trying to understand the differences in what about a reward system facilitates gamist vs. Narrativist play.

What's interesting about Dead Meat is that character survival is no longer a core concern, and what matters - in play, as it turns out - is what particular profile of currently-allied individuals can hold true to their shared survival, instead of threatening it from within. If indeed such a profile can be found at all. This is a pretty cool question! And one doesn't even have to address it cerebrally or abstractly, merely play and it's likely to be "found" collectively by the group.

This is very helpful, and helps clarify why this kind of game design is so hard: how to come up with  a set of rules that helps the kind of play you want naturally emerge, in an enjoyable way, without forcing anything (which I feel my first attempt was doing).  A formidable challenge.

I really do think your best bet is to playtest both your original version and the modified one you described in the February 5 post.

I agree.  Thanks for your help!  Now to have some friends for dinner :-)

Best Wishes, Manu