When Players think the GM is trying to kill them...

[Ben Morgan]

My previous post still stands: that the players have created Works of Art(TM), and damn you if you're going to mess with them in any way, like making them get injured, or Heaven Forbid, killing them, even in a Zombie game.

In this particular instance (being the Zombie game), it goes beyong this. It's as if each of the players has sat down, and thought to themselves, "Well, this is a Zombie game. In all the Zombie movies I've ever seen, there's always one guy that survives to the end, and by cracky, it's going to be me! Even if that means I hole up in a closet with a shotgun and five hundred shells for the duration of the game, and not interact with ANYTHING."

Everything that has been said about sitting down before the game and working out what your goals as a group are is absolutely true. Explain to these people that what you want to do (and not that the GM's wishes are any more important than the players', but the GM usually is the impetus behind the game) is create a story with dramatic tension, and conflict. For that to happen, they are going to have to create character that they're willing to see hurt, maimed, shocked, traumatized, and maybe even killed.

It's an issue of trust. The players have to trust the GM, that when their characters get hurt, maimed, shocked, traumatized, and maybe even killed, it's because doing so will further the story, and not just to satisfy some lame power trip.

<RANT>This is another thing that pisses me off about White Wolf. They go on and on and on about Mature Themes(TM), and there's nothing anywhere that actually addresses how to deal with the maturity level of the group.</RANT>

[Galfraxas]

Hi Ben,

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with that one, or at least came super close. From my perspective as GM, it seems like the players have watched Return of the Living Dead 2. Now, in RotLD2, instead of 1 or 2 lucky people surviving, a small group, 5 people if I remember correctly, survived the zombie attack, and managed to destroy a majority of the zombies at the same time. I think my players may have decided that they're going to do the same thing, minus the destroying a lot of zombies, or maybe they're just extremely gamist, and feel that if a bad guy gets a chance to even breathe on their character, that they might as well quit playing the game. I've been writing down the important points of this thread, and maybe I'll find a way to explain it to them.


Thanks,
Galfraxas

[Knight]

My diagnosis would be - and I mean this in the nicest way possible - is that the problem is due to your own incompetence as a GM. You obviously have created an antagonistic relationship with your players which makes them unwilling to trust you. Not really knowing much about your group dynamics beyond this, I can't really offer any non-pejorative advice beyond that which you have already been given, other than that horror-based games are probably a bad idea.  Setting clear guidelines on who gets to define what*, and making sure you stick to them, might be a route to gain back your players' trust.  





* Your remark about Fear Checks is informative in this regard - telling the players how their characters think or react is normally a very, very bad idea. Plus, of course, IMHO the "You're really scared. Roll some dice to see how scared" isn't really a good approach to creating genuine fear in a roleplaying game.

[Wart]

On 2001-09-26 18:58, Galfraxas wrote:
Yes, that's exactly it. The goal of roleplaying is to create a story and have fun doing it. Not whine when something happens to your character.

Alternately, this could be the result of wanting to create a specific story that you've decided beforehand for your character, and not wanting anything to meddle with it.

I've come to the conclusion, through many such debates, that "Narrativist Munchkinism" is possible, and often consists of refusing to interact with the gameworld/other players, and refusing to allow the gameworld/other players to interact with you, except in ways which suit your PC's story.

Wart

[Wart]

On 2001-09-27 11:34, Ron Edwards wrote:
And please, please, do NOT use the FAQ. It has turned out to generate far more problems than it solves. The System essay should be all you make use of, as well as maybe some discussion material from the forums.

Could I suggest that it might be useful to put a paragraph similar to the above in the FAQ? Might save accidents due to casual browsing...

Wart

[unodiablo]

Hi Tim,
First off, I just want to say "Thanks". Two Zombie threads in a week. Me happy boy. :smile:

Tim Sez ---> "Now, as far as I can remember, some of the fun in playing AFMBE is narrowly avoiding death at the hands of disgusting looking undead creatures, so this sorta startled me. I think they were looking for something else, like maybe a zombie blasting, dice rolling combat fest. Granted, combat is an important part of AFMBE, but it's also about horror, and survival in the face of total apocalypse."

Not the way I read AFMBE... To me, the "fun" from AFMBE comes in doing munchkin stuff like making badass characters, collecting lots of weapons and ammo, and wiping out hordes of zombies. Or in the case of Resident Evil-style zombies, killing them one at a time by blowing big ole' chunks off.

I understand what Ron and Marco are saying about Zombie Movies (and I think the Zombie/Ninja movies are more likely Chinese than Italian, but there's not a topic for that). So let's say for the sake of argument that Zombie Movies are JUST about Zombies Eatin' People. Because when it comes down to it, that's what most people get out of them, or want to take from them for gaming.

Now, try playing your scenario using the rules from Dead Meat. (it's in the Forge library of free RPG's, and yah, I know, beat me own drum) One of the big changes I've made in the upcoming 2nd version that you can work in right away: HAVE THE PLAYERS DESCRIBE CHARACTER / PERSONA DEATH. Let them know they are supposed to die in hideously gruesome ways. In order for Players to allow the Chars to be killed, you need to make it part of the game, and make it fun.

I bet you'll come a lot closer to what you were looking for. Both guns-blazing, and chowtime for the zombies. As much as I like the AFMBE book, it's really just modern era D&D with the coolest monster of all time, The Zombie. That's why they call it the game of survival horror. It's not really fun if your cool character doesn't survive.

Glad to have another ghoul-friend on board. :razz:
Sean

[Mike Holmes]

Sean, only somebody from Wisconsin could be as interested in corpses as you are. I should know living not far from where Jeffrey Dahmer lived.  :wink:

Tim,
If you don't like Sean's ending, or requing an ending in which the characters die, ask them how they want the game to end. Tell them that you'll work to make that happen. You may find that they want the RotLD2 ( I love that film, "I feel like we've been through this all before!"), in which case you have a problem. Either you have to give them what they want, or change their minds (good luck). If they do choose to all live, ask them what sort of challenges they do want in the game.

Oooh, I get to make Zombie License, the game of Licensed Zombie hunting, where the only thing that matters at the end of the day is the cash on the barrelhead from the government for each zombie head delivered.

Darnital Sean, you're rubbing off on me!

Mike

[unodiablo]

I don't mean ALL the characters have to die (tho most of them should, if I got my way :smile: ). You can also do this using AFMBE and have a couple extra NPC's that the Players take over after a PC is killed off. Otherwise what's the point of playing in a Zombified setting?

Mike, I grew up about 10 minutes from Plainfield. Ed Gein is a much cooler serial killer than Dahmer. Old school, baby. Old school. (Actually, an old landlord of mine gave me Dahmer's rental app when he lived in one of his buildings - the one previous to the one the had to tear down. Neat, huh?).

And I have a better title for you, Mike. Geek Season! In the year 2000, the dead returned. Hunting season begins. Where do I order?

[Jared A. Sorensen]

First of all, it's all about 6'9" Ed Kemper. Vocal cords into ye old kitch sink garbage disposal.

Secondly, if anyone wants to write Geek Season as an InSpectres thing, feel free. :smile:

- J

Oh yeah, I still think Sean should write up a Narrative Cage Match game out of zombie films. I still have to do the HK Woo film homage (Blood & Doves?).

[ This Message was edited by: Jared A. Sorensen on 2001-09-28 16:11 ]

[unodiablo]

Hey Jared,
I sent an e-mail to James Wallis about that. Never got a reply. I'll add it to the list of projects. :smile:

Hmm, add in some humour, and Geek Season would make a great InSpectres supplement... Mike, are you writing this, or do I have to?

Sean

[Galfraxas]

Here's a side question: Would playing nothing but Rifts for a period of five years do that to a group of players? I am, in a sense, the new guy in this group. I have not been playing Rifts for Five years... I've only played Rifts once in my life. Considering Rifts is a heavily munchkinized game, would it be correct to assume that the players in question have been "de-sensitized" by Rifts? I'm not saying Rifts is a bad game, it has it's strong points, but it can create some nasty habits in players. If my above assumption is correct, maybe I should try to "de-Rifts" them. As for GM/Player trust issues, I think that they don't completely distrust me, but they don't totally trust me, either. We might have to work something out there. So, the new question is: How does a GM reestablish any lost trust with the players, and at the same time, try to get them to play in a less Rifts style? Questions, Comments, Anything?


Galfraxas

[unodiablo]

Don't you mean, "to get back to the topic?" :smile:

Oh yeah, Rifts would do that. Rifts is MADE for that. Think of this; in Rifts, Zombies wouldn't do mega damage, so your average character, like a 3rd level psi-knight with a nice suit of armor, could wade through a small city of zombies. And go "whoah, that was scary". It's tailor made for 'munchkinism'. Tho a cruel Rifts GM could easily destroy parties, that's obviously not what these guys are used to.

My suggestion would be to get them to play an entirely different style of game then. Maybe start with something that doesn't kill them outright like a zombie game should. InSpectres would be my choice, GhostBusters if you can find a copy. Or Elfs or Toon, a game that's lighter and funny. Something where they can get used to failing without it meaning character death.  

Or play the way they want to, make it like Rifts, or like the Marshall Law comic / start a new group (which isn't easy!) that can play in more varied styles.

And I think Geek Season would make a great InSpectres / NightWatch supplement... Gotta download a new InSpectres this weekend!

[Mike Holmes]

G,

Oh man, Paranoia. If that don't cure 'em of any munchkinism, nothin' will. Ensure that at some point you eliminate one player's entire clone family. Not one at a time, but just decide that the Computer has decided that the whole family is defective and returns all their cellular material to the yeast vats.

Hmmm. Nah, I can't do it to em. It's too damn cruel. Play SOAP instead.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm. Geek Season, yes. But I wanted it to have more in common with Macho Women With Guns than InSpectres. Still, thats not a bad idea. How about a collaboration Sean?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Tim and everyone,

I'm going to say this one last time. There is no need to "cure" the group that Tim is playing with. They are not sick, not dysfunctional (that I know of), and not "playing wrong."

In my experience, if someone happens upon an established group that has been playing Rifts for five years, and IF they express no particular urge to play in any other fashion, then "changing" that group to accord with the newcomer's taste is worse than hopeless - it is presumptuous.

Unless someone can express to me any indication that someone in this group WANTS to be playing differently, specifically in a Narrativist way, then I say, Leave Them Alone.

Best,
Ron