PDA

View Full Version : The Problem with Zombie Games



Calinero
2013-03-18, 12:56 PM
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about the types of games I would like to run someday, and one particular bone I keep coming back to pick over is the idea of a zombie game. The thing is, I've played a few before, and heard of others, and all of them seem to have a similar structure--and a similar problem.

You start out with an outbreak, a lot of the time. There's an initial rush of zombie fighting, supply gathering, and frantic running for your lives. Eventually, though, this has to die down. The emphasis gets switched over to finding a place to live, and surviving in the long term.

After that point, you start dealing with other living people--they can be as big a threat as zombies. And then...what? Where do you go from there?

The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending. Find a 'cure' seems like it would always feel cheap. Do you rebuild society? Overthrow the living warlord who is trying to capitalize on the zombie apocalypse? These are all valid things to go for, but I feel like there would be problems making any zombie game feel satisfying in the end game.

What are your thoughts?

Saph
2013-03-18, 12:59 PM
The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending.

It's the big problem of the zombie genre, really. It's exciting in the short term, but doesn't really go anywhere.

The logical step is to go with the 'rebuild society' plan, but as soon as you do that the story stops being about modern society being destroyed and starts being more about frontier life/colonisation/redevelopment, with zombies reduced to the role of a nuisance/pest.

SowZ
2013-03-18, 01:00 PM
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about the types of games I would like to run someday, and one particular bone I keep coming back to pick over is the idea of a zombie game. The thing is, I've played a few before, and heard of others, and all of them seem to have a similar structure--and a similar problem.

You start out with an outbreak, a lot of the time. There's an initial rush of zombie fighting, supply gathering, and frantic running for your lives. Eventually, though, this has to die down. The emphasis gets switched over to finding a place to live, and surviving in the long term.

After that point, you start dealing with other living people--they can be as big a threat as zombies. And then...what? Where do you go from there?

The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending. Find a 'cure' seems like it would always feel cheap. Do you rebuild society? Overthrow the living warlord who is trying to capitalize on the zombie apocalypse? These are all valid things to go for, but I feel like there would be problems making any zombie game feel satisfying in the end game.

What are your thoughts?

We always play when we have a few hours to kill. We play as ourselves exactly where we are at and whoever is GMing is the first zombie. It is usually fairly freeform and there is no real doubt about the ending. We go until everyone is dead, (pretty much always,) or the person gets a good enough set up that everyone agrees they could live a long, long time. For us, zombie is best as a one shot.

Coidzor
2013-03-18, 01:13 PM
Well, I can't say much to satisfyingly concluding a zombie game, but having a zombie game that was semi-successful could segue into an I Am Legend-ish game where you see just how long the players can go with being misled before they realize what is going on with them playing primitive ghouls.

mjlush
2013-03-18, 01:31 PM
The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending. Find a 'cure' seems like it would always feel cheap.

Depends on the cure... and the cause. I could see a zombie game developing into an extremely hazardous detective story finding out the what and why of the apocalypse.

Frankly finding the cure is a noble quest though a hollow victory as civilization has fallen and still needs rebuilding. Its also the end of series 1 the next series would be about fighting the Great Old Ones who released the plague to cleanse the world.

Edit: cure is the wrong word vaccine would be more realistic. It would free the characters from the worn out zombification threat leaving them free to deal with the ongoing san loss.

Blightedmarsh
2013-03-18, 01:50 PM
You could start with the world already over run by zombies and a form of society already rebuilt. The game would then be about the exploration of a fragile post collapse civilization under going a renascence.

navar100
2013-03-18, 02:05 PM
That's how every zombie movie works, except for the initial outbreak. We only really ever get to see the world after the collapse of civilization. We usually don't see the initial mass outbreak and panic. If anything we see the initial infection, not the first wave of zombies, but I digress.

Zombie stories fall into cliches. There's the Hero, his Sidekick, the Badass Chick (since the 1980's, didn't exist in zombie movies before then), the Uncooperative Jerk, Catatonic Girl, Cool Guy who gets killed half-way through the movie, Secretly Bit One,The Stupid who ruins the plan, No Name/Can Never Remember Name Extra Who Does Nothing Interesting, and the Evil Leader of the Safe Haven Community if a safe haven exists.

The Walking Dead is like this.
Hero - Rick (On verge of becoming Evil Leader but not there yet)
Sidekick - Glenn, Hershel (Recovered Evil Leader Of Safe Haven Community)
Badass Chick - Michonne, Maggie
Uncooperative Jerk - Shane, Merle
Catatonic Girl - Carol (recovering, not there yet)
Cool Guy - T-Dog, Otis, Daryl (recovered Jerk, pray for his life)
Secretly Bit - Laurie (technically not secretly bit but still had secrets - affair with Shane and pregnancy)
The Stupid - Carl, Dale (and then some), Andrea (tried and failed to become Badass Chick)
No Name - Hershel's other daughter and now deceased son, the woman from season 1 who stayed at the CDC when it blew up
Evil Leader - The Governor

Calinero
2013-03-18, 02:09 PM
I'm familiar with the tropes and archetypes, and a lot of them can be tons of fun! The thing is, though, where do they go? With the Walking Dead as an example, where do you see the series ending in a way that would be satisfying to gamers? How do you end a zombie story in any way other than tragedy?

awa
2013-03-18, 02:17 PM
you could have a safe haven a functional fortified settlement not run by evil incompetents. the game starts somewhere unsafe they deal with that for a while then find out about the safe haven. they make the long journey to the isolated safe haven, on way they find about a group of bad people planning to take over the safe haven the party fights a climatic 3 way battle between zombies, stupid bad people and themselves to stop the take over of the safe haven/ being eaten by zombies. they are then welcomed as heroes then cake the end.

GnomeGninjas
2013-03-18, 02:23 PM
If the zombies decay(and logically they would) then the goal would be for surviving until the zombies die off naturally.

J-H
2013-03-18, 03:26 PM
Add superheroes or a plot behind it:

One of my top 10 favorite fanfictions of all time:
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5124106/1/Polarity

John Campbell
2013-03-18, 03:28 PM
We always play when we have a few hours to kill. We play as ourselves exactly where we are at and whoever is GMing is the first zombie. It is usually fairly freeform and there is no real doubt about the ending. We go until everyone is dead, (pretty much always,) or the person gets a good enough set up that everyone agrees they could live a long, long time. For us, zombie is best as a one shot.

That'd be a short game with my usual group. My house, where we play, is full of swords, axes, polearms, etc., and 3/4ths of the group are SCA heavy fighters. xkcd ending (http://xkcd.com/734/) ahoy!

SiuiS
2013-03-18, 03:35 PM
You cant approach a zombie game from the view of how to end it satisfactorily, if by that you mean players win, everything fixed.

Zombie stuff is, by definition, extremely meta. People showered one are actually Bit – not because that makes any sense but because you need to shake up a secure base. Zombies shamble up in growing hordes at the right time because you need suspense, not because they have any reason to travel in packs. The shadows are full of solitary corpses who crawled into hiding spaces because it makes everything dangerous, not because it's a thing a zombie would be expected to do. The game works best, then as a short arc or one-shot, because everyone needs a character that will probably be expendable or that will fit the genre.


The main ways to, mechanically, play it is to shake up expectations. I've only ever seen / heard of one single successful zombie game, and the DM took some liberties with the zombie template; base movement speed was 60', even though they shambled out of combat. Bite attack which became more accurate the more zombies attacked at a time. Disease which rolled every hour and still caused damage on a success. Fast healing which only kicked in when the zombie hit 0 or less HP. The story was one of surviving until someone outside could handle things, since they were trapped in a walled-off city. It was pretty slick.

Alternate ideas are to use the L4D model, of occasional abberant zombies like pukers, runners, leapers, climbers, and alarums. Lot harder to take things easy when someone could sneeze and suddenly ten or fifteen zombies take a running leap over the walls of the compound. Or the animating force isn't a disease, it's a sentient, transmissible necromantic force. Some hosts are more suitable for whatever reason and are more possessed than undead. The more zombies in a region the more it's influence grows, and the oldest, sturdiest zombie could be Athens in necromantic fire that whispers into the minds of all who look upon it the terrible secrets of it's release.

Or the Black Cauldron one where there is a finite amount of zombies, nd each time you kill one all the pter zombies gain that zombies' power :smallbiggrin:

SowZ
2013-03-18, 03:45 PM
That'd be a short game with my usual group. My house, where we play, is full of swords, axes, polearms, etc., and 3/4ths of the group are SCA heavy fighters. xkcd ending (http://xkcd.com/734/) ahoy!

We're hunters, fencers, belegarthers, I know some SCA peeps, we have swords and maille, etc. etc., too. The greatest threat isn't the zombies, though. It is the other survivors. Who usually have guns and cars and such. Really, it is anyones game at that point. Melee skills and being armed gives you a nice advantage to survive the initial wave, but after that real ingenuity, brutality, and luck are needed to survive.

Asmodai
2013-03-18, 04:06 PM
Just ask Robert Kirkman. In the end, the real question is who are the real Walking Dead in the Zombie story :)

Rhynn
2013-03-18, 04:13 PM
Why play a long campaign? Why not play a single adventure or a short campaign with a defined end? "Get out of the city." "Find the cure." "Get evacuated." "Find shelter and survive until the military clears it out." "Die horribly to the last person."

You don't have to do a years-long zombie campaign. All Flesh Must Be Eaten even encourages this, IMO, with its many Deadworlds, many of which lend themselves particularly well to short or limited-term play.

SowZ
2013-03-18, 04:14 PM
That's how every zombie movie works, except for the initial outbreak. We only really ever get to see the world after the collapse of civilization. We usually don't see the initial mass outbreak and panic. If anything we see the initial infection, not the first wave of zombies, but I digress.

Zombie stories fall into cliches. There's the Hero, his Sidekick, the Badass Chick (since the 1980's, didn't exist in zombie movies before then), the Uncooperative Jerk, Catatonic Girl, Cool Guy who gets killed half-way through the movie, Secretly Bit One,The Stupid who ruins the plan, No Name/Can Never Remember Name Extra Who Does Nothing Interesting, and the Evil Leader of the Safe Haven Community if a safe haven exists.

The Walking Dead is like this.
Hero - Rick (On verge of becoming Evil Leader but not there yet)
Sidekick - Glenn, Hershel (Recovered Evil Leader Of Safe Haven Community)
Badass Chick - Michonne, Maggie
Uncooperative Jerk - Shane, Merle
Catatonic Girl - Carol (recovering, not there yet)
Cool Guy - T-Dog, Otis, Daryl (recovered Jerk, pray for his life)
Secretly Bit - Laurie (technically not secretly bit but still had secrets - affair with Shane and pregnancy)
The Stupid - Carl, Dale (and then some), Andrea (tried and failed to become Badass Chick)
No Name - Hershel's other daughter and now deceased son, the woman from season 1 who stayed at the CDC when it blew up
Evil Leader - The Governor

Wouldn't the secretly bit be Jim, who was secretly bit?

NichG
2013-03-18, 04:23 PM
I have this problem with the genre too... hmm...

Really the answer is 'change the genre mid-stream'.

- The zombies are actually cloud computing for some alien race that is trying to solve some cosmic equation.

- The zombies are the work of someone who discovered 'real necromancy' and let it get out of control, but who is the only one who could regain control - and when he realizes that, the situation changes drastically as he starts to actually use the zombies for some purpose.

- The zombie outbreak only occurs in a narrow area, say a single city, or even just one cluster of cities (like 'the west coast' or something). Part one is survive, part two is escape (because of the military cordon/etc), and part 3 is 'back in civilization, find out who caused it and why'.

- Variant on the 'necromancer' line. The zombies are being produced by some powerful object, that someone got control over long enough to start the plague but then got killed by his own creations or something. The survivors are trying to find and control the object, because whoever gets it can basically do what they want with the rest of humanity. Use zombies as the labor that will rebuild civilization.

- The zombie plague isn't quite as utterly complete as you usually see. Maybe its not 100% that people infected turn. So there are lots of bits of civilization left, lots of paranoia, etc. Then, when things start to calm down, other awful mythological things start happening too - the long-dead begin to rise, etc. Sort of becomes a 'survive the next wave' or 'fortress defense' kind of thing.

navar100
2013-03-18, 05:09 PM
Wouldn't the secretly bit be Jim, who was secretly bit?

You mean from the first season? If that's who I think it is, he actually told Rick he was bit and to leave him behind. I was impressed because he admitted it, going against genre.

Inspectre
2013-03-18, 05:56 PM
If you want to shake things up from the typical zombie survival story, why not turn things on their head? Either

A) The players are actually going into the infected area to clean it up/investigate - with a varying level of knowledge about the zombies and how they work depending on your preference, although they still won't know why the zombies happened, which is their goal so it doesn't happen again. Bonus points if you go completely Resident Evil on them and have it all be the fault of some massive defense contracter/pharmaceutical firm. :smallamused:

or

B) The players are zombies themselves, but something went wrong during the change and so they have some amount of sentience left. Then it's literal zombie survival horror - food's getting scarce with harvesting what's left increasing dangerous (:smallamused: ), competition from other "survivors" (zombies), and there's an unstoppable force closing in to exterminate them that they must somehow escape (the military). This one is unlikely to have a pleasant end unless you set up some sort of cure for them to find, but it may be highly entertainning to be the jackass hiding in the closet waiting to bite someone for once. :smallbiggrin:

randomhero00
2013-03-18, 06:32 PM
err so your problem is with an apocalyptic situation that ends??!!

Calinero
2013-03-18, 06:43 PM
Randomhero: I don't have a problem with zombie apocalypses ending--my problem is that, really, they don't. I mean, where do you draw the line and say that an apocalypse is over? People rebuilding society, I guess?

My friends and I have discussed the logical progression of a zombie campaign, and it seems to go like this:

1. Outbreak
2. Flee!
3. Bunker down.
4. Survive
5. Rebuild.
6. New evil rises.
7. Strike down new evil.
8. New civilization flourishes.

Normally, the new evil would come in the form of other people, like the governor in Walking Dead or the military guy in 28 Days Later. However, it could also be in the form of intelligent zombie warlords rising, or a Cthulhu-esque deity behind it all--or even the government agency that engineered the virus trying to cover everything up. I guess I just have trouble imagining the new civilization feeling triumphant enough to be a 'happy' ending.

Asmodai
2013-03-18, 08:31 PM
I think you're looking at it wrong. Zombie stories don't really have a happy ending. Ultimately it's all about attrition, and that's a fight humanity will lose.

If there is a magical McGuffin that fixes everything, it's not really a proper Zombie story. The key to the zombie story isn't even the zombies - it's how people act and react when put in a stressful do or die situation.

It's a bit hard for us roleplayers used to kicking things butt and making things right (for ourselves at least), but the idea behind the genre isn't in you actually going back to normal. You probably never will.

If there is a magical solution to fixing the world or if the world was just threatened for a short while, it's not the zombie survival genre, it's something else that got its dose of Week in Hell.

Gnomish Wanderer
2013-03-18, 08:40 PM
I think a key to making Zombie Games outlasting is the same thing that makes any other roleplaying game long-lasting. Villains. Zombies may be a villain, but give the players something to compete with, something to fight. Make a boss. If that boss dies, introduce a new boss, a new element to content with. Keep going while doing all the 'city-building' stuff as they go about fighting the villains until you can give them a 'happy ending', a retirement like high-level adventurers of 'has a peaceful society'. Then, if you get a bunch more ideas one day, make new characters in a nearby part of the world. More villains, more stuff to face.

Villains I've used:
A 'super' undead or large force of undead, often foreshadowed by having them have other groups of societies they know about get wiped out or have to flee
Warlords who think they're in charge
Crazy Religious Nuts
Betrayers in their society
Scientists/Demons who set up this Hell on Earth and are working to keep it going
And many others!

Anderlith
2013-03-18, 08:52 PM
The problem is that you are viewing the zombies as the villain. Zombies can't be the villain. Zombies are like disaster movies, like a volcano, or a flood. Zombies are the situation. If you want to action up your game you have to introduce a villain or a MacGuffen.

Grinner
2013-03-18, 08:54 PM
How about zombie societies?

In the scenario, zombies would be mutagenic lifeforms. They start off as mindless jugular-biting machines, but as the mutagen reshapes the extant biological matter, the zombies develop a crude language and a pack mentality. Then it becomes a fight for dominance between the humans and their animalistic counterparts.

SowZ
2013-03-19, 01:36 AM
You mean from the first season? If that's who I think it is, he actually told Rick he was bit and to leave him behind. I was impressed because he admitted it, going against genre.

He kept it hidden until it started to show and people pressed him about it. He eventually came clean, but he certainly hid it as long as he could.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-19, 09:48 AM
What are your thoughts?

You're thinking about it the wrong way. You don't solve the zombies, you survive them (whether by stealth or violence) and escape. Making it to a relatively-safe place after all these trials and ordeals is where the game should end, and can be satisfying if there was sufficient challenge before it.



You start out with an outbreak, a lot of the time. There's an initial rush of zombie fighting, supply gathering, and frantic running for your lives. Eventually, though, this has to die down. The emphasis gets switched over to finding a place to live, and surviving in the long term.


That's the whole game, to me. It ends once you get on the helicopter to safety (or learn you're too late and your struggle was for naught). Surviving in the long term is epilogue stuff.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-03-19, 10:04 AM
It turns into Apocalypse World.

Asmodai
2013-03-19, 11:10 AM
How about zombie societies?

In the scenario, zombies would be mutagenic lifeforms. They start off as mindless jugular-biting machines, but as the mutagen reshapes the extant biological matter, the zombies develop a crude language and a pack mentality. Then it becomes a fight for dominance between the humans and their animalistic counterparts.

That's not a zombie story though. It's a story about the clash of two cultures and their fight for dominance. The Zombie story is all about the humans, Zombies aren't the point.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-19, 11:25 AM
The logical step is to go with the 'rebuild society' plan, but as soon as you do that the story stops being about modern society being destroyed and starts being more about frontier life/colonisation/redevelopment, with zombies reduced to the role of a nuisance/pest.

Or in other words, welcome to Dungeons & Dragons.

Grinner
2013-03-19, 01:13 PM
That's not a zombie story though. It's a story about the clash of two cultures and their fight for dominance. The Zombie story is all about the humans, Zombies aren't the point.

Sure it is. I thought we were talking about ways to change the prescribed zombie outbreak formula? That necessitates a change in the story itself. No longer is the story a cynic's take on human egotism and selfishness in the face of disaster. Now it's a story about communal unity in the face of an active, external threat looking for food.

Don't confuse theme with genre.

Rhynn
2013-03-19, 01:26 PM
Sure it is. I thought we were talking about ways to change the prescribed zombie outbreak formula? That necessitates a change in the story itself. No longer is the story a cynic's take on human egotism and selfishness in the face of disaster. Now it's a story about communal unity in the face of an active, external threat looking for food.

Well, The Walking Dead (the comic; speaketh not unto me of the series) has definitely gotten into the "rebuilding society" stage, but it's still a story about how people deal with extreme circumstances (the now-chronic inability to form human connections most survivors have) and homo homini lupus. I mean, really, add (more) flesh-eating undead to Fallout, and you've got a zombie apocalypse world. The way people abuse and take advantage of weaker people is central to any apocalypse survival scenario (heck, it was largely the point of the Twilight 2000 RPG, published 1984).

Even in TWD 108, the "active, external threat" is ... other people. The zombies are an environmental danger.

The only problem with this is sustainability. Eventually, you're going to run out of zombies. (TWD is even hinting at this eventuality.) Or, at the very least, run very low on them. In an "everybody turns" (possibly forever) scenario, you end up with a very different world, but eventually it's going to get rebuilt and will deal with the continuing rising of the dead. (There's several AFMBE Deadworlds built around the idea of "society integrates/works with/works around zombies.")

Bulhakov
2013-03-19, 03:33 PM
Several previous posters had it dead on - you need a villain, zombies are just an additional environmental factor (though they can make for a lot of fun encounters).

I ran one game with a relatively controlled zombie outbreak in a fantasy setting, but the zombies were only a focus of several sessions (like defending a plot-relevant settlement from a zombie swarm, which was relatively easy in a high fantasy setting). However, the main focus was on a conspiracy of necromancers, with the zombie outbreak being only a minor part of their scheme.

An additional twist I introduced was that zombies got stronger and more durable with age and consumed flesh. This way they could still be a potential threat to the party as the PCs leveled up (players found out the hard way that they needed to watch out for very dried up or decomposed zombies as they could easily rip off a hero's arm).

Waspinator
2013-03-19, 03:46 PM
If Telltale Games has taught me anything, the best character to be in a zombie game is a little girl.

Anderlith
2013-03-19, 05:10 PM
If Telltale Games has taught me anything, the best character to be in a zombie game is a little girl.

Maybe in a zombie game, but in a zombie tv show?.... well, lets just say that they found Sophia...

Asmodai
2013-03-19, 05:30 PM
Sure it is. I thought we were talking about ways to change the prescribed zombie outbreak formula? That necessitates a change in the story itself. No longer is the story a cynic's take on human egotism and selfishness in the face of disaster. Now it's a story about communal unity in the face of an active, external threat looking for food.

Don't confuse theme with genre.

Aaand you totally missed the point.

Grinner
2013-03-19, 05:42 PM
Aaand you totally missed the point.

How so?

As far as I can tell, the only thing that defines the archetypal zombie apocalypse is the scenario where a group of socially disparate survivors isolate themselves from a landscape of zombies. Their shelter becomes a sociological pressure cooker, and then everybody starts dying off.

Assuming they survive, they then butt heads with other survivors, and the story ends there. It is hoped that they go on to establish a glorious new civilization.

What am I missing? The plot is that of a disaster, except the disaster wants to eat you alive for no cause than just because.

Edit: Moreover, why is suggesting a shift from internal conflict among humans to external conflict among warring groups something to be discouraged?

Asmodai
2013-03-19, 06:22 PM
Because that's not what the genre is about. The zombies are window dressing in a story about humanity. That's the crux of the whole genre and the foundation of the story.

If it goes to fights of dominance it makes the zombies an actual developed side. One that works to create a different type of story. Say I Am Legend.

Grinner
2013-03-19, 06:33 PM
Because that's not what the genre is about. The zombies are window dressing in a story about humanity. That's the crux of the whole genre and the foundation of the story.

If it goes to fights of dominance it makes the zombies an actual developed side. One that works to create a different type of story. Say I Am Legend.

So you'd rather pigeonhole the entire thing into a single cliche? :smallconfused:

Asmodai
2013-03-19, 06:39 PM
So you'd rather pigeonhole the entire thing into a single cliche? :smallconfused:

I'd accept the genre for what it is instead of trying to pigeonhole it into other story archetypes.

Tvtyrant
2013-03-19, 06:45 PM
The funniest part about zombies is how incredibly easy they would be for apex predators to hunt. I could totally see the zombie population in some parts of the world being wiped out by crocodiles and lions and bears, since zombies are just humans without minds. And we all know how well humans are at fighting unarmed...

Grinner
2013-03-19, 06:53 PM
I'd accept the genre for what it is instead of trying to pigeonhole it into other story archetypes.

Without change, it'll just calcify and die.


The funniest part about zombies is how incredibly easy they would be for apex predators to hunt. I could totally see the zombie population in some parts of the world being wiped out by crocodiles and lions and bears, since zombies are just humans without minds. And we all know how well humans are at fighting unarmed...

Animals usually take pains to avoid the zombies.

MukkTB
2013-03-19, 07:29 PM
Zombies died for me one day, I lost the ability to care much about Zombie literature practically overnight. Want to know why? I thought up two little words and stuck them together, "Zombie Mosquitoes." I was never able to overcome the absurdity.


But logically If you want a win condition for a Zombie game, I think the clearest one is when the zombies starve/rot/become unviable. This process should take somewhere between 6 months and a couple years. Live zombies that are effected by the virus will starve. Dead zombies that are reanimated by black magic will lose functionality when rot destroys their anatomy.

The anatomy of the zombie game would then be:
Stage 1: The Panic
This is when everyone turns into Zombies overnight. Lots of deadly combat, and set pieces occur.
Stage 2: Hunkering Down
The party takes cover somewhere. They set up defenses and they get ready to fight.
Exit A (Optional) - 'Breath of Releif'
It turns out the outbreak was only in a small area and some guys show up killing the Zombies and rescuing the survivors.
Exit B (Optional) - 'The Horror Ending'
The Zombies gather an army of unthinking undead and assault the party, eventually breaking through the defenses with crushing, infinite numbers. Game Over.
Stage 3: Survival
The base is secure, Zombies do not overrun it. However the party must scavenge food and supplies, making regular trips into dangerous places to bring this about.
Stage 4: Humans are the Real Bad Guys
Now that the Zombies are more of a nuisance then a threat the narrative force of the world determines that other humans will now be the major source of danger. Maybe its raiders. Maybe the party has an ******* in their midst that endangers everyone. Who knows.
Exit C (Optional) - Happy Ending
Eventually the Zombies all die. The problems with the bad humans are over and we can stare happily at the sunrise as the credits roll. Humanity will survive.
The Saga Continues
The game translates from Zombie apocalypse into Fallout. Switch to Fallout or Mad Max style plot and plot devices.

Tvtyrant
2013-03-19, 07:29 PM
Animals usually take pains to avoid the zombies.

Slow moving and suicidal creatures don't sound like something carnivores would avoid. I would love to see how many zombies it would take to damage a salt water crocodile with their puny fists and tiny teeth.

Emmerask
2013-03-19, 07:34 PM
So, I've been thinking a lot lately about the types of games I would like to run someday, and one particular bone I keep coming back to pick over is the idea of a zombie game. The thing is, I've played a few before, and heard of others, and all of them seem to have a similar structure--and a similar problem.

You start out with an outbreak, a lot of the time. There's an initial rush of zombie fighting, supply gathering, and frantic running for your lives. Eventually, though, this has to die down. The emphasis gets switched over to finding a place to live, and surviving in the long term.

After that point, you start dealing with other living people--they can be as big a threat as zombies. And then...what? Where do you go from there?

The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending. Find a 'cure' seems like it would always feel cheap. Do you rebuild society? Overthrow the living warlord who is trying to capitalize on the zombie apocalypse? These are all valid things to go for, but I feel like there would be problems making any zombie game feel satisfying in the end game.

What are your thoughts?

I wouldn´t even do the find a place for living stuff.
the most fun parts of zombie games are the
-initial escape
-bunkering down for short-term
-final run to the safe zone (military base etc)

Everything thereafter is just unneeded padding, just make these three things interesting and most importantly challenging enough so that reaching that final goal alone is reward enough.

Yes that doesn´t make a 3 year epic campaign, but then again those epic campaigns rarely see the last chapter anyway.

Grinner
2013-03-19, 07:42 PM
Slow moving and suicidal creatures don't sound like something carnivores would avoid. I would love to see how many zombies it would take to damage a salt water crocodile with their puny fists and tiny teeth.

Admittedly, that idea does hold merit, but consider two things:


A proper zombie would be all rotten and fetid, and many carnivores dislike carrion.
I'm working off of the Zombie Survival Guide where it's assumed that zombies are created by a mutagenic super-virus. Animals, insects, and even microbes are somehow cognizant of the virus and its deleterious effects.


Edit: Now that I think about it, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Without microbial activity, the zombie's decomposition wouldn't produce (much of) a smell...

Anderlith
2013-03-19, 07:46 PM
I've seen in come up a few times now, I have to say this

I am Legend (the Will Smith one) is about some old school vampires, not zombies, though they share several undead-ish traits, the fact is that they are vampires. A argument could be made that they are are ghouls, but then you start getting into super specifics, it's best to paint with a large brush, & that says vampire


Addressing Zombie concerns.

The only way to have a threat last more than a year at best, you have to have human be infected with the virus, instead of it being a fluid transfer contagion. (aka what the Walking Dead has)

Every animal will eat dead flesh if it has to, while most animals don't it doesn't mean that all animals will. & then you have to account for all the vulture type carrion eaters. Either way, brainless humans are easy kills for carnivores of any type, not limited to apex predators

Lastly to defend against the idea of zombie mosquitoe, that's easy, the virus is human specific, like mad cow.

WhatBigTeeth
2013-03-19, 08:10 PM
I think the problem has been hinted at and pointed out a few times already: zombies aren't a story; they're a monster. They might be a monster that's ripe for allegory, or a monster that's had a batch of cynical survival fiction attached to it, but swap Dawn of the Dead's zombies for draculas, bears or killer bugs, and the narrative stays essentially the same (but its allegories might get confusing).

The problem sounds like a problem with survival fiction, namely that the circumstances triggering the extreme survival dilemmas have to eventually end and the people will eventually return to some sort of normalcy or fail to survive and be too dead to be a story.

I've played and run a few zombie-related games, and I haven't had a problem ending any (unless we just didn't get around to finishing them), twice by them founding refuges in out-of-the-way locations, sometimes with them being eaten but usually just with players riding off into the sunset. There's the implication that wherever the characters wind up will be at least as bad as where they start, but that cynicism is about as iconic to zombie movies as the shambling crowds.

Rhynn
2013-03-19, 09:19 PM
Slow moving and suicidal creatures don't sound like something carnivores would avoid. I would love to see how many zombies it would take to damage a salt water crocodile with their puny fists and tiny teeth.

Have you seen the damage they can suddenly do? Biting through throats and skulls, etc., sometimes just ripping off limbs. (And they don't really stop fighting - most animals don't actually want to be hurt while hunting.)

Oddly, living humans in zombie apocalypses gain similar unnatural strength, being able to drive knives and screwdrivers through skulls and into brains. And ripping off limbs, sometimes.

:smalleek: It's amazing.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-19, 10:19 PM
Oddly, living humans in zombie apocalypses gain similar unnatural strength, being able to drive knives and screwdrivers through skulls and into brains. And ripping off limbs, sometimes.

Well, you couldn't have much in the way of melee combat if survivor and zombie were evenly matched in a realistic contest of brute strength. Even the stupidest, weakest, and least competent wrestler can score a few bites in a scuffle if he's desperate, and have a good chance of overpowering/knocking you down by just rushing you.

My sensei once told me (old memory, might not be totally accurate) that against one guy you have roughly even odds, against two you might win if you're extremely good, against three you're dead no matter what, and against four.... you're in fantasy-land if you think you can win. So that seems like a good baseline for chances against zombies. But, mercifully for our heroes, they do live in fantasy-land, so they can have a chance :smallbiggrin:

Waspinator
2013-03-19, 10:22 PM
It seems like it's assumed that the zombie infection somehow makes them inedible, even to predators less picky than humans.

Anderlith
2013-03-19, 10:56 PM
My sensei once told me (old memory, might not be totally accurate) that against one guy you have roughly even odds, against two you might win if you're extremely good, against three you're dead no matter what, and against four.... you're in fantasy-land if you think you can win. So that seems like a good baseline for chances against zombies. But, mercifully for our heroes, they do live in fantasy-land, so they can have a chance :smallbiggrin:

I'm guessing Bruce Lee is the exception to this? lol

SowZ
2013-03-19, 11:13 PM
I'm guessing Bruce Lee is the exception to this? lol

I actually think the odds of surviving a four on one match go up significantly if all parties have weapons. Reason being if the gang doesn't all attack at once, you may get lucky and be able to take someone out in a hit or two then go for the next guy.

But you can't reliably incapacitate someone in a couple seconds with your bare hands, so it gives way more time for his allies to jump in. Unless this is Assassins Creed.

There are a lot of instances in war where someone is severely outnumbered and wins. I wonder how many stories there are of guys who take out three people in unarmed brawls...

Also, the Sensei was supposedly talking to his class. And anyone in the class who thought they were as good as Bruce Lee is in fantasy land. (:

Waspinator
2013-03-19, 11:24 PM
Usually the only way the massively outnumbered guy can realistically win is if the situation doesn't allow the other people to actually use their numbers. Like if you're defending a mountain pass which is too narrow for an entire army to attack at once. Or in the one guy vs four scenario, if you're lucky enough to be in a narrow corridor or something that makes the four get in each others way.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-19, 11:28 PM
I actually think the odds of surviving a four on one match go up significantly if all parties have weapons. Reason being if the gang doesn't all attack at once, you may get lucky and be able to take someone out in a hit or two then go for the next guy.


If they are sincere in their desire to win the fight, and don't follow the Fantasy Land Convention on the Use of Overwhelming Numbers (disregard of which being a war crime in many genres), then they really ought to be attacking all at once and from multiple sides if possible to take full advantage of their numbers.


EDIT: And yes, it is unlikely that a financially well-off, college-educated suburbanite is going to KO whole rooms full of hardened, trained killers by using anything less than an assault rifle. Even a gun-nut rampaging against unarmed civilians (who are also surprised... and trapped... and not trained for combat) can only get a body-count around 30 before the cops take him down, barring exceptional circumstances. But then again, it's unlikely that anyone else is going to perform such a feat either.

SowZ
2013-03-19, 11:30 PM
If they are sincere in their desire to win the fight, and don't follow the Fantasy Land Convention on the Use of Overwhelming Numbers (disregard of which being a war crime in many genres), then they really ought to be attacking all at once and from multiple sides if possible to take full advantage of their numbers.

It seems people very often don't attack all at once in a fight with weapons, though, especially with guns. It is basic psychology, everyone wants the other guy to be the first to draw the enemies attention.

Rhynn
2013-03-19, 11:40 PM
There are a lot of instances in war where someone is severely outnumbered and wins. I wonder how many stories there are of guys who take out three people in unarmed brawls...

Some. (It's not hard to find YouTube videos where someone wins a brawl against three people, although that rarely involves "taking them out", at least all of them.) Involving weapons probably does exacerbate the main factor in winning fights when outnumbered: fear of getting hurt.

If it's you and a couple of your mates against one guy, everyone bare-handed, you're not likely to get very hurt even if you get in there, an if you all do, your friends are going to get him.

But that already requires some degree of willingness to get hurt, and usually the larger group is not the one desperately acting in defense of themselves, so they have less incentive to break the stand-off and risk themselves. The guy who is outnumbered needs to engage fast and hard, and if they know that, they're more likely to. So a 3 vs. 1 can look like a series of 1 vs. 1s, even though that's really stupid for the bigger group.

But when you involve weapons, getting in there to give your friends an opening means you may get maimed or killed. Screw that! (Firearms, of course, are a somewhat different matter.) It takes a very dedicated, disciplined, or well-trained person to take that kind of calculated risk.

Obviously, if the members of the group have training and/or experience, they're likely to engage hard and fast instead of hanging back, which means that they're likely to take down someone who's trained better than they are. A bunch of random schmoes, though? Not that likely.

Funny thing is, you don't really need to "take out" everyone you're fighting with. You just need to discourage them from continuing the fight while you make your retreat, or to send them packing. When you're outnumbered, that's definitely "winning" in my book...


If they are sincere in their desire to win the fight, and don't follow the Fantasy Land Convention on the Use of Overwhelming Numbers (disregard of which being a war crime in many genres), then they really ought to be attacking all at once and from multiple sides if possible to take full advantage of their numbers.

Look at real videos, though. A lot of the time, people don't use their advantage in numbers right, for the above reasons and others. People are not perfect rational actors (although I'd say avoiding getting hurt is perfectly rational, especially when that should be, and usually is, a higher goal than "hurt the other guy").


This sidetrack brought to you by staying up too late.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-19, 11:55 PM
It seems people very often don't attack all at once in a fight with weapons, though, especially with guns. It is basic psychology, everyone wants the other guy to be the first to draw the enemies attention.

Unfortunately for the heroes, our Zombies benefit from their mindless pursuit of living flesh, allowing them to ignore such inhibition and quickly overwhelm their victims without a second thought (or even a first thought, for that matter!).

Blightedmarsh
2013-03-20, 12:58 AM
My thought is use zombies to paint the world, to give the setting a gamey flavor. In a low power system (such as call of cthulu; call of zombie cthulu perhaps?) they retain sufficient levels of threat.

What about zombies verses robots.

Zombies

Nanotech zombies with a gasault powered by cloud computing. Zombies have various levels of awareness and come in various types.

New zombies are created by infection but most are born from queens (similar to darkspawn broodmothers). These primary zombies are the most heavily mutated.

Robots

These are the counter balance to the zombie threat. They are a swarm of modular self replicating killing machines. These are lead by post singularity AIs.

Robots can and will kill humans mercilessly in a policy of scorched earth and fire brakes. They also use human settlements and communities as "live bait".

Humans

Humans live in madmax/fallout esque world. Small fortified communities are banded together as civic leagues and small empires. Human life is precarious and survival is dependent with staying out of the way and escaping threats rather than overcoming them.

mjlush
2013-03-20, 04:03 AM
Admittedly, that idea does hold merit, but consider two things:


A proper zombie would be all rotten and fetid, and many carnivores dislike carrion.
I'm working off of the Zombie Survival Guide where it's assumed that zombies are created by a mutagenic super-virus. Animals, insects, and even microbes are somehow cognizant of the virus and its deleterious effects.


Edit: Now that I think about it, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Without microbial activity, the zombie's decomposition wouldn't produce (much of) a smell...

'Realistic' zombies are kind of hard to keep alive for a long time.

I'd take mild issue at microbes turning their flagella up at zombie meat, but would be willing to accept that for the sake of a good setting.

However predation is probably the least of a zombies problems, dehydration and starvation are much higher on the list. Dehydration will kill a human in 7 days, starvation in a month. Now you can stretch these figures quite a lot but you can't dismiss them, within a few months zombies will die out from natural causes.

Even before that there would be a constant attrition caused by mishap, falls would probably be main cause incapacitation. This is something that canny survivors can exploit ... Zombies are dumb and easily tricked, simply opening manhole covers (and marking them with paint to warn other survivors) would either imprison them in cellars and the like or drop them into the sewers which at the very least would channel them safely out of the city.

More creative survivors could create a zombie fountain. Take a tower block, remove the safety railing on the roof, rig all the doors so there unlocked and you can only go in (with a little luck you just have to remove the inside door handles) and finally put a speakers playing the sound of a 60's teenage beach party on the roof.

Zombies hearing the sound of their natural food head towards the fountain enter the one way doors and get channeled up to the roof and fall to their incapacitation or even death.
It would probably be a good idea to rig it to burn by remote command as well so you can clean up the mess.

Rhynn
2013-03-20, 04:32 AM
Zombies are dumb and easily tricked

Except, you know, when they're not.

Zombies are slow and fast.
Zombies are weak and strong.
Zombies are stupid and clever.
Zombies are dead and alive.
Zombies are flimsy and tough.
Et cetera.

Marvelously, All Flesh Must Be Eaten addresses this all.

mjlush
2013-03-20, 05:30 AM
Except, you know, when they're not.

Zombies are slow and fast.
Zombies are weak and strong.
Zombies are stupid and clever.
Zombies are dead and alive.
Zombies are flimsy and tough.
Et cetera.

Marvelously, All Flesh Must Be Eaten addresses this all.

If All Flesh Must Be Eaten didn't cover this you would be within your rights to send it back.

DontEatRawHagis
2013-03-20, 05:46 AM
The thing is, I don't see how any zombie game really has a satisfying ending. Find a 'cure' seems like it would always feel cheap. Do you rebuild society? Overthrow the living warlord who is trying to capitalize on the zombie apocalypse? These are all valid things to go for, but I feel like there would be problems making any zombie game feel satisfying in the end game.

What are your thoughts?

I'd go with Zombie virus is changing like how Left4Dead did it or Resident Evil. That way the zombies aren't the only enemies that the players face. I was going to have that 1 out of a million people infected turned into Psychos. The original was the guy who created the virus and the mission was to kill him.

Coidzor
2013-03-20, 06:37 AM
I've seen in come up a few times now, I have to say this

I am Legend (the Will Smith one) is about some old school vampires, not zombies, though they share several undead-ish traits, the fact is that they are vampires. A argument could be made that they are are ghouls, but then you start getting into super specifics, it's best to paint with a large brush, & that says vampire

And that means inspiration can't be taken from the general principle why, exactly?

MukkTB
2013-03-20, 06:46 AM
What part of the zombie genre do you want to capture? Your answer will imply the optimal solution.

Anderlith
2013-03-20, 10:10 AM
And that means inspiration can't be taken from the general principle why, exactly?

I'm not saying that it can't be used for inspiration, just that it can't be classified as a zombie movie. You can derive inspiration from an episode of Hello Kitty or the cover of a Metallica album, inspiration has nothing to do with classification

Kaveman26
2013-03-20, 10:21 AM
Why not flip the whole zombie paradigm? Your "group" has found a means in which to reverse the effects of zombie-ness but have to find a way to infilitrate and communicate to a whole cadre of barricaded survivor groups. How would you surivive the zombie infested wilderness while spreading the good word to those too stubborn to assist. How do you as a person break into the super compounds where allies wait? Are they even allies, or just deterrents.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-20, 10:28 AM
Why not flip the whole zombie paradigm? Your "group" has found a means in which to reverse the effects of zombie-ness but have to find a way to infilitrate and communicate to a whole cadre of barricaded survivor groups. How would you surivive the zombie infested wilderness while spreading the good word to those too stubborn to assist. How do you as a person break into the super compounds where allies wait? Are they even allies, or just deterrents.

Plot Twist: Using it too many times (2-3) on the same person causes the virus to evolve better and stronger in that person, turning him (and any who he infects) into a much more powerful and cure-resistant zombie than normal.

mjlush
2013-03-20, 01:24 PM
Why not flip the whole zombie paradigm? Your "group" has found a means in which to reverse the effects of zombie-ness but have to find a way to infilitrate and communicate to a whole cadre of barricaded survivor groups. How would you surivive the zombie infested wilderness while spreading the good word to those too stubborn to assist. How do you as a person break into the super compounds where allies wait? Are they even allies, or just deterrents.


Aunty BB has an interesting take on the zombie cure (http://io9.com/a-new-kind-of-zombie-comes-to-life-in-disturbing-bbc-se-456113358)

JackRose
2013-03-20, 03:41 PM
Suggestion A) The zombie apocalypse didn't just happen- someone caused it, and now they're putting their endgame into effect.
A1. Perhaps it was a group of conspirators who want the planet to themselves, and who are now coming out of the bunkers to sweep the scattered and vulnerable survivors from the face of the earth (think the Manson Family, only with the ability to cause a zombie apocalypse).
A2. Perhaps the dead rising is the result of an Elder Evil of some sort beginning to manifest.
A3. Maybe a wizard did it, and he's frantically trying to put it right, involving testing whatever survivors he can get his hands on to destruction while trying to find a cure.
B) The zombies are changing, becoming more dangerous, keeping the pressure up and kicking off mini-apocalypses each time they overrun some survivors. Admittedly, this more extends the heavy pressure from zombies conditions than presents a satisfying ending.
B1) As the zombies rot, suddenly a Skeleton Apocalypse!
C) (Assuming a world with fantastic elements other than zombies) Even once the zombies are no longer a threat, various creatures which were not a threat to a thriving civilization now threaten to wipe out the survivors.
C1) The party must turn back a huge tide of oozes/vampires/whatever, leaving the world free to rebuild.
C2) The huge tide of whatever can't be turned back, the party must find some way to flee to an unruined world (elf gate, fleet to an unzombified continent, whatever).

Coidzor
2013-03-20, 11:05 PM
I'm not saying that it can't be used for inspiration, just that it can't be classified as a zombie movie. You can derive inspiration from an episode of Hello Kitty or the cover of a Metallica album, inspiration has nothing to do with classification

Did you think I or anyone else was calling it a zombie movie? :smallconfused:

Granted, I'll have to go doublecheck, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't. Especially since I, at least, brought it up in the context of a game, not making a bloody zombie movie.

In fact, I'm pretty damn sure I was suggesting it as a way to modify the genre and game so that something could be done with it other than the bog standard, so of course it's not going to fit in perfectly with the genre of zombie movies.