Zombie Killing

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by TheOneRonin

That's a fair assessment, and the GURPS rules I mentioned above pretty much illustrate that very thing.

My question is "Does that make for good gameplay in a Zombie game where most of the characters are not skilled melee experts?"

The genre seems to require a large percentage of the main characters getting killed.

No arguments here. But does that make for a fun experience with there may not be more than one Melee-weapon-trained character in the whole party?

If the players aren't enjoying it, they probably should play something else. The genre seems to be about regular people with no special skills living in the turmoil for a few days before most of them get killed.

Also, how do you GET skilled without actually using weapons to kill zombies? I would imagine the price for failure while learning is "zombie food".

I like the idea of giving them a point or two after each serious encounter rather than waiting for the end of the session - at least for the first few days. Points get awarded for clever gameplay, innovative solutions, and advancing the goals of the group, not for killing things.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In general, it shouldn't be possible to get more than +10 under the absolute best non-combat conditions against a stationary target (e.g. shooting a target using AoA:D in a well-lit range set at a well-known position and distance). Being able to get +11 under combat conditions, even with drawbacks, seems wrong compared to that.

Agreed. +10 should be the most you could get even under optimal conditions. If a task is so easy that you routinely get more than +10 for it then you probably shouldn't be rolling at all. At the prison when they were standing behind the wire fence and stabbing zombies one by one shouldn't require skill rolls for each attack. I would give each character one roll for the whole task to see if there was some kind of accident.

[Anders]

I'd go with attacking the legs first. They're easier to hit, and a crippling blow here makes the rest of the fight much, much easier.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

In general, it shouldn't be possible to get more than +10 under the absolute best non-combat conditions against a stationary target (e.g. shooting a target using AoA:D in a well-lit range set at a well-known position and distance). Being able to get +11 under combat conditions, even with drawbacks, seems wrong compared to that.

Hmm I'd say the best you can realistically have against a stationary target in a non combat situation is an automatic hit. (which this is pretty close to).

Is it really the fact that it can tip the +10 threshold? Not sure I'm really worried about a hard +10 threshold. Especially as by that definition it would be fine if I was suffering some negative mods from other factors.

Don't get me wrong I can see how +11 bonus could be abused here, it is basically an automatic eye or armour chink hit for anyone of moderate skill. But IME it largely negated by anyone fighting even remotely cleverly and/or defensively.

Also that argument is only relevant for the combination of 3x evaluate AoA:D and Telegraphic. What about just 3x evaluate and Telegraphic that doesn't breach the +10 hard limit?

I can't see a reason why AoA:D and telegraphic is a legitimate stack at +8 (with loss of defence as trade off)

and 3x evaluate and telegraphic stacking to +7 (with the three turn sacrifice) isn't.

Anyway as ever I'm guessing this comes down to play experience, I don't find it a problme, but that doens't mean there's no potential problems

[DanHoward]

I'd go with attacking the legs first. They're easier to hit, and a crippling blow here makes the rest of the fight much, much easier.

You don't really need to cripple the legs. Once the creature is on the ground it should be easy to hold it in place with a pitch fork or shovel or heavy boot while someone else whacks it in the head. Crippling is good if you don't plan on sticking around to finish it.

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

Claymation game? Really?

Yep. 3/4 of the players (Tshiggins, Dublindog, and zino @ Here, in descending order of activity) can vouch for me.

I based the aesthetic on the old Rankin / Bass Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer special that they play on tv every December. The PCs and everybody else were made out of animate clay, and every inanimate object was inanimate clay. Everybody had IT: Homogenous, IT: Detachable / Reattachable Limbs, and Unhealing with an exception for treatment with Artist (Sculpting). People who got immolated were on, "clay fire," falling to the ground and turning into black clay while waves of red and orange clay writhed in the air above them. The PCs were a Human (Ninja), an Intelligent Animal (Tactician / Faceman), a rogue Elf from Santa's Workshop who became disillusioned with Communism (TL 4+5 Techie), and a Misfit Toy (Heavy Weapons). Santa himself was a two-ton spherical clay monster with Sumo: 20, and his henchmen included Hermey the Dentist / Torturer (who appeared at the final confrontation wearing an SM -1 TL 4+5 Clockpunk Battlesuit that took a direct hit from the teddy bear's RPG to bring down), Cassius Clay the Boxing Snowman, and Rocket Rudolph the Robot Reindeer, who escaped the destruction of the workshop to be the main villain (with the Bumble as his henchman) in the inevitable sequel.

The rogue Elf stole the show when he commandeered the workshop PA system and issued a squeaky-voiced political diatribe against Santa, successfully inciting a riot between loyalists and malcontents, ("My proletarian brethren, you have been deceived! The fruits of your tireless labor are being distributed to the children of the bourgeoisie, for no benefit to the Arctic collective, while your 'first elf amongst elves' enjoys kingly luxury and unprecedented media worship! Throw down your toys, and rise up against the authoritarian red oppressor!"), but everybody else also hammed it up and seemed to have a good time.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Agreed. +10 should be the most you could get even under optimal conditions. If a task is so easy that you routinely get more than +10 for it then you probably shouldn't be rolling at all. At the prison when they were standing behind the wire fence and stabbing zombies one by one shouldn't require skill rolls for each attack. I would give each character one roll for the whole task to see if there was some kind of accident.

Thing is as the earlier work up showed using a default axe/mace skill at DX-5 to do skull even with +11 from AoA:d, Telegraphic and 3x evaluate isn't close to an automatic hit (in fact it's net DX-1). As I said I actually quite like that that in order to be combat effective under these circumstances requires such a set up, it seem to be be quite in keeping with the genre.

Unless you're saying it should be caped at +10 with all positive and negative situational mods taken into account, in which case yeah I can see the case for an automatic hit (unless the basic stat itself was say 5 or less). Certainly a non combat situation, and I'd argue that's scene with the wire link fence counts as 'non combat' as there was now risk to the guys on the other side poking through the gaps. So I'd probably do the same and make a single roll for something not going horribly wrong.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Hmm I'd say the best you can realistically have against a stationary target in a non combat situation is an automatic hit. (which this is pretty close to).

Is it really the fact that it can tip the +10 threshold? Not sure I'm really worried about a hard +10 threshold. Especially as by that definition it would be fine if I was suffering some negative mods from other factors.

Don't get me wrong I can see how +11 bonus could be abused here, it is basically an automatic eye or armour chink hit for anyone of moderate skill. But IME it largely negated by anyone fighting even remotely cleverly and/or defensively.

Also that argument is only relevant for the combination of 3x evaluate AoA:D and Telegraphic. What about just 3x evaluate and Telegraphic that doesn't breach the +10 hard limit?

I can't see a reason why AoA:D and telegraphic is a legitimate stack at +8 (with loss of defence as trade off)

and 3x evaluate and telegraphic stacking to +7 (with the three turn sacrifice) isn't.

Anyway as ever I'm guessing this comes down to play experience, I don't find it a problme, but that doens't mean there's no potential problems

One of the applications is after succeeding at a Stealth roll to sneak up on an enemy. You shouldn't have a better bonus doing that compared to shooting a target on a firing range or hitting a chair.
Don't forget the bonus for Dirty Fighting (IIRC e.g. DF allows 3 levels of it).

Capping the total bonus from {AoA+Evaluate+Telegraphic Attack} at +8 seems reasonable. Even so, Telegraphic Attack seems to do the same thing as Evaluate, but (a) hurriedly and thus (b) not taking into account any measure to avoid the enemy's preparation for the lined-up attack.

[fifiste]

I personally also think that the default of whacking someone with a stick (DX-5) being so much worse than the default of just whacking someone with a fist (DX) is something quirky.

So if I'm attacked by a thug Id better not grab a led pipe - I'll go from 50-50 hit chances to below 5% hit chance. That is just ridiculous. Either this penalty is too harsh or a simple punch is too generous.

Except for the sheer terror/stress whacking a good smack with ANY hard object on a romero style shamblers head shouldn't be nigh on impossible even for a survivor unskilled in melee combat. Actually it should be rather doable at least to anyone who has split some firewood etc. in his/hers life - psychological terror aside the shamblers head is not a much of a harder target than a thin wobbly log. And the stress/terror etc. should be handled with other mechanics - fright checks etc.

I'd iterate that it might make sense to replace skull hit location for Z-s with a general headshot location (-5) for this genre and also the skulls in the Walking Dead series seem to be made of papier-mache (might be because they actually are :D), so you'd might reconsider the skull DR or make any damage roll bigger than 3-4 an instakill that will cause the head to explode in gory mess.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

One of the applications is after succeeding at a Stealth roll to sneak up on an enemy.

At the risk of stating the obvious that requires you sneak up on someone to within striking distance, no mean feat.

If some one what's to sneak up behind a target to within striking range then spend 3 turns evaluating while standing behind them (still hoping not to be detected) and then launching a telegraphic attack and AoA:D, I'd let them. It's a big risk.

If nothing else it's a situation that removed defences from the equation (as does the zombie one) that's automatically going to effect teh balance of telegraphic attack, which main disadvantage is a bonus to defend against. As such not appropriate for judging this by.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You shouldn't have a better bonus doing that compared to shooting a target on a firing range or hitting a chair.

Those are two very different things (well unless that shooting range is very, very short). I'm not sure I'd require roll at all to hit chair. And as posted above if you defaulting of Dx-5 and targeting the skull +11 is not the instant hit your argument is assuming it is by comparing it to doing so.

I think it fair to say +10 is an automatic hit for a ordinary person doing an ordinary thing so anything over +10 is redundant. I.e. base stat 10, with no other mods, but that's not every instance of +10 positive mods.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Don't forget the bonus for Dirty Fighting (IIRC e.g. DF allows 3 levels of it).

Not sure why that's relevant to why evaluate and Telegraphic are mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Capping the total bonus from {AoA+Evaluate+Telegraphic Attack} at +8 seems reasonable. Even so, Telegraphic Attack seems to do the same thing as Evaluate, but (a) hurriedly and thus (b) not taking into account any measure to avoid the enemy's preparation for the lined-up attack.

I'd argue they are pretty different things, based on different trade offs. The only similarity is in the bonus they give, but that's just a game metric, and there are other legal combinations that stack.

Also it's normally mutual exclusivity that prevents stacking effects. Which is why you can't do a decpetive telegraphic attack.