Zombie Killing

[Tomsdad]

Don't forget in one on one situations against a slow zombie, chances are you can get some evaluate's in, giving you up to another +3.

Also what's the rule about concentrating on one opponent above all else and getting a +1, am I miss-remembering?

The trick is with zombies and the unskilled is to have the unskilled stack the situation. So they ensure the zombie can only come at them in one direction, or is hampered by a barricade, they attack from an ambush, they can only be attacked by one zombie at a time etc, etc. This means that any zombie encounters on the fly (surprise zombies) are that much more dangerous. Once they become more skilled they can deal with zombies 'on the fly' a bit better.

Basically the biggest advantage even the most unskilled in combat office worker/apocalypse survivor has is about 8pts in IQ, and until they become a hardened zombie killing expert, it's the one they should most rely on. (It's also the one most negated by panic, so I'd play up the psychological impact of all this as well)

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by barna10

This is realistic for the start of the game. After a session, the players should put a point into Axe/Mace or some other weapon skill to reflect what they've learned.

Also, there should be player deaths early in the game! Survival doesn't mean anything if it's the only possible outcome!

I'd allow the players to keep reusing the same characters, just with different names, to save time during the game. Maybe reward Character Points after each encounter instead of each session to really award survival. This would classify as an "Intense Learning Scenario" and you would learn something every minute you stayed alive. If you do this, the character's could dedicate a CP to whatever skill is necessary to use that improvised weapon after surviving one battle. They could then work on negating the Improvised Weapon penalty with a technique with each subsequent battle.

I actually like the idea of awarding CP each session, and letting the characters immediately spend it on skills they used to survive.

Thanks for suggestion!

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by Gold & Appel Inc

You could quickly and easily make it a lot easier for unskilled people to kill them by not requiring damage to the brain. Just sayin'. If you want to encourage it without ruling out things that will blow the body into hamburger or squish it into bacon without destroying the brain, IT: Unliving + IT: No Vitals is a popular build.

I'll probably go with something like that. Brain shots aren't going to be the ONLY way to kill zombies, but it's going to be the most certain way to do it.

I just want to avoid "basic HP depletion from torso attacks" being a viable method.

Is it important to the game that the PCs be able to wade into melee with the zombies and win? If the zombies are really tough but slow and kind of dumb, you could make zombie-killing more of an exercise in detecting them, running away, using tactics and distractions to herd them into booby-traps, sniping, running them over with a hot-wired school bus, etc, which some players might enjoy. Sure, their melee defaults might come up if they get surprised by a horde and overwhelmed, or screw up badly, but those will be disaster scenarios they probably wouldn't survive even with melee skills, not their standard operating procedure.

I'm not looking for most of the characters to be able to wade into a swirling melee with zombies. And I agree...the players are going to HAVE to be smart if they want to deal with Zombies. Avoidance, traps, and other methods are, I expect, going to be the groups "go-to" approach for dealing with zombies, especially in large groups.

And even 1-on-1, a zombie SHOULD be a threat for a non-combat expert. A threat...dangerous...risky to confront. But it's not any of those things. It's a flat death-sentence. Having to roll against skill-5 (4.5%) or skill-6 (9%) to be able to deal a killing blow to a zombie is not just "risky". It's "on the outer edge of improbable".

I suppose I would feel better if it was more like a 50% -60% chance of success. Then it would be at least worth attempting.

Though this particular line of discussion might be moot in light of some of the other suggestions people on this thread have made.

[Gigermann]

In my After the End campaign, I used the MH3 "slow" zombies but added Supernatural Durability (zombies can't be stunned, or knocked out, much less feel pain in any way), lowered their HP a bit, and added Skinny (easier Knockback). Also, although they don't defend themselves, they are generally moving around, especially when attacking, and should probably invoke speed/jerky-movement penalties to be hit.

The characters were not combat-skilled for the most part, and it showed. The Players were not loving that—there were some instances of genuine frustration—but they understood why and signed off on it.

For one, I think there's a tendency to think that failing to do damage this turn isn't realistic, but in reality, I expect there'd be a lot of flailing about trying to hit the skull/head and either missing entirely in the heat of the moment, or not connecting with the necessary force/angle—a "miss" doesn't necessarily mean no contact. This is counter to the typical cinematic depiction, and is why I generally allow Impulse Buys for combat rolls.

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Don't forget in one on one situations against a slow zombie, chances are you can get some evaluate's in, giving you up to another +3.

I completely forgot about that. Yeah...if you have time before they approach, Evaluate is the smart move.

Also what's the rule about concentrating on one opponent above all else and getting a +1, am I miss-remembering?

I think you are thinking about "One Foe" from Technical Grappling, page 22.

It only gives you a +1 to Active Defenses.

The trick is with zombies and the unskilled is to have the unskilled stack the situation. So they ensure the zombie can only come at them in one direction, or is hampered by a barricade, they attack from an ambush, they can only be attacked by one zombie at a time etc, etc. This means that any zombie encounters on the fly (surprise zombies) are that much more dangerous. One they become more skilled they can deal with zombies 'on the fly' a bit better.

Basically the biggest advantage even the most unskilled in combat office worker/apocalypse survivor has is about 8pts in IQ, and until they become a hardened zombie killing expert, it's the one they should most rely on. (It's also the one most negated by panic, so I'd play up the psychological impact of all this as well)

Yup. It comes down to being smart and leveraging your talents and imagination.

And I totally agree...surprise zombies are going to be much more dangerous than zombies you have lots of time to prepare for.

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by Gigermann

In my After the End campaign, I used the MH3 "slow" zombies but added Supernatural Durability (zombies can't be stunned, or knocked out, much less feel pain in any way), lowered their HP a bit, and added Skinny (easier Knockback). Also, although they don't defend themselves, they are generally moving around, especially when attacking, and should probably invoke speed/jerky-movement penalties to be hit.

Reading your campaign notes is actually what inspired me to do my own game. And I think the types of zombies you used are the right zombies for my campaign.

The characters were not combat-skilled for the most part, and it showed. The Players were not loving that—there were some instances of genuine frustration—but they understood why and signed off on it.

VERY good point. I think setting player expectations at the start of this is really going to be key for making the campaign work. We are coming off of an 8-month Shadowrun campaign, so this is going to be a very big turn for them.

Do you think your players would have had more fun if it was easier for them to kill zombies, or do you think that would have lasted just a few encounters until it got boring and the players stopped treating the zombies as an actual threat?

For one, I think there's a tendency to think that failing to do damage this turn isn't realistic, but in reality, I expect there'd be a lot of flailing about trying to hit the skull/head and either missing entirely in the heat of the moment, or not connecting with the necessary force/angle—a "miss" doesn't necessarily mean no contact. This is counter to the typical cinematic depiction, and is why I generally allow Impulse Buys for combat rolls.

Very well said. I'm going to make sure I use that approach when narrating combat.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by TheOneRonin

So how would you handle that? 1 point in Sports (Baseball) lets a character swing a bat at a Zombie at DX -1?

Makes sense to me.

All-Out Telegraphic Attacks to the skull are at Skill-1. Evaluate for a few seconds and you can get to Skill+2 or Skill+3. Against a DX-4 default, that is indeed DX-1.

[Gigermann]

Originally Posted by TheOneRonin

Do you think your players would have had more fun if it was easier for them to kill zombies, or do you think that would have lasted just a few encounters until it got boring and the players stopped treating the zombies as an actual threat?

In my case, there was a bit of miscommunication in that regard. I expected to do a lot of combat, so I held back on the zombie numbers to prevent them from getting overwhelmed too early. The players, however, decided to avoid combat entirely—no doubt influenced by their characters' lack of skills to that end—in which case my "holding back" became counter-productive, and ultimately, boring. If the characters had been more combat-capable, I'm sure they would have had less problem wading in, circumventing the issue—at which point I would have continued to increase the numbers to make it challenging. But, as it's been said so often: zombies aren't a threat, so much as an obstacle.

Moral of the story: make sure you and the players are on the same page. You can go full-cinematic or rogue-like, so long as the players understand and play along with those parameters.

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

If you go hand to hand with a zombie with a weapon you aren't familiar with then you deserve to get eaten. The only people who survive more than a few days are the ones who are already skilled with weapons or who are lucky enough not to get killed until they get skilled.

Right here. Something like 60% of all battlefield deaths in Vietnam were of soldiers in their first month in country: if you didn't learn, you died.

As far as baseball bats go, though, I wouldn't give a "Combat Sport" level. Using a baseball bat as the sport of baseball intends you to do so means a two-handed grip that significantly shortens your range. This is not a good thing.

One example -- and, really, a good demonstration of the hesitancy of newbies in combat -- was one of the weirder incidents in my life. Oddly enough, this took place during one of my GURPS sessions, when a player alerted us to a commotion in the street. Right in front of my house, two guys were going at it -- one with a baseball bat, one with an axe. Demonstrating the soundness of GURPS' combat rereadying rules, the pattern of the melee was for one combatant to try a roundhouse swing, miss the other guy, and then furiously backpedal while bringing his weapon back into line, as the other fellow took HIS roundhouse swing.

This went on for about half a minute, neither guy connecting with the other, before the sirens sounded and they took off ...

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by TheOneRonin

I think you are thinking about "One Foe" from Technical Grappling, page 22.

It only gives you a +1 to Active Defenses.

.

That's the one, yes, (and yes was miss-remembering it) cheers