Post-Apocalypse Campaign

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Zombies don't preclude established civilization. Humanity could fight them back and entrench, and build an uneasy civilization outside which zombies are dialed back to the threat level of storms, enemy invaders, or man-eating lions: lethally bad, but not automatically society-destroying.

My comment was aimed at the combination of "there when the fit hits the shan" and "established civilization." Seems like you need to compress some time between there.

And the funny thing is, I associate Zombies with "run to the woods and build a cabin and worry about leaving tracks to your lair" and nukes with "rebuild civilization on the ashes, no point in hiding out with your guns in the cabin." Seems to be quite the opposite of your associations.

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I should add that pure-strain survivalist, cabin-building gaming – in the vein of, say Twilight 2000 – is a rare and acquired taste. Most gamers really don't want to count cans, make tons of rolls for searching ruins and building shacks, and avoid violence because there aren't enough bullets or bandages. The majority view of post-apocalypse gaming has mutants, psis, weird tech, zombies, etc.

I read through The Deathlands novels once. They weren't so great. But it was the same sort of "suvival porn" you get with The Suvivalist series of novels. The only real difference was whether it was muties or bikers getting killed. But I am more interested in the reasons players would choose this genre, mutants or not, than what they kill.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by safisher

But I am more interested in the reasons players would choose this genre, mutants or not, than what they kill.

Then I'd cut all my verbiage down to:

Originally Posted by Kromm

1. A chance to be clever.
2. Hand-to-mouth survival.

It's all about showing off your mad skillz (item the first) in an environment where they're all that stands between you and death tonight (item the second). Every post-apocalypse game has that thread, whether the skills in question are those of cabin-building, empire-building, or just shooting the heck out of things, and whether death comes courtesy of exposure and starvation or at the creepy hands of zombies and Humungus the bandit chieftain. Desolation is great, but why does it matter? Because it puts you in a hand-to-mouth survival situation from which cleverness can extract you and give you hope.

As for "survival porn," a big problem with most of it is that it moves the focus off skills and onto material preparation. The latter relies more on player cleverness than on PC cleverness: the non-survivalist player of a skilled survivor gets hosed for a poor approach to suitable gear while the survivalist player of nobody special can parlay his encyclopedic knowledge of gear into an excessive edge. This is the not-so-subtle reason why lots of post-apocalypse games have mutant powers and zombie-killin' fu, and why quite a few post-apocalypse films talk the talk about starvation and exposure, yet you never see anybody die from either – just from "not being the main character, who is a badass."

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Kromm

the non-survivalist player of a skilled survivor gets hosed for a poor approach to suitable gear while the survivalist player of nobody special can parlay his encyclopedic knowledge of gear into an excessive edge.

Yeah, I get that too. I find that to be a common problem in many genres, however. I think what makes it most insulting here is that most people resent the idea that mundane gear can provide the same edge as choosing sleep over magic missile, or whatever.

As for "a chance to be clever" and "hand-to-mouth survival," I'm not sure those are particularly endemic to PA gaming. You can be clever and use skills in any game, and the survival aspect could be played out in any setting. I think PA grants the players a level of freedom and abandon -- there are likely no laws, jails, cellphones, maps, etc. It's just a sandbox waiting to be explored, er, conquered.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by safisher

I think what makes it most insulting here is that most people resent the idea that mundane gear can provide the same edge as choosing sleep over magic missile, or whatever.

In GURPS specifically, this stems from the "costs points vs. doesn't cost points" divide. In essence, if it comes out of your points allowance – like attributes, advantages, and skills, and some gear, like Signature Gear and things with Equipment Bond – it should make a difference. If it comes out of your cash (or barter) allowance, it really shouldn't. Equipment not bonded to the character in some way is just breakage- and thief-bait, and players know that, so they dial the importance of such things down and bank on innate abilities that have point costs.

In a PA campaign, one interesting fix would be to identify a list of skills very relevant to survival and say that every N points in those skills gives access to one item from a limited list of survival gear that the GM knows will be insanely valuable. Another would be to allow those with such skills the option of buying a level of Gizmos with a "Survival gear only" limitation for every N points in skills, so that they can simply whip out the right thing when needed because ". . . of course an expert at Survival (Radioactive Wasteland) has a spare dosimeter!" Neither is hard realism, but as the problem being addressed is caused by hard realism, I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

As an aside here, I'll point out that while some people like to think of PA as a hard-realism genre, it surely ain't that. It's complete speculation. For every gamer who sees it as realistic, there are 10 who can't completely dispel the thoughts of mutants, zombies, and Humungus, and therefore regard it as a special form of skiffy or even fantasy (especially if there are any swords in evidence at all!). I think the silly Gizmos might fit better than one might think, even despite the fact that they weaken the power of scarcity.

Originally Posted by safisher

As for "a chance to be clever" and "hand-to-mouth survival," I'm not sure those are particularly endemic to PA gaming. You can be clever and use skills in any game, and the survival aspect could be played out in any setting. I think PA grants the players a level of freedom and abandon -- there are likely no laws, jails, cellphones, maps, etc. It's just a sandbox waiting to be explored, er, conquered.

Sure! Which means that the "chance to be clever" is far less limited, as organized society – with all its rules and norms – won't interfere. Which makes it more important. And which means the "hand-to-mouth survival" comes with no society to provide safety net. Which makes that more important, too. I'm not saying that these themes are unique – few genres have truly unique themes. I'm saying that these themes are emphatic here.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by safisher

As for "a chance to be clever" and "hand-to-mouth survival," I'm not sure those are particularly endemic to PA gaming. You can be clever and use skills in any game, and the survival aspect could be played out in any setting. I think PA grants the players a level of freedom and abandon -- there are likely no laws, jails, cellphones, maps, etc. It's just a sandbox waiting to be explored, er, conquered.

Kromm hit on this too, so I hope I'm not being redundant, but for me the key thing that comes with PA is the whole aspect of self-reliance. Because there is limited or no civil authority, at least in some places, there will be times during which the characters have no mundane power or authority greater than themselves to which they could turn, if they were so inclined.

I know that as a GM, at times I have to handwave away the ability for the players to contact their patrons, bosses, or COs, because I want *them* to make the dramatic decisions (even though it seems as though the situation might warrant a "lets hold off and confirm our orders" kind of approach).

To me, that's one of the gaming problems "solved" by a setting with some measure of anarchy.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by safisher

As for "a chance to be clever" and "hand-to-mouth survival," I'm not sure those are particularly endemic to PA gaming. You can be clever and use skills in any game, and the survival aspect could be played out in any setting. I think PA grants the players a level of freedom and abandon

You might be interested in S John Ross's Five Elements of Commercially-Viable RPG Design.

He writes of the importance of

• cliche - elements familiar to players
• combat - fights are dramatic, people like 'em
• fellowship - the PCs are in it together
• anarchy - the PCs are pretty much on their own and can do as they wish
• engima - there's something about the setting that the PCs can never fully know

He notes,

"These elements aren't keys to quality ... a game can be crummy with them and excellent without them. They are, though, a useful window into the appeal of RPGs as games, into the conventions of RPGs as a fictional medium, and into the considerations that make the design of a game world a beast distinct from other kinds of world design."

To my mind, postapocalyptic is one of the most useful of settings to a GM, because it so easily offers all five of those elements, and because it allows so much variety in them. The postapocalyptic world has many elements of our own, so it has cliche. Immediately after the apocalypse the world is chaotic and lawless, generations after it's either low-population with large stretches of wilderness or so high-population density that nobody can possibly police it properly, and so it has combat and anarchy.

That leaves only enigma. Immediately after the apocalypse, the mystery can be how regions immediately outside the PCs' one have changed; generations after, the mystery can be both that, and how the apocalypse happened - or even that it happened at all. Think of the final scene of Planet of the Apes.

With or without magic/supertech, whatever the kind of apocalypse, the postapocalyptic setting very easily offers all five elements, and allows great variety in their presentation. Of course as Ross said that doesn't mean the campaign will be any good, but... :)

[Luke Bunyip]

What Kromm and Bookman said.... re: choice of skills vs nifty things.

You have me thinking of "Dies the Fire" by SM Stirling, especially the first couple of chapters, where there is 'some' nifty toys, but it can come down to skills and decision making.

Stirling does have a strong 'work together' as opposed to 'rugged individualist' subtext going on, but. Not to mention hordes of plague carrying refugees, and crazed cannibals (ersatz zombies).

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

the postapocalyptic setting very easily offers all five elements, and allows great variety in their presentation

Do you run/play it as a mutant killing machine or as a half-naked scavenger?

[Kyle Aaron]

In the games I run, they usually start out as half-naked scavengers, and build up to Mad Max, more or less. I have them start out in an isolated valley or cryogenics experiment so they don't even know what caused the apocalypse. I offer "building" sorts of things, where they can establish their own order, but usually they're not interested. They just want to smack over "bad guys" and go "woohoo!" as they ride their truck.

I've played in a game where there was some building, with my character leading groups from immediate postapocalyptic chaos to some order, and fighting against other people's nastier attempts to establish order. I enjoyed that a lot - but as I said, most players don't seem to be very interested in that.