Jump to content

Vinge

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. @ taleden Thanks for the response. I thought that is what made to most sense.
  2. I'd like some clarification on Jyn's cheap shot. Ok, so in "Last Stand" we ran up against Vader. I was playing Jyn. Vader's rules in the mission say: "Instead of activating normally, Vader may move 2 spaces and make an attack after each heroes turn." Members of my group contended that Jyn's cheap shot interrupt can not be used because they take Vader's rules to mean he doesnt activate and thus can't trigger cheap shot. We played it that way but afterwards I looked over the rules and I think the "instead of activating normally" statement means that Vader does still activate, just out of turn, and thus cheap shot could still be used (still only once per Jyn's activation token). Just wondering what other people think.
  3. Are you all adding an extra positive die to the dice pool for each additional zombie in a horde besides the first? I've been thinking of handling it that way, instead of individual rolls for them. This would make them substantially deadlier. Well that is how I use them. On firm even ground, with good lighting. No obstacles. One shambler against an armed, confident, and competent survivor should pose little challenge. But start adding difficulty by making it pitch black, broken glass and rubble everywhere, tight quarters- no room to swing the axe. Maybe noxious fumes are seeping up from a cracked gas line. Maybe the survivor is scared, or sick, or hurt- or all three. Maybe there is more than one zombie. Maybe you recognize the zombie- It looks like your younger sister. The situation can get bleak very fast. Or try to set up situations where it isn't a stand up fight- a zombie grabs a leg from under the stairs, or jumps on top of someone from a roof top. In those situations it is not a "fight" situation, more like a saving throw to avoid getting bit. Or have a street be full of hundreds of the things, and it becomes real clear the PCs can't just wade through. I hope we are being helpful.
  4. Again, not exactly what you asked for but I thought the encounter hooks here are really good. Many seem to be set at least a few weeks into the outbreak though. I find having a table like that to fall back on works really well when I have to improv, so I hope it helps.
  5. You might try to track down the excellent adventure from "All Flesh Must Be Eaten" (another zombie rpg game) called "Coffee Break of the Living Dead". It wouldnt work perfectly for you but it is about an outbreak starting during a normal day at the office. The PCs all get trapped in an elevator and by the time they get free the whole building is swarming with their undead co-workers. The "rage" zombies are a interesting choice and have their own challenges. You should try to play that up, show mobs of them running down cars and hunting through the convention halls like raptors. Also try to imagine the stuff at the convention halls, describing dusty plastic palm trees and vending machines can go a long way to setting up the scene.
  6. One idea I had was to give them a really good reason to be somewhere by a certain time, like there is a evacuation taking place in a nearby town in 10 days. I'm a big fan of zombie boardgames and video games, there can be a lot of inspiration found there. Honestly although playing as yourselves in your starting location like the game suggests could be neat I'm thinking of running it differently. I'm thinking of running my PCs through the missions that you get in State of Decay which is an excellent zombie survival game. I'd have the players just returning from a two week camping trip to find zombies roaming the camp sites and a few survivors hiding in the nearby ranger station.
  7. I see what you are saying but I think idea is that just having medical knowledge doesn't make your body tougher or less resistant to injury. So when you are recovering you still roll vitality and use physical features- like a "tough" feature or something. But you can still use the medical training to give you or someone else positive dice when recovering. Say you have a CPR training and basic first aid, you and your GM agree that the feature gives you a single positive dice to assist recovery because you know how to treat a wound. Say you have 10 years of experience as a heart surgeon, with proper equipment and time you could possibly get like 10 positive dice if your GM agrees your feature applies really well.
  8. Yes you use the defensive stat from the same category as the trauma when recovering. But check this: "As with any test, this test gains positive and negative dice from any circumstances affecting the treatment. For example, positive dice can be added due to helpful equipment or the assistance of allies."- pg33. So I guess its like this- having the knowledge of knowing how treat a wound doesn't help you physically to heal better but you can apply that knowledge to get bonus dice (and give bonus dice if treating another person). So I guess it is up to you and your GM to determine how helpful your medical training is each time you try to use it.
  9. Well it would be a conflict (pg34). There are rules for opposed tests (pg20) as well.
  10. I would just more or less try to tell them what they are aware of rather than make them roll a perception check. Unlike d&d where I call perception checks all the time, I'd just try to tell the PCs what they can see or hear or smell at all times, clarifying when they ask. I can see certain situations though were a further roll might be called for and I think logic would probably work. For noticing something off about a survivor I'd say that more of a social roll, using empathy. And you can run tasks that have no chance of causing stress if there is no immediate danger (pg44).
  11. Ok, well personally I think I wouldn't necessarily require a roll to fight off mental anguish, because as you say there is no guarantee the PCs would care. I would rather not tell players how they feel about stuff like that. I think it is usually better to let the players decide on that kinda thing on their own. And thus, for that reason I wouldn't use empathy for that either. As a few of us have said there isn't really a social interaction taking place in the example of of leaving the girl behind. It is just something the character did. As written there is no cause for stress to be applied in a situation like that, since, as stated in the rules there are really only two "things" that could happen to cause a roll like that. Either a Conflict or a Task. A conflict obviously is when two characters are trying actively to do something that causes a conflict between them. The task being when a character specifically tries to do something, i.e. takes an action which effectively puts them in a conflict type situation with the game environment in some manner. So I could see your example making sense if the little girl cried and pleaded to be rescued as the PCs started to leave - in game terms here she is making a charisma based attack against the "Heroes" empathy stat, which I think would be appropriate. It is important to note she couldn't force the characters to come back and save her by succeeding, but her very effective pitiful pleading could definitely cause stress and haunt the PCs -EVEN IF they do go back and rescue her- because as written that is how conflict and stress work. I don't think it would be an unreasonable houseruling on the GMs part to say that rescuing her would cancel out the stress caused by her begging, but it could go either way depending on the tone of the game. I suppose the example could work as a task as well if the player specifically said they wanted to attempt to ignore her pleading, but I would find it pretty unlikely for a player to do that. Tasks are actions PCs decide to do so it wouldn't be supported by the rules for the GM to call for task to ignore her pleading. The GM could however rule that the girl pleading is distracting and thus adds a difficulty die (or several) to a different task the PC is attempting, such as picking a lock or trying to convince somebody to do something for you. It sounds like what you are discussing is something more like a morale or alignment mechanic of some kind, which could be a cool house rule for sure. I'm really not trying to be a jerk or anything like that, I'm just enjoying this discussion and hope you are too. I'm doing my best to explain the rules to the best of my understanding. I think it is important to do that before deciding what you want to change or house rule (and as I mentioned I am going to be doing a whole bunch of house ruling myself).
  12. I get what you are saying but I'm really having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. There is no social interaction taking place in the examples. Realizing that you left a child to die falls completely under willpower- i.e."resisting the horrors of the world". The examples of social conflict in the book are stuff like talking a hostile person down, convincing someone to do something for you etc. It seems like a really weird stretch is being made here, like if you had a character make a vitality check to see if they were strong enough to hold a book they are reading- if they pass they have found the answer in the book and know how to do something (i.e. it should have just been willpower roll in the first place). Again, I'm all for house ruling and making stuff up (I'm not planning on using the six stats in the rulebook at all when I play), but that doesn't seem like what you are going for, and thus I'm concerned there is a misunderstanding about how the stats work.
  13. Yeah, I have to agree with emsquared. The Social stats are related to social tests. The scenarios used as examples are full on mental situations. Look at page 21 for a breakdown of the stats: Sure they are abstractions, but they are defined terms that mean something in the game. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud. I'm all for changing stuff and making up house rules and stuff, but it just seems like there is a misunderstanding about what the stats are intended to represent.
  14. Well sounds like things are going ok. 17 dead shamblers doesn't sound too unreasonable for a strong survivor with a fire axe. I would say just start increasing the number of zombies they see each day until little by little the balance shifts out of the players favour. Also, although not in the RAW I would recommend a chance for weapons to degrade or break over time. Something like: every ten hits with a fire axe roll a d6, on a 1 the weapon degrades, adding only one additional attack dice now. Not to punish the players but simply to add a degree of uncertainty. And as a side note I think your idea of adding some stronger ghouls in is a good idea for the same reason. I'm going to be using some specials in my game for sure.
  15. When using large hordes add additional dice. I would add a dice for every additional Zombie attacking, up to the number that could reasonably reach at once- which I would probably cap at 8 if the survivor was surrounded but standing, or 10 if they were surrounded and prone. Make an attack for the whole horde rather than a bunch of individual attacks for each zed. Zeds are weak one on one, but in a mob they should be horrifying.
×
×
  • Create New...