You are not logged in (log in or sign up)
RPG Laboratory

Current Project

|

Ok, at the moment, my project is a 12 page Cold Hard Truth Supplement that details:

  • The 8 types of reanimates (Description & Stats)

  • The Eekaidie Power Armor
  • Science behind the reanimates
  • Some of the rules corrections noted so far

With any luck it should be posted in the next 24-48 hours. However, this is raising some questions I haven't particularly though through, and I want to see what others think.

First of all, the way the plague spreads hasn't been established. We do know its linked to the symbiosis of a biological weapon and nanotechnology. The Nano only functions for 14-18 months, though it is not eliminated from the body for 5-10 years. (Its designed that way - if it was less benign, the immune system would react, and it would cause organ rejection symptoms.) So does this mean that all people who die become reanimates, just those infected in a certain time frame, those bitten, etc. I was kind of thinking that the reanimates would slowly disappear as unlike most zombies, their numbers aren't being replenished quickly - and leave some hope of rebuilding. Or would the more bleak outlook of standard zombie fare be better?

Secondly, two different systems are present for combat initiative. The actual combat rules dictate that it is speed (Animus) + a roll, where as the combat example is a roll of quick added to the attribute. I'm not entirely sure of which one to use. The former reflects injury better, the later seems a little quicker, and probably gives a bit of an edge to the living.

I've also been doing a little more thinking about the rest of the world. Europe is less stable city states and more nomadic wandering - a sort of continent wide A-zone, though there is some central government tyring to assist. Much of Eastern Europe and Russia is rule by the strong or modern day mongol hordes. However, large segments of the army, and the North Fleet (including a number of SSNBMs) seem to be under a central authority (Director Greegon) from the Kola peninsula.

The middle east and north Africa are havens for the Planetary Citizens - those areas are rather like their home planet.

My next project is probably going to be an expose on the Citizens themselves, and possibly some more info of NB. However, I have an ominous feeling that in looking at such specifics as alien cars, I'm overlooking something with farther reaching consequences. Any ideas?

My vote

I vote they not die out and that initiative is affected by injury.

I'm just a big fan of stable settings.

The only way I would change my vote is if you did a series of adventures that detailed the creation, decine and end of the zombie plague, kind of like 8th Tribe or Orpheus, or I think Engel is going this way too, but I haven't been keeping up.

You could set this series of adventures in Las Vegas. The series starts with the invasion. Set the goals of the players. In this story arc the players must... Maybe you only need to develop two adventures, one dark and gritty, War of the Worlds, one silly and funny, Mars Attacks.

Then Zombies. In this story arc the players must... How does Las Vegas become a sovreign state of its own? What was the process? How can players get involved?

Then Zombies decline. In this story arc the players must... How does the world change as humans have to fear less and less from zombies? Presumably, some of the reanimates can think to a degree. How do they react to their own eventual extinction? Do they recognize their flaws, or do they try plans to recruit new members? 5 to 10 years isn't a long time to live. Do they seek to lengthen their lives? Are there new communities of humans or Planetary Citizens that have grown in the wilderness that is progressively less infested with zombies? Are they friendly communities or militant and agressive?

Finally all or most of the zombies are gone. In this story arc the players must... How has the world changed by going through the zombie ordeal? Do the humans try to go back to the way they lived before? Do they resume their war with the shrimps? Has power shifted? Has anyone learned any important lessons? "Our reliance on nanotech opened the door for this mess. We need to work on (fill in blank) instead." (AI, eugenic gene-gineering, Asimov Foundation style societal control, magnetogravitic spacetime manipulation, etc.) Do the players have to deal with killer robots, or a fascist state that actually is a genetically superior race of beings? "Cloned, mindless, soldier drones?! I never thought I would miss the reanimates." Do they have to do something to create a better society? Do they have to stop a group of scientists from opening a wormhole to another dimension that might let in real demons and zombies?

That way you have a metplot that has a beginning, middle and end. You don't have to detail everywhere. You can leave it up to the individual players and GMs to figure out how NEST, or Ireland, or Australia got through these events, but at least tell us how one area went through all these stages.

That's the only way I would vote for dying out zombies.

85% post brain-consumer content

Are the two of you trying to be contradictory, or did it just work out that way?

One of my next projects may be a set of scenarios for the game. The first part would be a synopsis of the five modern schools of psychology, and what each means in establishing your game. After that would be 5 adventure hooks per city/zone

  • Alien encounters

  • Dissenting factions
  • Politics between two states
  • Reanimate control problem
  • A retro adventure set in the confusion of the early rise as the area is being established.

So far as Vegas is concerned for the final scenario - people flocked there because it was safe. In addition to the ability to use H-bombs to defend the area (the "Battle of Vegas" story) - its flat terrain. Human coilguns out range alien weapons, but are mounted on less mobile platforms. PCs have the advantage in the city ruins and ambush situations, but are target practice out in Nevada. The real question is, how do they deal with the population problem, and evolve into a true city state rather than an armed neon refugee camp.

A post reanimate world definitely sounds interesting. Perhaps a whole other game with a bit crunchier rules than this one. Another thing I'm considering is something set on the mars colonies, where the settlers need to raid each other to survive. I can also see an alpha or type IV as smart enough to type or communicate - so a story from their POV might be possible.

While I didn't make it too clear, the reanimates may very well be immortal (or not). Its the nanites in the human body that get worn out. Of course, some people still get the nano boosters, because there are still nasty diseases out there. Many people either don't know the cause, or think the nanite theory is only a rumor. More importantly, this is not supposed to be a "Frankenstein complex" story blaming the technology. Rather, its supposed to be about a new dangerous world and how to find a place in it. Conform to the cities, or create your own enclave?

The possible reanimate extinction is more linked to replacement rates compared to the military actions of the living. While there could be huge numbers initially (there was a global war after all) - there are fewer people to turn now. I also have not decided at what rate people turn into the Dead, and if its everyone or just the bitten. Given that nuclear weapons were deployed, we might be breathing millions of them. That would be another thing I need to figure out - how many of these things there are. China, India, and Japan are not good places to be at this time.

"The one fact that makes human society possible is that it is harder to stare a man in the eye than to stab him in the back."

expansion

I'll expand on my thoughts as Sheikh did.

As for the initiative, you're on your own unless someone else votes. I just like fast simple, injury still has an effect, but I can see initiative working fine either way.

As for the reanimates, or better stated, the world in general, I like a dynamic, evolving setting both as a player and GM. As GM, I don't want to have to worry that the PC accidently cause the downfall of NB, when it's supposed to be the place where society really gets a foot hold. As a player, I don't want to be told that I can't do something because it screws up the known future.

I think it comes down to what you think players want. I can see Sheikh's point of a stable environment, but I prefer a starting point and apparent futures. It seems the reanimates are becoming less frequent, unless something happens their numbers will drop; maybe the aliens learn to use them effectively as weapons and unleash the bio-weapon again. The human's are starting to redevelop a stable civilization; but a few nuts (and a well placed bomb or two) might screw that up for everyone. More than that, the player's might want to be the ones with the bombs. Eco-nuts (no offense to anyone) determined that both human and aliens should be wiped of the planet.

A side note: Why the quote change?

Places everybody

I'm not much of one for meta-plot, and there is no one city set to dominate. I'm a little more concerned with the hope for the future aspect. Each group has its internal and external problems. Aside from the global conflicts like this, I don't have an end point.

For that matter, the US alone has quite a few areas of here be dragons - so if you want to add new cites and locations go ahead. Actually, I was using an atlas earlier, and found out most of the states are separated by five or six hundred miles - so they can subsist independently or not. At least from a personal standpoint, I'd rather prefer to see NB go down - zealots like that scare me more than zombies.

As to the signature, I'm using my sister's "computer" to get on the net, since it has a faster connection. Of course none of the commands on a mac notebook are the same, so I deleted my whole post at least twice and hand to start over. At one point, the signature line got deleted, so for a lark and to see if people still pay attention to the last two lines - I changed it. This is also reminiscent of when I was in grade school, and needed to have my teachers check my assignment notebook to make sure that I had kept accurate track of assignments. Projects like "acquire plutonium", and "take over world" were entered - yet the signed it off none the less.

There is a fine line between hobby and obsession. I seem to have lost sight of it some time ago.

My thoughts

Reanimates: I would go with dying out. I'm not even sure how long it would take, 5-10 years? Then again you could say that, once dead, the body no longer expels the nanotech. So I think you would be justified either way, but I like the limit life span and it makes them less standard zombie, which they really aren't.

As for who get infected, only people with nanotech and exposure to the bio weapon(or biten, cut-by, etc a reanimate), right?

Initiative: second option. You've already got a system that's geared to quick combat rounds, keep it.