Standard zombie apocalypse games have been done to death (pun intended, and I'm not saying they still aren't fun).  My idea is a bit of a different one.  It's not meant to be a survival game where the characters are struggling to survive.  The characters would all be trained soldiers, most probably special operations types, and still with the surviving government/command structure.  For the most part, they wouldn't have to worry about food and ammo (though they might have a mission to secure a large cache of it).

Most of the missions would hinge on things related to the continued survival of the core government group, averting disasters which could make the already poor situation worse, assisting civilians in setting up safe havens, making sure that spare military equipment ended in the right hands (and removing it from the wrong ones), retrieving samples and equipment for research, I can go on and on with this list.

First, IF I were to run this, players would have to have a decent knowledge of how the military, soldiers, and specifically special operations units work.  I would have the players set their own tactics and general plans for the missions, they are operators after all.  That means with me running the game, the players would have to also have a decent grasp of tactics.  I wouldn't be opposed to answering questions or even offering some advice, but if I were GM'ing and the PC's were trying to remove some apple's hardware he had gotten from a base and was using to become a dictator (think the Walking Dead's Governor with better guns and more people) and the PC's decided that a frontal assault would be best...well duh.

Notice I left the system for last.  I did that because, well any system that fits the game could work.  Personally, I think Twilight 2013 is the best overall fit system wise, but if I ended up running the game it wouldn't be set in stone and I would help those that didn't have the rules.  There are other rules that could work and might even be some that fit better.
This message was last edited by a moderator, as it was against the forum rules, at 12:48, Wed 13 Aug 2014.

This game sounds all kinds and flavors of fun to me, but I don't have those rules and am only tangentially even aware of special ops and military tactics. So color me a 'maybe'.

When I read your thread title, I expected something different. This seems like the first part of a zombie apocalypses, mind you there is nothing wrong with that. In the comics we made at college, the "zombie apocalypse" Ended up being melded with society, having intelligent zombies. It was just part of the settings and the jokes.

You could go off early zombies where it's more an outbreak than and apocalypse,'and use the kind of zombie that rots like a corpse rots but what ever flesh they eat they regenerate....

And... Have the party be zombies who have ate enough brains that they are self aware and remember everything and are becoming "human" again. But they still have to eat flesh or they rot a set amount every so often. They can eat zombie flesh or animal flesh but it don't help much (and the zombie would have to be quite un-rotted its self) sooner or later they will have to face killing and eating human brains to stay self aware

In reply to Azraile (msg # 4):

That kind of has a certain appeal to it.

Almost sounds like you could use Night's Black Agents.

In reply to Runemage (msg # 6):

Never heard of it.

Edit:  Looked it up.  No, that's more investigational.  This would be much more geared to military ops.  Much more closer to Twilight 2k/3013.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:37, Sat 16 Aug 2014.

What about a setting where the ZA doesn't run rampant or is easily contained.  Like on an isolated Island like Martha's Vineyard or Easter Island?  The inhabitants watch as the world ends, but it doesn't really affect them until the supplies start running out and then decisions have to be made about how to continue on.

I've also liked the idea of reversing the roles.  As the ZA runs its course some of the zombies begin to regain a bit of intelligence.  The more people they feed on the smarter they get.  Those that don't feed begin to decay and eventually cease to function.  The players would play a pack of intelligent Zombies trying to stave off destruction by eating their fill!

OK, while I am not one to stifle creativity and new ideas I feel I must express my dislike of where this thread is going. I thought the OPs' idea of a military strike team fighting their way through the zombie apocalypse was fun and original, something that I have not seen before and which I might enjoy being part of, but this thing with playing a group of self aware zombies hunting the humans is NOT on my list of fun activities.

The Zeds are not supposed to be smart: they represent the destructive side of our current mass media consumer culture, where humanity is reduced to a shambling hoard of unthinking, uniform, ignorant, mouths with legs that destroy all happiness and original thought in order to make everyone just like them. That is part of what makes the Zombie Genre appealing to me, because unlike in the real world the Zeds are not heavily armed and able to think just enough to be dangerous, and there is no law enforcement to prevent you shooting them all.

Put another way part of the Genre's appeal is the ability to vent my frustrations with my friends and neighbors in a harmless, non-destructive way: you make the Zombie's smart and you lose that, because then they have the quandaries of things like "Is eating people to sustain my own existence the right thing to do?" and honestly I would not enjoy playing any kind of character who's answer was 'YES'.

So, if we are going to be going with this 'playing the zombies' thing: count me out.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 9):

I think that it fits into the premise of an alternative zombie game.  Nothing I would run, but maybe play in.  But I like coming at genre's from different perspectives.  Really neither type game is for everyone.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 1):

The special operations vs. the undead has a certain appeal to it...sign me up!  I have a familiarity with how various special operations forces work, and would recommend that the game focus on SFOD-D (aka, "Delta Force") construct.  Reference material is readily available - such as Eric Haney's Inside Delta Force.  Heck, you could even call it "Zulu Group"/"Zulu Force"/etc...to give a nod to the big "Z."

You can even tone it down from SFOD-D and use an Army Special Forces (aka, the "Green Berets") A-Team construct.  Once again, plenty of reference material out on the web about equipment and TT&Ps...

I would personally recommend using GURPS, since GURPS Lite (which is freely available) covers a majority of the skills used by special operator's, but that is just my opinion.

In reply to The.Angry.Man (msg # 11):

In regards to Gurps, I don't really know the system.

As for the operators themselves, I would let people play what they want.  Chances are the military would be disorganized.  If everyone was happy running as Delta it would be great, but everyone has their own favorites and it can be explained easily enough by serious enough loses.

Depending on where we are in the course of The Rise I could see us playing everything from a major city SWAT team, to a D.F. or G.B. group, to a mixed group of surviving elite troops and operatives, to simply a group of the survivors who at this point are ALL equivalent to special forces in terms of tactical knowledge and weapons training.

Personally I think I might prefer to play at either end of that spectrum, as the material I would need to research to be reasonably knowledgeable about the situation is more readily available. They also make slightly more sense for there to be a relative rookie in the group, which is a category that I will inevitably fall into.

In reply to Alexei Yaruk-Mundhenk (msg # 13):

Well, my vision for the campaign would be relatively early in the apocalypse.  Not much more than a week or two after things go south.  Enough that there would still be changes in the environment and things to learn about the enemy.

As for rookies, even a brand new operator has years of experience.  Even those that wash out of training are top tier.  So "relative rookie" is EXTREMELY subjective, lol.

This sort of game sounds very interesting to me. However, I have a definite preference for rules-light systems, and I'm not sure how well that would gel with the vision of a strongly tactical game.

On the note of tactics, if I may be so bold, obviously fictional tactics would be different against zombies than the [enemy soldiers, terrorists, criminals, mercenaries, &c] that the PC's are trained to fight. But I humbly admit that I do not have the most in-depth understanding of special ops tactics. I am interested in the subject (and military history more broadly, but usually I have only studied it in a strategic sense due to being a giant nerd in meatspace).

So, between my pickiness about systems and my relative lack of knowledge of tactical operations, I suppose I would also be in the 'maybe' group as well.

But the story concept I love, and I definitely want to sound positive about that! If we need an in-game reason to explain one or two players' lack of tactical knowledge, perhaps we could have a mixed group of some civilian survivors but mostly soldiers.

I agree with Alexei... intelligent zombies never interested me. If you want intelligent enemies, no need to go into the supernatural... ordinary human enemies suffice.

Obviously tactics against zombies would be different than other enemies, then again you use different tactics against enemies.  You fight insurgents differently than freedom fighters and you fight them different;y than a standing army.

Someone that understands the basics of tactics is someone I could work with.  It's the ones that have no real tactical sense that wouldn't fit.  As for having civilians on the team, it would have to be an amazing concept.  I could see a civilian along for one specific mission, but it would at most be one.

The playing as intelligent zombies was a concept put forth by others.  I wouldn't want to play a game where all the zombies were smart, maybe a couple.  A very few.

The idea is generally there are a grate number of zombies fighting over one body.

Not any one zombie would eat enough of the brains often enough for there brains to regenerate....in general they wouldn't eat enough of anything to do anything but slow down the degeneration.

Also when someone becomes a zombie they have usually been half eaten by other zombies or had there heads blown half off by a friend



But some very very very rare 'lucky' people that changed quickly and were quite 'well preserved' and undamaged as they changed.... they didn't get ravaged and torn apart by other zombies.  They are intact enough that they have a halfway hazy form of consciousness right away or they regain it quickly after eating a bit.

This while very unlikely to happen much later in the invasion, you would see a good bit more near the start.  Particularly people at the point where the brake out happened.

Maybe there part of the lab staff, the ones that didn't get shot up or anything when braking out and eating people, and there bodies have just 'digested' there 'meals' enough that they are starting to come too again and realize what has happened around them.


They could be the best hope for a cure or vaccine, the zombies ignore them because they are one of them!  They could work in the lab and examine zombies and themselves. They just have to keep eating people to retain there IQ...........  oh my....

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was a bump, at 04:30, Fri 22 Aug 2014.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 14):

Not to split hairs, but those folks who wash out of selection are not 'top tier' (or "Tier One," if you prefer)...they were troops that met the initial qualification to apply for training, but did not meet the selection criteria.  Check out Discovery Channel's "Two Weeks in Hell" (which is also available on Netflix) to see what it takes just to make it to where one is considered for training, never mind the actual training (and the Robin Sage graduation exercise for SF).  On top of what an SF candidate learns during the "Q Course," once they pass RS, other training opportunities (such as languages, HAHO/HALO jumping, dive school, etc...) open up to them.

I know what they have to go through and how good they are just to be considered.  I was talking about them being top tier, or tier one if you prefer, compared to your average soldier.  Heck, they're usually the best out of "lesser" (I use that in the loosest form of the word, I've known quite a few Rangers) units such as the Rangers.

I'm not putting them on the same level as SFOD-A and certainly not OD-D.  They're still below them, but they are right below them.  Still above the average Ranger who is of course above your average 11-bang-bang.

Edit:  Looking over my post I realized how Army centric it is.  It's what I know the most of.  Still it conveys the same message and I'm certainly not trying to slight any of the other services.  SeaLs, Force Recon's operators, and Para Rescue has just as good men as does the Army.

And for anyone else who doesn't know the lingo:

SFOD-A is the Green Berets, Special Forces Operational Detachment Alpha.
OD-D is short for SFOD-D or Delta a.k.a. Delta Force
11-bang-bang is old Army slang for the 11-B MOS, Infantry.
This message was last edited by the user at 04:50, Fri 22 Aug 2014.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 16):

I would recommend everyone read "World War Z" to get an idea of the adaptations the military made in order to deal with zombie apocalypse.  The book also does a good job of defining what makes zombies such an overwhelming adversary (such as the fact they do not need to eat, sleep, etc...they have no fear, no concern for self-preservation, and when they kill a human, they add another fighter to their ranks).

I am not sure where you were going with the differences in fighting "insurgents" or "freedom fighters" - they are essentially the same...it just depends on who's side you are supporting.  I think you are actually referring to counterinsurgency operations (click for the doctrinal publication), which are an interesting issue in and of themselves.

I've read WWZ.  Damn good book, sad the movie didn't do it justice.  And I probably should have used guerrilla instead of freedom fighter.  Slight bit of difference, more of a terrain thing that anything else, but insurgents trend toward more collateral damage and are usually very willing to sacrifice civilians.  Best way to explain the difference is look at the Viet Cong tactics vs. the Afgani or Iraqi insurgents.

Haven't read that one, read the earlier versions though.  Thanks!

In reply to Ceraziefish (msg # 15):



A great hook for non military persons is the SME (Subject Matter Expert). The kind of people that work at Dougway Proving Grounds, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) or CDC. All of these agency's deploy SMEs with Operational Units. You could easily play the guy that has to be out there collecting data, finding the epidemiological sources etc.

I might be interested in playing a game like this. Though I wouldn't want a leadership role. Maybe an occasional advisor or something like that.

In reply to Sithraider (msg # 23):

Like I said before, a non-military character is entirely possible on some missions.  But it wouldn't be on every mission.  And I can't really see any SME running around on a S&R mission.  It would be POSSIBLE, but the player would have to play a set of characters changing out with each mission.

Even if you look at it from a different perspective a recurring SME wouldn't make sense.  I can see the quickest one to be proposed is the 'Research Scientist' trying to beat the disease.  If you have a special operations unit, even a cobbled together one, you're going to have a decent sized regular unit to run on missions.

Being a regular unit it would be tasked with more mundane missions, hence usually slightly safer.  That combined with the specialized skill set that would be needed to complete spec ops missions, the SME would often be a hindrance.

If you are interested and know the military, you don't have to play a leadership position.  There will be a team leader and an assistant team leader.  You could easily play a character not in one of those positions.

All that being said, I am not putting my foot down and saying "NO".  If someone can wow me enough and make me fall in love with the concept enough, I might be willing.  If someone didn't mind playing different characters on different missions, I wouldn't be opposed to that either.  Another thing could be "the voice on the radio" type character.

I'm familiar with the military (intimately) and have some (maybe better than most) knowledge of SF. Though, I'm certainly no snake eater. I do have combat zone experience and have employed infantry tactics at the squad level. I'm not a military history buff though, nor do I care much for brass above what I need to deal with now. So, you wouldn't get much out of me in that regard.

I may actually still have a MARSOC character kicking around from Twilight'13. I think he is a Major. Might make a good company commander, or battalion XO. I don't know anything about GURPS. Never played or read any of the material.

Anyway, what kind of activity are you looking at?

Twilight 13 would almost certainly be the rules I use, unless someone makes a good job of selling me on another set.

(Anyone else that doesn't know the rules, I'll walk you through them, no worries.)

Premise would be that a good portion of the government got evacuated along with other VIPs and some military.  The missions themselves would mostly be to retrieve special packages, some important persons, do some search and destroy work, recon, the list goes on and on.

I also used a modified Twilight 13 character generation for my Delta Green game on another site.  I love that kind of character generation, lol.

I rather adore Twilight 2013, and have never had a chance to play it for long; I'd certainly be interested.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 06:36, Tue 26 Aug 2014.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 06:37, Tue 26 Aug 2014.

This message was deleted by a moderator, as it was off-topic, at 06:37, Tue 26 Aug 2014.

I know T2K, and played the 2nd edition (which I didn't like as much, but oh well), but with that offer, I'll toss my hat in the ring, see how the T2013 rules feel.



Actually, that's a very workable format in T2k (et al). Consider if, say, everyone built 4 characters...

    o 1 "officer"
    o 1 special forces (of some type)
    o 1 straight-leg infantry
    o 1 support/misc (motor pool, (non-combat) medic, short-term NG, grounded pilot, war photographer, something - but something useful)

It's a "Troupe Style" format, and gives some solutions to some of the issues that have been brought up:

    o You can easily approximate a full platoon (or the rough equivalent), if not the actual mix of one.   Big enough that the Players don't feel like just another "adventuring party". You are a military unit, with military structure and military priorities.



pfarland:
The missions themselves would mostly be to retrieve special packages, some important persons, do some search and destroy work, recon, the list goes on and on.

    This also means you have the personnel to draw on for most any mission needed, whether a stealth recon/infiltration, frontal assault, or coordinated multiple-location action, and could mix-and-match as we needed.  Throw in a few NPC's of one stripe or another along the way, but "PC's" already have most of the bases covered, so the Players make most of the choices, at any level.


quote:
If you are interested and know the military, you don't have to play a leadership position.  There will be a team leader and an assistant team leader.  You could easily play a character not in one of those positions.

    o With ~16-24 Player Characters (from 4-6 Players), there is an established Chain of Command. T2K officer ranks are determined randomly (and I'm assuming the same is true in T2013?) - you can aim to be an officer, but there's no telling who will end up what rank, from 2nd Lieutenant on up. Any player could be in overall command, or the highest ranking Officer/NCO in the scene - and just like IRL, you can't pick your CO, nor rely on them to be "the best". :/

And when if he gets taken out of action, everyone knows who is next, and after that, etc. (whether they like that change or not!) ;)


And speaking of "getting shot"...

o Everyone has a back-up character, and then another, and then another...

  I don't know about T2013, but in T2K people get hurt easy, and it took FOREVER to heal up. (I mean, dayyamn, where's a CLW when you need one?!)  So when one (or two, or three) were in the infirmary (or in a ditch), you still had "your" character you could play.

Not that you'd necessarily need to do that here - but it's something to consider, and does solve a lot of problems.

The whole multiple characters for each player does have a lot going for it.  Very good idea!

Rank in Twilight '13 is semi random, based off a modified role depending on time of service in your MOS.

Looks like I'll be starting up the game here soon.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 33):

Sounds like a plan...out of curiosity, what is the expected posting frequency?  Once a day is no problem, but multiple posts a day - at least with a few hours between posts to allow for all players to respond - may be a little iffy.

In reply to pfarland (msg # 33):

Interesting. I just saw this topic.
Do you have your players yet?

I haven't set the game up yet, so no confirmed players as of yet.  It will probably be next week before I get to set the game up.

As for posting rate, I'm more than happy with once a day depending on the post.  Long posts are fine for slower posters, shorter posts are fine for the more frequent posters.  My concern mostly focuses on keeping everyone at an even pace.  That being said, faster is nicer, but I don't want to sacrifice quality for quantity, nor alienate any good players because of a slightly slower posting rate.

Please leave all further discussion on this proposal for the game itself, created by pfarland, and linked to in the post immediately following this one.

Thank you.

Here it is:

link to another game

Please give me a bit of leeway, I'm still a bit new to RPOL and this is my first actual game I'm running here.