The zombie origin story isn't really important. Just pick a possible one at random. Anyways, agree on the barkskinned bodybuilders, though even worse would probably be military zombies who died in their bodyarmor.
Daywalkers
(166 posts) (9 voices)-
While on one level I agree with this, it winds up mattering for a couple of reasons.The zombie origin story isn't really important.
One reason is that you can't be certain some very clever verser isn't going to find a way to look back into the past and learn the truth of the matter, and therefore as referee you're going to have to fill in that information when it's discovered. While careful consideration of the biases to exclude most retrocognitive and time travel skills is helpful, you'd be surprised at the loopholes people find.
A second reason is that the way the creatures came into existence might be important for determining the biases of the universe. If they were genetically engineered, that implicates both the tech bias (someone has genetic engineering skills) and the bod bias (they might involve 13@ dependent symbionts). Obviously if they are magically or psionically created, the magic or psionics to create such creatures must have existed in that universe at the time of their creation, and there might be other residue from that time if the biases have since changed.
So it's important to have a clear notion in mind of how things came to be as they are, because it's going to impact what else might be true.
--M. J. Young
Tue Feb 9 2010 10:59 pm # -
JTM
MemberAh, didn't consider the Bias angle. I suppose that would also make who bioengineered them important, as if they're from aliens, that likely implies FTL and definitely implies bias high enough for both large-scale engines and probably cryogenics, though I'm not sure where those are relative to bioengineering.
Tue Feb 9 2010 11:23 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberWell, I wanted 20th century technology, regardless of what the biases are. I'm imagining this happening like 10-15 years ago, and this is where the world is now.
While careful consideration of the biases to exclude most retrocognitive and time travel skills is helpful, you'd be surprised at the loopholes people find.
I wanted flatline magic and psionics. For the first time I think I see why you want that in certain worlds. As far as loopholes, I'd love to know what they are.....
(Doing Therapy)
Wed Feb 10 2010 12:04 am # -
The question is whether you want the entire universe limited to twencen tech or whether the tech bias can be higher than that to support FTL or other technologies that are beyond twentieth century earth.Well, I wanted 20th century technology, regardless of what the biases are.
--M. J. Young
Wed Feb 10 2010 3:13 am # -
I find it kind of interesting that the general consensus seems to be that these things need to come from outside of the natural bias of 20th century earth rather than being created in a modern-day laboratory setting (especially with 20th century earth technology experimenting with genetics in horticulture as far back as Gregor Mendel). A nice little botch could easily create a species of microscopic plant symbiont that are capable of linking with a human causing an "outbreak" similar to that of a new, untreatable strain of virus or bacteria (and it probably would be treated that way, at least initially); of course, if it were me, I'd probably just have the new species naturally evolve, bypassing the tech, psi, or mag question altogether.
Ky
Fri Feb 12 2010 6:44 pm # -
Bypass the bias altogether? Kyler, briefly though I've seen you, I like the way you think, sir.
Just to be clear, what he said was:
...bypassing the tech, psi, or mag question altogether.
You still have to consider the bod bias, because you have to know how it is that these creatures "infect" and alter their targets/hosts.
--M. J. Young
Sun Feb 14 2010 11:10 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know MJ, you were saying that there is no way you could have turned into a molecular biologist. I told you about the time I accidentally threw that knife at my girlfriend Janie. Where the knife hit her wrist, she just has a scar. A quarter of an inch one way, she would have permanently lost the use of the hand. A quarter of an inch the other way, it would have punctured her femoral artery and she would have died.
If I had caused her to lose the use of her hand, I would have married her.
If I had killed her, I'd be in prison.A quarter of an inch between radically changing my life forever. Now tell me you couldn't have become a molecular biologist.
Sat Feb 20 2010 11:07 am # -
I don't know, John. Some things seem to me to be fundamental to who we are. I'm squeamish, maybe, is a good word for it. I don't like blood; I can't even listen to girls talking about anything related to having their ears pierced (girls in college use to do that just to watch me squirm). I can talk in very abstract terms about biology, but I would not be able to stand in the room while someone was dissecting a frog.
There are a lot of things I would hate to imagine I could be that I would admit I might be in an alternate version, but there are some things that I know I could not be.
Now, if you could get far enough into my psyche to connect this aversion to gore with some event in my life which you could remove or alter, then you could persuade me that it is not a fundamental part of my character. The problem is, I can't make that connection, and so I don't believe such an event exists. If it does, you'll never find it, and you'll never persuade me without finding it.
--M. J. Young
Sat Feb 20 2010 11:34 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI don't know, John. Some things seem to me to be fundamental to who we are.
And if we were talking about YOU I would agree. But we're not talking about YOU. We're talking about an entirely different person. YOU are squeamish. Your divergent might not be. A lot of people have a problem watching gory horror movies. Not I. I can separate the truth from the illusion, and recognize that what I am watching isn't real. I have a great deal of respect for the people who do the makeup for those movies. It often takes hours and hours to set up the makeup for a 30 second scene in the movie. And if the guy flubs his lines or something goes wrong, they gotta go back and do it ALL OVER AGAIN!!!! I recognize it as artwork. However, I have no problem imagining a version of me who is completely squeamish about such things.
I'm derailing the thread. Anyone else got any new ideas for what we can do with this?
Sun Feb 21 2010 12:53 am # -
johnosevens
MemberNot really. It seems like we have a pretty solid NPC cast, a clearly defined 'villain' including some good ideas about how they work (locally evolved biological parasites that infect people, feed on others, and turn into more spore-spreading trees if they starve for too long or after a certain period of time when senescence would set in), and... sounds like a world to me. The only thing we're missing, really, is something for the Verser himself to do here. I mean this could be one of those worlds where there is no real 'point' or plot, you just survive there until you die and do whatever you feel like and it's basically a sandbox world, and that might work too.
The only other thing I can think of to detail out might be individual survivor colonies or holdouts, a step above the survivalist individuals we have above.
Sun Feb 21 2010 7:13 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI mean this could be one of those worlds where there is no real 'point' or plot, you just survive there until you die and do whatever you feel like and it's basically a sandbox world, and that might work too.
That's kind of what I had in mind. That's why I wanted a large variety of different NPCs. Somebody for every different kind of player to meet first. You got a gun nut? Introduce him to The Survivalists. You got a techie? Introduce him to The Garbageman.
What do we have to do to finish it?
Sun Feb 21 2010 7:55 am # -
johnosevens
MemberGame mechanics. This is the part where I step out and let Scott, Eric, and MJ do their thing. The last part you need to do is the game mechanics. Establishing the bias levels of the world probably comes first, followed by those pages-long 'brief' versions of the character sheet for each of our NPCs and each of our 'typical' zombies, along with lists of possible modifications ("Wooden - Increase Density by @5, decrease Agility by @3," for instance), events ("zombies got into the drinking water; ration or risk infection until you can secure more," or "stockpile! you found someone's hidden cache of weapons and ammo"), and so forth.
Sun Feb 21 2010 4:21 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI wanted flatline psionics and magic. For the first time, I think I understand why you want that in a world. I wanted 1990s technology, which to say that's the minimum bias level, but it could certainly be higher. Body bias I didn't give much thought to, except that it would have to be high enough to support whatever is happening to these creatures. I think I'll leave that to Scott or MJ like you said.
The thing though is that things like persuasion and charisma and whatnot, how would you do that for these? Someone like Mother who is 9 foot 14 and would just as soon rip your head off as talk to you would have a low charisma, but could be quite quite persuasive. What would be the persuasion value of a zombie?
Sun Feb 21 2010 5:05 pm # -
I believe I already called attention to the sections on attributes in the Attributes chapter and in the Worlds chapter--the zero level attributes section should be pretty informative in understanding how to stat non-human creatures.
--M. J. Young
Sun Feb 21 2010 10:12 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo
Obliterative is the highest category, correct? What if you had a 3@ expert with a weapon which was base obliterative? How would that work? I know the skill and the BRA and such raise the damage category. How would that raise the damage category of a base obliterative weapon?
(Doing Therapy)
Fri Feb 26 2010 6:23 pm # -
James is quite right. I'll also point out that base obliterative weapons almost invariably are defined in terms of area of effect - explosions and the like - and damage in such cases often decreases with distance from the epicenter (oblitertive to fifty feet, annihilative to a hundred, fatal to one-fifty, and so on). Thus, since a multiple-obliterative weapon would remain obliterative for at least the second area increment and possibly the third or more, damage category bonuses to base obliterative weapons effectively expand the area of effect: not obliterating harder, but obliterating more.
Sat Feb 27 2010 6:06 am # -
Tadeusz
MemberI had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect. It disintegrated an approximately defined area of the space-time continuum, and that was obliterative, but probably only annoying damage if you were a foot outside the effect.
Let me look up the gun's list.
Sat Feb 27 2010 11:34 pm # -
johnosevens
MemberI had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect. It disintegrated an approximately defined area of the space-time continuum, and that was obliterative, but probably only annoying damage if you were a foot outside the effect.
I had a spell like that in a D&D game once. It was basically 5' radius per caster level of what amounted to a nuclear explosion contained in a Sphere of Force, so it would vaporize anything caught in it, but inches outside the bubble you'd never feel a thing. I miss my Ruinball. When I get to a high-magic Verse I need to do that here...
Sun Feb 28 2010 12:57 am # -
I had one spell for WAW Tad that was not an explosion, but a limited area of effect.
And in this case, a multiple-obliterative effect would still have an advantage over simple obliterative in that it could soak up the target's defensive DC penalties without dropping to annihilative.
Sun Feb 28 2010 11:17 pm # -
Tadeusz
MemberAnd so it was...
In the story, Stalin, Man of Steel heartless 'lich'-like creature, lost a few fingers to the attack. At which point, T started getting worried because anyone who can lose a finger and parts of a couple others or so to an obliterative attack is ...problematic.
Mon Mar 1 2010 2:42 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo
MJ, I now know FOR A FACT that you could have become a molecular biologist. (Emphasizing, not yelling) "He is the potter, you are the clay." What you're saying, in a nutshell, is that God does not have the power to mold His piece of clay into anything He desires it to be. Even Mark Joseph Young, MD, Biological Medicine. I told you once that it was your beliefs in Christianity that limited God's power, not mine. Think about that for a little while. (Supposed to be thought provoking, not argumentative)
(Doing Therapy)
Mon Mar 1 2010 4:02 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know what? I just solved the problem of the old, weak zombies and the bodybuilder zombies both having wooden skin, but looking completely different. On the old, weak zombies, it's more like rotten wood. It's soft, brittle, can be punched through with your bare hands. (Hence, the need to go plant) It's more of a disadvantage. Offers less cover value than human skin. On the bodybuilder zombies, it's a 1/4 inch of fresh oak, giving them quite a cover value. The two would look radically different. Thoughts?
(Doing Therapy)
Sat Jul 3 2010 3:06 am #
Reply
You must log in to post.