It still doesn't change that fact that lowering dice also points to the system being broken because the dice are what's broken. Not rolling dice is safe, rolling them endangers you

This is an RPG about mundane characters, not super heroes. Surviving the apocalypse will be hard, if you want to lock yourself in a room and starve to death then that is an option.

The games is about managing the stress of surviving the apocalypse, not mowing down zombies with an AK47!

No.

It can be either or both.

Nor having negative dice in some roles doesn't mean the game needs to be easy.

Well the average roll should be 2 dice since that's literally a 'normal' difficulty roll. We normally go up to 3 dice because of prior weaknesses and / or wounds. I had a wound and was still suffering from my first day fear of zombies thing that seems automatic for a day one encounter. I also did that stupid Push it thing which added the 5th die because I wanted that terrible fight to end one way or the other. I already had the resist 1 and as far as I know you only gain resist 1.

It still doesn't change that fact that lowering dice also points to the system being broken because the dice are what's broken. Not rolling dice is safe, rolling them endangers you.

....okay....

I have to ask... What are you getting out of this?

...If the target is far away there is no stress upon missing...

There can be RAW. With the authors of the book combining both the difficulty and stress/damage mechanic in one, there are going to be some areas where it's going to be harder to rationalise the dice.

There can be. But should there be?

The simplest of games often need the most experienced of GM's.

There can be. But should there be?

The simplest of games often need the most experienced of GM's.

Should there be stress, probably not. Should there be difficulty, probably yes.

Therein lies the issue, the two are entwined in these rules. Whilst the rules (briefly) mentions that extra successes can be used to indicate difficulty, it is mentioned nowhere to the same amount as adding negative dice for difficulty.

Should a simple game need an experienced GM?

Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice.

This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill.

Should a simple game need an experienced GM?

No, but it helps. A lot.

Any rules light system needs a good GM to make it work. This really is one of those games.

Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice.

This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill.

I was going to argue against this, but after writing the below paragraph I realized my argument was for the above statement instead of against it. I guess I never viewed it that way....

WIth only 10 points to spend while building your character, your going to be left with several stats in the "1" or "2" spot, so you will likely fail most of those tests. Even then "3"s arent very reliable when it comes to successes. Yeah its a 50% chance per dice rolled, but still. When we played my wife made a roll attacking a zombie with 4 or 5 positive dice, and a few negative. All the positives were 4s, 5s and 6s, and her dex was 2, so she would have failed regardless of whatever negative dice she rolled. By creating a in game "representation" of her abilities the game limited her on her personal skill, thus making it harder for her.

Not saying that this is bad. I like it.

Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice.

This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill.

Negative dice can negate positive dice, thereby reducing your chance of success, this makes the task harder, thus increasing the difficulty.

If what you say is true then this book needs a major rewrite as throughout the book they use terms such as:

• The innate danger or difficulty of the task can add one or more negative dice
• the GM adds two negative dice to the pool: one for the innate difficulty of picking the lock
• add a negative die to your pool to reflect the increased difficulty

(this was just after the first four instances of the term difficulty in the book)

Edit:

Forgot to mention I agree with "This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill." but not on "Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice."

Well the average roll should be 2 dice since that's literally a 'normal' difficulty roll. We normally go up to 3 dice because of prior weaknesses and / or wounds. I had a wound and was still suffering from my first day fear of zombies thing that seems automatic for a day one encounter. I also did that stupid Push it thing which added the 5th die because I wanted that terrible fight to end one way or the other. I already had the resist 1 and as far as I know you only gain resist 1.

It still doesn't change that fact that lowering dice also points to the system being broken because the dice are what's broken. Not rolling dice is safe, rolling them endangers you.

So let me get this straight, you come on here implying that this game is "a complete failure", people spend a few pages informing you what the rules state and how you could put them to use and make them work for you and instead of reading the three pages of experiences and explanations and make them work for you, you chose to defend the way you played, even though you thought it was "a complete failure"?

....okay....

I have to ask... What are you getting out of this?

I pose the same question to Timfads as well.

Some people are just more interested in validation of their incorrect interpretations than in correcting those assumptions.

Yes the rules do place more emphasis on negative dice as a sign of difficulty, however the alternative is still there in the book even if not highlighted as much. Just because it is downplayed doesn't mean you can't use or focus on those rules.

Or if you positively must have negative dice for difficulty you can house rule that any non-dangerous action negative dice are only there for the chance to negate positive dice and any left over do not cause stress as it's not applicable to the situation.

I also saw a very good idea on another post about only allowing unmatched negative dice that roll over the target attribute to cause stress (essentially the stronger you are at something the less likely you are too hurt yourself doing it, which to me makes sense) which I fully intend to use in my games as I think it's a great house rule. I can't remember which post it was or who's idea to give credit to but it was probably the best one I've seen on here.

So it highlights DanteRotterdam's point about having a good GM. The rules themselves work just fine as written and a good GM will make use of what makes sense to give a good and fair game regardless of where the emphasis is put in the book itself. And while I will point out that it's not necessary in this game a good GM will also be quite open to tweak the rules if it suits him and his particular group's interpretation of how the game should be played.

Also because of it's rules light nature I find the system very flexible (you can read on other threads how other players are using this system for a range of non-zombie related adventures).

So after four pages of debate I would have to say my answer to the OP's question "is The End of the World a complete fail?" my resounding answer would have to be HELL NO!

Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice.

This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill.

Negative dice can negate positive dice, thereby reducing your chance of success, this makes the task harder, thus increasing the difficulty.

If what you say is true then this book needs a major rewrite as throughout the book they use terms such as:

• The innate danger or difficulty of the task can add one or more negative dice
• the GM adds two negative dice to the pool: one for the innate difficulty of picking the lock
• add a negative die to your pool to reflect the increased difficulty

(this was just after the first four instances of the term difficulty in the book)

Edit:

Forgot to mention I agree with "This system places a huge emphasize on personal skill." but not on "Dificulty is dependend on skill, not negative dice."

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Of course negative dice add difficulty no one is arguing that. In fact they add so much difficulty that they might even add danger/stress. I am not advocating not using negative dice, I am merely pointing out that (what others have called) base difficulty comes from your skill. I use negative dice all the time, but not willy nilly or as a baseline number and the game works great.

Let's look at the earlier lone gunwoman against the zombie.

The zombie is shambling towards her slowly in the middle of the road and is at 50 feet. The girl aims and fires. She gets one positive die because she is using a pistol but has no added positive die and no negative die because there are no circumstances that cause this too happen. Now since she built a character based on her self and the girl isn't the most dexterous of cats her friends have voted and this forced her to bring the ability score of three she had chosen for herself down to two. She chose a skill that has nothing to do with guns because she only fire them on occassion. She knows how to work them but that's about it.

She rolls a 3 and misses. So the zombie comes closer and is at 30 feet now... "Oh for **** sake" she says as she picks up the dice and rolls again for a 5. The zombie is now at point blank range which allows for an extra positive die she rolls and gets two 4's. The zombie attacks her. Of course this is not the greatest example of playing an rpg because it was a repeating of moves that failed but it was only to illustrate how difficulty is set by the skillset you have and just standing on the street doing the same thing for three rounds is pretty much terrible roleplaying

This system is fun if there is danger involved and I am not advocating against the use of negative dice, I use them all the time to add dificulty/stress but I am advocating against using "baseline negative dice" for mundane checks.

Let's look at the earlier lone gunwoman against the zombie.

The zombie is shambling towards her slowly in the middle of the road and is at 50 feet. The girl aims and fires. She gets one positive die because she is using a pistol but has no added positive die and no negative die because there are no circumstances that cause this too happen. Now since she built a character based on her self and the girl isn't the most dexterous of cats her friends have voted and this forced her to bring the ability score of three she had chosen for herself down to two. She chose a skill that has nothing to do with guns because she only fire them on occassion. She knows how to work them but that's about it.

She rolls a 3 and misses. So the zombie comes closer and is at 30 feet now... "Oh for **** sake" she says as she picks up the dice and rolls again for a 5. The zombie is now at point blank range which allows for an extra positive die she rolls and gets two 4's. The zombie attacks her. Of course this is not the greatest example of playing an rpg because it was a repeating of moves that failed but it was only to illustrate how difficulty is set by the skillset you have and just standing on the street doing the same thing for three rounds is pretty much terrible roleplaying

This system is fun if there is danger involved and I am not advocating against the use of negative dice, I use them all the time to add dificulty/stress but I am advocating against using "baseline negative dice" for mundane checks.

Do you not think she might have had the possibility of some mental stress coming her way?

A horrifying zombie is shambling towards her and she's trying to use a device she's had little use with, to kill it?

No, I don't. I imagine you might have your players roll a mental test for fear the first time they encounter a zombie but I would never add negative dice to rolls because you are fighting zombies in a zombie game. People adapt to new situations quite rapidly. Look at what wars do to people for instance.

Also the rules would not add mental stress but physical stress since you would roll on your dexterity. It seems flat out wrong to give stress to your mental capacity when you aren't even rolling on your mental capabilities. The game simply doesn't work that way.

What if you have 2 dexterity and 5 willpower? How would you then use this ability?

No, I don't. I imagine you might have your players roll a mental test for fear the first time they encounter a zombie but I would never add negative dice to rolls because you are fighting zombies in a zombie game. People adapt to new situations quite rapidly. Look at what wars do to people for instance.

Also the rules would not add mental stress but physical stress since you would roll on your dexterity. It seems flat out wrong to give stress to your mental capacity when you aren't even rolling on your mental capabilities. The game simply doesn't work that way.

What if you have 2 dexterity and 5 willpower? How would you then use this ability?

Lets agree to disagree, otherwise we'll be at it all day!?

If you want to call for a separate test against Willpower, that would be one thing. But to inflict mental stress off a physical test (Dexterity or Vitality) can be unfair, depending on the characteristic make up.

Tests can be adjusted in different ways when it comes to difficulty. Either by adding negative dice or by asking for so many successes in order to be successful. As per the Running Tests section on pages 44-45.

For instance, in a situation where there is a chance for stress (physical, mental or social) to be inflicted, negative dice can be added for various reasons as per the table on page 45 (Table 8: Difficulties) and various other factors (like features and conditions).

But if, as per the sidebar Difficulty Without Stress, there is no chance for stress (Sniper position let's say), you could call for a certain amount of successes to make a successful test. For instance, you could call for the player to have at least 2 successes for his character to snipe from his safe position, again use the above table as a gauge. Say a shot would be hard, normally adding 2 negative dice, but in this case calling for a minimum of 2 successes.

And a final note to Timfads. You stated that you thought characters only gained a stress resistance of 1, but it is based on what tier you are damaged into. Read the last paragraph under Pacing Negative Dice in regards to stress resistance as it gives an example. Once you are into your third tier on the stress track you have a stress resistance of 3. Which means a minimum of of 4 negative dice just to inflict a point of damage (barring other factors like weapons). Which may account for one of the reasons you were taking damage, not knowing all that was going on.

No, I don't. I imagine you might have your players roll a mental test for fear the first time they encounter a zombie but I would never add negative dice to rolls because you are fighting zombies in a zombie game. People adapt to new situations quite rapidly. Look at what wars do to people for instance.

Also the rules would not add mental stress but physical stress since you would roll on your dexterity. It seems flat out wrong to give stress to your mental capacity when you aren't even rolling on your mental capabilities. The game simply doesn't work that way.

What if you have 2 dexterity and 5 willpower? How would you then use this ability?

Lets agree to disagree, otherwise we'll be at it all day!?

I don't mind either way. But you have to agree that it just doesn't sit right to have someone establish their characteristics and then have them roll a physical check that does mental damage... If I would have spend 4 of my points on willpower and 2 on my dex then I would not appreciate getting mental stress for firing a gun.

I could see the GM making me roll a willpower test in order to stand my ground when a particularly monstrous zombie comes my way and if I would fail that then I would deem it reasonable to get stress on my mental capabilities. Your way just doesn't work RAW.

My group has been tossing around the idea of offering different color coded stress die for each attribute category( Physical, Mental, and Social). This allows to further customize your dice pool. Say for example you are trapped in a dark room with a single zombie and you are armed only with a pistol. If I were following the RAW i would probably add two negative dice to the test, the stress from which would count against my physical stress track. However with the method the group and I have been toying with you would be able to put stress in both your Physical and your Mental tracks. The Physical stress of the shot and the Mental stress of the cramped and dimly lit environment

Let's look at the earlier lone gunwoman against the zombie.

The zombie is shambling towards her slowly in the middle of the road and is at 50 feet. The girl aims and fires. She gets one positive die because she is using a pistol but has no added positive die and no negative die because there are no circumstances that cause this too happen. Now since she built a character based on her self and the girl isn't the most dexterous of cats her friends have voted and this forced her to bring the ability score of three she had chosen for herself down to two. She chose a skill that has nothing to do with guns because she only fire them on occassion. She knows how to work them but that's about it.

She rolls a 3 and misses. So the zombie comes closer and is at 30 feet now... "Oh for **** sake" she says as she picks up the dice and rolls again for a 5. The zombie is now at point blank range which allows for an extra positive die she rolls and gets two 4's. The zombie attacks her. Of course this is not the greatest example of playing an rpg because it was a repeating of moves that failed but it was only to illustrate how difficulty is set by the skillset you have and just standing on the street doing the same thing for three rounds is pretty much terrible roleplaying

This system is fun if there is danger involved and I am not advocating against the use of negative dice, I use them all the time to add dificulty/stress but I am advocating against using "baseline negative dice" for mundane checks.

First off, I haven't read all this particular topic, so forgive me if I put my foot wrong. Also, I havent' finished reading the book, let alone played/ran the game.

But in the above example, wouldn't the lone gunwoman have at one positive dice to begin with, then another positive dice because of the pistol, for a total of two? You could then give her one negative dice for being alone and facing off a lone zombie on the street (knowing that the sound of the pistol will probably alert more zombies in the area, if there are any. She doesn't know either way), and another for not being familiar with using handguns? If there are no other situational modifiers, then the total dice pool would be 4, two positive, two negative.

As for her being 'used to zombies', well, that's also what Mental Trauma can be used for. In the example, does she have any Mental Trauma? If no, then she'd get the pentalty die for the zombie. But if she had 3 Mental Trauma, then she wouldn't, as she'd become 'used to zombies'. Leaving her with a dice pool of three, two positive, one negative (for not being familiar with handguns).

(and by saying Mental Trauma, I meant for Willpower).

The problem with that lies in the fact that you would be rolling against your dex but would be "stressing" your mental capabilities... Again, there are plenty of black dice on my table but I am not adding them for trivial things or really basic situations. The first few zombies my players encountered they rolled a will check to see if they were scared and would stand or run, they all stood their ground, but 2 of them gained mental stress. I am not going to have them roll for stress for every zombie they see That seems to go against the game in my opinion....

The problem with that lies in the fact that you would be rolling against your dex but would be "stressing" your mental capabilities...

Ah, good point. Hmm, I'll have to give the rules another read over. No problem, I was planing on that when I finished reading the whole book anyway.

Ok, I get the whole argument against adding stress against one set of characteristics when the test is against a different set. But I can see the flip side of the coin as well, and have seen it in real life during quite a few firearms training classes. Disclaimer: I am a certified pistol instructor, so I will use the lone gunwoman example to illustrate what happens to some of my students.

Let's assume just target shooting for a minute (no zombie):

First shot, student has no experience, listens to my every command, smooth trigger pull, easy breathing, etc.... BAM = 10 ring (usually a bullseye). Ok, so student never shot a gun before, took their time, concentrated and has now demonstrated that they can shoot perfectly fine.

Second shot, less coaching, let student perform most of the actions while observing... BAM = 9 ring (first shot is usually the best, next shot they usually relax and shortcut something)

Shots 3 - 5, let student shoot on own while I start student in next shooting stall... BAM BAM BAM = shots start drifting around

Come back in a few shots to find the student cursing and saying they can't shoot. They don't know how...

What does this demonstrate? The shooter obviously has the skills, they demonstrated it with the first shot. What happens is they let the next few shots GET TO THEIR HEAD. Their fingers didn't break, their hands didn't get bitten, they started to shortcut the steps and they let MENTAL doubt creep into their shooting and prevent them from performing PHYSICALLY.

And the more pissed they get, the worse they shoot.

I send them for a break and a soda, they come back and we do it again and they do fine.

OK, so let's extrapolate that to the gunwoman scenario from earlier. Woman shoots at zombie a far ways away and missed. Dang it, she missed and now it's closer. There is still not much of a threat, but she just wasted a bullet and it's weighing on her that she only has a dozen left. She lines up the next shot and the bullet grazes the headbox, but doesn't down the zombie. Gunwoman is cursing like a sailor (quietly of course, so as not to attract even more zombies than the two shots already are). Now the zombie is getting in threat range, she's wasted two bullets, she's made a bunch of noise. On the third shot, she may well be able to put the muzzle of the gun against the temple of the slow moving zombie and make gray matter stew... but the stress of the ordeal may have drained her mentally, rather than tax her physically.

Now, that might be playing too much to reality and not into the RAW, but it should demonstrate how it is POSSIBLE that a physical action can drain you mentally or emotionally (Stress you as it were).

However you play it with your group though, be sure they you all agree. After all, the rules are an abstraction and if you want to keep tests and stress in the same category, I fully support it. It's probably how I'll play the first few times. Yet if your games go static and you want to explore the cross stress mechanic to add spice, talk it over with your players.

Either way, just make sure everyone is having fun.