I'm GM-ing a pretty stereotypical zombie apocalypse game,

go walking dead mode, if they recruit too many people, then either kill off the ones no one likes, or have someone say that "a host this size can go nowhere in secret"

>>50525263
Give them a reason to establish a base of operations, small enough to meed constant guard and vigiliance under threat.

That solves both problems. The NPCs are siphoned off into base duties, and building the settlement becomes the main goal.

>>50525475
I'm not sure I follow. They've established their base, and that's really what's caused both problems: they're comfy and safe now. "Base duties" really just consist of keeping watch for anything dangerous while the players can just kind of sit around and do nothing.

>>50525508
fuel and ration supplies run out. people need to eat

>>50525263
>food, safety, weapons, etc. Well now my PCs kind of have all those things, so there's a tremendous sense of "now what?"
They have sustainable means and backups for everything? End the damn game, or think up why they're not sitting quite as pretty as they thought.

> It's not a problem yet but at a certain point there's going to be an unwieldy number of NPCs traveling with the party
There's a potential source of division with the ranks.

Make them go off on some lead for resource, like a military checkpoint, supermarket or similar. Let them meet heavy resistance that they can't beat and once the fall back, let the horde follow them to the base for a seige that knocks off a bunch of NPCs. If you want to give them a long time goal, either a CDC-center or a remote island are common goals.

A sudden need for relocation. Something urgent that will kill off some followers in the process.

There's been rumor of a cure, but it is distant and scarce. The situation is worsened by someone being bitten, and you need to get there quickly. They're probably not gonna make it.

The situation in your current area worsens, either by increased hostile presence, lack of supplies or enviromental instability. Get out of there or suffer catastrophic consequences.

>>50525508
Zombies overrun their base, everything they've built is lost and all the npc's they've collected die.
This solves both your problems.
Obviously its a pretty risky move - the player might react poorly to you destroying their progress. However, 'the base being overrun and the leads sense of safety and stability is shattered' is a classic trope in Zombie media, so it's not like you're pulling it out of your ass. Also if they're getting bored with the campaign anyway it can't hurt to try.

File: lips gold gore.jpg (50KB, 564x565px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 564x565px

>>50525748
islands only defence vs zeds is distance and strong currents: otherwise theycan just walk or float over.
>>50525826
competing rumours of safe zones/cure?
religionous/political/world view split in group ie tumblristas vs teaparty: split or blue-on-blue?
latter could be built up in small stages so people take sides but have allies in both camps, make things difficult when push comes 'oh fuck he's he got a knife' 'oh fuck they're shooting' ' oh fuck everyones bleeding and shits on fire, w.t.f guys, W.T.F?!' or civil war 101.

you need to introduce an antagonist.

The zombies aren't the antagonists, they're a force of nature, or rampant consumerism, or facebook or whatever allegory of decay and mindless you want to include.

As such, they're no good for introducing tension to the players in terms of plot development. Now the antagonist doesn't necessarily need to be a human, like the Governor in Walking Dead. Instead you can use winter, or intelligent zombies, or biker gangs, or remnant government or any number of things that can present a conflicting goal with the party.

As to picking up too many NPC's, remember that NPC's are characters, right? They have their own goals and motivations, and if their goals are thwarted they may become resentful. Maybe the NPC's are not good people. Maybe one attempts theft. Maybe another hoards liquor and stabs another while drunk.

The petty miseries of the human existence should be expanded tenfold in zombie media, imo.

File: ku-xlarge.jpg (99KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 640x360px

Have them start rebuilding society their way
>npc steals from other npc
how is this handled now?
>how is murder handled?
>what sort of economy is set up?
>what to do about the inevitable dissenters to your rulings?

oh and then there's plagues, fires, storms, mega zombie hoards, famine, vital medical supplies running out, imported good running out, structures collapsing, etc

>>50527416
This.

The best part of your world falling apart is that after you find a way to weather the storm, you build the fortress from which you can finally start taking it back.

>>50525263
That many people in once place is going to attract a horde.

No defense can hold against enough bodies.

>>50525263
Stop making all your NPCs agreeable pushovers.

Why are they allowing the PCs to run the show when they (the npcs) could do a better job

Who put these PCs in charge

Who are they to boss us around

Stop treating NPCs as a resource to collect. Just because the PCs are controlled by the players doesn't mean everyone in the world will automatically agree to everything they want.

>>50525263

Several things :

>Supply

In a "successful" zombie apocalypse, you have to assume that, once the few first months have gone by, scavenging on the pre-apocalypse ressources will be exponentially difficult.
Your group has very quantifiable needs in food, medicine and other supplies.
Industrial-grade supplies with expiration date will become rarer and rarer.
Thus, getting enough of these supplies by scavenging will require covering a larger and larger area.
It's the basic hunter-gatherer civilization limit : you cannot have more than a certain population density because the land that can be covered on foot in a given timeframe must provide enough ressources for that population in that timeframe.

For the hunter-gatherers, nature replenish itself after a while so they are basically moving in cycle across a vast territory.
But for Z-apocalypse survivors, some goods have a hard upper limit in the world and that limit is going down because the goods are consummed... but also because the goods are going bad after a while. And nobody can produce new ones.

The result ?

Your merry band has to move more and more frequently or quickly just to meet its needs.
Eventually, having a very large horde of survivors together just means stuff like medicine, bullets or canned food is going to be depleted quicker than you can scavenge it.

This means the group has to split to cover more ground.
It could be some ponctual "expeditions", with everyone otherwise bunkering down together as long as supply level is good.

But eventually, the expeditions will have to reach further and further away, which means the small bands will be gone longer and therefor more vulnerable to "accidents".

The alternative is going without replacing used medicine, bullets and such.
It is doable but the casualties will rise.

>>50528136
(cont)

>Governance

More people means a more complex social hierarchy.
Clashing characters can mean the group, as it grows in size, has his own internal politics.
Individual ambitions, different views and morality, along with gaps in abilities, can be a cause for conflict.

This will become more of an issue as supplies are harder to find and in times of crisis.

Ex :
Do we share food equally or equitably ?
If equally, the less usefull might eventually be seen as dead weight by the most pragmatic-minded in the group.
If equitably, what are the criterias ? What might seem sound survival logical to some will be seen as injustice by others.

Do we keep the diabetic computer geek around ?
He needs regular medicine and will eventually run out and probably die.
Also, he is useless physically and hopelessly unskilled in this world.
Why even feed him and waste patrol time searching for insuline if all he can do is fetch wood for the fire ?
Maybe he is the brother of [X], who is very useful to the group and won't allow to abandon his brother.
But accidents can happen and if it's for the greater good, someone might take upon himself to break fatty's knee when in a supply run, letting him to die.

What do we do with such a person if his crime is found out ?
Do we kill him ? The victim's skilled brother is asking for it. But maybe the murderer has vital skills for the group or is simply well-liked by the majority.
What then ? Do we all stick together, despite the rift ? Do we fight ? Do we part ways ? If yes, how do we divide the supply ?

Similarily, if people are wounded, do we take care of them until they fully recover ?
Maybe that will slow us down, putting the whole group at risk.
But carring for the wounded will foster more loyalty and "esprit de corps". And maybe the invested efforts in healing the wounded will pay off eventually, adding newly functioning members.
But up to which point do you put ressources and time into a probably-dying man ?

>>50528274
(cont)

>Recruitment and trust

Zombies are the least of your worries in a world where survival is so difficult.
Zombies are an obvious threat. Humans are more ambiguous.
You frag a Z on sight. You'll try to ally with humans when possible... but what if those humans have no interest in allying ?

For the same ressource reasons explained before, maybe that group just decided it was "We First" and that everyone else was expandable.

They might agree to ally for a time, displaying open friendship if shown such.
But, at the first rough patch, they'll just betray the group and run away with what they can.
Or worse : they'll betray the group the very first night they are watched closely, killing as many people as possible in their sleep before taking as many vehicules and supply as they can.

Then goes the question :
Do the survivors go after the traitors BECAUSE NOBODY FUCK WITH US ?
Or do they lick their wounds, accept the losses and move on ?
Also, how will they treat the next band they meet ?

>>50525263
in response to No.2
>Huge zombie horde?
>Fast zombies?
>Mutated zombies?
>Other nasty survivors?
>Infighting?
>Fucked up zombie cultists who want you to get fucked by the zombies

>>50525263
What game are you playing?