GMs, how many of a monster would I have to kill to start seeing

>>53371348
In some settings, this is stupid.
In others, this is common sense.
In any zombie apocalypse there has to be a limited number of zombies. It should be 100% feasible to clear several kilometres of countryside completely free of zombies, yet in every zombie apocalypse anything they just build big walls around their settlements and let zombies walk all the way up to the walls.
This is why I root for the zombies, humans are too stupid to live.

>>53371348
Depends on the monster

>>53371348
Define dent. If you mean perceptible (~10%) change in frequency of sightings, we're talking 2 or 3 nests in and around the district. For something genuinely meaningful (~30%), you're looking at at least 100 brutally displayed bodies or twice that for simple population reduction without terror tactics.

>>53371408
Zombie scenarios are fundamentally fueled by people being dumb. They just don't work if the people are smart.

It's less about the number and more about the rate. You can kill as many as you like but if you're killing them slower than they reproduce youre never going to see a dent.

Probably better to ask questions about supression and disrupting their established living state, something along the lines of >>53371485 said like terror and noticable impact.

Efficient genocide strats thread? On second thought nevermind

>>53371767
You will see a dent though, as their rate of reproduction will decrease. It'll take a generation or two to see the dent, but it'll definitely show.

File: (26).jpg (157KB, 942x848px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 942x848px

>>53371348

Not keeping count. Unless players are really detemmiened.

>>53371499
It only works if the zombies are masterminded by someone smarter. Or at least if it's happening in a place where there is extremely strict gun laws, minimal military, and incompetent cops

>>53372190
Cops would have a significant problem dealing with zombies as their training dictates center mass aiming and shooting until the target is no longer a threat. Combine that with the limited amount of ammunition carried by a cop on patrol and even technically living zombies that don't require headshots would eat through a large amount of ammo very quickly.

>>53371348
One.

File: 1495473322192.jpg (79KB, 500x461px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 500x461px

>>53373880

>>53371408
Yes and no.
You could technocally clear a big enough space to keep a reasonably peaceful live, but only if you get away from any previously densely poblated location and if you got lots of times and people to spare.
Killing a few zombies is easy, but after the first 20, or the first 100 you'll soon realize ammo isn't inifinite like in vidya, and killing them in physical combat is both dangerous and exhausting.

>>53371348
>>undershit
reeeee etc.

>>53371408
Depends.
In TWD, anyone who dies becomes a zombie, so even if you clear out land you're eventually going to start getting zombies from accidents and altercations, which could spread easily.

>>53379019
Except everyone would know that you revive on death regardless, and safeguards would be in place. Well, in any other setting this would be the case, but TWD is populated by high functioning retards.

>>53378180
Throwable weapons are a thing. Even people dropping rocks from buildings would clear many places.

>>53371408
That's why Shaun of the Dead is the only good zombie movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot_cr1odDkU