| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am planning a Walking Dead-esque campaign, very grim survival horror type thing. It will be a lower magic/scarce magical item game with survival checks for food scrounging and all that.
Now my question is, should I tell my players exactly what type of campaign it is? Here is my reasoning behind this question.
If I tell them it is going to be a grimdark survival horror, they are going to optimize their characters accordingly. And to me, the game would lose that hint of desperate struggle that should accompany the Zombie Apocalypse. And to borrow from Monty Python, No one EXPECTS the Spani.... Zombie Apocalypse.
Of course the flip side of the coin is that if I do not tell them, the players would cry foul that I pulled a switcharoo and now their character is totally not set up for this type of campaign. Which is what I am sort of shooting for, because referring to my previous statement, No one expects the Zombie Apocalypse.
Just tell them it will be a low magic game where skills and abilities are better used than items and spells, etc. If that is indeed the case. A game like this could make rogues and monks a lot more effective and maybe this is the opportunity some of them are looking for to play that type of character. Just keep the details of the genre or theme a secret until the apocalypse is upon them.
|
I am planning a Walking Dead-esque campaign, very grim survival horror type thing. It will be a lower magic/scarce magical item game with survival checks for food scrounging and all that.
Now my question is, should I tell my players exactly what type of campaign it is? Here is my reasoning behind this question.
If I tell them it is going to be a grimdark survival horror, they are going to optimize their characters accordingly. And to me, the game would lose that hint of desperate struggle that should accompany the Zombie Apocalypse. And to borrow from Monty Python, No one EXPECTS the Spani.... Zombie Apocalypse.
Of course the flip side of the coin is that if I do not tell them, the players would cry foul that I pulled a switcharoo and now their character is totally not set up for this type of campaign. Which is what I am sort of shooting for, because referring to my previous statement, No one expects the Zombie Apocalypse.
I'm afraid that you've answered your own question...it really all hinges around how the players will respond. If your players will cry foul, it is...but if they like surprises, and you expect a 'Cool! ZOMBIE APOCOLYPSE!!!'...you're on the money.
Yar, it depends on how metagame prone your players are, really. And that's not a knock on 'em, it's an uphill struggle to not gear your guy for zombie choppin' if you know there's going to be a lot of it in the future.
Though I would, for your player's sake if you don't tell them, steer them away from mind controller types and the like, either by banning them for some made up reason or insinuating that it might not be the best option going forward.
Nothing worse than not being able to use most of your class.
I would say inform them.
I've been in a position as a player that my character build didn't work because it was a low-magic, low-treasure setting and I didn't know that at the beginning. The master summoner, meanwhile, is out there kicking ass because his character doesn't need treasure. My character is useless.
I really liked him. I mean I really liked him. He died. But I liked him anyway and I worked with my dm to create a quest that would help bring him back. Quest completed... then he died again. And he very nearly died yet again.
End result: In pure frustration I retired that character and brought in a new one optimized for a low-treasure setting. The campaign ended prematurely 1 session later.
If you want to make the zombie apocalypse spect a surprise, be sure to at least tell them, it will be a gritty and serious campaign.
If I thought I was playing Pathfinder, and it turns out I was playing a Sci-Fi/Space Opera using modified PF rules(i.e. not what I signed up for) I would be taken aback to say the least.
So, yeah, you should tell your players what to expect.
If you don't want them to optimize, ask them not to optimize. You might even tell them that it won't matter if they optimize, the campaign will still be gritty and dark, and you'll modify encounters as appropriate, on the fly, if need be, to make sure it stays that way. So they might as well play something they'll have fun with since their usual game-breaking build will be surprisingly ineffective.
yea let them know thats a low magic but after that dont tell them what you have for the campaign. I do have a question for you do you tell them what your normal campaigns are?
With Pathfinder, it is usually an AP, so they have a Player Guide to go with. Thanks ladies and Gents. I will tell them it is a low magic/gritty game and hope for the best.
Even if you do not inform them you run the risk that one of the players make a character that is much much more suited for such a campaign, a ranger that happens to be an undead slayer versus an enchanter for example, one is near useless and the other is far more powerful than usual.
Personally I'd just prohibit some choices and inform them it is low magic and gritty, by default I would not allow full casters in such a campaign, but that is just me.
Tell them what you're planning. My biggest pet peeve is the bait-and-switch campaign. Like the time the GM said it would be an urban campaign in this particular city, so I built a rogue with deep connections to the local thieves guild, and lots of urban skills (e.g.Perform (harpsichord)).
Two sessions in, there was a coup d'etat in the city, the PCs were declared personna non grata, and we fled to the hills. The campaign became a "live off the land" survival game, where the PCs were hunted fugitives.
It wasn't a terrible game, and I had some fun playing a fish out of water, but I would have built a more enjoyable-to-play character if the GM had told us that we'd be playing unjustly-accused fugitives hiding from the law in the wilderness, rather than building up big expectations about an extensive city campaign.
As far as magic goes, I am considering outright banning arcane magic, leaving just Divine and whatever concoctions the Alchemists can come up with. Possibly adding in the Artificer from ToS.
Too harsh?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of enemy variety might just make your players give up interest in this game after a few sessions. I've had a few DMs try this idea and it never keeps the players attention for long. If you keep the party fighting within their CR range, you don't have too many different types of undead to throw at them. Players using the same tactics every single fight verses the same type of foe gets old, real fast.
As far as magic goes, I am considering outright banning arcane magic, leaving just Divine and whatever concoctions the Alchemists can come up with. Possibly adding in the Artificer from ToS.
Too harsh?
If you want it low magic, I'd suggest banning full casters (and maybe the summoner).
Suddenly you don't have characters that only can do magic. The Bard and Magus become the spellslingers of the game, and the paladin and inquisitor get to become the primary healers in the world (although healing is significantly become scarce).
Additionally I'd suggest you remove all those spells that remove survival issues from the game.
Actually I was a sit in for just such a deal.
The group lost 4 members or 1/3 of the players right off the top. Till this leg of gaming ends and next person steps in to the gm chair (group rotates games and Gms).Everyone had 2 characters to run first session. The group was really closed minded about things. They took a bit to get use to metal armor makes noise unless modified, there is more to buildings then just a lines on a mat.
But yeah, There were 4-5 different types of zombies,the biggest issues with the game was was time to sleep, one of the zombie types channel a screaming mind blast (will save to avoid it, vs being shaken, nauseous or frozen in terror).
Gm added a critical hit system and more attacks with lighter weapons for melee classes.I thought it was really cool, but i wasn't there for the for the first session, Only the 3 sessions after it. The 2 sessions, I played in were sweetest game I played in over the last year or so.
It sounds like they ran a Left 4 Dead type game. I like it!
While we're on the subject of zombies and survival-horror gaming, has anyone dealt with Zombie Hordes as a single unit before? I feel like this would be a real hurdle to keep it from being "Attack -> Miss -> Move -> Provoke -> Miss ad nauseum and taking a huge chunk of time. The mass combat rules in Ultimate Campaign should help, but until then I'm left to think on my own.
I am planning a Walking Dead-esque campaign, very grim survival horror type thing. It will be a lower magic/scarce magical item game with survival checks for food scrounging and all that.
Now my question is, should I tell my players exactly what type of campaign it is? Here is my reasoning behind this question.
I would say "yes," for a very simple reason.
I dislike horror in all forms; written, filmed, and role-played. If you told me in advance that you wanted to play a horror campaign, I would politely step aside and allow the rest the group to play.
If you told me it was going to be a cyberpunk epic, and it turns out you lied to me, I would probably be less polite. As in, feeding your module and sourcebooks into a shredder. Hopefully paying several hundred dollars to replace your materials will teach you that we are players, not servants.
Of course the flip side of the coin is that if I do not tell them, the players would cry foul that I pulled a switcharoo and now their character is totally not set up for this type of campaign.
... and put your module and sourcebooks into a shredder. And I'd hold you down while they did.
While we're on the subject of zombies and survival-horror gaming, has anyone dealt with Zombie Hordes as a single unit before? I feel like this would be a real hurdle to keep it from being "Attack -> Miss -> Move -> Provoke -> Miss ad nauseum and taking a huge chunk of time. The mass combat rules in Ultimate Campaign should help, but until then I'm left to think on my own.
MeleeMonster80 had a swarm rule that I thought was pretty good. Look towards the bottom of the page.
I ran a campaign like this not too long ago. But instead of a "zombie apocalypse" campaign, I envisioned it as a more complex horror campaign.
I told everyone to create six 1st level PCs to start with, and did not tell them what the campaign would be about, only that it was going to be a "meat-grinder" and that they needed lots of PCs so they'd always have replacements ready. Then I created four images (a city, a village, a forested wilderness, and a haunted-looking hallway). At the first session, they each selected one of their PCs for each of the images (balancing party roles somewhat to make interesting possible parties) - I told them (falsely) that I'd be selecting one of the four parties randomly as their starting group.
The truth was that I ran four concurrent adventures; every time we hit a good cliffhanger, I'd switch to the next story (typically spending a reasonable amount of time in each). The PCs in each of the four stories were suddenly pulled into the setting of that story from wherever they came from, similar to the mists of the old Ravenloft setting.
The four stories were:
* A zombie apocalypse:
* A "village of the damned":
* A forest inhabited by werewolves.
* Haunted House
After experiencing all the visions and learning the entire story, as the PCs exit the house, the ghost of the wife appears to them. “Save my little girl,” she says, handing them the baby doll that the daughter dropped when she picked up the devil baby. Then she, the mist, and the haunted house all fade away.
When the PCs in the various groups (and some of the replacement PCs, because I killed six or eight PCs during the above) completed these stories, they found themselves on the road and meeting up with the other groups. At that point, I started running the original Castle Ravenloft adventure.
I mapped out the entire castle on easel-pad grid paper so I could quickly flip between floors, and covered areas they hadn’t yet explored with post-its or larger pages. Because they had to collect items and then activate them elsewhere, the PCs actually ended up moving back and forth throughout the castle quite a bit. Whenever a PC died (reasonably frequent!), the gypsy leader would have conveniently foreseen the death and sent another replacement PC wandering up to the castle from the village – having to get that person safely into the castle and with the group also required some occasional back-tracking.
Anyway, all this is to say, you can just do “zombie apocalypse” or you can combine it with other horror stuff, rotate through, and make it a lot more interesting!
I always talk with my players about the campaign setting and the game. Remember, everyone should be having fun.
Some players welcome teh challenge but others hate being the "fish out of water, not perfect for the setting" characters.
I don't know that there is a right or wrong answer. It really depends on your players.
|
It's not the "not perfect for the setting" you should be worried about, it's the "totally useless in the setting" you need to beware of. A rogue built for urban intrigue faced with zombies who can only groan. An enchanter who realizes there's nobody to charm.
I think in the case of a zombie apocalypse, there's a lot to be said for pre-gens (and against long campaigns). Make pre-gen people who where happily floating along in the setting when the ZA happened; but "coincidentally" their main strengths aren't useless; everyone has something to contribute to mutual survival. And yet they're not the specialized all-paladin team of disease-immune PCs.
It's something of a tricky way to get the "right" build - not too perfect, not too useless - without telling the players everything in advance.
And on the other hand, I think ZA isn't great for long campaigns. It's good to have a definite goal in sight - make it to the safe zone, find the cure - rather than something that will stretch out far into the distance. A handful adventures/mini-campaign seems best;
1) survive the initial outbreak
2) make it to the Last Bastion of the Living
3) go Back In to capture The Cure from the bowels of whatever place the virus came from to begin with
4) make it to the airport to get a spraying plane to spray Zom-B-Gone, or otherwise bring the MacGuffin somewhere to Fix Things.
After my long post above, I realized I failed to answer the OP's actual question...
When I ran the zombie apocalypse section of my campaign, the person who got the most frustrated was the one who had a social-skills-maxed PC. This despite the fact that I had a bunch of NPC "ordinary folks" survivors that the PCs needed to interact with - because I didn't successfully make that part as important or engaging as the climb-across-the-rooftops, find-supplies, and hold-off-the-zombies-long-enough-for-the-survivors-to-escape portions of the adventure. Those creating PCs in the role of defenders tended to die first, because they would hold the line while others escaped, and were more likely to get bitten. (Bite was auto-infection and incurable when I ran it.)
If I had it to do over, I'd perhaps inform the players that they would be "exploring a long-abandoned settlement" - or else I'd let them know I'd be auditing their characters before the campaign started, and I'd just give suggestions to those who seemed likely to suffer from lack-of-spotlight-opportunity.
yea let them know thats a low magic but after that dont tell them what you have for the campaign. I do have a question for you do you tell them what your normal campaigns are?With Pathfinder, it is usually an AP, so they have a Player Guide to go with. Thanks ladies and Gents. I will tell them it is a low magic/gritty game and hope for the best.
I think you should talk to them about the kind of game. There is a reason the players guides for the APs are a little spoilery. Its so players can make a character that fits the game and the players themselves go into the game with open eyes.
Yes there is some potential for metagame, but there is also the potential for a lot of hard feelings if the characters the players show up for are a terrible fit for the campaign. If someone for instance builds a nobleman who is all about dealing with high society, and you run a zombie apocalypse, a big portion of the character he wants to play is out the window. He might want to play it anyway, finding the roleplay of a former nobleman in a world where his title is worth less then a loaf of bread, but the player should get to make that choice from an informed position.
Its the same as campaigns like skull and shackles, if you have to be a pirate, certain concepts (IE a paladin) are not going to fit. If you have to survive a zombie apocalypse, certain characters are not going to fit.
|
I would play to play a Walking Dead style campaign. It would be so much fun to roll for argument initiative, make skill checks to repair the RV and make my saves versus painfully-obvious-your-doing-something-stupid checks. Oh yeah, and every couple of weeks (in game time of course) a week CR1 could show up. /s
I agree. Talking to them about the game is like talking about what genre of movie you want to watch (or in this case write/perform). Its the polite thing to do.
I would tell them. I once played in a campaign where I made an elven enchanter. The DM told everyone else but me that it was going to be a heavy undead campaign. Plus everyone else made a backstory where they were all related or friends or something and they left me out of it. After one session where I was left to die I quit the group.
It will be a lower magic/scarce magical item game with survival checks for food scrounging and all that.
THAT is all you need to tell them. If you're banning full arcane casters, they need to know that as well.
Now my question is, should I tell my players exactly what type of campaign it is?
If I tell them it is going to be a grimdark survival horror, they are going to optimize their characters accordingly. And to me, the game would lose that hint of desperate struggle that should accompany the Zombie Apocalypse.
Of course the flip side of the coin is that if I do not tell them, the players would cry foul that I pulled a switcharoo and now their character is totally not set up for this type of campaign.
Here's what I would tell them:
1) Low magic campaign (give definition)
2) No full arcane casters (give class breakdowns)
3) No anti-undead builds or undead templates (may also think about banning Dhamphir)
4) Encumbrance will be an issue, as will food/rations/ammo (important as these are glossed over by most DM's until it matters)
5) Survival will be a mandatory skill for everyone (consider boosting low skill classes like Fighter to compensate or give everyone 1 skill point per level to spend on it)
They don't need to know anything else, unless you want them tied to a certain city, group, guild, etc...then they need geographical details. Given those 5 points, if they can't figure out an undead plague, zombie apocalypse, or other educated guesses, then they're in for a hard time.
|
|
I am planning a Walking Dead-esque campaign, very grim survival horror type thing. It will be a lower magic/scarce magical item game with survival checks for food scrounging and all that.
Now my question is, should I tell my players exactly what type of campaign it is? Here is my reasoning behind this question.
If I tell them it is going to be a grimdark survival horror, they are going to optimize their characters accordingly. And to me, the game would lose that hint of desperate struggle that should accompany the Zombie Apocalypse. And to borrow from Monty Python, No one EXPECTS the Spani.... Zombie Apocalypse.
Of course the flip side of the coin is that if I do not tell them, the players would cry foul that I pulled a switcharoo and now their character is totally not set up for this type of campaign. Which is what I am sort of shooting for, because referring to my previous statement, No one expects the Zombie Apocalypse.
I would tell them, because I game with a group of grown ups who don't metagame the fun out of life...
I would tell them, because I game with a group of grown ups who don't metagame the fun out of life...
You might, but he might not. Hence his asking the question...
Speaking as a player:
I would not want to build a whole character concept, get buy-in from my DM who secretly knows my character will be gimped in his campaign idea, and then find out later once the game is underway that I'm gimped. I would feel a little betrayed.
Solution: As the DM, review their characters carefully. Think about the implications of what each character will be and how it will be affected by the campaign you're planning. Predict the consequences. If you spot a character that will, or might, be usually hindered by your secret campaign choices, be honest with the player and let him know this. Let him know specifically what part of his character concept won't work - you should be able to do this without giving away the entire campaign plotline or spoiling any secrets. Ultimately, make sure each player begins the campaign with a character that will be fully viable and fully engaged after the zombie apocalypse.
*****
Speaking as a DM:
When I plan a campaign and invite some players to partake in it, I look at the entire campaign as a long, elaborate, collaborative story-telling session. Everyone contributes. Everyone tells their part of the story. And most importantly, everyone gets to make major decisions about the basic story infrastructure.
Not just me.
These decisions include things like number of players, which game system, which rulebooks will be allowed or disallowed, how long we'll be playing (e.g. how many months, what are the expected character levels at the end of the game), and what the overall flavor of the campaign will be.
If my campaign idea is a zombie apocalypse, I want to make sure my players want that too. If I don't want to spoil the surprise, I will still tell them that I'm planning a major plot-twist that will emphasize certain character abilities (survival, self-sufficiency, lack of civilization and its resources, etc.) and might also limit some characters in some ways (no access to raw materials for crafting, limited access to libraries for research, no access to purchasing higher level adventuring gear, etc.).
I would make sure the players know about this kind of thing in advance and that they all agree to playing such a campaign.
Then, after all that, we can talk about creating characters.
|
|
You might, but he might not. Hence his asking the question...I would tell them, because I game with a group of grown ups who don't metagame the fun out of life...
I'm just pointing out that if he isn't going to even tell his players what they are playing for fear they might play it "wrong" bigger problems are likely involved.
I'm just pointing out that if he isn't going to even tell his players what they are playing for fear they might play it "wrong" bigger problems are likely involved.You might, but he might not. Hence his asking the question...I would tell them, because I game with a group of grown ups who don't metagame the fun out of life...
Indeed, but he likely already knows that, or he wouldn't question them or ask for advice in the first place. Other than the obvious "play with adults and you won't have this problem".
I take this as his asking us how to present the necessary details without giving away the flavor, because he already knows how his players will react. So I'm giving him advice based on what they need to know vs. what they want to know.
I would say inform them.
I've been in a position as a player that my character build didn't work because it was a low-magic, low-treasure setting and I didn't know that at the beginning. The master summoner, meanwhile, is out there kicking ass because his character doesn't need treasure. My character is useless.
I really liked him. I mean I really liked him. He died. But I liked him anyway and I worked with my dm to create a quest that would help bring him back. Quest completed... then he died again. And he very nearly died yet again.
End result: In pure frustration I retired that character and brought in a new one optimized for a low-treasure setting. The campaign ended prematurely 1 session later.
Seems like the moral of the story is not to make characters who can not survive without the GM handing out items to cover their weaknesses.
|
Limit the full-casters or eliminate them. Tell them it is low-magic and low resources with a gritty action to it. Get them to make 2-3 PCs each, that way they have some back-up PCs that are less than optimal. Then have at it.
If they build for the Zombie Apocalypse then how is it fun to watch how they react to it? I may even suggest starting them out all as 1st level NPC classes, then they can advance into whatever class they wish to after that (if they survive long enough).
1st level should be a scramble to survive, not a "Finally!!! I've prepped my whole life for the Zombie Apocalypse!!!". Tell them to consider their 1st level picks to be almost a throwaway level.
If you tell them what to expect they will come back with favored enemies, or protection from evil builds, feats for speed and endurance to outrun the horde, or whatever else.
The whole point is to catch them somewhat off-guard. I would maybe even have them adventuring in a small dungeon at the time it happens...mid-dungeon they feel the world 'shift' in some way and from there on everything in the dungeon is zombies. They encounter zombies on the way back to town. The town is turned to zombies. Maybe they even trigger it in some way during their adventure.
Limit the full-casters or eliminate them. Tell them it is low-magic and low resources with a gritty action to it. Get them to make 2-3 PCs each, that way they have some back-up PCs that are less than optimal. Then have at it.
If they build for the Zombie Apocalypse then how is it fun to watch how they react to it? I may even suggest starting them out all as 1st level NPC classes, then they can advance into whatever class they wish to after that (if they survive long enough).
1st level should be a scramble to survive, not a "Finally!!! I've prepped my whole life for the Zombie Apocalypse!!!". Tell them to consider their 1st level picks to be almost a throwaway level.
If you tell them what to expect they will come back with favored enemies, or protection from evil builds, feats for speed and endurance to outrun the horde, or whatever else.
The whole point is to catch them somewhat off-guard. I would maybe even have them adventuring in a small dungeon at the time it happens...mid-dungeon they feel the world 'shift' in some way and from there on everything in the dungeon is zombies. They encounter zombies on the way back to town. The town is turned to zombies. Maybe they even trigger it in some way during their adventure.
Except that paizo does the exact thing you are saying not to with their adventure paths. The general concept of the adventure is public knowledge, they give advice on what kinds of characters and backgrounds would be well suited to the campaign. They advise on common enemy types for favored enemy, and what kinds of skills are useful.
If paizo released a Zombie AP, it would be public knowledge this is the Zombie AP. They would advise skills, favored enemies, background traits and character concepts that fit with a zombie apocalypse. Its not about the fun of watching players react to what happens. Its about creating characters that are suited for the story you want to tell. Neither the dm nor the players should be in the dark about what the general idea behind an adventure is going to be. Paizo has it right here with their player's guides.
This is no different then running a pirate AP, or running an intrigue social focused adventure. Players should be able to make informed choices about their character concept and be given a chance to make a character they think will be fun in the campaign you are planning on.
|
Let them know the general theme, and if they come out with insanely optimized characters, then let them know that some of their assumptions may not be valid. Not everything is going to be "evil" for the purposes of spells, things can be neutral with highly destructive instincts, like hungry wild animals. Likewise, not everything can be assumed to possess the standard undead traits and react to class features as expected. Let them know you are willing to mitigate and/or circumvent any abuse they attempt, and if they want to optimize, then they should build according to your recommendations, i.e. Survival, etc.
I think a major surprise at the level of "what is this campaign going to be like" is liable to not be well-received.
|
|
And that is why a "surprise! It's the Zombie Apocalypse!" adventure path probably will never be made by Paizo. If it isn't a surprise it really isn't a good Zombie Apocalypse.
Walking Dead had a bunch of people of diverse backgounds and abilities who are suddenly having to fend off Zombies. If they survive long enough they get decent-to-good at it.
It absolutely is different than running a pirate AP or a Giants AP. In The Walking Dead they didn't study the summer program of Zombie Killing Tech. They were wives and husbands and regular people thrust into a desperate survival world. If you don't simulate that you may as well forget about running that.
Except that paizo does the exact thing you are saying not to with their adventure paths. The general concept of the adventure is public knowledge, they give advice on what kinds of characters and backgrounds would be well suited to the campaign. They advise on common enemy types for favored enemy, and what kinds of skills are useful.
If paizo released a Zombie AP, it would be public knowledge this is the Zombie AP. They would advise skills, favored enemies, background traits and character concepts that fit with a zombie apocalypse. Its not about the fun of watching players react to what happens. Its about creating characters that are suited for the story you want to tell. Neither the dm nor the players should be in the dark about what the general idea behind an adventure is going to be. Paizo has it right here with their player's guides.
This is no different then running a pirate AP, or running an intrigue social focused adventure. Players should be able to make informed choices about their character concept and be given a chance to make a character they think will be fun in the campaign you are planning on.
Well, there is a little difference. A Paizo AP is basically saying "You guys are gonna be at this for a while. Your heroes are probably in this part of the world because it suits them. Tune your characters for this kind of adventure to represent that."
But this zombie apocalypse thing is a little different. It's saying "You guys are gonna get sucked into an adventure entirely different than what you expect and your characters had no way of knowing this, so do not tune your characters for this kind of adventure."
There is a difference between a hero starting off where he expects to be and doing mostly what he expects to do, and having his pre-adventuring life make him well suited for that (or vice versa, he deliberately sought out this place and these tasks because of his pre-adventuring life), and the idea of this campaign where nobody is where they expect to be or doing mostly what they expected to do, because the unexpected zombie apocalypse takes them all unprepared.
Except that paizo does the exact thing you are saying not to with their adventure paths. The general concept of the adventure is public knowledge, they give advice on what kinds of characters and backgrounds would be well suited to the campaign. They advise on common enemy types for favored enemy, and what kinds of skills are useful.
If paizo released a Zombie AP, it would be public knowledge this is the Zombie AP. They would advise skills, favored enemies, background traits and character concepts that fit with a zombie apocalypse. Its not about the fun of watching players react to what happens. Its about creating characters that are suited for the story you want to tell. Neither the dm nor the players should be in the dark about what the general idea behind an adventure is going to be. Paizo has it right here with their player's guides.
This is no different then running a pirate AP, or running an intrigue social focused adventure. Players should be able to make informed choices about their character concept and be given a chance to make a character they think will be fun in the campaign you are planning on.
Well, there is a little difference. A Paizo AP is basically saying "You guys are gonna be at this for a while. Your heroes are probably in this part of the world because it suits them. Tune your characters for this kind of adventure to represent that."
But this zombie apocalypse thing is a little different. It's saying "You guys are gonna get sucked into an adventure entirely different than what you expect and your characters had no way of knowing this, so do not tune your characters for this kind of adventure."
There is a difference between a hero starting off where he expects to be and doing mostly what he expects to do, and having his pre-adventuring life make him well suited for that (or vice versa, he deliberately sought out this place and these tasks because of his pre-adventuring life), and the idea of this campaign where nobody is where they expect to be or doing mostly what they expected to do, because the unexpected zombie apocalypse takes them all unprepared.
I completely disagree that it requires PLAYERS to be caught off guard. Characters yes, players no. Players can and should be able to separate their expectations with their character's expectations. This is especially true when the campaign concept is so dramatic. A shift like this can and will invalidate certain character concepts. The players should at least be given a chance to create characters that are suitable for the campaign. I dont mean that they are super optimized for taking down zombies. I am talking about creating a character (not just a collection of feats and class abilities) that the player would find fun to play in the adventure being planned.
In addition, by leaving them in the dark, they could still have a previous life that makes them well suited to the task. A player could still choose an undead favored enemy ranger, and be well suited to a survival zombie game. But its by chance. Nothing is stopping them from making potentially disruptive or at least advantageous choices if you keep them in the dark. Someone could also choose to an enchanter wizard, and be far less useful compared to the ranger, or lets say a cleric. There are very basic choices players COULD make that would be very bad or very good. If you dont give your players the chance to make that choice knowlingly, your being a jerk, plain and simple.
Not to mention that if someone doesnt WANT to play in a zombie game(i know at least a few roleplayers that hate the genre), they should have the chance to opt out before the game actually starts.
Edit:
Mind you if you do inform them and they come back with characters that are super optimized for dealing with a zombie apocalypse, they are being jerks. But the existence of one, does not absolve the others. Talk to your players about what you want out of the game, create character creation rules/restrictions with that in mind, and work together to have fun and tell a story.
You should definitely inform the players, if for no other reason than they may not WANT to play in a grimdark scenario like that, so they deserve the heads-up so they can say 'no thank you' and they don't waste time making a character only to retire from the game after the first session.
I say this, of course, because this is what my reaction would be.
When I do specialized campaigns (and I do - I love stuff like this) I most definitely DO inform my players of at least the most pertinent aspects of the setting. That doesn't mean I let them in on every development or secret. But general info is very important. For instance, my wife would not be happy with a zombie-only campaign, so why would I rope her into one without giving her the option to opt-out?
On the other hand, you have every right to limit resources and builds to reflect the grim scenario. GMs do this all the time. You just explain to them the nature of the campaign, what you are trying to achieve, how limited magic will be, and what limits there will be on point-buy, etc., when generating characters.
Some might opt-out. That's fine. Those who stay will likely enjoy the campaign even more without the distraction of those who do not like to have such parameters set upon them.
