So, after recently taking a look into the most recent zombie thread, I decided to do something a little different to the standard 'lolinfiniteammo' angle a lot of people seem to have. =3 (All props to Gecko Clown for giving me the idea)
Basic Rules:
You must be able to carry everything on your person. If something sounds sketchy, explain it out.
"Really large bags of X" are not allowed, particularly ammo. =3
Anything mentioned must be current-age and readily obtainable, 'most' things requiring a permit within reason are allowed. (guns, knives etc)
You can be infected. Known to spread by saliva and blood.
If something comes in many (ammo, batteries, food, etc), state numbers and remember you need to carry it all, no stashes.
Things can, and will wear/break with constant/improper use. Item in question pending.
You are allowed encouraged to be a MacGuyver and play the do-it-yourself game with anything feasible.
Scenario is: Zombies, lots of them.
Really slow, really strong, really stupid, unlikely to starve variety.
Highly sensitive to noise, known to group up.
While you did not explicitly say "The R word", you're implying realism. As in "No infinite ammo", "reasonable carry weight", "limited equipment space", "reasonable, believable, and obtainable weapons", etc. I'd say realism is heavily implied.
The only thing against that is the "sensitive to noise" bit that I admit I glazed over and forgot about when I made my original and in my last post. My bad.
*Now on to the zombies:
While zombies are entirely fictional, their physical properties are not. The only things I'm willing to suspend my disbelief over is that the said zombies' brains still have their cells connected to make commands, and that they are somehow able to produce adrenosine triphosphate - which is a catalyst for muscle contraction - without breathing or having moving or uncoagulated blood; essentially being the fact that they are able to move. That bit of suspension of disbelief aside, everything else I leave up to the laws of nature and biology. If you wish to make exceptions (now rereading the OP, I now acknowledge) be more specific about how they function. Vagueness shows a lack of imagination as I see it.
Just because it is all theoretical does not mean that standard biology and life science can not be applied to it and used to help flesh out the details. It is key to making a good, clear, and understandable scenario. The reason why I posted in this thread originally.
Despite what your smart-ass remarks may imply, I may not be an up-and-coming Dr. Frankenstein, but I'm willing to bet that I know a lot more about the fundamentals of decomposition, cells, biology, and the human body then you do.
*Now on to you, because you seem to insist on making this personal for yourself:
Perhaps you are reading my posts in the wrong tone. My original post and my response to you were intended to be read in a calm and neutral voice: in the manner of stating facts since I interpreted your reply to be criticizing my train of thought regarding theoretical zombie physiology because you did not understand my reasoning.
It's only when you started to make fun of my reply that my tone changed. I am really not that bothered by any of your posts. because you asked, my ego is doing quite well; I do not tie it to forum posts on the internet, as you seem to be guilty of yourself, considering your vested interest. I am rather confident in what I say, and I speak rationally while fully explaining myself.
You on the other hand, do not. You seem to prefer to make fun of my preference to defend my more serious statements (conversely, which I put serious thought into) with serious rebuttal. I interpret your personal attacks on me as yourself interpreting my statements as jabs at your own ego, and thus you seek to compensate and cover up for it with your fake jovial and care-free tone. A weak facade. I am not fooled; to me, you only come off as cornered and immature.
Quoting: Not understood: I have essentially been quoting you as you have been quoting me the whole time. If you meant quotation with the quotation marks, "", I truly do not wish to make my posts run any longer. It is why I try to only quote you once per post, as my own are long enough.
You openly challenged me; while I am really not concerned about or invested in continuing this, I am admittedly interested in how you will respond.
Your move, but make it fast: I'm only going to be up for another hour before I get some shut-eye.
Sorry about the long post, though - you gave me so much to cover. The more narrow the argument, the less text I'll use to explain.
