GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Barbarians

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by thulben

It's GURPS - it's always an option.

DF has its own set of assumptions, though. Sure you're able to deviate from them, but I don't think that's fitting with the spirit of the series.

[Kromm]

That's pretty much it. GURPS is an almost purely submissions-driven product line. Outside of licensed supplements, SJ Games exercises only weak influence over what gets written, via the wish list. There is no master plan.

Beyond that, I'm not sure why GURPS Criminals would be in the running. We've never breathed word of it and there hasn't been any great clamor for it. On the other hand, people have actually asked for splatbooks for GURPS Dungeon Fantasy.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Is this implying that over the course of the next 6 or 18 or perhaps 30 months, we'll get a series that covers the other 10 classes, doing the same for them?

We hope that one day, there will be a splatbook for every profession. Some roles already have de facto splats: artificers and scholars (GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 4: Sages), ninja (GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 12: Ninja), and mentalists (GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 14: Psi). Clerics, demonologists, druids, elementalists, holy warriors, necromancers, and shamans are a lower priority owing to GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 7: Clerics and GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 9: Summoners, though those aren't true splats. I definitely think we need more love for bards, knights, martial artists, scouts, swashbucklers, thieves, and wizards, and maybe for assassins (separate from ninja) and innkeepers. I could even see a few of the professions that exist only in Pyramid getting volumes, eventually.

Anyway, we're keeping counsel with our established writers and aiming at core professions for now. To reiterate what I said above, though, there's no master plan for this or for any part of GURPS. Once one or two more Denizens items are released, we'll add the sub-series to the wish list and see what happens.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Or is it a carefully considered publication, based on a legitimate perception of the Barbarian profession needing a buff PDF tob ecome "on par" with the other 10 classes?

Not exactly – but along with bards, knights, martial artists, scouts, swashbucklers, thieves, and wizards, barbarians have received the least post-GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 1: Adventurers support, so they were on the preferred list for the first few Denizens items.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

I don't have this book yet. Is there an option to skip purchasing Outdoorsman and/or Gigantism?

There is a specific lens for barbarians without Gigantism and an entire box addressing the economy of Outdoorsman (though completely removing the latter turns the barbarian into a knight clone, so the rules stop short of that and try to make Outdoorsman cheaper and more useful).

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Kromm

There is a specific lens for barbarians without Gigantism and an entire box addressing the economy of Outdoorsman (though completely removing the latter turns the barbarian into a knight clone, so the rules stop short of that and try to make Outdoorsman cheaper and more useful).

Sounds good! I'm looking forward to reading it.

[Kromm]

To be explicit, the box on Outdoorsman gives the option to change that from a 10 points/level Talent for seven skills to an 8 points/level Talent for eight skills. This shifts it from 1.4 points/level/skill to 1 point/level/skill. Outdoorsman gains further value as the prerequisite for a useful power-up and for using a powerful artifact, and as a bonus to the effects of a couple of other special items.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Beyond that, I'm not sure why GURPS Criminals would be in the running. We've never breathed word of it and there hasn't been any great clamor for it. On the other hand, people have actually asked for splatbooks for GURPS Dungeon Fantasy.

Two notes beyond this:

1. GURPS Cops has a chapter on criminals. While GURPS Criminals might be interesting, this chapter does keep it from being an immediate need for most campaigns.
2. Having a book on criminals specifically for Dungeon Fantasy means the world that the crooks inhabit needs to be defined. The logical supplement for this is an urban adventures supplement. Anything related to criminals would need to follow it.

[Gnomasz]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I definitely think we need more love for […] wizards […].[They] have received the least post-GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 1: Adventurers support, so they were on the preferred list for the first few Denizens items.

Well, I know it's just a crossover and lacks power-ups and gear, but I'd say that Dungeon Magic is a lot of love for wizards.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Gnomasz

Well, I know it's just a crossover and lacks power-ups and gear, but I'd say that Dungeon Magic is a lot of love for wizards.

I concur, and not only did it give a few variant templates, Dungeon Magic gave simpler prerequisite lists if you take a style. More love for wizards would be more books like GURPS Magic: Plant Spells for schools that wizards can cast. This also helps related casters; frex, doing a set of mental influence spells will also expand the bard's spell list.

[Wavefunction]

Originally Posted by Kromm

(though completely removing the latter turns the barbarian into a knight clone, so the rules stop short of that and try to make Outdoorsman cheaper and more useful).

You see, I've always got this argument before now, but then you went and released a whole truckload of new and incredibly awesome abilities for barbarians that effortlessly differentiate them from the knight. So I really don't think the above statement is valid.

For instance, if I choose to be a Shirtless Savage I'm filling the roll of a strong, yet slightly less skilled knight who doesn't rely as much on equipment, that's reasonably differentiated.

If I go Rage Barbarian the difference is even more obvious since I now have a ton of magical abilities that the Knight never gets access to.

That's not to mention the power-ups which I think are probably the biggest thing that differentiates the more martial classes as they steer the way your character grows (in the case of the barbarian, really big!).

As it stands I still have to head over to DF Henchmen and tack on the Veteran lens to a Brute to get the character I want. The only problem is that now I'd also have to try and persuade the GM to give me access to all the delicious possibilities in this book!

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Wavefunction

You see, I've always got this argument before now, but then you went and released a whole truckload of new and incredibly awesome abilities for barbarians that effortlessly differentiate them from the knight. So I really don't think the above statement is valid.

Sure it is. Backward compatibility is a thing. This supplement doesn't replace all prior art on barbarians; it complements it. We can't have two different baselines floating around out there. What we can do is offer optional alternatives, which this supplement does in spades!

I'd certainly love it if I could go back in time and revise everything to be more consistent, so that the Denizens sub-series replaces the Adventurers templates; Clerics, Ninja, etc. are part of the Denizens series; psi is present from day one; all the gear, treasures, and loadouts are more integrated and logically sorted; and so on. If we did, you could be assured that (1) many of the options in Barbarians would be baseline assumptions, and (2) the tasks in Wilderness Adventures would be far more front-and-center to make outdoorsy professions (barbarian, druid, and scout) essential. There was no master plan, though, and we had to go with what we got, in the order we got it. At this stage, I rather doubt there will be a reboot, if only because Dungeon Fantasy is now 25% longer than the entire Basic Set, even accounting for overlap and end matter.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Sure it is. Backward compatibility is a thing. This supplement doesn't replace all prior art on barbarians; it complements it. We can't have two different baselines floating around out there. What we can do is offer optional alternatives, which this supplement does in spades!

The price of excessive backward compatibility is legacy code. It's always a balancing act to manage it and the need for more modern stuff. All in all, I feel that it was nicely handled here.