GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Barbarians

[Polydamas]

And just for an example of how big the tent can be, KenzerCo has published Tellene, a generic fantasy setting, since the 1990s. The canonical version of the setting has little room for spectacular magic or dungeons, although it does have the pseudo-Norse Fhokki who would be excellent for barbarian-themed adventures. But their rules tend to be pre-paradigmatic, with lots of fiddly parallel systems for different situations rather than a core mechanic and they publish both 'serious' (the new Hackmaster, 3.x) and 'humorous' (the old Hackmaster) fantasy rules. Barbarians can appear in either serious or humorous tones.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Don't overlook the fact that DF describes the genre of cones of dragon's breath, area-effect fireballs, bubbling acid pits, and corridors trapped with so many arrows that you have to soak some of them with DR. There, defense bonuses aren't quite as cool if you have to strip naked (or nearly so) to enjoy them!

The DR limitations that limit armor-wearing match "you don't have armor, or at least as much armor" with "but here's some DR in place of armor," and are thus closer to tradeoffs. They understate the situation for defense bonuses, however, as while "you don't have armor, or at least as much armor" could in theory be a tradeoff with "but you don't get hit as much," that assumes you get to try to avoid most attacks. I'd argue that in DF, you face so many things you cannot avoid, only withstand, that having to be naked to use Enhanced Defenses is in practice a much bigger drawback than having to be naked to use DR. Even -80% might understate the scope, which may well cross the line into 0-point feature territory. I'd definitely invoke Below the Minimum (GURPS Power-Ups 8: Limitations, p. 7) in the hack 'n' slash genre, at any rate.

Very good points. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Cannot Wear Armor on it's own being worth more than -80%, but the build involves other limitations as well.
And as mentioned, I suggest treating it as an Alternate Ability with that prerequisite Appearance in pricing - it's not really alternate in that you have to take time to switch, but generally by the time you're getting shot at, your reaction modifiers have failed you (and vice versa, if your reaction mods are helping, you're probably not being shot at).
This just becomes a LOT more relevant if it's a cheaper advantage overall :)
Also, I forgot to put Cannot Wear Armor on the move adjustments for nudity.

So. New build!

Perk: Nonprotective Clothing [1]
Defense Bonus 1 (Cannot Wear Armor, -80%; Accessibility: Must be half naked, -10%) [3]
Defense Bonus +1 (Cannot Wear Armor, -80%; Accessibility: Must be nearly naked, -15%) [1.5]
Basic Move +1 (Cannot Wear Armor, -80%; Accessibility: Must be naked, -20%) [1]
Water Move +2 (Cannot Wear Armor, -80%; Accessibility: Must be naked, -20%) [1]

Total 7 points before going into the AA.

For female characters it is 8 points, for the option of an extra DB 1 when topless. [* footnote]

Putting even Attractive as an AA of this makes the total cost of Attractive + Beef/Cheesecake Protection 8/9 points, so it's only a 4-5 point advantage if you're Attractive.
If you're Handsome/Beautiful or better it's only 2 points, regardless of breasts.

Accessibility: Must be half naked, -10%
Covers the social inconvenience, and more importantly, not being able to wear sensible exploring clothing (basic pants protects against scrapes on rocks, thorns, nettles, etc - and you can't wear enough clothes to really be comfortable in a bit of damp, let alone proper winter weather; buy temperature tolerance).
Accessibility: Must be nearly naked, -15%
As above, but significantly more socially awkward.
Accessibility: Must be naked, -20%
Illegal in many jurisdictions, attracts attention from all the wrong sorts of monsters (and people).
[*] Regarding the topless women get a +1 - I would actually allow men to get the benefit, but they have to be even skimpier dressed than the proverbial barbarian furry bikini. A "posing pouch" or nicely-tailored sock or something. I'm also flexible on the kinds of clothing women can wear to get the bonus.
Basically, the different "levels" are "under-dressed", "pinup calendar", "soft-core porn magazine", "naked". I think this can apply just as well to male characters as to female characters. I know my game group knows what I'm talking about and will think it's equal-opportunity funny, not equal-opportunity offensive. YMMV.

[Anders]

So what would this* give? Apart from a broken spine.

*picture of Red Sonja in full battle armor

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Anders

So what would this* give? Apart from a broken spine.

*picture of Red Sonja in full battle armor

's a Pinup picture. Most super-heroine outfits and cover poses are. Some poses are traced right out of porn though, and some costumes might technically cover the nipples and crotch but only because the artist conveniently forgot to draw the exposed anatomy correctly.

I'm not joking about the poses traced out of Playboy or whatever, either. Some of the weirdest problems on Eschergirls or BoobsDon'tWorkThatWay are a result of a photograph of a model lying down being used as a reference for a standing character.

[Anders]

I had a theory that the reason barbarian women were so hairless and pain-resistant was that they used mail armor that pulled out all the hair from on their arms and legs and armpits, etc.

[PK]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I want something between DF and Banestorm.

Our group has found the two to be compatible. We're a team of newbies to the local Adventurer's Guild in Yrth. The GM uses DF rules (including Kromm's "in town" expansion from Pyramid) for just about everything, but our game is set in Cardiel and has featured plots involving Megalos spies, corrupt nobles, and more. Sometimes we fight and sometimes we just figure out what the problem is and fix it. It's gone quite well.

[Polydamas]

Humh, if I ever am part of the right kind of gaming group, I would be tempted to run an over-the-top-pulpy fantasy campaign just as an excuse to use this.

Originally Posted by Bruno

's a Pinup picture. Most super-heroine outfits and cover poses are. Some poses are traced right out of porn though, and some costumes might technically cover the nipples and crotch but only because the artist conveniently forgot to draw the exposed anatomy correctly.

I'm not joking about the poses traced out of Playboy or whatever, either. Some of the weirdest problems on Eschergirls or BoobsDon'tWorkThatWay are a result of a photograph of a model lying down being used as a reference for a standing character.

{Echoes of 'and now you know' fade away} And now I suppose I have to search Tumbler don't I? There is the old joke about starting a dating service for male pinup artists because the poor things did not seem very familiar with their subject matter.

[Tyneras]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Humh, if I ever am part of the right kind of gaming group, I would be tempted to run an over-the-top-pulpy fantasy campaign just as an excuse to use this.


{Echoes of 'and now you know' fade away} And now I suppose I have to search Tumbler don't I? There is the old joke about starting a dating service for male pinup artists because the poor things did not seem very familiar with their subject matter.

I know a number of artists who make various levels of income drawing pinups and more. They know exactly what they are doing, but apparently realistically drawn women don't sell well.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

{Echoes of 'and now you know' fade away} And now I suppose I have to search Tumbler don't I? There is the old joke about starting a dating service for male pinup artists because the poor things did not seem very familiar with their subject matter.

Originally Posted by Tyneras

I know a number of artists who make various levels of income drawing pinups and more. They know exactly what they are doing, but apparently realistically drawn women don't sell well.

There's (un)realistic anatomy as in impossibly buxum or perky or amazing legs or whatever, which is one thing, and for the most part I have no real care about that except to find it sometimes funny. Whether it's attractive, interesting, "good" or whatever is subjective. Meh. "I don't know art but I know what I like etc"

There's un-realistic anatomy, though, which is just bad art - breasts going in various odd directions in an unsexy way or attached on to the abdomen instead of the chest or something really peculiar like that. I've polled various people who are attracted to women, and they usually can't overlook those sorts of problems because it's plain old bad art. Generally the two tumblrs I mentioned are about the second kind, the "Why did anyone pay for this?" sort of thing. That's why they're about professional commercial artists work, not random fan art or the like. It's about not meeting professional standards in a very specific area. I'm sure there's a tumblr devoted to Rob Liefeld's funny looking feet drawings and other such things.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I'm sure there's a tumblr devoted to Rob Liefeld's funny looking feet drawings and other such things.

I'm not sure Google is capable of listing that many sites.