GURPS Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Barbarians

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

Thanks for taking the time to work this out Bruno. It is nerdy fun.

I second that!

Originally Posted by Polydamas

The Holy Warrior in his complete suit of magical armour has to pay money for it... Someone who wants to be just as safe without all that iron should pay points for it.

I agree - but (not to nitpick!) the question is as to how many points.

I think the rules in DF Denizens: Barbarians strike the right balance, and I was really pleased to see them when they came out. But Bruno - whose views I respect - is proposing that it would be fairer to charge the Barbarian much more than the new RAW says. To me, this that has the unfortunate side effect of returning us to the state of things before DF Denizens: Barbarians, when anyone who tried take a Conan-style loincloth-clad barbarian into a front-line fight got slaughtered for lack of defense.

To me, a DF player ought to be able to say "I want to play an Arnie-style Conan!", and be able to do that effectively using the Barbarian template. I don't think that's outside the scope of the source material at all - in fact, I'd put it right at the heart of it! This means that you need to be able to play a big, hulking brute in furry underpants who has no appreciable role except as an effective front-line combat specialist. The rules didn't support this before; now they (sort of) do, so I'm happy with the changes!

In a sense this raises the whole debate about Outdoorsman again - Arnie's Conan is the Barbarian many people think of first, and his schtick is definitely not "woodsman and tracker" - he's a strength-based combat specialist - but let's not open that can of worms again! (though I can't resist adding that the new options for cheaper versions of Outdoorsman seem a step in the right direction here.)

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Polydamas

More evidence that what poets really need is a degree in English.

/spittake

Originally Posted by Not

How to put this... did they wear it on their shoulders?

Like a cloak. If the 'head' hide was intact I believe it was used almost like a hood.

Berserker possibly comes from berserkr, which breaks down into either ber- (bear) serk (shirt) or berr- (naked) serk (shirt). So either someone wearing a 'bear shirt' or someone going unclad into battle (by which was meant bare chested or even just unarmored).

However in most poems they are also referred to as Úlfhéðnar (singular Úlfheðinn), or Wolf Heads, as they also wore wolf pelts and were describe as fighting like mad wolves/hounds.

From Ynglinga saga by Snorri Sturluson: "His (Odin's) men rushed forwards without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were strong as bears or wild oxen, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon them. This was called Berserkergang."



It's theorized that berserkers wore the distinctive dress (wolf or bear pelt) so their friends would know to stay back from them in combat.

It's likely the berserkers wore pants and shoes, at the very least.

[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.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Joe

To me, a DF player ought to be able to say "I want to play an Arnie-style Conan!"...

As a Conan 'purest' I hate Arnie's Conan.

Fun movie, would watch again (though I prefer Conan The Destroyer)... but... that'sa not my Conan! ;)

[Kromm]

Well, movie Conan is closer to a hack 'n' slash/dungeon crawl barbarian, while novel Conan is a traditional sword-and-sorcery hero. The first is a better fit to DF than the second. The first is all about personal strength, toughness, and skill at fighting – oh, and showing off muscles. The second belongs in the sort of fantasy where social position, large-scale battles, and so on factor into the heroes' adventures. DF has lots of rules for superhuman ST and resistance and combat ability, but essentially nothing for empire-building thief-kings and generals.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

As a Conan 'purest' I hate Arnie's Conan.

Fun movie, would watch again (though I prefer Conan The Destroyer)... but... that'sa not my Conan! ;)

I like Howard's Conan, too... as well as the old Savage Sword retellings from the 70s. But I still find Arnie's version great, stoopid fun to watch, in a very different way.

Originally Posted by Kromm

Well, movie Conan is closer to a hack 'n' slash/dungeon crawl barbarian, while novel Conan is a traditional sword-and-sorcery hero. The first is a better fit to DF than the second.

For whatever it may or may not be worth, that's my sense of it also.

In any case, I do think that the average casual gamer who picks up GURPS Dungeon Fantasy for the first time and reads "Barbarian" is probably going to think of Arnie first. (For better or worse!) That's one of the reasons I'm so pleased with the new supplement: it allows players to go ahead and play one of the obvious character types in a viable way.


You'll note that I'm oh-so-virtuously resisting asking why all the new Barbarian templates still have to take Outdoorsman, if movie Conan, who is not an Outdoorsman, really is a good example of a hack'n'slash dungeon crawl barbarian, as Kromm has just said he is...

Nope, definitely not trying to open that can of worms again... God, I'm virtuous....

Just jokes; I love the new supplement. :)

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

It's theorized that berserkers wore the distinctive dress (wolf or bear pelt) so their friends would know to stay back from them in combat.

There's a fellow on YouTube that goes by the name Lindybeige (real name, IINM, Nikolas Lloyd) who posted a video about berserkers that seems pretty well researched. His conclusion was that berserkers were principally the member of a lord's entourage appointed to fight duels in the lord's stead. Only later literature attributed the separately attested blind battle rage as a key trait of berserkers.

And the big displays of madness (howling, gnawing on the shield, etc.) seemed to mostly come before the battle, which you then armored up for. Lloyd compared it to the All Blacks doing a haka before a match to get pumped up and intimidate the other side.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by RyanW

There's a fellow on YouTube that goes by the name Lindybeige (real name, IINM, Nikolas Lloyd) who posted a video about berserkers that seems pretty well researched. His conclusion was that berserkers were principally the member of a lord's entourage appointed to fight duels in the lord's stead. Only later literature attributed the separately attested blind battle rage as a key trait of berserkers.

And the big displays of madness (howling, gnawing on the shield, etc.) seemed to mostly come before the battle, which you then armored up for. Lloyd compared it to the All Blacks doing a haka before a match to get pumped up and intimidate the other side.

I've also seen the theory that going berserk was something you did out of desperation, in the hopes that you'd have a better life if you lived and failing that, you'd go straight to Valhalla.

Young men lacking the wealth to buy armour, but very sure of their own valour and ability, as well as possibly house- or clanless warriors, would attempt to impress potential lords and terrify the enemy by making a virtue of necessity and fighting not only unarmoured, but also bare chested or naked.

Pre-gunpowder battles weren't usually quick and people did not spend every turn of them in melee combat. Shield walls might face each other for hours while each side tries to establish a psychological ascendancy. It isn't unreasonable to assume that displays of ferocity, courage and disdain for the other side had an actual military purpose, i.e. causing the other side's formation to stagger or loosen as men were tempted into individual engagements.

Nor is it unreasonable to speculate that warriors with nothing to lose (or believing that they couldn't lose), the drunk, the religiously frenzied and the otherwise desperate might have chosen such a wildly dangerous course as stripping down before (or while) mocking the other side, actually daring them to come out of their shield wall and fight them. It may not be a good way to stay alive for long, especially if you keep going closer and closer, eventually darting in for a clash of arms against their projecting spearpoints, but it's a good way to be noticed if you live.

And that's saying nothing of the effects on the morale of the other side. Screaming maniacs who seem to welcome death might be mechanically easy to deal with in GURPS, but if they charge home just before the clash of shield walls, they might be the straw that breaks the camel's back and cause a wholesale rout.

While it's possible that modern men are fundamentally different from men in other eras, I personally believe that there are enough similarities that the fact that one side or the other usually broke before it came to bayonet combat might indicate that a not insignificant fraction of pre-gunpowder battles might have been won before any actual large-scale melee took place.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by simply Nathan

I don't see how self-identification can be a golden standard at all, nor why being "polite" to someone who wants to be identified as something he isn't should be held in higher value than making communication as unambiguous as possible.

Your argument is circular and you are ignorant of the facts. But this is not the place for a discussion. If you want to continue, PM me.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by Joe

I second that!


I agree - but (not to nitpick!) the question is as to how many points.

I think the rules in DF Denizens: Barbarians strike the right balance, and I was really pleased to see them when they came out. But Bruno - whose views I respect - is proposing that it would be fairer to charge the Barbarian much more than the new RAW says. To me, this that has the unfortunate side effect of returning us to the state of things before DF Denizens: Barbarians, when anyone who tried take a Conan-style loincloth-clad barbarian into a front-line fight got slaughtered for lack of defense.

To me, a DF player ought to be able to say "I want to play an Arnie-style Conan!", and be able to do that effectively using the Barbarian template. I don't think that's outside the scope of the source material at all - in fact, I'd put it right at the heart of it! This means that you need to be able to play a big, hulking brute in furry underpants who has no appreciable role except as an effective front-line combat specialist. The rules didn't support this before; now they (sort of) do, so I'm happy with the changes!

In a sense this raises the whole debate about Outdoorsman again - Arnie's Conan is the Barbarian many people think of first, and his schtick is definitely not "woodsman and tracker" - he's a strength-based combat specialist - but let's not open that can of worms again! (though I can't resist adding that the new options for cheaper versions of Outdoorsman seem a step in the right direction here.)

I can't comment on a fair price, because I do not have enough rulebooks in this city, and because I have never played a high-powered cinematic style of GURPS like Kromm's DF. His DF is not the kind of DF which I have played or run.

Arnie's Conan could climb and sneak and ride as well as fight, and nobody in Conan the Barbarian wears much more than a helmet and body armour. At the Battle of the Mounds he and Subotai were about as well armoured as their opponents. So maybe a genre switch which discouraged everyone from wearing armour is better than a character ability? Men in Howard's Hyborian Age keep finding excuses to strip to their loincloth, just like women run around in silken skirts and golden breast-plates regardless of cold, dust, and enemies with daggers.