[BARBAREN!] Adventure Formula?

[Frank T]

So I'm continuing the rough clearance, before going down to the details of revising BARBAREN!. Let me explain first what I want, and then what I got.

I like the way that many Forge games support the GM and the group as a whole in creating interesting situations. I want to do that in BARBAREN!, too, as best I can. On the other hand, I don't want to unnecessarily limit the player's freedom in interpreting and using the game.

I do have relationship mechanics that seem to be alright and provide for an appropriately clichéd and dense relationship map. Now the tricky part: Adventure Formula. I really adore the town creation rules in DitV. A simple step-by-step instruction on which you can rely to generate the kind of situations you want.

Here was my take in the latest playtest version on just such a formula for BARBAREN!:

1) Prerequisite: Get the characters connected in a way. My take was to make them all brothers, either by blood or by oath. That would support a bit of party-play, at least every now and then. If would not prevent PC vs. PC adversity, but probably keep it subtle at least for one or two sessions.

2) Adventure formula:
Step one: Pick the Frame. One player does this at a time. The Frame is just a very general scope of events into which the Adventure fits.
Step two: Everybody pick one existing or new Relationship which becomes central to his own character's story for this adventure ("central person").
(Step one and two should take place at the end of the previous session.)
Step three: GM create adversity based on the input of step one and two. GM must always provide someone to fight and someone to fuck.

I used this formula in all my playtests and it resulted in very simple, but fun plots and "missions". Adversity was provided by NPCs always, the PCs worked together against it. Also, the PCs had their little private stories going on, as driven by their relationships.

But. What made me think was Ron's report from the GenCon playtest, where he wrote:

About a half hour into play, Brian muttered, "This is really different ... the GM isn't giving you some task to do! It's not like you're working together on anything." Jasper and I smiled at him carnivorously.

Seems that they hadn't used steps two and three of my Adventure Formula and come up with quite a different style of play: PC vs. PC from the very start and to the blood, without any "mission" or NPC adversity. At least for a One-Shot, this seems quite suitable.

What to do? Would it suffice to stress that the "central person" can be another PC, and that you can also take another PC for a Relationship? Or is the whole "PCs are brothers" thing no good as a general rule? Any other suggestions?

- Frank

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Frank,

I apologize, I was so wrapped up in the Ronnies that I forgot to reply to this one.

I think that you might be overlooking our subtle use of the adventure situation in our con game, at least among most of the players. We instantly realized, and discussed briefly, that you had offered two kinds of scenarios, both good.

1. Fight external foe, as in raiding a rival clan. In this case, the obvious thing to do is run about fuckin' one's brains out to power up for the fight.

2. Resolve social and sexual conflicts within the group, as in the fertility rites (which we used). In this case, the obvious thing to do is pick lots of fights in order to power up for the sex.

I recommend retaining this feature. I also recommend not dictating that "they're all brothers" or anything else so structured. I think your formula makes the game fairly uninteresting! When I play a Barbarian, the last thing I'm interested in is anyone's stupid mission to accomplish! No! I fight whom I choose (whoever gets in my way), I woo where I will! RRraahh!

If this leads to freewheeling, wild, and unpredictable storylines, characterized by sudden alliances and sudden betrayals, full of fights and fucking ...

... then I call that a good day.

Best,
Ron

[Frank T]

Hey Ron,

Thanks for the reply anyway! I'll have to ponder it for a bit. I'd also appreciate the other playtesters sharing their view on this. Ron, you seem to suggest that less structure is better in this case. On the other hand, I want each "setup" to be structured in a way that it provides an arena for barbaric events and forces the players to act. Hm.

It's funny how you guys not playing the game as written spawned so many interesting ideas. Another big one is that you didn't use the Aggro and Horny to improve your stats, but only to spend it in a fight or woo. That lead to the "powering up for combat" notion, which wasn't shared as much by the other playtesters, because they spent most of their points to boost their basic stats straight away. Also a way to power up, of course, but it doesn't support the "release tension in the fight" feel.

I think the "power up and release tension" is really cool, so I'll keep it. That, however, leaves me in the need to figure out another way for improving the basic stats. Maybe spent Aggro points go into "fighting experience", and spent Horny points go into "wooing experience". Something of the kind. That was, actually, an idea I already had in the very early design phase, but I didn't realize its implications then.

- Frank

[Ben Lehman]

I think that, honestly, a decently long list of frames, sorted by category, would be plenty structure.  For instance:

Adventure:
The Wizard's Tower
The Dungeons of Despair
The Haunted Forest

Raiding / War:
The Cattle Raid
The Invaders Attack!
Against the Empire

Internal / Social:
Fertility Rites
Harvest Festival
High Tribunal

Mixed:
Ancestral Tombs
Mercenary Work
Council of War


Personally, I found it a little difficult to bring in the relationships.  I think it might be best if you didn't necessarily choose a single relationship to focus on at any given time, but rather allowed the GM leeway to bring in which ones she could.

yrs--
--Ben

[Ron Edwards]

I agree entirely with Ben.

Best,
Ron