Topic: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Started by: Ron Edwards
Started on: 6/10/2008
Board: Playtesting
On 6/10/2008 at 3:02pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
[Barbaren] My manly guy
Hello,
This is essentially a question thread for Frank, but I also hope it turns into minor system showcase for the game as well, depending on the answers.
Here is the character I made up during my visit to Hamburg last December: Kragar!!! I'm basically transcribing this from my notes.
Virility = 3
He has many white-blond braids; he is part of a mountain clan which is settled and at war
Dangerous 10, Exciting 15
Strengths
Brooding!
Climbing
Weakness
A bit pretty
Next, I have two lists:
Thunderstrike, Counter, Hurl - these are combat options
Compassion, Routine (W), Electrify, Laugh at self - these are seduction options, I think
The way the rules work is that when I use these, I cross them out, and I'm continually buying new ones as I go along
lt goal: kill the crystal dragon
rivalry: Gront, desire: other side's queen, oath: break the great rock
dragonfang sword
Aggro 0, Horny 0 (these are starting values)
All right, here are my questions ...
1. What does Routine do again, and what is the W part?
2. What is the "lt" part of the goal? or is that a typo, meaning "1st," or what?
3. What are the rules for using and gaining the techniques for combat and seduction?
We played out at least two conflicts and I remember getting some pretty interesting seduction in which set up a lot of potential for later conflicts. One of the best things about the system is that every conflict resolution is effectively an easy means for scene-framing, and I think it would become quite fun with several people.
My only concern is that this effect (basically emergent conflict) might not mesh with the goals and other "positioning" features on the sheet, which could then end up being ignored. Frank, does that happen?
Best, Ron
On 6/10/2008 at 4:46pm, Frank Tarcikowski wrote:
Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Hi Ron,
I think it’s awesome you get back to this, maybe it’ll finally get me over my writer’s block I’m having with the book. Let’s start with your questions.
1. What does Routine do again, and what is the W part?
2. What is the "lt" part of the goal? or is that a typo, meaning "1st," or what?
3. What are the rules for using and gaining the techniques for combat and seduction?
1. Routine allows you to alter a very bad result to a less desastrous one. I’m wondering about the W myself. I’ll check my documents at home but probably I won’t be able to reconstruct. It’s definitely not a standard entry.
2. No idea about the “It” either.
3. Using those techniques means “burning” them. Each technique specifies the situation when it can be used (some only have mechanical prerequisites, others also fictional ones), and a mechanical effect. You can spend points to buy new ones or to increase your ressource pools (Dangerous and Attractive).
Where do these points come from? Now remember, you gain Aggro points by wooing, which can be spent in combat, and Horny points by fighting, which can be spent in a romantic encounter. By spending Aggro points, you turn them into combat XP with which to buy fighting tricks (or increase your Dangerous stat). By spending Horny points, you turn them into seduction XP with which to buy seduction tricks (or increase your Attractive stat).
We played out at least two conflicts and I remember getting some pretty interesting seduction in which set up a lot of potential for later conflicts. One of the best things about the system is that every conflict resolution is effectively an easy means for scene-framing, and I think it would become quite fun with several people.
My only concern is that this effect (basically emergent conflict) might not mesh with the goals and other "positioning" features on the sheet, which could then end up being ignored. Frank, does that happen?
Well, sometimes. More so with the goal than with the others (called bonds). The bonds are also mechanically relevant, adding to your Dangerous or Attractive score in conflicts. I see the relevance of these positioning elements mostly in getting the action started in the first place. Basically, you pick one and then frame a scene, and things evolve from there the way you’ve outlined until you’re done with that course of events, and then you either build on that or, if you feel it’s finished for now, you go back to the character sheet and pick a different bond (or the goal) to frame a new scene.
I do think it’s no big deal if they get ignored completely, though. I have been going back and forth over whether they even should have any mechanical effect. But I stuck with it because it allows for an interesting player strategy: You can “build up” a bond by seeking many scenes concerning that person. Say you want to slay the chieftain. So you first get into an argument with him. Then you lay his daughter. Then you try to best him in hunting. Then you lay his wife. Each of these scenes increases the bond. Then you have built it up strong enough so you can dare to face him in a duel (and at the same time, you’ve had a worthy set-up for the big fight in the fiction).
So, players can seize this if they want to and often it resonates effortlessly with the emergent conflict you mentioned. If they don’t want to seize it, that’s just as well, especially for single session play.
(In that context, your oath is not really rules-conform, I must have overlooked that when we made up the character. Oath, in this context as a bond, means an oath to a person. Your chieftain, your brother, your queen etc. Also, just to clarify, you don’t have to pick one of each, you could also have picked two rivals or something. For single session play, I recommend going with just one single bond.)
I did not give the same mechanical effect to the goal because the goal does not tie just as well into the conflict resolution and scene framing. I think in the rules’ current incarnation the goal is even optional for each player. I’m imagining the goal more as a possible guideline for establishing bonds, and also as a flag for multi-session play.
Does that make sense to you? Thanks for picking this up!
Best, Frank
On 6/10/2008 at 5:01pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Hi Frank,
It all makes sense. I remember the Bonds now, and I liked their mechanics a lot. I think you should keep them as they are.
It's really the Goal that concerns me. Way back in our original playtest a couple of years ago, the players all forgot about the goals, and it seems to me that goals would make more sense if they were stated after the first session or two, rather than at the outset of play. I agree that they would primarily serve as a source of inspirations and conflicts for the GM to introduce as play proceeded.
Can you remember anything about what happened in our short game? I recall that Kragar seduced Gront's sister or someone similar, and I also think there was at least one fight.
Best, Ron
On 6/10/2008 at 9:36pm, Frank Tarcikowski wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Yeah, the goal didn't play much of a role in the playtests so far, come to think about it. Or rather, it played a role only where it was clearly reflected in the bonds. Maybe I don't even need it at all, at least not on the character sheet.
Concerning our mini-game, I think your words were: "So I need a fight to charge up for the fucking!" I don't recall the exact circumstances but I do recall you weren't being picky.
Frank
On 6/10/2008 at 10:05pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Not picky at all ... at least about whom my character would be fighting.
Anyway, I think it's time to moderate myself and to direct this topic back on track - specifically, Frank, there's no reason to stall out. The game is done and it's good. You might at least put a preliminary copy up at Lulu, for instance.
Best, Ron
On 6/11/2008 at 3:34pm, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Yes, do it.
On 6/11/2008 at 4:56pm, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Agreed, go for it. Let us know if you need anything. Especially after August, that is, so I don't kill myself with projects.
On 6/12/2008 at 9:19am, Frank Tarcikowski wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Thank you, Eero, but I guess I just need to finish writing the damn book.
Frank
On 6/12/2008 at 2:48pm, oliof wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
Just pass me the manuscript and I'll strike out the superfluous stuff.
On 7/7/2008 at 6:57pm, ( o Y o ) wrote:
RE: Re: [Barbaren] My manly guy
I can only second you all:
God damn, do it Frank!
MfG
Dirk