Playing Barbarian Cultures?

[RPGPundit]

How do you typically portray barbarian cultures in your RPGs?  Do you make any effort at authenticity? How do you highlight the difference between them and civilized cultures?

[Gronan of Simmerya]

The differences are subtle but there.  My model for "barbarians" is Beowulf as opposed to Le Morte d'Arthur for "civilized" lands.

[Dumarest]

What are you considering "barbarian"? Or, what are you considering "civilized"? I would need a definition of terms to respond.

[Christopher Brady]

What are you considering "barbarian"? Or, what are you considering "civilized"? I would need a definition of terms to respond.

Wot 'e said!  Context, man, context, we need it to go forward.

[S'mon]

In my Wilderlands game I definitely portray cultural differences between my Barbarian Altanians, Achaean/Palace-Culture style Ghinorans, civilised Rome-meets-medieval Lankhmaresque Alryrans etc. Most of my other games have less depth so differences come up less, but it's very much a big part of that game.

Are the Altanians realistic? Well my starting point for them is 'heavy metal barbarians', but they have a pretty complex culture with the animal-based Warrior Lodges, the Sword Cult of Bondorr, the annual Clan Moot, the Wise Women & all-female Psychic Defenders/Protectors, the nominal High Chief and the elected War Chiefs. For Wilderlands, the powerful role of women among the Altanians is notable - you don't go against the Wise Women if you know what's good for you, but they don't rule directly, they give approval to their preferred war chief and then 'advise' (direct) him. The Protectors have powerful psychic abilities, mostly precognitive, and are seen as sacred. And they are a very old culture with ancient roots as a high tech society, their 'old gods' of the Egyptian pantheon, and memories of their enslavement by and struggle against the Orichalan Dragon Lords. Currently they are locked in conflict with the evil Black Sun network of Alryan Neo-Nerath, which blames them for the fall of the Nerathi empire during the Gnoll Times.

[Headless]

I had a scorcer I was playing in middle earth.  Not a barbarian but I tried to make the magic schaministic (using the terms crudely as a layperson)  I had a wolf skull I would bring out and meditate with, he planted Apple trees on the graves of defeated Easterlings (his race) he had a "remove oxygen" spell (seriously the most deadly spell I have ever seen any where as written, we didn't play it exactly as written) that sounded to sciency to me so he called it the "unlife deamon" and was scared of it.  When we killed a giant wolf he cut it's liver out and took a bite to eat its strenght.

[Omega]

Barbarians use axes, civilized people use swords.

When Im running Karameikos I tend to play the barbarian nations as more down to earth and for whatever reasons like to periodically raid others. Its more a factor of how they choose to live rather than tech level overall. Figuring out exactly why they are raiding towns and carrying off the women and valuables can be a major adventure all on its own.

Also what is the difference between a barbarian and a native? Are the natives barbarians or are they more, or less advanced/cultured/etc?

[HappyDaze]

I've been recently playing Hollow Earth Expedition, and many of the HE natives could be considered barbaric tribal peoples. This also extends to that line's Mars expansion. Not all of these barbarians are primitive (some are), but all of them are culturally very distinct from the dominant 1930s western cultures of the setting. A lot of the details are left for the GM to fill in--the game is good about leaving such things undefined except where they actually matter to gameplay. I think that this is a strength, others want all the details covered for them, so YMMV. In play, how much emphasis I place on these cultural differences depends on how much at-table (on-screen) time the culture is going to get. If it's a cannibalistic tribe that's just there for a few sessions to act as headhunting boogeymen for their necromancer witch doctor, then I'm OK with the culture only being a thin layer of paint.

[tenbones]

Depends on the setting. IS there civilization? what form does it take?

For example in Talislanta: The Savage Land - there is basically zero "civilization" outside of the barbarian tribes. Each region dictates the nuances that all tribes need to overcome: survival, resources and safety. PC's are the ones that strike out and explore and "adventure" for the benefit of the tribe. Intra-tribal politics will vary based on region and the resources/discoveries made in those regions.

In terms of authenticity, I think that it's important only insofar as it gives meaningful play to the game. That will vary from table-to-table. For a "good" barbarian game, I think it's important to mechanically ferret out how the tribe/individual survives. Do they interact with other tribes? Do they simply hunt? Is there any agriculture? Are these resources scarce? To the degree that these things are "game-worthy" (and I think nearly anything can be rendered game-worthy in context) is the key that GM's have to impart in game, especially if it gets the players in the right mind-set of the game.

Otherwise you can cleave pretty close to the standard gaming conventions. In fact this might be one of the rare times being a pack of murder-hobo's ain't such a bad thing.

[RPGPundit]

Barbarians: nomadic or sedentary, but still fundamentally based on a tribal culture, and lacking the more complex elements of human social development both in terms of technology, political structure, economic system, and philosophy.

The Romans were a civilization. The Huns were barbarians. The Han were a civilization, the Xiong Nu were barbarians.