This is a fictional bronze-age game.  I posted the 1st draft rules a while ago.  It was a task-based skill system.  Since being directed to other types of rules, Ive looked at what was sugegsted.  PTA, DITV, Sorcerer and TSOY.  Got a better handle on conflict resolution and so on.  some nice things in there.  My first session of PTA went very well.

I have some rough ideas that may or may not make sense.  I need someone with more experience in these matters to pass comment.

In the original ruleset, I quite liked the idea of what I called Signature Moves which were special moves you could do that broke the normal rules of combat.  (The idea being that the basic rules were avilable to everybody, but that players could allow their characters to step outside the normal rules).  A way of allowing more complex things to be done without bogging down the whole system - you only have to worry about the complexity of the special rules for your own character because they are your own private rules.

Think of those arcade games where you can move around and hit things in a 'normal' way by pressing a button, but certain characters have a range of special rules that require the controls to be manipulated in a complex fashion to invoke their own special attack.

-- general rules for everybody, but special rules for individuals that characteize that individuals style with respect to everybody else.

so still with me? OK.  lets move to skills for a bit.  I like the idea of general skills or traits occupations or whatever you want to call them that encompass a range of activites that relate to that trait.  I cant remember the game I first saw this in, but it is repeated in sorcerer and PTA and its elegant, so lets steal that. 

1) characters get a trait of 'culture' which is everything they could be expected to know from their culture - horse nomad children learn to ride and shoot a bow and animal husbandry etc..etc..

2) you can arrange levels (of competency) between 1 and 3 occupational traits - i.e. hunter, shaman, leader etc...

and thats basically it for traits - thats what I propose to replace the skill list with.  Characters can apply their 'hunterness' or 'shamanness' to various tasks or conflicts that need to be resolved.  The only problem I see with this is that it potentially homogenizes characters from the same background with respect to their abilities.  Two horse nomad / hunter characters are more or less going to have the same abilities.

So you can see where this is going.  How would it be to apply the Signature Moves more generally?  Lets call it Signature Plays.  The trait list is the general rules that apply to everybody, but everybody can customize their characters abilities with Signature Plays that let the character do something specific.

example:  Horse nomad - hunter #1 has the signature play "hanging shot" which the player defines as the ability to hang off his horse (for protection) and shoot over its back.  Under the general rules, this would imply some sort of penalty for increased difficulty, but since this a Signature Play for Hunter #1, he plays by his own rules and shoots with no penalty.

Obviously the range of signature moves is infinite really, players custmomize their characters with Signature Plays however they want.  the other thing about Signature Plays is that it they allow the player to set the stakes of the resolution.  Their rules, so their stakes -- for this particualar circumstance only.

example:  Horse Nomad - Hunter #2 has the signature play "withering insult".  By the 'general rules' a character insulting another character might result in a range of possible outcomes depending on the degree of success, however by invoking a signaute play, the player is setting the stakes -- a normally successful result WILL be a withering insult that will effectively stop his opponent.

I figure you can buy a certain number of Signature Plays with Points during character creation.

This is not to say that any character cant attempt to do exactly what another character does with a signature play - a hanging shot or a withering insult.  its just that unless it a Signature Play, then the character is subject to the usual rules for increased difficulty or variability of result, etc...

Its a good idea IMO; if you have not, you should read Legend of the Five Rings for a good example oif this sort of process, probably not least becuase it was approached with a similar mentality to a CCG.  Thus for example, characters can only spend a certain number of void points, buty special abilities allow certain characters to spend more under certain circumstances.  Just about every component of the resolution system can be manipulated in some way by some special ability.

This sort of complexity does have the effect of making the system rather opaque, in that it can be hard to determine everything that might be called in to play in a particular resolution until you have quite a comprehensive understanding of all the available powers.

I thought to give a few examples and then leave it open for players to invest their own in conjunction with the GM during character creation, rather than give a complete list.

Perhaps to deter homogenity a bit, add Caste?
You have your Culture and Caste/Rank, which is vastly different for a Horse Nomad Warrior and a Horse Nomad Ambassador. City-born commoner and City-born merchant.

I also suggest each person to have, in your make up, say 4 points of professions where each profession goes from 1 to 3, forcing each character to have at least two such professions.

Thunder_God wrote:
Perhaps to deter homogenity a bit, add Caste?
You have your Culture and Caste/Rank, which is vastly different for a Horse Nomad Warrior and a Horse Nomad Ambassador. City-born commoner and City-born merchant.

I also suggest each person to have, in your make up, say 4 points of professions where each profession goes from 1 to 3, forcing each character to have at least two such professions.

It is precisely that. I just say use one as your Main and the other as your Sub-type.
Do you wish Noble Horse-nomad to be closer to Noble City-born than a Horse Nomad noble to a Horse nomad "vassal"? That is the question.

Thunder_God wrote:
It is precisely that. I just say use one as your Main and the other as your Sub-type.
Do you wish Noble Horse-nomad to be closer to Noble City-born than a Horse Nomad noble to a Horse nomad "vassal"? That is the question.

I'm really happy to see this thread.

I don't have anything substantial to say just now - oh but I think you're right that culture can be society + station - I'm just glad.

-Vincent

Hey Steve!
  Good to see you back. I think that when defining these Signature moves, it is important to distinguish them from Feats in D&D. Also, you prolly need to understand how your Sig Moves will combine. I think you want to come up with a way to either encourage new powers/abilities by clever comboes. Or come up with a rule/mechanic to prevent abuse from exploitative combinations.
  Sounds like you have a good initial idea, good luck man!

I gave an example :)

It's either A+B is more distinguished, or C+D is more distinguished, I just made the "Question" in order for you to decide which one is the main and which one is the subtype, if you decide to add a subtype :)

dindenver wrote:
Hey Steve!
  Good to see you back. I think that when defining these Signature moves, it is important to distinguish them from Feats in D&D. Also, you prolly need to understand how your Sig Moves will combine. I think you want to come up with a way to either encourage new powers/abilities by clever comboes. Or come up with a rule/mechanic to prevent abuse from exploitative combinations.
  Sounds like you have a good initial idea, good luck man!

Hi!
  There are exploits in the D&D Feat system. the simplest is called the Bag o' Rats. Before combat a character needs:
Great Cleave (I am not sure, possibly Cleave will work)
Whirlwind
A Bag full of Rats
  The first round the warrior drops the rats. The next round they whirlwind the rats and all the extra attacks provided by great cleave produces an essentially an infinite number attacks. This can be done by a human fighter by level 5 or 8. And surely, no one at wotc inteded it to be used like this. So, my suggestion is, plan ahead. Try to create a mechanism that prevents these kinds of combinations. Maybe make a boilerplate rule that cannot be broken by signature moves. Or in some other way allows the creativity you want and restricts creativity that is toxic to your game.

bag o rats!  weird.

Theres two types of 'play' that can  think of
1) the rule breaker, which is the example of 'hanging shot' I gave
2) the mini-conflict with player-set stakes, which is the example of 'withering insult'

I guess you could come up with plays that were both.  Perhaps the first kind is open to abuse due to having open-eneded results?  But in any case the play has to be 'ratified' ;)  by the GM

I guess what I particularly want to know is do people think the idea of 'signature plays' as a waste of time?

i.e. there is nothing stopping players from describing their characters performing particular nifty moves in combat or the equivilant of 'nifty moves' in in other areas either.  So although there are some reasons for formalizing this aspect of play, outlined in the initial post, you could just as well say that all I need to do is encourage/suggest that players use this approach - I dont need to actually formalize the concept as a rule.

I did think about that - and for someone new to conflict resolution style of play, I thought it might be a good kind of "stepping stone" from task oriented play to conflict-oriented play, as some Plays will make most sense when framed as stakes for conflicts.  In the same way, Signature Plays when applied as nifty combat moves will help introduce the idea of breaking a combat into a series of tactical encounters framed as mini-conflicts rather than a series swings, hits and misses.  So that your usual task-oriented gamer starts using Signaute Plays, groks the idea, starts using "Improvised Plays", and hey presto, hes thinking about how to solve situations in a conflict res type of way.

well thats the theory, anyway.  I realize that a lot of Plays will most likely be applied in a tasky fashion.  Thats OK too.  I just need to provide lots of example plays that might be framed more as a conflict res type of thing.

example: climbing a wall.  You know how Jackie Chan has thing thang where he can run at a wall and kind of just run/climb to the top of it in a jiffy?  Thats definately a 'signature play'.  But what is important about doing that?  The ability of Mr Chan to climb a wall at all is not in question.  he can.  Using a 'play'  when there is nothing else at stake except "does it happen" is colourful, and may help the character avoid certain difficulty penalites, but thats as far as it goes.  However, when Chan does this thing, he does it in, like, less than a second.  So the Play is mostly about speed.  That makes it significant in a conflict situation, for instance, can he climb the wall before the guard turns around, or can he climb the wall before the hounds reach him and tear him a new one?  Now the play takes on conflict res significance, because the stakes automatically are: if the play is executed, he makes it before the guards/hounds or whatever.

Hi there!

stefoid wrote:
I guess what I particularly want to know is do people think the idea of 'signature plays' as a waste of time?

Hi!
  I think that you have to make an effort to differentiate them from Feats (D&D), but barring that minor hurdle, they sound great. Players can potentially make really individualized characters.
  I think it is a mechanic that demands playtesting, but in the end, I think its more than worth it.

Just had a look at D&D feats (never played D&D before).  its essentially the same idea.  emphasis is obviously on combat and progression through a tree of related abilities.  The points of differentiation would freedom to choose any kind of play you wanted, and emphasis on different types of play: rule breaker or stake setter.  Feats seem to be all rule breakers from the few examples I saw.  would you agree?

Actually, there are a few ways to approach the specialization thing.

HeroWars says just take a bunch of 'keywords' which can basicly come from any category.  i.e. warror, axeman, etc...  but why would you take axeman which is a specialist kind of keyword when warrior adequately covers fighting in general?  what does taking axeman give you that warrior does not?

The signature plays Im proposing have very narrow applicability.  they are almost like specific tasks or mini-conflicts, eg: a character from a warrior background could have three plays which emphasise his specialization with an axe such as 'shield split', 'whirlwind' and 'axe missile'  (just making these up)

an alternative is to broaden a characters specializations from specific plays to something like herowars  "warrior - axeman", but to give 'axeman' and other speciaizations some rules backing.  perhaps axeman allows any number of improvized plays involving axe fighting.  similarly jackie chan has the broader specialziation of 'acrobatic agility'  which covers climbing walls like a monkey and a bunch of other stuff
??