I actually went down a completely different route; I've added in specializations to combat abilities and careers. It doesn't actually change character generation at all - for each level in a career or combat ability (range & melee) the character can choose a specialization.

e.g. For Combat possible specializations could be Brawl, Dagger, Cut & Thrust, Blunt/Mass Weapons etc. If a character doesn't have the chosen specialized combat skill they get a negative modifier; also, a character can take the same specialziation more than once allowing them additional modifers.

For careers it's a similar situation - a character can choose specializations but, unlike combat abiliites, they don't suffer any negative modifiers so long as they have a valid career. There are still no skill lists so the choices are efectively endless for the players to choose from.

It may not be to everyones tastes but, for me and my gaming group at least, it allows for individuality between characters without over-complicating the game.

Last edited by The GIT! (4/06/2015 12:41 pm)

I generally like more "widgets" for players to use to tinker with on thier characters so I have often used 5 attributes and like how it works out.  I use(d) "Perception" as a fifth because it covers some aspects of Agility and some of Mind - the two stats that I found get the most milage. I generally use perception for stealth, shooting, sleight of hand stuff, and also for... perception (surprisingly) so it covers quite a bit of ground without stepping on other attributes too bad.  It works for me.

I have also used weapon specialization and handle them much as the Git has described.  A character with Melee 2 (broadsword) is +2 with a broadsword and +1 with other weapons.  It is simple, and it adds another widget for characters.  I have not considered the idea of career specialization.  I am interested to hear how that could work.

I am almost embarrased at how much I tweek the game's rules, but it is a pretty robust engine that can handel a lot of abuse.

After some thought I've decided that I have no problem with subsuming Brawl into Melee for S&S games, and Alt. History games set when cold steel was dominant in combat. However, for more 'modern' games (Victorian era up to the present) I think keeping Brawl makes more sense. How many modern folks are actually that good with a sword/spear/axe or even that good with unarmed combat? But in countries where guns are available for private ownership, it's not uncommon for a lot of people to know how to shoot. So I think keeping all three combat attributes works well for these sort of games - especially pulp.

The White Russian cossack officer will be skilled with a sabre, a reasonable shot, but probably bad at throwing a punch. A policeman would be good at brawling and an OK shot, but not really skilled with melee weapons. A prizefighter will be very skilled with brawl, but possibly poor at shooting and stabbing.
Conan however, can be expected to punch as well as he uses a sword.

My take anyway. But where does that leave me with the 1730s game I'm writing? Undecided, that's where!

Last edited by Gruntfuttock (4/07/2015 3:55 am)

gnombient wrote:

Sounds cool! 

The GIT! wrote:

For careers it's a similar situation - a character can choose specializations but, unlike combat abiliites, they don't suffer any negative modifiers so long as they have a valid career. There are still no skill lists so the choices are efectively endless for the players to choose from.

So, for example, someone with Soldier career could specialize in Cavalry, Artillery, Archer, Pikeman, Sapper, etc.?  Am I close?

Very close but the players could also choose to be more granular than that if they want. In my Dicey Tales game one of the characters has a career in Academic - for specializations he chose Finance and Law - he now works as a Criminal Defence Lawyer and secretly helps Al Capone's bookkeeper.

That said, for my planned pirates campaign sailors and pirates will likely take specializations such as quartermaster, gunner, sail master etc - these will help define the specific jobs they are good at (I just don't see that all pirates are good at everything and the career rank isn't always enough to create the individuality that we like in our group).

For my group specializations really help define the characters in more detail without actually changing the game system; their characters can easily be used in another GMs campaign by just dropping the specializations - the number of XP used is still the same.
 

Gruntfuttock,
Here is my 2 cents on the 1730's following your own logic for the melee/brawl seperation.  I would  say that by this era use of melee weapons was already becoming a specialization of sorts.  In civilized society, aritocrats and army officers (in Europe) might know how to use a sword but commoners and enlisted men probably would not.  Highlanders, cossaks, and othe "barbarians" might be good at both skills, but may people might good at one at the exclusion of the other.  I think there would have been no contest between Rob Roy and fanncy pants (I forget the character's name) in a fist fight even though the fop was a better swordsman.  While melee weapon use as a skill was more common in the 1730s than in the 1920s, it was still a skill that was in rapid decline as far as common usage in the core of society.  In other words, the 1730s are more like the 1920s in this regard than they are like the Hyborian Age - in my estimation.  I don't know if that can help you solve your dilema or not, but I thought I would give it a shot.

One other point that may or may not be relevant.  I generally expand the definition of "Brawl" to include improvised weapons like chairs or beer mugs and even close quarters weapons like knives.