Al.

That's a bit rude

The rest of our disagreement is merely disagreement and I think we can happily disagree agreeably. (And your first retort was genuinely amusing). But that one: no. It is not standardisation I have issue with. It's the point that standardisation is converging on. (on? to? my literacy fails me).

Caveat: I am a teacher and probably prickly about this. Are you comparing current kids with young you or young everyone else? It's a trap many of my colleagues fall into ('Kids of today have no respect for education/for teachers/for learning/for society/for.... when I was that age I would never have done ......' yes but you are now a professional educator and have successfully navigated compulsory education then at lest three levels of optional education which suggests that you have a view of education and learning which is very different to child y who comes from three+ generations of educational disengagement) You are numerate There are kids today who are numerate (they are your comparison) You had peers who were not numerate There are kids today who are not numerate That said the GERM* is shit, must be resisted and we should all follow the Finnish model (although even Finland has started to fall prey to some of the GERM nonsense sadly) *Global Education 'Reform' Movement. If you are internet savvy enough to use this forum you are internet savvy enough to research this rather than just listen to me rant about it.

My favourite that I haven't played (it's not my turn to run yet and a feature of being in a big group is that it won't be for a while) Read the d100 both ways If it is equal to or under in one direction then you have a partial success (i.e. roll damage) If it is equal to or under in both directions then you have a full success (i.e. maximum rollable damage) If it is a natural double and equal to or under you have a special success (i.e. roll and add maximum rollable) If it is over in both direction it's a failure If it is a natural double and over it's a fumble As to skills over 100%? Pass. Probably something like HeroQuest's Masteries rule.

I've just downloaded and skimmed the free sample <Insert expected positives here> But just in case you have not spotted this or been told already: p17 Characteristics table the CON and DEX columns seem to have been swapped (unless you've deliberately gone really bold in subverting genre stereotypes for Species).

Very clever

I see this artefact* slightly differently. No less a figure than Steve Perrin mentioned in (one of) the RuneQuest playtest(s) that SIZ was always supposed to model mass not height and that given the chance he'd go back and make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6 or 2d6+6 just like for humans. If I still used SIZ in my [d100] games I'd make SIZ for Dwarfs 3d6. * a younger, angrier Al would call it a 'problem' now I am happy to be less judgemental.

Dave Morris (of Dragon Warriors and early White Dwarf fame) wrote a really interesting adventure where the 'Orcs' were actually Neanderthal survivors; ostracised, bullied, killed for their Exp and their stuff by humans.

Science Teacher here. Today we were discussing the school's ethos and our part in it. I suggested that a big bit of 'being a Scientist' is not mindlessly swallowing what you're told but looking for evidence, analysing and drawing justifiable conclusions. And that regardless of whether our kids go to be astronomers, biochemists, physicians or office cleaners we want them to take the critical, evidence based attitude with them into adulthood. My colleague responded "They might not ever develop a vaccine but they'll bloody well take it" At which point a third colleague pointed out that three colleagues in Maths (which is a Science for goodness sake) were anti-vaxxers, and the room went silent.

I think CoC also has a Critical on a roll of 01 (regardless of skill) But skimming my copy of (2nd edition) I can't find any mention of said rule, so I may have been swayed by a house rule in a con game without realising.

The only public domain version I'm aware of is on talmeta.net It's described as being 'RQ house rules' by Steve Perrin but I think that it's very similar (and actually in some areas superior) to the bits of SPQR I've seen.

All of the following IMHO of course: Ever since I was told that SIZ specifically determines mass in RQ I made Siz for Dwarfs 3d6 (I hate 2d6+6 for Siz and Int for humans with unreasoning and disproportionate passion, if you don't share that presumably you'd go for 2d6+6) I think that the characteristic scores for Melniboneans in Elric! are a better fit for Old World Elves than those for RQ's 'mini-Ents' (I also think that the rules for Ducks in RQ are a better fit for Old World Halflings than the RQ Halflings are) The simplest rule for armour penetrating Firearms is BRP's rule that they halve the AP of non-ballistic armours The oldest published rule for Firearms is that Muskets in RuneQuest Land of Ninja inflict 3d6 damage, which is a lot of damage but then Firearms do not benefit from a damage bonus

I think that all unarmed 'brawling' attacks inflict 1d3+db

Not quite RAW but from a semi-official source and very old. There was a WD article for Martial Arts in RQ3 which allowed a Martial Arts roll to 'get up quickly' (in DEX SR) and statement along the lines of 'otherwise we assume it takes a whole round'. And that seems to tally nicely with Lord Abdul's find. On a fumble I can see the character floundering, flailing and tangling up their legs, other limbs and gear which will take some time to sort out; whilst if they are just knocked back off their feet and clamber back up (the best case which matches mechanically the best result for the fumble).

When Lockdown 3 started I downloaded the first 6 of these. Having just finished number 6, I'm ridiculously excited by the thought of the rpg.