Mugen

As for myself, I'd let the highest roll win if both protagonists have the same degree of success. Just like with the Resistance Table, I prefer that the difference between skills is the primary factor to decide the chance to win an opposition, not the individual skill values. I guess they opted "roll low wins" because it's easier to use with their D&D5e-like "advantage" system. For instance, when I roll 6 and 10, I can immediately see that 6 is lower and identify it as the die to keep. In a blackjack variant, I first have to compare both dice with the skill value before chosing which one to use. Not something difficult, but still slower than just picking the lowest die. However, it is possible that this mechanism actually make things worse for the character with the highest skill. For instance, a character with skill 10 jumps from 50% chances of success to 75%, with a non-flat distribution. I wonder if it still has less chances of success in a oposition with a character with a higher skill.

After skimming throigh the QuickStart, my impressions : -The influence of latests D&D editions is obvious. You heal 1D6 or 2D6 HP and WP per "short/stretch" rests and all of them in "long/shift" rests. There's also advantage/disadvantage rule. -As a consequence, weapons hit HARD ! Knives deal 1D8 damage, 1 handed Battleaxes 2D8, Broadswords 2D6. And hit points and armors seem similar to BRP. -I really don't like that skills have a maximum value of 18. -I really don't like how opposed rolls are resolved. First because the lower roll wins, but also because there's no winner if both fail, which is something I find more problematic. -Il like the fact magic uses variable spells, but I don't get why all characters seem to be able to spend 1 to 6 WP in a spell, no matter what their expertise level is. -EDIT : I like that there is no Shield skill.

Using pregenerated characters for beginners is always a good idea.

That's why I remembered it differently : I don't own KAP 5.2, only 3rd edition, and always used the complete rules in Knight Adventurous 🙂 . As a matter of fact, the sentence you quoted also exists in this edition, and raising skills above 15 is in a second option, along with character traits. In the Great Hunt (page 15), Sir Servause has Hunting 20 (+3), which is the same as having Hunting 23 in previous editions. So, at least, we have one NPC with a skill above 20. 😄

@GrimmshadeA big change in skill values is hidden in the characteristics section, which says DEX and APP give base values to some skills. Which is new. I don't have my rulebook right now, but I don't remember any hard limit to skills. In my memory, you can't have skill above 15 if your character is 15 years old, but you can train him afterwards if he's older, up to 20. However, you have to focus solely on the skill you train, which means players usually chose to train other skills or characteristics.

This conversation really makes me think about some of the larger versions of the "sode" from the samurai armor. They really make me think of shields strapped on your shoulders. Obviously, they're not as easy to use to deflect attacks, but they look very good as passive shields against arrows.

A big change here is that characters with CON 20+ will never fall inconscious because of a Major Wound. That makes fighting a creature such as the dragon in the quickstart much longer than before. Not couting the fact that their HP are based on SIZx2, which is a change I don't like, TBH

Yes, sorry, I should have mentioned I was talking about Magic rules.

The two "Codex" books surprise me. I never thought the idea of playing a non-knight character would come back. If the 4th edition rules are going to be their basis, I think a welcome change would be to replace the Xd20 rolls with Xd6. It would make its maths simpler, and mirror the "roll d20 for skill, roll d6s for effect" which exists in combat rules.

In RQ3, Broadswords popularity can be explained by the impale rule. I don't know how the Special effect for slashing weapons compares to Impale in other editions of RQ. If you ignore that rule but leave other technical aspects unchanged, you change the balance between weapons.

So, is it D91 or D90.9 ?

I wonder how Mythras and TDM sales compare with MW and Chaosium sales. My feeling is that TDM is much smaller than Chaosium, and a that a game that is a commercial failure for one can be a huge success for the other.

It seems to me the vast majority of rpg published since the release of 1st edition of AD&D did not reproduce this model, and didn't need it to be successful. There was indeed a GM book in the MRQ 1 line, but it was not a core rulebook at all, and waspublished 2 years after the original core rulebook. MRQ1 in fact reproduced Games Workshop's strategy for RQ3, with a basic rule book, a monster book and a book of advanced rules (the Companion).

I guess OGL stands for "Open Game Licence" here, but I have no clue concerning the game which provides the open content in this context.

It's set in a time before Lunar Empire, and considered as non-canon by Chaosium, but IIRC, Dara Happa Stirs was meant for Dara Happan characters.

As for myself, I like having a mix between random and points allocation in my BRP. roll 1d6 for each characteristics, in order, add a static value for each characteristics(based on the species average value for that characteristics) spread X points among all characteristics. The 5 first points alloted to each characteristic gives 1 point. Beyond that threashold, 2 points are needed for each characteristic point. X may be fixed, or based on the total value rolled on the d6s in first step. For instance : Step 1 roll 1d6 7 times STR 3 CON 2 SIZ 1 INT 4 POW 5 DEX 2 CHA 6 Step 2, add 7 to 2d6+6 stats and 4 to 3d6 stats STR 3 +4 = 7 CON 2 +4 = 6 SIZ 1 +7 = 8 INT 4 +7 = 11 POW 5 +4 = 9 DEX 2 +4 = 6 CHA 6 +4 = 10 Step 3, spend X=21 points STR 7 +1 = 8 CON 6 +3 = 9 SIZ 8 +3 = 11 INT 11 +5 = 16 POW 9 +4 = 13 DEX 6 +3 = 9 CHA 10 +2 = 12

Another game worth considering is Revolution D100, as it can be played as a very simple game, or more complex if you want. A specificity of RD100 is that is uses a short skills list : 12 to 16 skills, depending on setting. This list is complemented by "traits", which are words or short phrases that help further describe your character and can give bonus to skills or new abilities. For instance, the trait Sword Expert could give +30 to your Melee skill when you use a sword, and the Magic Sense might just let you use your skills to perceive magic. Those are just examples, and there's no set list of traits in the game. Another specificity is that it can use a single mechanism for all conflicts. Whether it's a fight, a race, a duel of wits or anything else, everything can be solved with the same mechanism : assign points to both parties based on a characteristic (STR for armwrestling, CHA for a trial), then try to reduce your opponent's pool with successive opposed skill rolls. The game also has specific rules for combat, but you can use the simpler generic conflict rules if you want a very simple game.

RuneQuest 2 was the game that was simplified to give BRP original booklet, but BRP diverged from it afterwards. If you pick the BGB, you're more likely to re-create a game that looks like ElfQuest, CoC 4 or Elric! (or even RQ3 with the "Advanced Magic" book) than RQ2.

That's precisely my point : I want my Magic to be an alt-tech. Or, more precisely, an alt-science. But anyone knows completely unexpected results can occur even with perfect laws... But it seems I did not understand you correctly, and your position was not as extreme as I thought. I apologize for caricaturing your point of view.

I prefer magic to be based on laws that cn be understood and studied rather than completely random phenomenon. Because if there's no such laws, there can't be any magician. Also, even very reliable laws such as the 4 fundamental forces of physics can give birth to chaos. Life is full of wonders, yet it never breaks gravity, electromagnetism nor the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Note that you don't need to create a whole magic system to back your idea to use skills for freeform magic. The easiest way to do it is to take one of the already existing magic systems that allow to freely set your MP cost (*), and change the relationship between spells and skills. For instance, you could take RQ3 Sorcery and consider that all spells that deal with Fire all use the same "Fire" Skill. You don't necessarily have to give all Fire spells to a character that has the Fire Spell, but rather give him half skill in the spells he doesn't have, or 0 chance. (*) BGB "Magic", RQ3 or OpenQuest Sorcery, for instance.

Plus, you need high HP in D&D to have an equivalent of the high parry skill that a RuneLord is required to have. AC may be partly based on Dex bonus, only a few characters have AC that significantly increases with level.

Really ? I only have the character sheet and facebook page as references, and besides the introduction of drives and personality traits, it seems like a very traditional BRP game to me. The very short list of combat skills is another difference, though. No possible discussion on Shield skills. 😄

To Be Honest, if I was to play "BRP" again, the amount of houserules I'd put into it would be so big I would surely not need the BGB at all. It would look more like a Frankenstein monster of BRP, Mythras and Revolution D100.

I was in fact not referring to french players in this part of my post, but rather all english speaking players. 🙂 Sort of. Early issues of the magazine had material that was clearly based on RQ2 publications. For instance, this famous map of Dragon Pass was present in the first issue. It also had articles in the first issues about Sartar, Tarsh and other countries that expanded beyond the scope of what was available in french.