Mugen

As a matter of fact, skill levels also tend to differ from one "pure BRP" game to another, especially if you compare older games to newer ones. Just check at the base skill values in StormBringer 4 first versions to Elric! and 5th edition, for instance. With SB, most skills will start at you base skill bonus, or 10+skill bonus. Also, an average SB1 beginner fighter is going to have 50/55% in his best weapon skills, whereas 100%+ is easily possible in Elric!

I give each player a number of box checks at the end of a session., which must be based on what their character experienced in-game, and not necessarily based on what rolls they made or failed. Say they spend a significant time on horse back, but never have to roll a skill related to it, I'd likely give them a check anyway. I do consider good role-play or good ideas as their own rewards, and don't give XP for those.

I don't fell like he claims to be one of the "Day Brothers" he mentions in the OP. But, yes, it would be interesting to know what is his relationship with them.

Your Chess game example is a good example of the reason why this rule is needed : because, sometimes, resolving a conflict with just one roll is just not satisfying. I also didn't wait for HeroQuest 2 to come out to find out I could use a "roll X successes before Y failures" system in such situation. But that fact that seasoned game master can extrapolate a general rule out of distinct sub-systems which can be found at different places is not the same as having that general rule written in the core rules. A beginner GM may not understand that this underlying rule exists.

Well, that's only true if you consider that such tasks can be resolved in just one opposed roll. Pendragon lacks a really unified extended opposition rule, like in MouseGuard or (Hero/Wars/Quest/Worlds), which are both true successors to Pendragon.

I may be wrong, but It seems to me you assigned those values arbitrarily, with no regard to your abilities range. I think the first step when creating an attributes and difficulty scale like this is to think in terms of what does each difficulty represents for each ability rating. How often should an "average" character succeed at an Easy task ? a Skilled task ? a Difficult one ? And the same for a "weak" character", or a "strong" one. And, remember that 50% is in fact a low chance of success, and rather difficult.

Yes, my post was unclear : I meant animism is only available for Legend as a supplement, not that it doesn't exist for Mythras Also, I consider that saying MRQ2/Legend is a beta version of RQ6/Mythras is a good description.

I think the magic systems that you can find in Mythras or Legend (which is basically the beta version of Mythras) could work fine for a Jujutsu Kaisen adaptation. -Sorcery is a system for exerting power over your environment through study of mystic arts. -Mysticism (only in Mythras) is a system for jedi, shaolin monks and taoists, where rigorous training and ascetic discipline gives you supernatural powers. -Animism (only in a free stand alone supplement for Legend) is a system for contacting, summoning and binding spiritual beings. It may not give you a 100% exact "Jujutsu Kaisen" experience, as it's always difficult to get a system to rigorously fit works of fiction, but you may be able to tinker a setting close to what you expect.

Just to clarify things a bit : when I wrote "a relatively small range when compared to the die in use", I had the Standard Deviation of the di(c)e used in the game. This value is a good indication of the "swingyness" of a roll when compared to the range of possible results. For instance, a d20 has a standard deviation of 5.77 and a range of 20 possible results. 3d6, with 16 possible results and a Standard Deviation of 2.96 are "less swingy", as their SD/Range ratio is smaller.

What makes a system like WHRP swingy is that attributes are in a relatively small range when compared to the die in use. Most beginners will have attributes between 20 and 50, and even experienced characters will rarely have more than 70%. Which means attributes will fall in a range that is half the total range of possible results you can get with a roll of 1d100. If you want things to be less "swingy", using different dice, with non-linear distribution, is a solution, but not the only one. You can also use a different attributes scale, where seasoned characters have attributes far above those of beginners, and even beyond 100%. See how Pendragon uses values over 20 for very high skills.

With this variant, the chance that an attack hits depends more on the difference between skills than the actual skill values. I think it makes perfect sense, especially outside combat.

Yes. Simple, and scales naturally with skills above 100.

French BaSIC was a BRP version that used d100 and d3s for damage values. I'm not suggesting that you learn French to play that game, but rather that you use the same method as the authors of BaSIC did, which is pretty simple : simply replace each dX in damage expressions with a d6+Y. For instance, instead of 1d8+1, a broadsword would deal 1d6+2 damage. D4s would either be changed into d6-1, or d3s. You can also look at Pendragon, in which damage is always expressed as a number of D6s, based on the STR+SIZ of the character. Weapons have little impact on that value. Usually, 2 handed weapons deal +1D6 damage, and some weapons deal more damage against specific kinds of armor.

What's good with your method is that you avoid the usual counter-intuitiveness of "blackjack" resolution methods, which is a problem for some people, but the trade-off is that it requires a lot of substractions for a result that is very close to simply comparing the d100 results.

I'd only add the tens above 100 of the skill to the roll. If your skill is 113, it means you have to add 13 to each of your combat skill checks, which can be tedious.

As for myself, I treat Hit Points as being essentially fatigue. Wounds and other long-term "health status" rédigé their maximum value.

Sorry. I incorrectly thought you did not only agree with SDLeary's suggestions, but also the numbers he proposed.

You mean we could use RQ values for HP/location, basically? Except it seems you disagree on which value should be used on specific locations.

I think I proposed that rule some times ago, with a little twist : penalties for declared actions (that is, attacks) are applied after declaration, not after the action. So, if I want to attack 3 times with my main hand, my cumulative malus starts at -40% (for 2 attacks after the first), or -60% if I opt for a -30% per action. I added that twist because I have very bad memories of a game with similar mechanisms, but in a roll-over system with an "open-ended" d10. Very quickly, penalties for additional attacks (I can't remember if it was +3 or +5) meant that your attacks after the first had ridiculously low chances of success. The result was a slow and boring opponent's phase where the GM rolled every one of the possible attacks from every opponent we faced. But the game actually encouraged him to do so...

In fact, I doubt anyone really uses the SRD as a core ruleset. I think most BRP fans use either a more complete version (CoC or RQG, or older ones), or a combination of multiple BRP versions, including games from the "extended family", including Openquest, Mythras and Revolution D100.

The default method for breaking ties in skill oppositions, where the highest skill wins, is also problematic.

To be honest, I think I'd prefer to use base skill values equal to characteristic x3, or any formula like DEX x2 +STR. If some skills are more difficult than others, give them a malus. Or you could take a look at how James Bond 007 and Reve : the Dream Ouroboros treat skills and characteristics, while using a base system which is very similar to BRP. In JB007, you simply obtain your chances of success by multiplying a characteristic by a skill value. Reve is slightly different, because skill levels vary from -10 to +10, and you first need to translate it into a factor ranging from .5 to 10 before multiplying your characteristic, or read the result in a table. That is, a characteristic of 12 and a skill of +3 give you a 12 x6.5 = 78% chance. A skill of 0 basically means you have a chance of success equal to your characteristic x5. I don't remember how JB007 handles difficulties, but Reve modifies skill level. That is, when facing a difficult task, your skill of +3 can be reduced to +2 or lower, or increased to +4 or higher by a simple task.

No, it was a reference to an aborted 4th edition from the 90s. :) Its draft document was a very popular topic 20 years ago.

Yes, that's also the reaso why I started being dissatisfied by roll-under blackjack, as I had to remember one of my players (a very smart man, by the way) every time he rolled a "1" (in a homebrew system using a d20) that it was in fact not a very good result...

A way to give more importance to POW in this kind of resistance tests would be to take inspiration from Brawn skill, which is relative to Damage Bonus. For instance, change the difficulty of the roll depending on the difference between the caster and the target POWs.