Mugen

Well, Mr 90 wins against Mr 91 in the following cases : -He rolls a success and Mr91 fails => .9*.09 = .081 -He rolls a special and Mr 91 rolls a success or a fail =>.18*.82 = .1476 So, a total 22,86% chance of success. Considering there's a .009 propbability that both fail, it means Mr 91 has a probability of 1-.2286-.009 = .7705 chance of success. So, yes, it's closer to 77 than 78, you're right. EDIT: Note that when I wrote this, I didn't check the rest of the text, which makes ties impossible.

It's surely in part due to the fact the BRP license is not really an OGL license, contrarily to other similar and more successful licenses, such as FATE or d20 (either 3e or 5e). "Alternative versions" of BRP, such as Delta Green, Mythras, OpenQuest, RD100 or Renaissance shows the system itself is still appreciated.

I don't know if that was discussed, but the official rule for skill opposition has a very problematic line : https://brp.chaosium.com/basic-roleplaying/3-0-system/3-3-skill-vs-skill/ "If the rolls are successful and tied (same quality of result), the character with the highest skill rating is successful." That seems a very unfair advantage for higher skills. For instance, a character with skill 91 has ~78% chance to beat another with skill 90, which seems a lot considering such a small difference. EDIT: oh, there was more details below, and the second part of the rule says successes cancel each other, or that the GM can chose whatever he wants... That's confusing.

The skill opposition rules are a perfect example : if a protagonist has a better success level, he wins. Otherwise, well... It's up to the GM...

Note however that a 60% Dodge skill is not as good at protecting you against regular enemies as a 60% parry, as a regular success won't help you against specials or crits, which represent 20% of the successful attacks. I'd rather train in my 2 handed sword skill before going in an actual fight with such a low skill.

And that's the best reason to do so.

Why this is important is because it's very difficult to balance correctly a system where you can either spend 3 MP or all your MPs on one spell. You either end up with low MP spells that are useless, or high MP spells that are way overpowered. Also, casters will use their magic very differently if they think they will have multiple occasions to use their magic, or just one.

That looks a lot like RuneQuest/OpenQuest Sorcery or the BGB Wizardry. @Lloyd Dupont 's advice is sound. The cost of your elemental attacks is way too high, and you need to put a limit on the maximum number of MP one can spend, preferably based on the caster's magic skill. As for the right cost for direct damage spells, it's hard to tell based on BRP examples. RQ Disruption deal 1d3 for 1 MP, but can't be increased. BGB Wizardry spells deal 1d6 per 3 MP spent, which is on average only slightly better than 1 MP per HP, but more random. Sandy Petersen's Sorcery rules for Sorcery propose 1d(X), where X is basically the MP cost, but that ruleset is full of tricks, such as the very D&D-esque idea of preparing spells (and paying their cost) in advance. But those prepared spells also reduce your capacity to sustain long-duration spells, which are the greatest assets of a Sorcerer. I don't think OpenQuest Sorcery has any direct damage spells. Mythras is completely different. The direct damage spell, Wrack, deals damage based on his caster's skill and allows him to deal damage every turn for his duration. It also costs only a few MP : 1 base, plus 1 per parameter of the spell you want to enhance (duration, range, resistance to dispelling, etc. but not effectiveness). So, with a 60% skill you can deal 1d6 damage every round during 10 minutes, for 1 MP. Mythras damages are a little lower than BRP, too, so these 1d6 are equivalent to 1d6+1 or 1d8. It's also quite common for those spells to bypass armor.

Allowing only one Stamina roll means you'd change the meaning of the rule, from a relatively low hit points loss (with Stamina 50%, you'll lose only 2 hit points on average, for instance) to a very probable death.

That is, if you agree with the choice made by Greg Stafford to associate the Ganis family with Aquitaine. I understand why that choice was made because of the connections between Queen Alienor's Courts of Love and the ideal of the Courtly Knight (Lancelot being the perfect example). But traditionally, that family os associated with places north of the Loire.

RQ2 was chosen because it was still the most beloved version of RQ among Glorantha fans. As far as I know, Pendragon players don't have that kind of attachment to KAP 1st edition, so I'm not sure it would be such a success.

Or an Oscar de Jarjayes (main character of the Rose of Versailles manga, very losely based on an inverted Chevalier d'Eon).

I've failed my memory roll... I checked, and DEX was used for declaration also...

I'd rather see a model like Legend of the Five Rings, were women warriors are neither rare nor shun by society, but male warrior are more common

Having 50/50 male/female proportion does not meab women have more freedom. If there are as many female knights as there are male ones, it means all those women were forced to be knights, just like male knights were. In a society mirroring Europe medieval society, you become a knight because you were born to be one, not because you think it's a profession that suits you. I think that if they had the choice, quite a number of noblemen would avoid a dangerous warrior's life.

It seems to me first french edition of StormBringer (based on 2nd US version, but with differences) used ascending INT for delaration of intent, and descendig DEX for resolution.

I agree. I do think using Mythras, OpenQuest, Magic World or even just the Big Gold Book would work fine for the kind of campaign the OP wants.

I never read any edition other than the third. I just checked it, and saw no mention of the rule I mentioned earlier... I think this was a very bad understanding from my part of the last sentence of that section, which says multiple attacks aren't allowed to PKs...

I'm not really keen on limiting combat skills with Horsemanship, given the focus of the game on elite mounted fighters, even if it makes sense and increases the compatibility with RuneQuest (which is rather poor...). Concerning multiple opponents fight, it seems to me the biggest change (providing it's not an missing rule in the QS) is that you don't have to focus on one of them, and can deal damage to each of them.

It's very important when you can chose Berserk or Defensive tactics, or you have multiple opponents. Those are not in the QS, but they will surely be there in the full rules. I also don't think it's a rules change, as I played it this way. The rules explicitly say its one or the other (which raises a question : why would a shield need a Parry value ?): If the loser rolled a Partial Success, they may also apply the Shield or Parry protection value of their shield/weapon.

It seems there are more changes in the rules than in the previous editions. I'm not sure about the changes to the Passion Exaltation rules, as I know a lot of players that won't use it if their passion is between 16 and 18, as the risk is bigger than the reward. Reducing the bonus is certainly a good thing, on the other hand. I like that there are less combat skills. By the way, I couldn't find which skill must be used for daggers : Sword, Brawl, the highest one ? As no PK has a dagger skill, I think there is no such skill anymore. Criticals dealing +4d6 is nice, especially for those with less than 4d6 base damage. Armors are not ignored on a critical, but I don't remember if that was the case in previous editions, or if I'm starting to confuse different BRP games...

I humbly apologize for the "clumsier", it was unnecessarily harsh. I should have said I think Mythras' solution is more elegant.

But wouldn't it be very similar to how criticals and special effects work in Mythras, only a little more clumsy?

It's interesting that the RQG mechanism is only intended to be used with characteristic rolls, and not skills. Is it possible to push characteristic rolls in CoC, or is it only for skills? As for myself, I think I'd let players use the Reattempting rule proposed here for skills too.

The way I understand it, Fast talk is for confusing people, and Persuade for convincing them your arguments are right. As for myself, if I wanted a game with two Communication skills, I think I'd have one to speak with an individual, and another for crowds.