Mugen

There's one reason : it's a terrible idea, which makes other characteristics rolls more difficult to use, and complexifies other aspects of the game (such as having to divide POW by 5 to get MP maximum).

Nitpick : the town is named Loudun, and not Loudon. 😉 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudun_possessions

Yes, because skills don't cover everything needed in a game, which is not only about rolling to succeed at a task. Hit points, Magic Points, Damage, Initiative, etc. Not necessarily. That's not a new topic, and to be honest BRP shows its D&D origins here. In the 80s, Pendragon handled the issue with DEX in removing all athletics skills (but retained social ones, making APP useless), and James Bond 007 (not BRP but d100 roll under) based all skill chances of success on a multiplication of a characteristic and a skill level m.

The bonuses are far above those in StormBringer, and all his skills are either 10 or 12. He's a better fighter than a newly created fighter from StormBringer 1st french edition, who had 50%, 40% and 30% + bonus in his best 3 weapons.

I've looked at it again, and I can say the differences go beyond the fact 1st edition uses multiple skills. The lists of powers are different, and the way they work is different too. I wanted to make a simple example of how to make the same object in both systems, but it's harder than I thought...

@smiorganno, I have neither Mournblade nor le Département des Sombres Projets's version of Hawkmoon. I read one other game using the CYD system, and I'm not really interested. I was also a great fan of Oriflam's version of Europe, and I'm a bit sad le DSP could not use it.

Yes. The default starting chance is HW is 6, and people with 1 Mastery are not close to being Rune Level. I see HW as a natural evolution of Pendragon, but an evolution that consider 20 is a good professionnal level, and not 10 or 15.

I have the same experience with Italian and romance languages. I studied Latin when I was younger, and even if I can't speak it anymore, it's very helpful. Especially Catalan : it's fun sometimes to say out loud for yourself or to your friends "ah, comment on dit XXX ?" and hear the catalan speaker say "XXX", or something very close... Reminds me a bit of the first edition rules, but with only one skill. Was it in the core rulebook ? Then I should re-read it. To be honest, I was quite disappointed by the new rules, as I liked the approach of first edition, despite their complexity. I should take some time to make an example of how it worked.

According to what I read on this forum from Jeff Richard, RQ2 was chosen as a basis for RQG because a group of playtesters new to RQ (but not CoC) tried it and Mythras, and prefered the older game. Honestly, if the goal was to make a Rules Light(er) Gloranthan BRP game, I think there are far better candidates to use as a basis.

I see RuneQuest 2 as a very archaic version of BRP, and I deeply regret it was the basis of RQ:G. RuneQuest 3 was certainly too complex, and Mythras missed things like POW economy and OpenQuest is perhaps too simple for my tastes, but I still prefer any of those 3 over RQ2.

@Scotty or anyone at Chaosium has a better chance to know the answer than me...

While HawkMoon games have not been a very successful in english, it was quite popular in French. We had a total of 4 different games set in this setting : First one by Oriflam was a translation of the Chaosium game. Second one, again by Oriflam under licence by Chaosium, was an adaptation of Elric! system to HawkMoon's setting. Third one was a translation of the Mongoose game. It's infamous for it's horrible translation. Fourth one is made by the same people who did the Mournblade game, le Département des Sombres Projets. It's also worth noting that Oriflam published a rather long series of supplements covering multiple european countries : France, Spain, Germany, Great Britain... I only own the two first game, so I can't talk of the other ones. I'm also not familiar with the original chaosium game, only it's french adaptation. However, if you look at the page count in both versions, there's a striking difference between the Science Books : according to Le GROG, the english one is 16 pages long while the french one has twice that count, with 32 pages. Scenarios included in the GM's book are also different. Why is the book in French much bigger ? Sure, we have longer words full of useless letters, but here it's because there's an extensive science system with quite a good number of possible effects listed. When a scientist wants to make a scientific creation, whether it's mechanical, electrical, biological, chemical or a combination of one or more, he first choses the components he wants to put inside it, and what effects he wants them to do. I'd have to re-read the rules to give more details, but basically each effect puts a negative modifier to the corresponding skill, and the total modifiers give the project's duration and cost. Then, after he's spent the required time, must roll under each skill involved to see if he succeeds. He can also give its creation several known technical issues to reduce its complexity. There's also a good chance his creation will have unkown issues, which he will discover at use. To be honest, I think such a system would have benefited from the use of some sort of "task points" system rather than a simple skill roll, where you roll skills every once in a while, and each success adds points to a pool, and you project is done when the pool > the project's complexity. But what makes it interesting is the variety of different possible different scientific effects, which explains he 16 page difference. Second french HawkMoon game used a completely different system. There were no more skills involved. Science was more akin to magic, where you learned to do different things without really knowing how they worked.

Question is why would you want to use the BRP SRD instead of the BRP Universal Game Engine for commercial use ? The BRP SRD is linked to the older BRP OGL licence, and not the recent ORC BRP licence. BRP OGL is more restrictive than ORC, and it's not clear for me how it interacts with works published under other OGL licences. It's possible that you could borrow rules from Revolution D100, but I'm not sure... The SRD for BRP ORC licence is the BRP Universal Game Engine book, and it contains rules for powers and magic. It's free for you use in ORC publications, but I don't know if it's the same for BRP OGL...

What do you mean "only skills, no stats like Pendragon" ? Pendragon has no INT or POW, but it has STR, SIZ, CON, etc. and they are very important. Also, even if a system has roots in another system doesn't mean they're the same. For instance, I could point many similarities between HeroWars/QuestWorlds and BRP or Pendragon, and I think HW was clearly an evolution of KAP. But they're not the same.

The idea behind WHFRP was basically to re-use the stats of the miniatures wargame in a RPG. As the GW team was also producing UK versions of Chaosium games, you can say they were fans if BRP. But rolling a d100 under a skill is not the only defining characteristic of BRP. You couldn't mix it with Magic World or Mythras to create a Fantasy version of it, for instance. Pendragon, despite using a d20, is much closer to BRP than Troubleshooters, as it uses a sub-set of the iconic BRP characteristics. So, does that mean every game that uses a d20 roll-under system is also close to BRP ?

Note however that these books were written for Legend. Despite being largely compatible with BRP, that system has significant differences which you should be aware of : Damage and armor values are lower in Legend ; Hit Points in Legend are localized, and there are no generic hit points ; Legend doesn't use the Resistance Table, but has "resisitance" skills instead, which are opposed to other skills. Second point can easily be dealt with, as creatures still have CON and SIZ, which can be used to compute hit points. Localized hits use different formulas than BRP localisation rules, though. Third point is also not really a big issue, as you can easily find equivalents. First point is more tricky, as it requires you to always remember to add a few damage points, or use only damage values from Legend products.

I was just bringing back old memories. 😉 I was 12 when I first read SB, and it was the first game outside D&D I learned. I agree a more generic/descriptive name would be a better choice.

It seems the answer is no. 😞 You could perhaps find answers on a forum with less focus on Basic Roleplaying and more experience on Cortex. I have very little experience with Cortex myself, so I can't really help you.

My understanding is that that game was based on Mongoose first RuneQuest game, which is significantly different from their RuneQuest II. As a result, I suspect it would only partially compatible with Legend and Mythras.

I read your document, and I like it. However, I think you should clarify what the Sorcery skill does in the description of the document. When I read your description, this is not what I had in mind when you say "Sorcery skill". My understanding was that you just wanted to have a skill that was necessary to learn and cast a spell, and maybe restrict what spells a character can cast (for instance, "in order to cast a spell with MP cost X, th caster needs to have a skill of X*10 or more). In fact, what you propose here is to have an equivalent of RQ3 Sorcery "Arts", or the Mythras skill Shaping. That's completely different.

Yes. Anyone who played StormBringer ot Elric! knows pretty well what those weapons name refer to. 😄

I don't know if Classic Fantasy authors are on this forum, but I think you can ask the publisher of the Mythras version, @lawrence.whitaker. He certainly doesn't have the anwer, but at least he's in touch with the authors. Edit : as a matter of fact, maybe you could get some of your answers in the (free) Mythras Imperative version of CF.

That method gives results that are very similar to roll under black jack or comparison of margins of success. So, I think it's better to not have a specific rule for hide and seek, and use a more generic skill opposition rule.

Boring but also frankly overpowered. At least, under my GM's understanding of 4th edition rules, where they were just one more character in the party with no drawback.

"Storytelling" being the name of the version of the Storyteller used for Chronicle of Darkness (AKA nWOD, WoD 2.0, etc.)...