Mugen

In my opinion, RM attack tables aren't that easy to use in BRP, as the damage values listed are meant to affect differently a level 1 character with dozens HP and a 20th level one with hundreds of those. Critical severity could be based on various damage threshold, based on the target's total Hit Points. For instance: -Hits between (THP/4 and THP/2) would deal A crits -Hits between (THP/2 and THP*3/4) would deal C crits -Hits beyond (THP*3/4) would deal E crits I would also drop the need to memorise spells, and allow casters to cast any spell under (skill/10) in lists he knows.

That would be my solution, too. I would myself add a "rock/paper/scissor(/lizard/spock...)" mini-game here, inspired by MouseGuard (which was influenced by Pendragon). Each turn, players would chose one option out of 3 to 5 different possibilities (aggressive, defensive, evasive, deceptive...), and get a bonus/malus depending on their opponent's choice (for instance, aggressive versus defensive could result in +5/-5 in favor of the aggressive character, whereas aggressive versus evasive would result in a +5/-5 in favor of the evasive one).

I'm speaking of the impact of rules changes in RQG, not historical fighting techniques. I completely agree with you that training with sword and shield should not take longer than training with just one sword.

You really don't need to train both skills equally. Contrarily to the sword+shield combination where having a good shield skill is mandatory to protect your character'efficiently, your off-hand weapon only gives you a bonus attack, and as a result it's perfectly fine to just let it grow with experience.

It's true for experience, but not for training. The hours I will spend training with my shield will be less time invested in my sword. I can also carry a second sword in my off-hand in case the other one breaks, and use it to attack if my SR allows for it. As I will concentrate on my main hand, my chances of success won't be very good, but it's not such a problem.

If I have to invest in two skills instead of one, I will end up with smaller chances of attacks and/or parry than with one skill, even if it's only a 5% difference. It would be a pity to lose a limb instead of a broken broadsword because of that 5% difference.

I don't think those are bad ideas in absolute, quite the opposite. But the combination of both rules and the fact you can freely chose which hand you chose for parrying, produce very unfortunate results, such as the fact fighting with a shield is much more difficult than fighting with just one weapon. And concerning "highest roll wins" in combat, I like how it worked in the last playtest version of MRQ (the one from Kenneth Hyte, I think), before Mongoose fumbled everything. In this version, a succesful parry with a roll inferior to the attacker's only blocked half the weapon's AP in damage.

As a matter of fact, Opposed Rolls were included in MRQ1 because some playtesters suggested to use the same rule as in Pendragon.

Well, in StormBringer a plate armor is 1d10-1 or 1d10+2 depending on whether you wear a helmet or not. One may argue that rolling 0 to 2 in one case, and 10 to 12 in the other is a hit to the head. But you can roll 0 to your armor roll and get a Major Wound to the leg.

"Meneur de jeu" is less common than "maître de jeu", but it's not completely new either. It has a "softer" meaning, as one can think that a "Maître de jeu" may be here to dictate other players' behavior. In a way, "Meneur de Jeu" is between "Game Master" and the "referee" I've seen used in some english rpg books (which has never been translated into "arbitre", as far as I know).

Well, I never heard or read the word "meneure", but I can tell for sure that the lead female dancer in a cabaret is named a "meneuse de revue". The dictionnaire de l'Académie Française (and all other online dictionaries I could find) also only mentions "meneuse" as the feminine of "meneur". https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/article/A9M1688

Meneuse is an actual french word and the proper feminine word for meneur (like danseuse is feminine for danseur and not danseure). I Agree.

My feeing is similar to @RosenMcStern's, I think. Basically, I think you're making Dual Wielding much more difficult than it needs to be. My main concern with Dual Wielding or sword-and-board in RQG is that it compares poorly with 2-handed weapons fighting (and I think it shows in my comments). And it's a side effect of otherwise good moves in RQG rules. -Having no more attack/parry skill split means fighting with one weapon requires only one skill, but fighting with 2 weapons requires you to learn 2 skills nonetheless. -The fact skills above 100% reduce the attacker's chance to hit (and therefore, the chance for your parrying weapon to be damaged), combined with the fact you can now parry all attacks with your main hand weapon makes having a main hand weapon skill above 100% a very useful choice. -Two handed weapons are slightly more durable in average than their one-handed weapon counterpart, and only kite shields are significantly more durable. But, as I said, these are consequences of changes that are good ones in first place.

I admit I underestimated the impact of the +2 bonus. Still, you need to hit with both weapon to deal that amount of damage, and it's easier with one skill of 100% than two of 80%. The multiple parry rule means you can completely avoid to parry with your second hand if you want, contrarily to previous versions of the game. Trying to have similar skills in both hands instead of concentrating your efforts on your main hand is a very dangerous strategy. If you're afraid of breaking a weapon with matrices, you can still use it in your main hand. It's not easy to compare the 12 points of a GreatSword and the 8x2 points of 2 axes, because it depends a lot on the number of parried hits that exceed 12 or 8 points, respectively, and the possible critical or special parries or attacks. Also, 12 points means 4 less damage upon a successful parry.

I finally bought the book. It's very slim (96 pages) and quite expensive (~30 euros), but interesting to read. It's a hardback book. Interior art is a curious mix of gorgeous art on double pages, similar to what you can see on the cover, and white-and-purple (burgundy ?) pages.

Usually, armor also applies to both battleaxe attacks while it only counts once with a GreatSword, and it is often bigger than damage bonus. Also, having to develop a skill for each hand is a huge drawback of dual wielding combat when compared to two handed weapons. And with the rules for skills above 100% and multiple parries, it's better to have one skill above 100% than two in the 80-90% range. Even if you're dual wielding, you'd rather attack and parry with your main weapon, and switch for the one in your off hand if the main one is damaged.

There's one very annoying problem with critical failures on a 1 in combat in 5e. Fighters fighting prowess in 5e essentially comes from their number of attacks per round. And the more often you attack, the more likely you are to suffer a critical failure.

Rules-wise, D&D 5e is a simplified version of 3rd with bits from 4th edition and a few elements unique to this edition. There is nothing in it that you can trace back directly to AD&D without having been altered by later versions.

After a long wait, a new supplement is coming for the french Mournblade game from le Département des Sombres Projets (which was essentially caused by the death of two people working for that company 😟). http://titam-france.fr/produit/mournblade-encyclopedie-des-jeunes-royaumes-argimiliar/?fbclid=IwAR1q76tgcbJydLK-Dwz0VJMej8OY6N3oTWsYfCpl7yZhe1-Qw5YAY7VIxHU The cover has a definite PathFinder/Star Wars FFG vibe.

Not at all. The question I answered was about Mythras, and not Mythic Iceland.

Character creation rules in OQ are definitely a weak point for me. As every one gets the same number of points in each category, it's not possible to differentiate a soldier from a scholar by its weapon skills. The only area where characters get a real choice to make is the "Practical" category.

Yes. There are only 3 skills in the "combat" category : Melee, Ranged and Unarmed.

Double post...

Note that Legend is much closer to Mythras than MRQ, and the same can be said of their respective Magic systems. As a result, using Necromancy, Blood Magic and Elementalism from Legend booklets with MRQ would require much more work than using those with Mythras. Also, Legend had Common Magic instead of MRQ's Rune Magic or Mythras' Folk Magic. It was based on RQ2/RQ3 Battle/Spirit magic, but required the use of a single "Common Magic" skill for all spells instead of one per rune. You also missed Animism as one of Legend and Mythras magic systems.

I think OpenQuest is simpler overall, with less skills and a simpler combat system.