Mugen

And there's also an INT-boosting spell associated with Fire Rune.

As for myself, my intent was absolutely not to debate about or disagree with anything here, but report what I think is a discrepancy between the rules as written and an explanation given by @Jason Durall. I'm perfectly fine with the explanation given, and my feeling was he could get tired of seeing the same question again.

Isn't this in contradiction with what @Jason Durall explained earlier ? It seems to me he explained you can do 2 attacks, one at first weapon SR, and the second at (sum of both weapon's SRs) with second weapon, and parry with either weapon as many times as your skill allows.

It's rare that RPG systems handle well such scale differences. Those that do (and care to have a consistent scale of attributes) use exponential scale for attributes, and were specifically designed to be able to handle mundane humans and super-heroïc beings. BRP SIZ is vaguely exponential for low values, but the whole system is not consistent.

A system I like is to roll 1d6+7 (varies according to species) for all stats, in order, then spend X points among them, with a maximum of 5 points per stat. It gives a different distributions than the standard 2d6+6 for SIZ & INT, 3d6 for others, but I prefer to have the same range for all stats for humans.

Maker of Pendragon, Prince Valiant, Glorantha, and above all founder of Chaosium, a company that changed Role-playing Games into what they are now. I was not sad when I heard of Gygax's passing. I am now...

And I honestly don't think most reviewers looked at the system enough to see the inconsistencies.

Yes. Big available MP amount is not a limitation, but rather a condition to become very powerful with sorcery.

As a matter of fact, the way inscribing is described in RQG is very similar to RQ3 Enchant Spell Matrix for sorcery spells. What changes is you don't need an Enchant skill and to learn a specific ritual spell to do it. Plus, of course, the interaction with the new rules.

Unless there's an errata I'm not aware of, it's the same rule as in RQ3. I just checked Avalon Hill's players book, and it uses the exact same example as RQG to illustrate the rule : limb with 4 HP takes 9 damage, which are reduced to 8 because the limb can't go beyond -4. RQ3 doesn't mention inflicting 3x base hit points, though : a slashing weapon or a natural weapon such as claw or bite will sever the limb when reaching its negative limit.

Last time I tried to make a "simplified version of RuneQuest", it ended up looking more like FATE than BRP.

That's only true if you change the way hits are resolved and/or the chances to hit of characters. If you still need 5 hits on average to end a fight, fights will take almost the same time to resolve in "real life time", even though the "in game" fight will be much faster.

That's true for a simple skill use exemple. But if you consider skill opposition mechanisms, for instance, the odds are often very different. -In roll-over systems, you usually roll a die on both sides, add a skill to it and compare results. -In roll-under systems, rolling under your skill is usually mandatory to win. In many rules, if both protagonists roll over their skill, nothing happens. As a result, odds of success in roll over systems depends on the difference between protagonists skill : +35 vs +15 is the sama as +85 vs +65. In most roll-under, the chance of a draw is higher at low skill levels than high skill levels. If you match 35% vs 15%, there is 55.25% chance that both protagnosists fail their roll. With 85% vs 65%, the chance is only 5.25%

That would disqualify StormBringer first editions, and Revolution D100.

Originally, there was plans for much more settings. A Norse supplement was advertised for the original Légendes game, but it was never published, and never mentioned for Premières Légendes. I think Jeux Descartes had high expectations for La Vallée des Rois, but it was not a commercial success. Premières Légendes Celtiques was the first french game translated in English under the name Celtic Legends, but without much success. Amateur settings exist for Tahitian legends, and Greek legends (Légendes des Cités). I never read those.

I'm not really keen on including in the same list games that are more loosely related to BRP than Pendragon and Mythras (even Reves de Dragon), but why not ? I mentionned Légendes and Premières Légendes. Let's see how they fit. Légendes -Is Skill based. Classes exist, but they're only used as Social Class and restrict access to magic. Even though you can learn spells when not being a magic user, it literally takes months or years to learn 1 spell. -Like in Bushido, each skill has a score on a 0-99 scale for experience, and another on a 0-20 scale for skill checks. -Has Attributes like Strength, Intelligence, etc. on a 5-20 scale for humans. -Has hit points, named "Fatigue". Major and Severe Wounds can occur if you lose too much fatigue with one blow. Premières Légendes -Same as Légendes. -Only has 1 scale for skills, loosely 1-20 based, even though you could go beyond 20. -Has 3 attributes (Physique, Mental and Charisma) on a 2-12 scale and 3 sub-attributes for each attribute, which can range from 1 to 14. -Same as Légendes. So, I think both fit the definition. Légendes had 2 settings : -Légendes Celtiques: Essentially based on irish legendary sources such as the legends of Cuchulain, Tuatha de Danann and Finn McCool, it was aimed at re-creating an iron age semi-historical game set anywhere in the celtic world. -Légendes des Mille et Une Nuits : An Arabian Nights setting, aimed at gaming in medieval islamic world. Premières Légendes had 3 settings: -Légendes Celtiques: Same as for the original game, with some additions and the simpler Premières Légendes engine. Among other things, a class of Warrior-Mages was available that had access to extraordinary maneuvers and abilities, treated as spells. -La Table Ronde: Despite the arthurian name, the game was really about the times and place when the arthurian legend was written, the European Middle ages. -La Vallée des Rois: An antique Egyptian background.

I have no idea if the rules allow this, but I see no reason to not say yes to this.

Concerning dual wielding, Jason Durall already answered on this forum. Basically, it depends on the SR of both weapons. You can attack once with either weapon, at this weapon's SR, then a second time with your second weapon, at a SR equal to the sum of both SRs. If the sum is >12, you can only attack once. So, if you have a weapon in right hand with SR 5 and one in you left hand with SR 6, you'll be able to attack once with either weapon at its SR, then a second time at SR 11. This has no effect on your parry chance whatsoever. You can parry with either one weapon on the other whether you used it for attack, and vice versa.

From what I read or heard from french people that talked or even worked with Chaosium team, the possibility of a french translation has already been mentioned many times.

Sounds like it was not completely converted from RQ2. I think you should read "MP" instead of "POW" in this text, except for the sentence that says a Spirit with no POW left is destroyed.

Is this from RQG? This sounds like RQ2 or RQC, in which the distinction between POW and Magic Points was not as clearly defined as in later editions.

Well, there are lots of games with turn duration lower than 12 seconds. 6 is quite common, and you can often do more than 1 attack per turn in those games. Some even have 1 second turns (GURPS). Note that it would not be difficult to consider RQG turns to be 6 or 3 seconds long instead of 12, as it's an abstract measure of time. You'd certainly have to lower movement rates, though...

My problem with D&D AC is that it works in a binary way : it either blocks all damage, or none. It's like armor is made of invulnerable "patches" scattered all over your body, no matter if you're wearing plate, mail or leather armor. It also works the same way whether you're hit with a fist or a 2 handed hammer. I don't mind if armor is added to defense if the game uses some kind of success margin to determine damage (like in HARP) : it will just speed up the game.

The concept of classes in 13th Age and 4e is slightly different from what it is in AD&D, as it only defines your "combat style" and your way of doing magic. Skills in 4e and backgrounds in 13th Age help define all other aspects of your character, and are completely divorced from class. Want to play a bookworm fighter, or an athletic wizard ? Just pick the right skills/background. You can even play a fighter that can cast magic in 4e if you want, as long as it's non-combat, ritual magic. With other versions of the game, you'd need to multi-class to do this.

My solution would be to consider that a failed attack doesn't automatically fail, and that the opponent needs to beat the attacker's roll to avoid being hit. If the defender has a better success level, he suffers no damage. If he has a lower success level, he is hit by the attack. If they are equal, damage is reduced by a number that depends on whether his die roll is superior or not to the attacker's. Optionally, the defender can chose between a defensive or counter-offensive stance. In case of a defensive stance, he will reduce damage even further if he's hit. In case of a counter-offensive stance, he'll hit his opponent if he beats the attacker.