Mugen

And, under my interpretation, the reason why Diamond dwarves had to reach 2000% in their craft, as it meant 100% critical chance (well, 95%, actually...).

Well, RQ:G combat is where the influence of RQ3 is the most obvious Sure, but the increase in chances of success can be huge. For instance, if the rule changes a 125% vs 75% contest into a 100% vs 50% one, isn't it worth losing 1% crit and 5% special ? Edit: well, of course it depends on which side you are of the conflict...

No. Opposed resolution is for abilities (that is, skills, runes or passions). Characteristics opposition is done using resistance table. See page 6 of Quickstart for both methods, and page 2 for a definition of what an attribute is.

Your experience matches mine. I studied Physics at university for 5 years, and I consider my knowledge of mathematics to be very poor. On the other hand, I have basic understanding of Quantum Physics.

According to the kickstarter site, 5th edition is going to use a modified BRP, just like 1st and 2nd did. 3rd edition used words instead of numbers to describe one's attributes and skills. Instead of having STR 16, you were "very strong", for instance. It used a simplified resistance table, based on a d20, to resolve tasks. 4th edition was d100, roll-under, but not BRP. Chances of success were determined by multiplying an attribute by a number, depending on difficulty (1 for very difficult, 5 for easy). There was no skill level at all : being trained in a skill added 1 to the difficulty modifier. It was also not very successful, as far as I know.

I don't think Chaosium has any right on this new edition of Nephilim, even in english. First and second french edition were under licence by Chaosium, because they used a modified BRP, but they were originally french games.

Well, that's not far from the way Professional Skills work in RQ6/Mythras.

You're certainly right. Rd100 is full of options I find natural when thinking about BRP.

You're certainly right. Rd100 is full of options I find natural when thinking about BRP.

I was introduced to RuneQuest with its first french edition (based on 3rd edition), and it was my go-to medieval fantasy game for 20 years. As a result, I've never played a lot in Glorantha, as it was very difficult to grasp the setting with what was available in french. Gods of Glorantha was excellent, but Glorantha:Crucible of the Hero Wars lacked focus on specific areas. It would be difficult for me to say which edition is my favorite nowadays, as I'm torn between RQ3, RQ6, OpenQuest (which I view as an authentic RQ edition) and StormBringer 2nd edition (which was my first BRP game), and if I wanted to play a "RuneQuest" game nowadays, It would be with a mix of all 4 games, with bits from D100 Revolution. More precisely, I would use: -RQ6 base skills value based on 2 stats, -D100 Revolution limited number of skills with specialties, -D100 Revolution generic conflict resolution, -StormBringer Major Wounds, with effects based on RQ6 rules for major and severe wounds, -A mix between RQ6, OQ and Sandy Petersen's rules for Sorcery, -RQ6 Special Effects for Combat. I would NOT use the following: -RQ2 or RQ3 Strike Ranks, -Localized Hit Points, -Skill bonuses.

There is much more material available for french editions of the game, and a Kickstarter has been founded for a 5th edition this year. https://fr.ulule.com/nephilim-legende/

As a matter of fact, french translation was done by french fans (and I did the first draft of magic chapters), after asking permission to Newt Newport.

Why do you want to use Divine Magic for White Magic ? Do the fact Divine Magic users learn spells with limited uses fits Nehwon White Magic better than "at-will" Sorcery spells ? This is how it worked in old AD&D Lankhmar supplements, but this was justified by the fact cleric magic was oriented towards "good" magic (healing, blessing, etc.) and magic-user's magic was... everything else. In OQ, you have all kind of spells in both Divine and Sorcery. Treat Wounds, or Regeneration, sound like White Magic to me.

I like the idea of using 3 times a single characteristic as a base for skills.

No, I don't. My opinion is entirely based on what I read on this forum and the official RQG development blog.

They surely differ from the actual cannon, but, as far as i know, both Sandy Petersen's and RQIV(whose subtitle was Adventures in Glorantha) were designed for Glorantha. I'm NOT speaking of any Mongoose or Design Mechanism versions of the game here.

If you like having to develop one skill per spell, and your power based on how many dozens of magic points you can store... I prefer how the unpublished RQ IV, Sandy Petersen's rules for Sorcery and OpenQuest put a limit on how many MP you could spend based on you sorcery skills rather than your INT.

I hadn't such a complex system in mind. One Melee skill with specialties per weapon, up to 30% would be sufficient to me.

In a post on this forum (which I couldn't find...), Jason Durall said RQG weapons would work in a way similar to RQ3 Armor Points in the final version of the game. As far as I remember, Special and/or critocal parries and attacks would reduce opponent's weapon's AP more seriously, but I don't remember by which amount.

I'm not sure it makes no sense. My small experience with a boken tells me maneuvering a weapon with both hands is different than with one hand. It's easier to regain balance with 2 hands. I agree, however, that having your fighting skill experience reduced to 0 because you use a weapon two-handed and not one-handed does not make sense.

Yes, during Mongoose's RuneQuest playtest, he was one of those advocating for using DEX-based initiative and dropping localized hit points. That was more than 10 years ago, but I'd be surprised to learn he switched his mind again.

Except the list is the same as RQ3, as far as I know. That is : Agility, Communication, Knowledge, Magic, Manipulation, Perception, Stealth.

My first thought would be to break wounds into 3 categories (for instance, minor, severe and critical) and shift the result of a successful attack according to the difference of SIZ between the attacker and the defender. For instance, a minor wound inflicted by a creature 20 SIZ higher than the defender would be turned into a severe one. To make it work, I'd use a mechanism similar to HeroQuest Masteries : after you're hit, make a Resistance versus Brawn roll. Add armor to Resistance, add weapon to Brawn, and modify one or both according to SIZ difference. The outcome of the resistance vs brawn roll would determine the kind of wound you suffer: -Major victory (crit vs failure, for instance): no wound. -Minor victory : minor wound -Minor defeat : severe wound -Major defeat : critical wound If the difference between Resistance and Brawn would put Resistance below 0%, the defender would be rolling under (100-negative value), but the kind of wound he'd suffer would be 1 step more lethal (or the other way around if the Brawn skill is reduced below 0%). For instance, if a character with Brawn 85 is hitting a character with Resistance 25, has a weapon that adds 20% to his Brawn, and has such a SIZ that his Brawn gets +30%. Adjusted Brawn is now 135%, which means the Brawn vs Resistance roll is a 135 vs 25 one. Both rolls are reduced by 35%, which means it is now a 100 vs 90 roll, but with one additional wound severity.

There was an errata later that changed this to allow a character to attack and parry in the same round (but in different strike ranks) with a 1H weapon. I think it's this one (see errata for p. 48) : https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/252370770/Runquest-Third-Edition-Errata

Do we know what it means ? It would be horrible that these words were actually "dungeons" and "dragons" and put it on RuneQuest...