Mugen

A few years ago, after MRQ1 release, I had the idea to base Sorcery on the Runic magic skills. Sorcery would have been a series of skills that would allow one to manipulate Runic power directly to create spells. I never turned it into a functional ruleset, however... And, no, it was not for Glorantha.

Humm.. it seems I've seen connections where there are only similar ideas

I made no manipulation in my previous post (I do, in this one, but only to highlight the part of your message I'm answering). I just hit "quote" and the forum only kept your last answer, as it does by default.

How rude... Given the long history of Deleriad with RuneQuest, I think he perfectly understands how this system is supposed to work...

Fact is, it's really a matter of how long you can make your spells last. If you can make it last for weeks or months, it's completely worth the cost to have it constantly re-cast on you. I guess It could be possible to cast the spells in cascade, reaching maximum possible INT first (I guess there's a cap) then casting it again to reach months or years in duration. Providing you have an absurdly high amount of mana available...

Doesn't that make Fire rune a very desirable second rune to master for anyone ?

Another consequence is that Enhance INT becomes a must-have for any experienced sorcerer.

It depends on what you mean by "dynamic". You can chose the parameters of your spells, and use them in an inventive way, but you still have to learn each spell individually.

It could have been possible to do it the other way around, and put more restrictions on how many MP a Sorcerer can put in a spell. Quite like in OpenQuest (or Sandy Petersen's rules from 1997) , in which one can not put more MP in one spell factor than his Sorcery skill/10. EDIT: Plus, the INT-based limitation allows a beginner sorcerer to have potentially the same magical power than a seasonned one, providing he has access to the same MP storages. And is there a limit on the number of spells one can maintain at a given time ? That's something I really liked in Sandy Petersen's rules : spells had no Duration factor, but you had a limit on the total Intensity of the spells you could control at a given time, based on the Vows you took.

A few questions: -Do Range and Duration grow exponentially, like in RQ3 ? -You say Intensity is limited by Free INT, but what about Range and Duration ? -Do MP matrices and crystals still exist in the new RQ ? Depending on the answers to those questions, Sorcery can be very powerful.

When I first heard Sorcery would be based on techniques and runes, I was expecting those to be skills, and that you would cast and learn spells depending to what sorcery skills you have.

In Ars Magica, you can cast improvised spells using your verbs and nouns skills. With the system described here, you can't do anything until you learn a spell.

Not really. Here, techniques and runes define what you can learn, and not what you can do.

Ok, so basically, this is RuneQuest 3 with a limitation on spells one can learn, based on what Runes and Techniques one knows, and no need to create Spell Matrices. Am I right ? I'm very disappointed. Edit: oh, intensity, duration and range skills disappeared. Good point, but I'm still not interested. There was no Sorcery in RQ2. RQ3 Sorcery was very close to what is described in this article, except there was no limitation based on Runes and Techniques, and every sorcerer could learn any spell. Another big difference is that each spell a Sorcerer knew reduced his Free INT by 1, and as such reduced his casting capability. Seasoned Sorcerer used enchants to make objects that allowed them to cast spells but did not reduce their Free INT.

Some years ago, I proposed an initiative system to Gianni Vacca for his Imperial China game that was also built around the idea that Initiative was reduced after each action, defining a new turn order for further actions (that is, the same as " Each combatant takes action in SR order. Each action or reaction decreases SR, determining a new order for the following actions, until no one has SR left to act. "). Did you borrow it from him, or is it completely unrelated ?

The french one is slightly better looking... https://e-nautia.com/martinbenoit/disk?p=2296525

Before the release of D&D 4th edition and the GSL licence, none of the d20 games were true competitors to D&D. Nevertheless, there are already a few OGL games that are really close to BRP (GORE, Mongoose RuneQuest 1, Mongoose Legend, OpenQuest, etc.) and can be used as a base, so I don't see the need for a new one.

I didn't propose to use fraction of skill, but rather use a "damage die" which depends on its value. It requires no maths, just a table on the character sheet (and a simple one). Not very different from using the tens die +1. To avoid too much "deadliness", perhaps it should use the maximum value instead of doubling the die in case of an advantage. Edit: nevertheless, this option "squares" conflicts duration's dependency on skill...

In a game with starting skills based on the sum of 2 characteristics, I'd make this optimum value equal to 3x the base value. Or perhaps, base experience increments on a rule such as: If Skill < 2x Base : +1d8 per roll 2x Base <= Skill < 3x Base : +1d6 per roll 3x Base <= Skill < 4x Base : +1d4 per roll 4x Base <= Skill < 5x Base : +1d2 per roll 5x Base <= Skill : +1 per roll And I would definitely make it an optimum value, and not a maximum one. It hurts characters with low Characteristics too much to have maximum value so far under 100%

As you like Fact is, I am currently making a game that was originally a simplified RuneQuest 6, and, besides the fact I dropped the d100 roll under for a d10+skill system, our sytems are very similar. Hence my comment. I have 2 small concerns : -I'm also not a huge fan of the fact you always lose 1d6 or 2d6 RP when you fail in a conflict. I would have prefered a value based on a characteristic, the character's skill, or both rolls. For instance, it could be the difference between the 10s of the roll - with a special case for Advantage - or 1d2 for skill < 20, 1d4 for skills up to 40, 1d6 for skills up to 60, and so on. -I'm not that fond of fixed bonus for Traits. I would not be against the idea to give them a variable value (such as : Sword (+15)).

I really think D&D3 was, in the mind of its designers, a true attempt at making the game better, and more "modern". It was just not sufficiently playtested...

Well, this is not the right forum to talk about this, but, really, this edition of this game was more than that. Even though I said few people call it BRP, fact is I am one of those few people

In France, BRP is better known as "Système Chaosium" or "Système Basic", because french magazine Casus Belli published a version under this name in the 90's. Some people call it "Système d100", because of "Système d20" and "Système d6". In fact, very few people call it BRP at all...

I have to say, I view your SRD as the most exciting recent evolution of BRP. It seems to me the Revolution D100 team and I have very similar tastes when it comes to rules design.

You could take bits from POW and make CHA the Willpower/Resolve/Composure stat. Borrowing an idea from D100 Revolution, you'd have "Willpower points" for mental and social conflicts. Those would be equal to CHA or (INT+CHA)/2, or (POW+CHA/2). Optionnally, CHA (or CHA+POW) could be the base for "Social combat damage" (for instance : (CHA/6) d6, or (CHA+POW/12) d6).