Mugen

In many cases (combat, for instance), Légendes uses Margin of Success. That means someone with a skill of 25 was sure to have a Margin above 5. It is in fact not very different from Pendragon's system, with an additional substraction. I don't remember what are the consequences of a critical success in Légendes, but in its second édition ("Premières Légendes" (*)), the Margin of success of the second roll was added to the first. ***** In a d100 game, I'd use the 10s of the roll as a Degree of Success, and count criticals (roll under skill/10) as 10. In case of a skill above 100, I'd add 1 per 10 points over 100 to DoS. EDIT: (*) Yes, calling "First Legends" the second edition of a game may sound odd, but the Name implied is was as an introduction to the first edition. So, the game you play first, before switching to the complete one.

The problem with doubles is that it doesn't scale at all with skills above 100%. Whether you have 115% or 250% in your skill, you'll never have more than 9% chances to do a critical success. Plus, you need at least 11% chance of success to score crits - but this can be viewed as a feature and not a bug...

Steve Perrin's Quest Rules use the following: James Bond 007 (not BRP, but d100) uses the following: Excellent : < Skill/10 Very good : < Skill/5 Good : < Skill/2 Acceptable : < Skill EDIT: I don't know why there is such a long blank space below...

Yes. The strength of BRP as a generic system, when compared to GURPS, for instance, is that it is not really a "system", but rather a "framework" upon which you can create a system.

In my case, I only have 2 levels of skills. A swordsman would have something like: Melee +4, Swords +3 (total +7) (I also dropped the second digit, and reversed the system to be 1d10+skill > difficulty, and I still claim it's an evolution of RuneQuest )

I had the exact same approach recently while trying to make a simplified RQ.

As for myself, I would take the best of both worlds. I would use Improvement Rolls rather than ticks, but I would assign half of those based on what happened in the session. The other half would be left to the player to assign. I really don't want to see players begging fo checks just to get ticks -even though it's not a good use of the rule.

A solution is to use a Skill opposition rule similar to Pendragon or RQ6. If both opponent have the same level of success, the one with the highest roll wins the opposition. In combat, if the attacker beats the defender but both had the same success level, damage will be lowered by an amount depending on the parrying weapon.

That's a good compromise between old RQ Runic/Divine magic and RQ6 Theism. Is POW used for many skills base values, and does that mean every time it changes players will have to change those skills ? That was something I didn't like in RQ3.

Not counting CoC, in which POW determines SAN... CHA/APP is a dump stat, because it will often be paired with INT or POW to determine base skill values. Not really a dump stat, but I also value STR far less than SIZ or CON.

I houseruled that the impale damage was not maximized. That is, you dealt maximum normal damage, and rolled damage afterwards.

This is more or less how OpenQuest handles it. Instead of spending POW to make permenent enchants, you spend Improvement Rolls. Improvement Rolls which are usually used to make experience rolls with skills.

I'd use a mix of various BRP-related games. -Generic Hit Points -Localized Major Wounds using RQ rules for 0 HP in a localization -Skill base equal to the sum of 2 characteristics -Roll-under blackjack for skill oppositions -Sorcery as base for magic/psionics system.

POW economy is the only thing I miss from RQ3. But I would not include POW in skill base values if POW is meant to change often...

Except D&D5 "playtest" was more like a long survey to get a game that "feels like D&D" than a playtest to get "the best rules". Really, if the reason why Chaosium based their decision is the success of the RQ2 classic kickstarter, it's not very different than the logic behind D&D5 development.

The problem with MRQ1 Runic magic system was the disparity in spells per rune, with metal having more than half a dozen, and others such as plant or heat having only 1...

One of my worst memory was in an Orpheus (white wolf) game, in which the GM didn't use my high social attributes at all during a negotiation. As a result, I had to rely on my own skills and go out of my character, because I was not good enough to make a real negotiation and keep playing a role. The most frustrating part was when the GM basically told me that I had been good at it, but he decided in first place I couldn't win...

As for myself, I'd like to use the following system next time I begin a BRP-based game : -Hit Points are just Stun Points. Once you reach 0 hp, you're KO. -A character that suffers more than (max HP) /2 in one blow receives a Major Wound. -Major Wounds reduce Maximum Hit Points by 1/4 (with no effect on Major Wound threshold). -A Major Wound that reduces HP to 0 can kill a character.

It's the other way around : MRQ2 has no Deluxe edition, and MRQ1 does.

I've also been considering removing most characteristics in favor of a game more focused on skills. Nevertheless, I kept CON (making it a mix between CON and SIZ), POW and WILlpower. CON are the base of Hit Points, POW Magic Points, and WIL... Will Points, which I use in spiritual combat. I don't need any other derived attributes. Instead of Damage Bonus, I use the 10s of the attack roll as damage base value, modified by weapon. Concerning Actions, I'm very Old Fashioned, and keep using the old standard RQ3 action economy (1 attack and 1 parry with one weapon, 2 attacks or parries with 2 weapons). Nevertheless, I would let one declare additional actions for a cumulative -30% malus.

I think I'd do something similar, but I'd keep "hit points" only as "fatigue points", quite like in RoleMaster. Once you lose all hit points, you're simply inconscious or unable to fight. After a fight, those hit points would recover quite quickly, but wounds would reduce their maximum amount.

French Nephilim second edition uses wound levels, but I don't exactly remember how those work. As far as I remember, a character has 5 to 7 wound levels. The first 2 levels are just flesh wounds, and can be removed easily. Blows that deal less than 3 levels at once don't stack, precisely because those 2 first levels are not important. That is, if one suffers a 3 points wound, then a 4 points one, his current wound level is now 5 : 3 from the first blow, and 2 from the second.

Just use the formula behind resistance table : 50+ attacker's skill - defender's skill

Actually, Legend and RQ6 only compare die rolls for manoeuvers/special effects. Otherwise, only success level matters. Latest playtest version of MRQ1 used skill opposition to determine how many damage was soaked by the parrying weapon. If the attacker had the lowest roll, you substracted twice the parrying weapon's ap. Otherwise, you only removed parrying weapon's ap. Dodge reduced damage to minimum possible rolled value, as far as I remember. I would do something similar : reduce damage by 5 points in case of a succesful parry, +5 for a critical, +5 if your roll was higher (cumulative with the +5 for critical), +X if you're using a big shield or a parrying weapon. There's any idea I would like to use one day : a failed attack roll does not result in a miss, just a poorly executed attack. Which means that if it's not parried or dodged, it will land but for minimum damage.

My list: -Fewer base skills, with specialty bonuses if needed, -Get rid of most attributes, and keep only POW, SAN and CON. -A skill opposition system like in RQ6