Mugen

I second RuneQuest Sorcery, but more precisely the revised ruies Sandy Petersen created in 1998 or so. In this new rules system, Sorcery is limited by one's skill and "Presence". Presence is based on vows the sorcerer takes and acts as a limit to the number of spells can keep active at once. The vows, which were meant to fit SP's view on Malkioni sorcery, could be replaced by something else. A major drawback is that RS3 Sorcery requires a *lot* of skills. One per spell, and one per "Art. Quite like if in Mythras you had obe skill per manipulation category, except Sandy Petersn introduced new manipulations, such as the possibility to cast a spell quicker, cheaper, or prepare it in advance to be released instantly.

IMHO, in most cases specialties should be treated as bonus to a broader base skill. That is, if I'm a sword fighter I'll have a generic Melee Weapon skill at a given percentage, and a Sword specialty which I'll add to my Melee Weapon skill when I use a sword. Same for drive, or ride. Other solutions exist, such as using similar weapons skills with a malus, but I think they're less elegant -even though this option doesn't require to re-write experience rules to take specialties into account.

I don't remember how it works in BRP, but I like the fact it can be done with a Special Effect in Mythras

As for myself, I think I would break ties using the character with the best roll on each side of the contest. That is, if the following characters are in one side : One with 2 success and a roll of 18 One with 2 successes and a roll of 3 And the other side is : One with 1 success and a roll of 18 One with 3 successes and a roll of 3 Then, the second group wins because of the 3 successes of the 4th character.

Yes, RQ1 can be described as OD&D without levels and thieves skills as the basis of every character ability. You could also make very similar games by following one of these two paths: Remove levels from d20 Replace d100 roll under by a d20 roll-over in BRP But the second path will require less work than the first one to have a working game system, as magic and health depend on characters' level in d20, whereas the second option is almost immediate.

To be honest, even if it was legal to mix BRP ORC and d20, I think it would be a pretty bad idea, given how different both systems are. It could be possible and quite easy to change the roll-under d100 mechanism in BRP with a roll-over d20 one. But introducing the hit location system from RQ in d20 would simply break the game.

OGL BRP and ORC BRP are completely disconnected. BRP-OGL SRD is not under ORC licence and BRP ORC is not under BRP-OGL, and Chaosium already stated that they won't change it. BRP-OGL is more or less a thing from the past, but Chaosium saw no reason to withdraw it. BRP-OGL is also not the same as Wizards of the Coast's Open Gaming Licence, and is more restrictive.

I think it would be better to put all rules questions about the Starter Set in a single thread, in order to help any Chaosium staff member to answer those.

I agree using a d10 would make the Masteries clearer. My own version of HQ would use it, and no Bumps either : your tens is your base success number, and if your d10 is under your units you gain another success. A 0 is a re-roll under the units to gain another success. You could also use a base 20 notation : 1,2,3...9, A, B, C,... I, J. So, a score of 14 and 2 masteries would be written 2E. Or you could put a sign before or after the digit, a + for instance : 23 would be 3 and 2 Masteries, and 23+ would be 13 and 2 masteries.

French game Légendes (yes, another one...) had something similar. There were no action rounds in Légendes. Instead, each action took a variable number of seconds to resolve. For a common man, a normal attack took 6 seconds, a quick attack or a normal defense took 3 seconds, and a quick defense required no time at all. Quick actions gave you negative modifiers to your skill. Lighter weapons, with a good speed factor gave you smaller modifiers than Heavy weapons, with bad speed factor. A very quick character using light weapons could perform 3 quick attacks, with negative modifiers, while a common man could only do 1 normai attack in the same time.

What makes RQ possession so uniquely gloranthan ? I've read it a long time ago in RQ3 and I don't remember it very well, but it didn't strike me as something that couldn't work in other settings. IIRC, both possession from the spirit and exorcism by the shaman/exorcist required a Spirit Combat.

French game Reve de Dragon (which was translated into Reve, the Dream Ouroboros) allows an attacker to reduce his own skill to give a similar modifier to the defender As for myself, I'd just use the skill opposition system. I'd be in favor of Pendragon -high roll wins and skill above 100 is added to the roll-, but using the formula for Resistance Table (50+difference in skill) could work too.

I am in a similar situation. I discovered BRP with StormBringer, but what really caught my attention was the way RQ3 character creation gave me possibilities to make "ethnologically plausible" worlds. Also, as I was born in 1975, I was too young to read or play RQ2 before RQ3. Which explains why I don't have the connexion RQ2 fans have with Glorantha. Nowadays, I'm less interested in playing roll-under systems in general, and even in the roll-under d100 family, I prefer Mythras or RD100. But RQ3 remains an important game in my gaming history.

The translation says "points de POU", which someone familiar with RQ2 might understand as a temporary POW loss. It's possible the translator thought it would be better to not use the word "Magic" for Ki, and was familiar with RQ2. But it's never explained...

@Old Man Henersonan average fighter with a broadsword deals 1d8+1d2 damage in Mythras, versus 1d8+1+1d4 in BRP. But it's hard to compare when Mythras characters don't have general Hit Points.

I've always considered Kenjutsu as the main inspiration for Combat Styles. In the french translation of LoN, most ki powers cost POW and not MP. I always suspected it was a translation error, and these few examples seem to prove I was right. For instance, in this translation Ki parry cost MP and Ki dodge cost POW.

I truly don't know which multiplier to use. And, to make matters worse, I tend to use 2d6+6 for all characteristics, which means I need another multiplier myself... It's not really a cap, as it would still be possible to increase skills after reaching this value, but only 1% each time. Perhaps with a minimum 5% chance...

No, not something like 100+characteristic or anything that is just the same as another rule, but clunkier. 🙂 Something that depends on skill base value, and can be below 100 if base skill is lower than average. I wrote Base x3, but it's obviously too low.

It could be possible to introduce an optimal skill value for each skill, which should be used instead of 100. It would be based on the skill base value, for instance (base x3). If your skill is under that optimum, your experience roll would be a roll under (optimal skill - actual skill).

Problem with OD&D Health System is that it didn't chose between abstraction and realism (or Narrativism and Simulationism). PCs had more Hit Points as they levelled because it represents an abstract ability to survive a fight, but : -CON adds points to HP total, -Armor could negate hit points loss completely because it follows a "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic. -That heroic pool takes months to recover for a heroic figure and far less for a commoner becaus it obeys "Natural Healing" logic. -Similarly, a Cure spell can fully heal a commoner but you need multiple ones to fully heal a hero. Nowadays, I prefer to have more "abstract Hit Points", and not directly tied to wounds. BRP and Mythras are still influenced by the "if you don't hit flesh, there's no HP loss" logic I mentioned above, and I'm not satisfied by it.

In Mythras, secondary attributes charts usually work with multiples of 5 or 6. You need 5 full points in SIZ+CON to gain extra 1 extra HP in each location, for instance. The only exceptions being the MP maximum and Initiative Bonus. A solution to make 18 APP more appealing would be to change the charts to allow humans with maximum rolled attribute (i.e. 18) to have a benefit. I don't think it would break the game. I agree.

The way I see it conflict resolution as a whole sound like an expansion of RuneQuest Spirit Combat. That was even more clear in HeroWars, where action points initial value was equal to the ability used.

That's better than having an option to reach 20 in a skill, IMHO.

Yes, as I mentioned in my Edit, this is the same rule as in the core 3rd edition book. I only used the Chivalrous Knights system, which explains why I didn't remember the simpler one. I checked the Book of Knights and Ladies, and it doesn't change the creation procedure for characters below 21, but let you use Winter phase rules for older ones. Which, I guess (as I don't own 5.2), include the possibility to raise a single skill to 20, like in 3rd edition. Note that the option to raise a skill above 15 is in option 2, with personnality traits and passions.

You could have Sword 20 in 3rd edition, but it was detrimental to other skills or characteristics. 15 was the maximum for a 15 years old PK, but he could chose to put 1 point each year after that instead of the other options (1 point in a characteristic or 1 point in a trait or passion or 1d6 points to skills below 15). Was the option to focus on a single skill removed in 5.2 ? That sounds strange to me. Edit: Ok, I checked my books, and the option to put points in skills above 15 is also not mentioned in the base character creation rules from the core rulebook. It's only present in the full character creation rules from Chivalrous Knights. I wonder if that option also exists in the complete creation rules from Book of Ladies and Knights for 5e ?