Mugen

It's also worth saying that this comic book has a scenario by Julien Blondel, who was originally known as a RPG designer (he did some work for Nephilim and In Nomine, among other things). I guess he's more familiar with Chaosium books than Moorcock original publications.

The map in your post is not very different from William Church's map. There's another map in a french Elric comic book, on which the Unholy Fortress is not on an island in the Eastern Ocean, but rather on a mountain barrier that closes that ocean. It's otherwise very similar to Church's map.

I'm shocked by the difference between both maps shown here. For instance, in the top one, Bakshaar is a port near the sea. On the bottom one, it's an inland city near a river.

In order to avoid confusion : from the previews I read, it seems values above 20 are written 20(X) in 6th edition. If you ever read 23 in older KAP material, it's exactly the same as 20(3) in 6th edition.

As I said earlier, I prefer a mix of these two, with good success as 1/2 skill, and better success at 1/10 skill. Steve Perrin's Quest Rules had those, along with a 4th success level, at skill/100. Which obviously meant 1 for a lot of people...

I'm rather good at maths, have a good experience with BRP. I can figure out 1/5th and 1/20th of a skill quickly and with no effort. Nevertheless, I've seen players struggling with maths since I started playing, not only kids born after 1990 or 2000. I think it's part of a game designer's job to reduce the burden for them.

It seems that's the part of the errata I had in mind. Keep in mind that this sentence is supposed to be added at the end of a paragraph, and is not supposed to make sense out of context. You need the whole section to understand it completely. Although the title is "Two weapon use", the section surely also covers the case where one of the weapons is a fist.... Edit : note that i'm not a huge fan of this specific errata...

An errata changed things a bit. If you had one one-handed weapon and an empty hand, you could attack and parry with that weapon in the same turn.

RuneQuest 3 is the one which is more closely related to "standard" BRP among the 4 Chaosium RuneQuest games. The reason for this is that when Chaosium worked on RQG, they started from RQ2 rather than RQ3, even though they incorporated some rules from the 3rd edition. For instance, general HP total in RQG is not equal to the average of CON and SIZ, contrarily to most BRP games. It's still based on CON and SIZ, but CON is much more important. Concerning parry in older BRP games, a typical weapon entry looked like that : Broadsword, Attack : 67%, Damage : 1d8+1+1d4, Parry : 53%. Attack and Parry were distinct skills that evolved separately. That's actually a good incentive to make people parry with their shield instead of their main weapon. If you have Attack/Parry 75/25 with your sword and Attack/Parry 15/65 with your shield, you won't use your sword to parry as long as you have a shield. If you want crunchy rules for Magic, you could try to find Sandy Petersen's rules for RuneQuest 3. It's a series of 3 doc files that contain new versions for Sorcery, Shamanism, ritual magic and others. Sorcery is the crunchiest and most important. It adds a new variable, Presence, which is the limit on the total number of "Arts" (Shaping in Mythras) one can hold at a given time. It also adds new ways of shaping spells, to speed up casting, make them cost less MP (a big issue in RQ3, where you paid 1 MP per Art level) and so on...

That's a big no for me. I could accept that skills above 100 are just there to "soak" negative modifiers and ensure a character with 150% still has 100% chance against a modifier that would nullify a 50% skill, but a 1-100 scale is just not enough to represent the difference between a complete newb and a World class expert. Edit : appart from this, I agree with all of your points, especially #3.

Re-rolling dice when you use a die with such granularity as the d100 seems pointless. As for myself, I prefer simpler ways to figure crits and specials, even if it makes those far more common. After all, those will also be more common for NPCd For instance, consider any roll under the 10s of the skill as a crit, or any roll under half the skill a crit. A lot of people like to use doubles (11, 22, 33) as crits. I don't really like it, because it doesn't scale with skills over 100. Similarly, multiplies of 5 (05, 10, 15) could be Specials. You could also use the units of the die ; 11, 21, 31, etc are crits, and 12, 13, 22, 23, 32, 33 and so on are specials.

Is Wealth supposed to be rolled with a d100 ? If so, I would not use a 1-100 scale to describe one's ability to buy things. I see myself as a member of the upper middle class, with a good income. But if I go to the McLaren shop in my street, I know I won't be able to buy any of the cars they sell there, because they're as expensive as my flat. However, there are people who can do it, because they have much more money than I do. On the other hand, if I go to a supermarket, I will be able to buy a lot of things without taking care of their cost, whereas someone from a lower social class will have to carefully chose the products he buys.

I agree. Second edition of Old French game Légendes Celtiques had a similar concept : each character had 8 "Gifts" (Combat, Magic, Art, Communication, and so on...), which was one's innate ability with a series of skills, with a value ranking from 0 to 8. When untrained, a character used the corresponding Gift as the skill value (with a d20). When trained in a skill, he could add an Attribute (Strength, Intellect, ,etc.) ranging from 1 to 14. To become trained in a skill usually required 3 to 6 months, but some very difficult skills (magic, obviously) required years. Some skills could not be used at all without training (magic, obviously...). Character Creation let you pick 14 to 17 Trained skills, depending on your birth status. Some professions (Magical ones, obviously) required that you picked 10 of them to gain access to them. Although the skills could go beyond Gift+Attribute with experience and training, Character Creation required that you spent 1 of your trained skills to gain a single point in a skill. It was possible to put Geasa on you character to gain more trained skills at character creation. Like Humakti or Yelmalio followers.

In such cases, Mythras modifies the grappler's skill depending on the difference between both protagonists' STR+SIZ. The difference between a Halfling and Ultraman would be so significant that the poor Halfling would have an effective skill less than 5...

I prefer to have the same base value for all skills under the same category,but it's only a detail. When you looked at the skill bonuses of a Melnibonéan (not counting its demon armor or weapon), it made INT feel less like a dump stat.

In think we already discussed this topic, but if a game has 2 social skills, I prefer that one is aimed at convincing or trick one person or a very small group ("Persuasion"), and the second is aimed at larger audiences ("Eloquence").

While I prefer Mythras Magic systems over their RuneQuest counterparts, I agree there's no reason to port it in RQG. RQG Spirit and Rune Magics are not broken, and I must say I miss POW economy a lot in Mythras. And although the way Folk Magic works makes perfect sense to me, I also miss the variable cost spells from RQ Battle/Spirit/Common magic. Possible exceptions would be Mysticism, which has no equivalent, and Sorcery, which IMHO retains too much from RQ3 to be interesting. But even for these, a good amount of re-write would be needed.

That's actually one case where rolling a d20 under a skill is really different from rolling a d100 under that same value multiplied by 5. 😄 To be honest, I don't really see the point in doing so as it seems to me like breaking an habit just for the sake of breaking it, but I don't care.

As a native French speaker, I never felt that anything in Nephilim was supposed to be comedic, even the most ridiculous points in your list. Nephilim just live in a world where occult and all "pseudo-scientific" theories are real. The game was heavily influenced by the book Foucault Pendulum, On the other hand, in the French version of In Nomine, the humor is obvious. Its background also includes intelligent dinosaurs, and a first attempt from God to send a messiah to them named... Denver.

@g33ka PC may not be aware of a "+1" to damage, but he can chose it over another one based on "in game" properties that he can experience but the player can't, such as a better balance. Ans I think these properties translate into a +1 to damage in terms of mechanisms. In BRP games such as RQG, the effects that occur on a Special based on weapon type are also things that a PC can be aware of. There's also a difference between a professional and a non-profesionnal fighter. The first one will be better at judging the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon, whereas the second will just pick the weapon he knows best, even if it's a poor choice.

That was definitely not the case for early editions of StormBringer, where the nationality table could let you roll a crippled beggar from Nadsokor, or a fighter-priest-sorcerer from Melniboné, with demon armor, demon weapon and skills above anyone else thanks to very high INT and POW. 🙂

One thing you should IMHO avoid repeating from the first editions of StormBringer are the ridiculously low base skill chances. Having most skills defaulting to skill bonus or 10+skill bonus just doesn't work. I'd go with either 20+ bonus, or formulas such as STR+DEX for Agility, INTx2 for Knowledge, INT+CHA for Communication, and so on. Of course, this would not apply to skills that need previous training to be used. You won't have a ~20% chance to forge a functional sword out of an iron bar or make a potion out of randomly chosen herbs or suddenly speak High Melnibonéan if you've never trained in those fields.

This is confusing. The way I read it, you can parry missiles with any shield at your skill%, but you also have a fixed chance to block missiles using a full or large shield, and that chance is increased if you kneel behind it. My understanding is also that a block is not a parry, and therefore not affected by the cumulative modifier, but parries can be affected. If I'm correct, if your Shield skill is > block chance, you can parry until the modifier makes it drop below block chance. Then, you'll have to use the fixed block chance. But I may be wrong.

I'm biased, as this reminds me of the different covers of the French game Mega, which was about agents able to travel though Time, Space and different Dimensions. Heavuily influenced by the Time Patrol, or Valérian.

It's good, but it's likely a fighter will still use his weapon for his first parry unless his Shield skill is superior. 🙂 In fact, the problem is not with the shield itself, but with the Shield skill, and the fact fighters that use it need one more skill to raise After all, we all agree shields are useful against missiles, even without any skill. My own preference would be for skills that reflect one's training, and not individual weapon skills. For instance, one might have a Sword plus Shield skill. If he parries with his Shield or attack with his Sword, he'll use his full skill value. If he parries with his Sword, then his skill will suffer a malus. Another one with a "Sword" skill will be able to attack and parry with his sword at full skill, but will have a malus if he uses a shield, as he's not trained with it. Or it could be done the other way around, with a base "Melee" skill (or maybe a few Melee skills : 1 handed weapon, 2 handed weapon, ambidextry), and weapon trainings as bonuses to that skill. 🙂