Kloster

I would not, even for a 10 years child. I said "RAW, the answer is ..." . But RQ (whatever version) rules are not made to represent children. And what you describe now seems to me not a problem of skill, but a problem of minimum STR and DEX.

RAW, base value + STAT modifier + 5% per Bladesharp level. You can argue that the base value is less than the one written in the rules, but watching my younger son playing, I can ensure you the base is not 00%, so magical bonus would apply.

Agreed. That's why I wrote 'As far as I have understood'. But I am ready to accept any contrary arguments.

We played that your score was 01%, but you need 05% or less to succeed.

It is just (for me) because you can not attempt to use a skill if your base value is not at least 01%. At 00%, even category modifier does not apply, so it seems logical to not apply situational modifiers.

Yes, exactly.

In fact, with RQIII, the problem was worse because 1) of the formulas used to calculate the modifiers, ensuring that each stat point was counting. 2) the spirit magic spells that are altering spells were not including the modifiers in the spell description (and most, if not all, of them were variable) and 3) Stat increase studying or training was easier.

In fact, it is the case with all stats. Spirit magic stat altering spells are now including the modifiers, but sorcery don't. It is very easy to have a lot of modifiers that change with enhance INT, and I find easier to have the skill level written without counting modifiers. You can then write several value of the modifiers. In addition, if a stat changes permanently (mainly POW), you have to change only the value of the modifiers.

It is still, because as far as I have understood, Logician does not apply to 00% skills. You still need at least 01% to be able to apply logician bonus (my character has Logician but does not know anything in dwarven ideograms, to stay with David's example).

This I like.

Why would heroquest be limited to theists? As far as I have understood, Malkioni are able to heroquest.

If the god knows the spell, yes. Otherwise, I would say no.

Agreed, but this is another point. I spoke of feelings about gameplay, not about rules problems.

Thanks. True. I used (over 30 years ago) to practice a lot of fencing (foil and sabre). I never told the multiple parry is a bad rule, nor that it does not better describe real world, as the possibility to parry and attack with the same weapon. I said that for me, it does not feel like Runequest. It removes part of the tactical reflection in the combats. And I have the same problem with the single skill. I agree it is simpler, not that it better describe real world (at least not with my experience), but I can accept that the authors prefers it that way. It just does not feel right for me.

My mistake. I thought they came from Stormbringer. This is the only BRP game I've played where I have seen them. But the question was about what I felt 'less Runequest', and those 2 rules are part of it: Even RQ2, that has been proclamed to be the basis for building RQG has separate attack and parry skills, and allow a single parry per round. Different persons, different feelings.

Oh, yes, there is one: The 1 adventure per season rule (Argh)

I would like it to be closer to RQIII, even if I feel some that some RQG evolutions are very good. I would have prefered a RQIII basis to a RQ2 basis.

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea). For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

This, I perfectly understand and I like your choice. I know (from my readings) that Pendragon came from Runequest, but my feelings are different of yours: the internals (what you called the DNA) is completely different.. Of course, I'm not part of RQ design team and have not access to all the informations you may have, but this is my feelings. Apart this, I was only telling that 'coming from Pendragon' is not automatically good, not that it is bad: I think the opposed rolls rule is a good addition to RQ (except for the above 100% part).

When (and if) you love Pendragon. If not, you don't automatically consider it a good idea (nor a bad, by the way), but I wish Pendragon and Stormbringer had less influence on Runequest, in order to stay more ... Runequest.

This is in fact the weak point of the 'new' background creation system. It is useful, elegant, gives nice ideas ... and restrict to 6 homelands and 1 period.

In fact, the rule p245 does not speak of keeping concentration during casting, but keeping concentration during meditation. On this, I agree. There was a misunderstanding. See above comments.

I agree with you, but how do you segregate those truly secret (that is existence unknown) of those secret but known (existence is known to most, but the workings are secret)? By the way, this concern not only spells, but also all cult secrets (skills, knowledges, techniques,...).

In fact, this was still the case far after bronze aged finished. Up to the begining of 20th century, all human activities that required a regular rythm were guided by more or less 'ritual' songs. The 'Volga Boatmen' is a famous example. The first cinematographers (The Lumiere brothers ones) were singing 'Sambre et Meuse' to keep the rythm, and numerous songs were (and in some cases still are) used to teach alphabet and numbering (Does Ein Zwei Polizei, Drei Vier Offizier, .. raise some memories?).

No. What I said is that the rule p245 is that you have to make an INTx3 roll to keep concentration when taking damage. This is not my idea of a houserule, but RAW. Nice ideas.