This isn't really a review, more a series of notes, impressions and a final conclusion.

Very prescriptive, almost preachy, love the way they suggest the GM really query cross gender roleplaying. A rooting in boardgame rules makes it much more intolerant of interpretation.
Structure of the rules as numbered paragraphs means you never get a simple overview, you need to read it ALL to understand it all. Problem is, rpgs are  not boardgames, so it's isn't possible to cover all options, hence the method can break. So I shall ignore the structure.

There is a nice range of attributes, 1-20 range for humans, and a reasonable range of non humans, although I don't know how giants work. It's point allocation and then apply non human modifiers. A PC can also be aspected to a season or life/death. Great idea, but oddly only applies for highly limited times, but you can adjust that I guess.

The system is not unified, but in basics, most chances are some variation of either

Attribute x 0.5 - 5.0 %, OR
Base Chance + Attribute + Rank * 3 or 4 %

The variability of this system is a bit clunky to read but probably not difficult in play.

You collect experience points, usually on a simple per adventure basis, and spend them on Ranks in weapons, spells, rituals,or broad 'class' like skill blocks, e.g. Ranger, Troubador, Alchemist.

A very sound combat system, not at all tricky, hex based, essentially Attack Chance minus Defence, then roll damage (all are 1d10 based), subtract armour and take off Fatigue unless all Fatigue is gone, or a special success trigger it. This system uses (and they don't use the terms so I'll steal them from BRP) crits on 5% of skill and specials on 15% of skill. There are some nice parry/riposte rules. I think combat would lay quite smoothly since most of the time the skill are predetermined and the only issue is to subtract the defence from the attack before the roll. I hate subtracting percentiles from percentiles, but many people don't mind.

Magic, depending on 2e or 3e you get about a dozen Colleges. Within the college (and I can't see how you join a college but hey) you get a few freebies Talents (some races get these as well), a bunch of General Knowledge skills, and then have to buy Special Knowledge skills. Spells can be very powerful, quite hard to cast. They cost Fatigue points to cast, the same ones you can lose in combat or in hard work, with a fallback to burning Endurance.
You are limited to your College, and modifiers adjust those that cast at or between the Colleges. 2e had an extensive range of demonic casting, nasty rituals, and curses. These have all been removed in 3e, and the game sanitised. This is why there are a variable amount of Colleges, since 3e provided new ones to remove the 'dark' ones! Magicians are potentially very powerful, but they also have a very dangerous chance of backlash, and blindness, palsy, amnesia and the like can fall upon the mage who relies on magic for too long.

Monsters, lovely range of the usual, although the weasel is fabled as a killer.. Nice dragons.

At the end of the book we have the skill system explained, but then in the adventuring section we have horsemanship and stealth dropped in unannounced!

The final adventure is pretty good, and would be fun with any system.

So, is this a playable game or a fabled artefact that let's one down after all the myths?

Weeeeeeel. I think it's a very good game for the turn of the 80s. It's a pretty damned good game system now. It's very much SPI's version of RuneQuest, and although I last played (not refereed) it in 1983, I can see it play as well as a BRP game would now. Some people would love all the little sub rules, usually based on a number plus a rank multiplied by another number, or a number multiplied by rank times a number of hours, I might just decide on a standard ruling and run as interpreted, but yes.. this is still a very good game, and one that (if you buy it cheap) you might enjoy. On the other hand.. RQ6 or BRP do it better with two or three decades of tweaking to help smooth out the edges. Oddly, if Wizards spent a month on it they'd have a good skill based percentile game system, but hey.. what would be the point in that eh?

If you want a more normal review, try this: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12828.phtml

Earlier this year I managed to get 2 copies of 2nd edition, 2 copies of the 1st adventure, 1 copy of the 2nd adventure, 2 copies of the GM screen, a 1 copy of the map for $12. Pretty nice score at the used bookstore.

My group is considering some short 1 night adventures so I might introduce DQ there. We like % systems so it has that going for it.

For Giants, you might try this:

Normal max-stat limits do not apply to PS and EN. The minimum in each is the minimum listed in the monsters section. To get your "money's worth," though (given the penalties to other stats), you'll probably want to put in more.

Other stats have at start both the standard limit and whatever is listed for that type of Giant; in the long run only the latter. (Those ranges might be representative rather than absolute, but treat them as the latter for pcs.)

Treat the Fatigue and TMR tables as going on in 3-point increments, even though they end in 2-point steps as prinnted.

The characteristics for giants reference the monster statistics because the ranges vary for different kinds of giants.  A player must assign points to all of the characteristics as if human (before knowing whether the character can be a non-human); if the character is non-human, then modifiers are applied to those characteristics.

The modifiers for giants should be based on the difference between the average for the specific type of giant and the human average of 15.  Third edition describes this explicitly in a note under Tactical Movement Rate (but not for Physical Strength or Endurance that I could find); first edition doesn't have TMR but there is a similar process described in both for the characteristics of a shape changer's animal form.

Quote from: Arminius;786605They don't share much of anything at all.

Actually they share a fair amount. Same base format of chapters and even sometimes the internal layout of a chapter. Some of the text at the start is cut-n-paste or very simmilar to the other.

Both use the percentile d20s and have pretty much the same stats, just renamed. Simmilar to Gamma World and D&D.

Univerese though has a massively more robust and complex character generation than Dragon Quest. Though DQs stats can go up to around 19 or so whereas Universes stats top around 12.

DQ though has a much more robust combat system than Universe, though Universe is mostly ranged focused and takes terrain into account. DQs rounds are 5 sec compared to Us 15 sec.

The Magic and Psi systems between the two share some minor simmilarities. Both have powers with backlash chances and of course are percentile based. But Psi powers do not use fatigue. DQs magic lists are alot more extensive. And of course DQ has pages and pages of demon thingys.

Skills are laid out simmilar between the two, though of course geared for their settings.
The monster layout and how encounters are determined share some simmilarities with again changes to accomodate setting. DQs list is quite a bit larger too.

Both have a introductory adventure at the back.

The hugest difference is in Universes world generation and starship building systems. That and Universe is not illustrated at all. They reuse the cover pic three times inside and thats it.

The two systems though are not really compatible without some effort.