So I am working on making a WFRP3/Genesys hybrid. Mostly to be able to use the WRP3 Status Effects, Criticals, Diseases and Insanities, which is so much easier than rolling on tables and scribbling results down on the character sheet. This works "ok-ish" without much work.
However, quite a few cards refer to characteristics or skills that are not in Genesys but usually have an obvious equivalent. For example, the WFRP skill "Observation" is the obvious equivalent of "Perception" (Allthough Observation is an Intelligance skill, while Perception is a Cunning skill. Cunning does not have an equivalent characteristic in WFRP)
Now, I could simply use the WFRP3 character sheets with their characteristics and skills, but use the Genesys dice-system. However, I rather like the changes that have been done with Genesys. Like merging Strength and Thoughness into Brawn and instead splitting Intelligence into Intellect and Cunning. Genesys also spreads a lot of the mental skills more out, while WFRP3 had too many concentrated under a few characteristics.

Looking at the rules in general, and Talents in particular, they generally do not refer to specific characteristics or skills. Most Talents let the player choose which skill it applies to, exactly so a GM can use his own setting-specific skill-list.

So, I'm wondering if there would be any obvious hurdles or consequences to renaming some skills and characteristics to their WFRP equivalent? Some characteristics are identical, but there are some glaring differences:

Brawn: I could split this back into Strength and Thoughness. But I'm not sure I really want to. I like it as one characteristic. I'll just read any references to Strength or Thoughness as Brawn.

Cunning: This is an interesting new characteristic. It's a split-off from Intelligence in WFRP3. I like the concept, so I'm thinking I'll keep it.

Presence: This is the same as the WFRP3 Fellowship characteristic. So I guess I could just rename it Fellowship?

Other than that, there is a bunch of skills that could be re-named.

Melee = Weapon Skill
Ranged = Ballistic Skill
Knowledge = Education and Folklore. Will problably have to split this skill into several categories which is suggested in the rulebook anyway.
Perception = Observation
Survival = Nature Lore
Deception = Guile
Vigilance = Intuition
Coercion = Intimidate

And I think that's it.

So, any thoughts or ideas? Personally I probably won't use the combat rules much. I generally hate my sessions getting bogged down in something that feels more like a strategy game than a roleplaying game. So most combats in my games are resolved by a single, or a few, skill rolls instead of keeping track of positioning, range, turns, reacharge etc. So that the combat rules refer to characteristics or skills I no longer have doesn't really bother me. However, I would prefer this to be usable for other players who might be interested in using those parts of the rules as well.

If you are asking about the viability of renaming. !00% do it, it's actually suggest by the CRB iirc, or atleast heavily implied.

If you want feedback on your specific ideas. I would say be very careful about spliting and/or combining skills, and more careful with characteristics. It can be done, and it could work out well. I would just ask yourself these questions when doing it, becuase tinkering with the base level of the game (characteristics) can have some unintended and/or unwanted side effects.

• What am i trying to achieve mechanically and narratively?
• Does this accomplish that in as simple a fashion as needed?
• What does this add to the Game? Why is that needed and/or not covered by the base mechanics?
• Does this need to be a Mechanical Change? or Does a narrative change accomplish the goal?

For skills i would suggest consolidating skills that would not be used much in favor of allowing players to be better at those things with less investment. For example if combat is a rarity in your game, consolodating skills into just "Ranged" and "Melee" could be boon to the players. It means they are better at those things via needing to invest in less skills. This also allows you to "Direct" XP into things that are important to your game. If you have 2 combat skills, and 6 social skills that should tell the players that the combat is either less important, or less frequent than social will be. Like wise you can do that in the inverse for a combat heavy game. Or if you have 12 different knowledge skills, but only 2 combat skills and 3 social skills, it should tell the players that those knowledge skills are going to be much more important in the minutiae than social or combat skills will be.

Basically when changing or creating rules the more space/text/effort devoted to a rule the more important those rules tend to be in play. If a game has 100 pages of rules, and 80 of those pages are about combat rules, that means the game is primarily intended to be about combat. The space denotes the importance. So expand and give space/importance to the rules that shape the type of game you want to play ?

As for how they will work at the table and such. We can give advice, we can critique, and we can offer suggestions. But at the end of the day ya gotta test them in action to get a real feel for them, and more importantly how your players will view them.