Questions about combat

[Ferretz]

Hey,

I've posted once or twice here, and I've never actually played BW. Although I really like the game, the rules for Fight! really intimidates me. The rules seem very cumbersome and hard to actually use if you want a fast paced combat scenario with multiple combatants.

I've noticed that there's a simpler version of the combat system in the rules, but it might seem too simple again. Is there any way of adding detail to this? Let's say I use the system where I divide my dice in the fighting skill up into attack and defense. How does shields figure into this? Could I just add the shield dice to the defense pool? Any other things I should think about?

And as for Fight!, any suggestions to a beginning GM?

Eirik

[luke]

Yes, you can use shields on the defensive side of a bloody versus.

Advice for a first time GM? Run the Sword, use DoW and Fight.

[Glendower]

When I finally started using the Fight mechanics, I did what I did with 3rd edition D&D combat. I went really slowly through the steps.

As an added bonus, I also gave a few of the arena fights a good read. Here's one that you can use to get a good feel of how a fight should flow.

One happy result of doing this slowly and step by step was that I found that the Fight system is actually not too bad in terms of complexity. It's just really different from other gaming systems. That gave me a lot of problems understanding it, I've been used to a lot of initiative based "You go, I go" kind of stuff, and the scripting system is a big departure from this.

It really helps to have the scripting sheet at hand and all the information about your weapon written down, especially the power of the weapon at Incidental, Mark and Superb, and the adds needed to get to each level of strike.

Interestingly, once we began to learn how Fight works, and internalized some of the steps, we began to move through fights fairly quickly. There's just a bit of a learning curve.

I also should mention that for the year or so I stuck with the Bloody Verses as a way of combat resolution, it worked really well. There is sufficient tension, the results are quite quick, and you can narrate all kinds of exciting fast paced combat leading to the roll's results.

I still use the Bloody Verses for most combats. The Fight mechanic comes out only when the players really want it.

[Wrathbone]

Ferretz, if you PM with your email I'll send you Clash of Arms: Simple Melee Mechanics. It's sort of a middle ground between Bloody Versus and Fight!

I downloaded this a while back from the forum but I know it was removed; I'm not sure why; It may be more relevant to BW Classic.

Maybe this would be a good time to ask: Is there anything "wrong" with using Clash of Arms with BW Revised? Say I want a quick non-scripted combat with a bit more complexity. Will this clash with any revised rules?

[luke]

What's wrong with CoA? It's broken. All of the info in that pdf has been incorporated into BWR as RnC, positioning and versus tests.

[Wrathbone]

Ah, OK....figured there was something wrong.

Suggestion #2: Mouse Guard has conflict rules not only for combat but for social, chase, warfare, etc. that approaches a middle ground between simple and complex. There have been a few posts on the forum about incorporating this for BWR (if you're hell-bent on avoiding the Fight! rules).

[Berandor]

By the way: the way I handled Bloody versus was just one roll, and then winner gets intent (hurt opponent, kill opponent, drive opponent off, show his awesome mad skillz, whatever). I did not factor in armor whatsoever and judged wounds by intent. That was correct, correct?

[luke]

I did that too when I ran Mouse Guard.

[Skari-dono]

If you only use Bloody Versus in your game and dismiss Fight! for the time being or entirely, not including armor would pretty much remove any reason for purchasing one except for descriptive reasons (which, after reading the BW books, seems to be reason enough)

[Berandor]

Yes, armor is just descriptive then. On the other hand, if you use armor, then you don't have a single roll, but a single roll negated by armor followed by another roll and maybe another.