On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, John Campbell wrote:

> The current rules for battles are the weakest part of the game in my
> opinion.
> I know there is some debate over how much BR should be a wargame and how
> much it should be an RPG, but it seems obvious that a lot of its appeal is
> in the ability to rule in addition to the rich world setting. If you are
> going to have the Domain aspect there will eventually be war, so then the
> question is how to best resolve this in a way that is not so clunky yet is
> not a huge investment in time and effort.
> Has anyone here played with the DBM or DBA battle rules? They seem pretty
> good, very simple and intuitive.

Hello everyone, I've just recently acquired BR and joined this forum, but I
see I can contribute to this thread.

I've played DBA and when I saw the combat system in BR, I immediately
thought of adapting the DBA rules for BR battles. Its a very quick, simple
system and could be adapted with a few tweaks. The rules are easy to learn
and are designed to handle a battle with about ten to twelve elements on
each side. One 'element' would roughly correspond to a BR battlecard.
The only downside I see is that it is designed for use with miniatures,
which can get expensive, though I suppose these could be replaced by
counters. I also believe DBA is now out of print.

In running a campaign I would use two combat systems. A simple one such
as the battlecards, DBA or even the D&D War Machine rules to handle most
conflicts, but for very important ones, especially where PC's are present
I would use something along the lines of Battlesytem.

Robert Hammond

"Chemists do not usually stutter. It would be awkward if they did, seeing
that they have at times to get out such words as methylethylamylophenylium."
-William Crookes, 1865