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
rhammond@eclipse.net

"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