Running Combat

[mabon5127]

How much of the rules as written do you use in running a combat?

I use initiative
I don't use declarations as this slows things down for me
I don't break into 2 phases but allow the characters to complete their entire turn in one "super phase"

In other words I let them half move and attack then if they defeated their enemy half move and attack again at one time (assuming multiple attacks).

I don't break this into a move and attack (phase 1) then allow the enemy their phase 1, then the characters phase 2 etc.

In the same way I would allow an archer to half move and fire (at a reduced rate) without breaking the action into phases.

I was wondering how others run combat and for those that use the RAW does the added realism justify the added complication?

Thanks!

Morgan

[blackadder23]

I (still ) haven't actually started my campaign yet, but I have reservations about the exact same things (declarations and breaking the round into two phases). I may just use the B/X melee round, which is what I normally use for AD&D as well. It's simple and clear and (best of all) fast.

OTOH, it would be nice to be able to tell players "Just read the rules, that's how we're doing it" without a lot of qualifiers and house rules. So I don't know. I have no doubt that Jeff's version of combat works just fine, but it's hard to give up what I already know.

I guess that's not much help. FWIW I did put the official combat sequence and so forth on the inside of the referee's screen I made, so I guess I'm leaning toward playing by the book. At least initially.

[Ynas Midgard]

Neither have I actually played or Refereed AS&SH; nevertheless, I had decided to eventually play it by the book as much as possible (not perfectly, for sometimes in the middle of a session I may rule something which later turns out to be covered in the rules).

It is only one possibility to allow the players to read through the Combat chapter and familiarise themselves with the rules. The other possibility, which I prefer, is that they only know about some factors (like that there is AC, FA, HP, damage rolls, etc.) and some vague idea of how much they can do in one round. The possible actions are never revealed in any form (especially not in a list), thus making it a partly player-unknown structure.

[Ghul]

May 8, 2013 10:32:21 GMT -6 mabon5127 said:

How much of the rules as written do you use in running a combat?

I use initiative
I don't use declarations as this slows things down for me

I prefer action declaration quickly around the table before rolling initiative, because I feel combat is fast and brutal, and that there needs to be accountability on the part of the players. Of course, YMMV!

I don't break into 2 phases but allow the characters to complete their entire turn in one "super phase"

In other words I let them half move and attack then if they defeated their enemy half move and attack again at one time (assuming multiple attacks).

I don't break this into a move and attack (phase 1) then allow the enemy their phase 1, then the characters phase 2 etc.

In the same way I would allow an archer to half move and fire (at a reduced rate) without breaking the action into phases.

I try to keep combat within the 2-phase structure, but I don't talk about it very much during game play. I prefer to ask the players what they intend for their characters to do, and then I work this out internally. So, if what they describe to me results in me determining that their attack or action occurs on phase 2, I inform them that they will be going at the end of the round.

I was wondering how others run combat and for those that use the RAW does the added realism justify the added complication?

Thanks!

Morgan

Well, of course I'm a RAW written guy in most all matters AS&SH, with very few exceptions that I can think of, but like I said, these are mostly kept behind the screen.

[mabon5127]

Thanks for the input! I probably am over thinking the two phase thing. I like the flexibility of the combat options. But generally most activity would occur in phase one with a few extended actions occurring in phase two. You would only return to those characters with a phase two action so it may not be that time consuming.

Morgan

[rabindranath72]

I've run it BtB and it works like a charm. I was already using a two-phase initiative system in my BECMI games, using the alternate system described in the Immortal set. I find such systems add depth to combat without making it much more complex.

[chrisj]

I intended to run RAW, but unconsciously shifted to BX style when the arrows started flying and haven't looked back.

Chris

[Ghul]

May 18, 2013 18:45:22 GMT -6 chrisj said:

I intended to run RAW, but unconsciously shifted to BX style when the arrows started flying and haven't looked back.

Chris

That's fine, Chris -- whatever works best for you!

[mabon5127]

I'm basically old and lazy and fall into my old ways easily. I want to give RAW a chance as I want to use by the book for convention games. I believe the RAW has value and therefore will endeavor to do so.

I may do a hybrid eventually but should give the rules a fair shake.

Morgan