Awesome, thanks!
No. It means you want to be super clear on intent and task. In this case, do the players want to kill these guys? I have to assume that’s the case. This scene sounds to me like it’s a big deal in the story, but if you guys agree that it’s not, then you’re not looking for D&D-like combat. Just one roll can resolve it and you don’t even have to go to bloody versus if it’s not appropriate. Understand very clearly, bloody versus is, itself, a subsystem. You can just have a regular roll, perhaps a versus roll. But you decide that stuff based on what the players’ intent and task is, not first say “it’s bloody versus time!” and then pry intent and task out of the players. You should say, “the thugs are going to try to subdue/kill/annoy/groom you” and how the players react determines the nature of the subsequent rolls.
Understand that the players can all have different intents and tasks here. One could try to hold the mob of thugs off with his magic while the other guy slips upstairs. It’s all about matching up what you want with a task that suits the fiction. So, let’s assume their intent really is to kill the mob of thugs. So, same intent, but if one guy is slinging fire and the other is hacking with his sword, you have different tasks. Which means you might handle each task differently. If sorcerous guy says “I want to kill them with fire breath,” You might say, “Yes, you can cook the three guys closest to you without even rolling and the other seven guys are all going to make steel tests because some magical lunatic is breathing fire in an enclosed, wooden space and three of their friends just got turned to crunchy bacon.” Or you might have him roll to cast. In this case, it only takes three actions. Maybe the thugs get a roll to notice that he’s casting a spell in time to react. Maybe you decide there isn’t enough time for them to do anything and as long as he casts successfully, that’s all she wrote. Maybe you decide that the thugs get a speed test to interfere with his spell, potentially increasing his obstacle OR getting out of the way.
But he also might say, “I want to wade in with both sword and magic.” In that case, just roll sword or sorcery with the other as a fork in a versus test against the thugs and be done with it. And I mean done with it. Both guys have the same intent, so I’d make it one roll. Hammer from player one or sorcery from player two (or sword with sorcery as a fork), relevant forks, helping dice, and advantages/disadvantages. But before you get to the details, be very clear about the thugs’ intent and failure consequences. Would it be stupid if the thugs just killed the PC’s here? Then that’s not the thugs’ intent. So, if the players fail, the thugs capture them. Or maybe the thugs just want to hold them off for long enough for the assassin to get away. If the players fail, then the assassin gets away and after some scrapes and bruises, the thugs scatter. Or, go ahead and let the players get their intent on a failure, they just take wounds from the fight. Once you’re clear on that, the roll is simple. “You’re using an area spell against guys who are crowded together, you get a +1D, and since it’s crowded and full of tables and chairs, the thugs can’t get to you all at once, so take another +1D. They’re all using fists and you guys have weapons, take and other 1 (or 2) advantage dice” (or, it’s a small enough space that longer weapons are a disadvantage, however you want to play it).
Don’t misunderstand, as I said from the get-go, I see no problem with just using sorcery as your Bloody Versus skill and not worrying about the spell’s base ob or tax, just treat it like any other weapon and that’s that, possibly with situational advantage/disadvantage. But it seems like you’re hung up on the idea of, “We’re all in a bloody versus combat, what do you do now that it’s your turn?” and that’s a problem, so breaking it down to just one regular roll in the system might really be what you need.
Hi Paul,
I believe the OP’s question has been answered. If you want to start another conversation about the scope of a single roll in Bloody Versus, please feel free to start a new thread.
Watch out! There’s not really Intent in BV, any more than in Fight. You can accidentally kill someone you don’t mean to, if you get 5 successes over their Defense.
I won’t post in this thread anymore, but if you think that’s what my post was about, you’re sorely mistaken. Notice that I was talking about a NON-bloody versus roll. Plus, I was answering a specific question posed to me by the OP - and as it related to the original issue. So, in the future, please consider how carefully you police things like normal, relevant conversation.
I think Paul is very much spot on again - just go back to the Intent and Task. Very nice breakdown of the example given, as well. The fewer the rolls, the better the action; at least to my taste.