The scripted duel of wits and combat mechanics of BW are the least intuitive parts of the game for me as well.  I don't think they're overly difficult but I've been conditioned to the more standard alternatives.  Each of the guys I'm currently gaming with have experiences with a dozen or so systems and I don't believe they're going to grasp it immediately either.  It's not that the mechanics are wonky or cumbersome but they do require you to think differently than other RPGs.  It's going to take a fair amount of repetition for all of us.

With BW, I always get the impression that it was written to try and alleviate some of the screwy things in RPGs i've grown to accept (ex:  charge the guy with the bow because it only does 1d6 damage).  It's like I'm in the Matrix and have to remind myself that there is no spoon.  For me the challenge isn't to replace the rules but get to a point where they're second nature.  Remember, nobody makes their first jump.  

More simply put, I see where both you and Luke are coming from but I've resolved to learn that game if it kills me because I want a game thats different from the others on my shelf.

Zach,

Do you like the advancement system? Beliefs? If you do, I'd say just play the game using the basic system as recommended in the book. If you don't, I'd say it's not worth it to use BW for what you're after.

-L

Quote from: lukeZach,

Do you like the advancement system? Beliefs? If you do, I'd say just play the game using the basic system as recommended in the book. If you don't, I'd say it's not worth it to use BW for what you're after.

-L

I appreciate your taking time to post feedback, Luke.  I do realy like the advancement system and Beliefs/Instincts, and I'm very fond of Burning Wheel as  a whole.  I pretty much tweak any game I play to suit me & my group better, and that's the same with BW.  Just looking for some potential feedback to customize it to a point where's parts of it are a little more easy to grok, smoother and intuitive for my groups.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI'd still like to see the Artha rules/application be a little bit more streamlined and/or intuitive.

Here's all you really need to know for practical application of the Artha rules during a game.

Fate is spent after a roll in order to open-end that roll.
Persona is spent to gain extra dice before a roll occurs.
Deeds? You don't need to worry about them. Seriously, they are so freaking rare that by the time anyone in your group has any, you won't find the Artha rules confusing any more.

Award Artha after each session. There's a convenient list in the BW book. We just go down through the list with the GM asking "Did anyone do "x" this session?." You don't have to memorize anything and it takes maybe 10-15 minutes, including voting for Workhorse and MVP. Fortuitously, the time spent awarding Artha also serves as a sort of debriefing for the session that just happened.

Does that help make it less bewildering and convoluted?

Tim

Quote from: TimHere's all you really need to know for practical application of the Artha rules during a game.

Fate is spent after a roll in order to open-end that roll.
Persona is spent to gain extra dice before a roll occurs.
Deeds? You don't need to worry about them. Seriously, they are so freaking rare that by the time anyone in your group has any, you won't find the Artha rules confusing any more.

Award Artha after each session. There's a convenient list in the BW book. We just go down through the list with the GM asking "Did anyone do "x" this session?." You don't have to memorize anything and it takes maybe 10-15 minutes, including voting for Workhorse and MVP. Fortuitously, the time spent awarding Artha also serves as a sort of debriefing for the session that just happened.

Does that help make it less bewildering and convoluted?

Tim

You know, I feel like a friggin' idiot.  I've been playing BW all this time (well, periodically all this time), and I've been doing Artha totally bass-ackwards.  That actually is really clear, and now that I read the original section in the book, I think I have a grasp on it.  I'm still not sure I like the divvying up into three kinds, but I'm going to give it another whirl.  My thanks, Tim.

Ha! Don't feel like an idiot, it took my group a good long time to parse how simple Artha actually is, and we've been playing BW pretty regularly for years.

By the way, I think Luke was giving you a legitimate answer on how to make Bloody Vs. combat a bit grainier. I haven't explored it much because I'm fine with simple Bloody Vs., but there's been some talk on the BW boards about scaling it to an "I go-You go" mechanic. I think the basic idea is to roll weapon skill for the attacker vs. weapon skill for the defender, compare successes, and apply the normal weapon damage rules if the attacker is successful. For example, Bob has a sword skill of 4, Fred has a spear of 3; Bob gets three successes on his attack, Fred gets one. Looking at Bob's IMS, his sword has an add of 2, so he does a Mark wound to Fred. You could go so far as to allow armor rolls, but I think that would skew it to far towards the defender. A better option might be to just give an advantage die to the guy with better armor.

I absolutely adore Fight and Duel of Wits. Fight has given us some of the most visceral, intense, and dramatic combats that I've ever seen in an RPG. Duel of Wits is (to me) a wonderful combination of gaming the mechanics, roleplaying, and high-stakes gambling.

Here's the thing, though: even though I love those mechanics, I only use them when there's something really important at stake...there's considerable time involved with both of those subsystems, as I'm sure you're well aware. If we're doing some sort of minor conflict we stick to versus tests. It works pretty well in my group! If someone's calling for Fight or Duel of Wits you know there's something important going on, otherwise you don't spend an inordinate amount of time trying to kill a mosquito with an ICBM. Of course, if you hate the mechanics themselves, that advice isn't going to be a lot of help.

Tim

Quote from: TimBy the way, I think Luke was giving you a legitimate answer on how to make Bloody Vs. combat a bit grainier. I haven't explored it much because I'm fine with simple Bloody Vs., but there's been some talk on the BW boards about scaling it to an "I go-You go" mechanic.
 I think the basic idea is to roll weapon skill for the attacker vs. weapon skill for the defender, compare successes, and apply the normal weapon damage rules if the attacker is successful. For example, Bob has a sword skill of 4, Fred has a spear of 3; Bob gets three successes on his attack, Fred gets one. Looking at Bob's IMS, his sword has an add of 2, so he does a Mark wound to Fred. You could go so far as to allow armor rolls, but I think that would skew it to far towards the defender. A better option might be to just give an advantage die to the guy with better armor.

That actually sounds pretty workable.  I think I'll have to work up a new demo and try it out!  My thanks, both Luke and Tim!
 

QuoteOf course, if you hate the mechanics themselves, that advice isn't going to be a lot of help.
 
Tim

Not really hate, just not quite my cup of tea.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstThat actually sounds pretty workable.  I think I'll have to work up a new demo and try it out!  My thanks, both Luke and Tim!

No problem, have fun!

So, how would ranged combat be worked into this?  I think the alternate system proposed here is a good idea, but I am not sure about how it would be used as as substitute for the ranged combat rules.

I'd keep the two seperate, otherwise you have to start treating range/distance in a less abstract manner and the whole thing falls apart. Range and Cover is WAAAAAY more simple than Fight, if you haven't tried it out already.

Alternatively you could find the Speed to paces information (Monster Burner?), bust out the battlemat and minis, and work up some reload rates for the various bows/firearms. Retain Die of Fate to figure damage for the missile weapons.