OK we'll split the difference.

Why do you keep getting your fin in my hat?
(Inconceivable?)

If the thread does nothing for you then fair enough. The things that struck me of interest were that the distinctive rules of BW like Circles were in play, provoking unexpected twists (in a short amount of time - 90  mins for the whole play report) - but then  these were picked up and played with in a fairly conventional GM-player fashion. In other words, nothing to get anyone's knickers in a twist, but some nice techniques to broaden out a mechanically solid game.

Okay, so for those new to the game:

In BW, a Belief is something the character believes in (duh!). Also, each player has "Instincts", regarding reactions to certain actions that come up in the game. "I'll draw my sword if someone draws theirs" is an example. These neatly resolve some of the debates that occurr on the gaming table sometimes. Mordenkainen's faithful watchdog ring a bell?

Apart from a general role-playing description, they help you earning Fonz points, erm, I mean Artha. Whenever you act upon one of your beliefs or instincts, voila, you get a Fate point, which is the lowest of the three Artha points you can get. And by extension, which has the lowest effects upon game play.

The mechanics resemble both Star Wars D6 with its Character and Force points and the Storytelling system with their Nature as a mean to regain willpower points.

That's a nice description!
I prefer Fonz points, actually.

Quote from: mywinningsmileI prefer Fonz points, actually.

Well, they're part of the new Making Out subsystem. Fonz points are further divided into first, second and third base, replacing Fate, Persona and Deeds. I'm not telling what's replacing Aristeia...

I'm guessing it's where Mr Cunningham walks in wearing rubber, lisping "Marion loves to watch me be bad with the bad boys, Arthur..."

No?

Why is everyone scrabbling for the 'erase' button on their memory?

Getting this back on track...

The Circles/Resources/Relationships subsystem is good stuff. I don't know how much of that you'll find in other games, but frankly, innovation is overrated.

It's interesting to hear about that Natures/Willpower thing from Storyteller--but again, Beliefs are an interesting system wherever they came from. I'd previously been aware of "hero points" as early as Top Secret, but the idea of earning them via roleplay (as opposed to one/session or something like that) is a neat idea.

The problem with all the innovation talk is that it obscures how good/bad the game is, in itself--unless all you do is buy games to use them as design manuals. Evaluating the game overall, I'll say again that it seems like the kind of game that can be a lot of fun if you commit to really working to make it work. On the other hand I do not believe the "advanced" procedures are especially well-presented. And unfortunately those systems (combat and duel of wits) get a lot of the press/hype. It'd be better IMO to approach the system without those and only tack them on later, if at all--but then you're telling people not to use the thing they bought the game for.

I'd never use the Duel of Wits anyway. I don't like packaging up role-playing into mechanical packages. I have enough problems with social skills in other games.

And of course people will talk about the combat system. That's the part in most games where the most rules will apply. The rest is often spent just talking with nary a roll of the die. At least with us conservative gamers

I do think circles is a neat system that would appeal to a lot of groups, as long as they are not uttelry allergic to any metagame elements.

Just to outline it to anyone unfamiliar, if as a player, you want to introduce a new character  who would be helpful into the story, you can call for a Circles test - meaning you are trying to get a result due to the network of contacts the character has.

At its more metagame/story-like, it could be like "ok, I'm locked in the castle. I use circles to try and make one of the jailers be from my home town!" or (an actual example) "I want to find the person supplying the abbott his women!" - when before this statement there was no hint that the abbott was anything but chaste...
But there's no need to do it that way if it irks you.  You could curtail it to these kinds of situations:
"I'm in town. I want to try and find someone who knows the mayor enough to tell me his daily activities".

Now, if you cut out the more radical options, what is notable about the mechanic? In my opinion (and and none of this may be unique to this approach, it's just the clearest and best-embedded example of it I've seen)
1. it's a handy way to develop the supporting cast of the game with player support but without the players writing the story. The NPC is still the GM's, and unless the player made a lot of specifications about who they were after (which would accumulate cripplingly heavy penalties to the final roll) he has a lot of leeway in what the character turns out to be like (it may even be that he can insert someone he wanted in the adventure anyway, as long as it also fulfils the players goal).
2. It's fun to roll for stuff! Part of the reason why we love combat is that we get to roll, it's not all free play and consensus. So it's good to have a social-network mechanic that is doing the same things emphasised as one of the front-and-centre parts of the game. Especially as, like combat, this kind of contact system is built with consequences...
3. Circles has consequences. Basically, if the player fails a roll, the GM may invoke the emnity clause, which means that someone is found, all right, but your relation to them is not good. This could mean a new character with a random hate-on, or affiliated with the big bad or an opportunity to reintroduce a bad guy, or even an NPC who wasn't hostile previously but now is peeved about something (hey, they made and fluffed the roll, so they should be prepared for the consequences!). This means that the technique doesn't become a standard response to any situation - do I know anyone in this tavern who will give me a sword? In this tavern? In this one? - because sure, Maniere here will give you a sword...right in the belly, you sister-shagging sop! So when someone rolls to find a new contact, there are always fun consequences.

Don't misunderstand this as deterministic, like "make circles test = find a slave, fail = sapped and looted". Think of it as setting up scenes and characters with certain dispositions. OK, Lord Ranolf is mad about you skipping out on paying your tithe - get to it! If you were using all of the Burning Wheel subsystems, "get to it" might mean using the Duel of Wits Mechanic, or the Resources one. Or you could just freeform it out from there if that's your wish.

Have to say I'm cooler on Resources (the abstracted test-based money rules); apparently it's closer to the medieval reality that people didn't carry cash but did everything on credit, but I haven't got my head round the system in play yet.