For those who are familiar with Burning Wheel’s “Duel of Wits”, what would this be like in DW?

For those who are familiar with Burning Wheel’s “Duel of Wits”, what would this be like in DW?

For those who are familiar with Burning Wheel’s “Duel of Wits”, what would this be like in DW? Are there any PbtA rules for social combat?

10 thoughts on “For those who are familiar with Burning Wheel’s “Duel of Wits”, what would this be like in DW?”

  1. Parley and Defy Danger with Int/Cha will make a fine social combat.

    Alternatively, you could use simple conflict resolution by stating goals up front and saying 10+ you win, 7-9 there is a consequence and you can roll again, and 6- you lose.

  2. First problem: parley doesn’t work on PCs.

    Second problem: they are not granular enough to give you the nuanced compromises that DoW gives you.

    DW is not the system for nuanced social conflict.

  3. Leverage can be emotional or logical, it doesn’t need to be physical. Having statistics that proves my point gives me leverage over someone in an argument.

    The Danger in conversation is offending someone, or being caught in a lie, or them not agreeing with you.

    Off the cuff example:

    Borr (PC) is arguing with Thurm (NPC) about whether the clans should go to war. Borr says “if we go to war, fathers and husband’s will die” trying to plead with him. He rolls DD to see is this works, and fails. Thurm escalates and the GM reveals an unwelcome truth, “The Hawk and Raven clans have already engaged in battle. Would you leave them to die?” Shit, Borr changes tactics and lies “the enemy has very little men – Hawk and Raven should be more than enough”. Rolls DD to see if Thurm catches him in the lie, and succeeds. Thurm responds with ” You may be right. But we should at least muster the clans as backup, don’t you think?” Now Borr pulls out the killing blow – “Thurm, your daughter and I have pledged to marry. Do you really wish to send me away for so long and risk my death?” Boom, emotional leverage – roll Parley to see the final outcome. Will there be war, or no?

  4. Aaron Griffin Well, if you have a party with antagonistic alignments from good to evil and everything in between like I do you better come up with some kind of PvP conflict resolution. I have the attacking PC state her intend and make her move and the attacked one hinder + bond. I´m not saying the rules (or the classic dungeon delving setting) support or even encourage PvP but it can be done. 

  5. Horst Wurst sure, but DW as written is not a PvP based game and assumes players work together, with Interfering the most heinous act. Thus I am assuming social conflict is PC-NPC and not PC-PC

  6. Custom moves based around defy danger that detail elements specific to the scene work fine.

    ‘When you engage in heated debate with a fellow adventurer about the fate of the slaves of quatharsh roll + CHA…’

  7. Use “Hack and Slash” and “Defy Danger” where the player and GM decide whether the “fight” is to be one won through INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, CHARISMA or some predetermined formulaic determination based on the combination of these. The designated score determines not only the ability (or abilities) that will be used to modify the move roll(s), but the number of socio-psychic “hit points” that the combatant temporarily possesses (score = HP). “Damage” should be something standard — maybe with a little bell curve to it? 2d6? I’ve done this for sorcerer vs. sorcerer spell duels too. It works wonderfully.

  8. I’d also make the pace quick by keeping details spare… “Your comeback is effective and intimidate your opponent with the very speed of your retort, leaving him vulnerable to an assault against his confidence. What do you do?”

Comments are closed.