Hello all...

I am all new to this forum, and cannot be regarded as an experienced roleplayer, so please take that into consideration when you read the following.

I have a small group of friends with whom I play a whole weekend once every other month. We are playing a medieval game, with a theme of "a game of thrones". One of the players is an Earl, the other kind of his bodyguard, and member of a religious cult (inspired by Mithras cult) the last the Earls uncle now an Earl himself.

We have been playing this game for about half a year using the Burning Wheel rules, and before that using the Burning Wheel rules for a few other campaigns.

The Burning Wheel rules are good in many ways, especially the belief system have offered a lot for our playing, but we never really fancied the scripting mechanics and the rest of the system has been a bit "heavy" for our group. Basically two of the players still hardly know the rules, and often I my self as a GM tends to improvise the rules to avoid to much book keeping. I then read a post on a forum where Luke Crane very precisely stated that if you do not play the game as written you play the wrong game... I have begun to think that we are.

I then Stumbled upon DitV after reading about it in BW, and bought it and read the rules, which I find very brilliant because of their simplicity and the possibility of roleplaying while rolling the dice.

But before changing I have a lot of questions on what you think about using this system in the above described world, as none of us are interested in quitting that game.

1)Can dogs work with its system when used to play in a game not centered about routing evil, or as such the players a group of wanderers?

2)If not is there a system you can recommend that have the same qualities as Dogs and BW, without going heavy on us? or limited?

3) BW Belief system is brilliant have any one tried to use it in dogs? awarding and using Artha excatly like BW?

4) Advancement in dogs seems to be given at a fixed base after each session, except for fall-out? Am I wrong here?

5) As the players have already advanced and are experienced characters I would like them not to be "beginning" characters as in the character creation, but maybe some additions? what are your thoughts on converting the already more experienced characters, and more precisely more experienced characters from another system...

6) As I have not played Dogs before can any one pinpoint me in a direction to where I can read about some "levels of power"... it seems a beginning character can easily have 6d6 to begin with, when is a character strong in something and when is he weak?

7) any advice?

Regards
ArchDaimon

Honestly, you're probably better off with Burning Wheel than Dogs for that particular style of game.  And house rule it to your heart's content.  Stick it to Luke Crane.  Stick it to him hard.

Anyway...

1)  There's lots of mods out there for Dogs, but they all tend to involve the whole moral dillema issue- the point of the system is about what your character stands for, and how far they're willing to go.

2)  Not off the top of my head.  You'd have to be more specific about what you want out of a game.  Maybe Greg Stolze's Reign, since it involves politics and groups, and is fairly rules light.  But really, there's nothing wrong about house ruling BW, or trimming down the difficulty.

3)  A Belief in Dogs would best be expressed a Trait.  When that trait comes into play, you roll that trait.

4)  You're right here.

5)  Dogs start off incredibly powerful.  Mechanically, a Dogs character has the dice they need to win almost any conflict, unless they choose not to continue it.  (Which is where the tension in play comes from.)  They really don't need to start off any higher, and after five or six towns, there won't be much point to playing anymore.

6)  All Dogs are badass.

7)  Seriously, it sounds like you're having fun with major parts of Burning Wheel.  Keep what you like, ditch what you don't.  Or look at Reign.

Yes of course I have to explain more what I want from the game...

It is the conflict resolution that is the problem for me with BW. You are either stuck with a single roll even in very important conflicts, if you do not use the detailed conflict resolution tools such as Fight! of Dual of Wits.
The thing is our group is not really into this scripting which leaves us with the single dice roll.
This is most often (and I agree) seen as a merit, but in important conflicts it can become a bit arbitrary, and in our group a tendency not to roleplay the whole situation when the roll has been made.

The big merit of Dogs is the narrate while you roll conflict resolution opposite to the roll and then narrate resoultion that BW is encouraging.

I checked out reign and it seems that it has the same issues that I have with BW, the very high potent rolls, yet lacking all the good stuff of BW such as the beliefs etc.

And it does indeed seem to be the case with dogs that advancement is one of its flaws when looking at importing it to another theme in a campaign with greater length.

AD,
  I LOVE Dogs. I do. But I wouldn't use this system in a setting that didn't feature characters that were willing to die for what they believe in, you know?
1)Can dogs work with its system when used to play in a game not centered about routing evil, or as such the players a group of wanderers?
  Yes, but all of the PCs need to be willing to die for what they believe in (otherwise there really is no motivation to escalate).

2)If not is there a system you can recommend that have the same qualities as Dogs and BW, without going heavy on us? or limited?
  HQ, if played well, can have a lot of the back and forth push of Dogs, but it does all come down to one roll (sometimes up to 3 for extended conflicts)...

  I must admit I love SoY and wonder if it would fit your needs. It doesn't have a lot of the back and forth play that ditv does (although BDTP can feel that way sometimes), but it does have a great way to map the characters motivations into play rewards (Keys).

  I wonder if you could mod InSpectres (with the Earldom as the startup) and make it work?

3) BW Belief system is brilliant have any one tried to use it in dogs? awarding and using Artha excatly like BW?
  I don't know these mechanics. I thought Artha was the XP system and I wouldn't mess with character advancement in Dogs.

4) Advancement in dogs seems to be given at a fixed base after each session, except for fall-out? Am I wrong here?
  If I read the rules correctly (And this is the way I have played all my games), the only advancement is from 1's in fallout, and for that game, I like it that way.

5) As the players have already advanced and are experienced characters I would like them not to be "beginning" characters as in the character creation, but maybe some additions? what are your thoughts on converting the already more experienced characters, and more precisely more experienced characters from another system...
  I'll back up Willow and say that Dogs are badass out of the gate. In fact, if the GM doesn't push against the players starting at square one, starting Dogs are unstoppable. But you can take them down a notch, if you push them...
  Really, a starting dog is almost unstoppable without pushing their buttons. In this system its usually really a lot more about what you are willing to do to succeed. Not about whether the characters will succeed or not.

6) As I have not played Dogs before can any one pinpoint me in a direction to where I can read about some "levels of power"... it seems a beginning character can easily have 6d6 to begin with, when is a character strong in something and when is he weak?
  Characters are strong at the things they have traits on and weak at the things they do not have traits for. Really, there is no levels of power. Basically, it about pushing the characters buttons and dealing with the fallout after escalation. The weakness of a Dog comes from their code, their mission and/or their relationships. Meaning, the characters have nothing worth doing unless one of these things is on the line. I think that might be the motivation behind "Say yes or roll the dice," but that is just speculation. Either way, without those things, the game would probably be very boring, you know?

7) any advice?
  Yeah, if you use BDTP right, I wonder if SoY isn't just what you are looking for? Basically, you do a one roll mechanic, unless the player decides its important. Then they can take the results of that one-roll mechanic and carry it forward into an extended conflict.

One question I have for you is:
  What was your issues with Scripts? I thought that would be a highlight of that rules set. So, I was a little shocked to find out your group was not digging it?

that you for your responses...

It actually seems that I can use the Dogs conflict resolution instead of scripting in BW... I think I will try that approach next time...

Scripting has 2 major problems. There is a lot of moves you have to know that all act different when combined with your opponents move. Basicly when you are new to the game you can easily spent 2 hours in a scripted combat because you have to look up... Even with all the cheat sheets i could find. All of this just ripped away the suspension of disbelief.

I am sure that in a group where players are willing to study the rules more thoroughly this is not an issue, but in my gaming group this is not the case.
We love playing and talking but its annoying everytime we have to take a book and turn to page x to figure out how the mechanics work...

I am sorry to say but we felt kinda the same way towards Scripting as we did with Grapple in D&D 3rd edition.

No the beauty of BW is really the belief system we really dig that, and the lifepath character creation system.

Archdaimon wrote:
that you for your responses...

What would break if you didn't script Fight for three rounds, but only one at a time? (This is more for the BW grognards than the OP.)

AD, you might want to post at BWHQ: http://www.burningwheel.org/forum/