I’ve found it very easy mechanically, not hard conceptually, but not overly easy conceptually, either.
Even if they all have the same base intent, dividing up is sometimes worthwhile.
The hardest parts for my players were:
(1) setting sufficiently high intent stakes.
(2) reading what I was going to do.
(3) Narrating help dice.
1 took a couple weeks. 3 took another couple weeks to get comfy.
2 never happened. Every time one would read me right, another would read me wrong and argue it… this went back and forth since mid december that way…
The D&D crowd really only have to learn that there is no intermediate effects in a 1 on 1 combat until someone is out of dispo. Get creative, narrate it as a series of non-telling blows until someone drops to 0. But it is the same issue in a number of games. Heck, to a small extent, its true of D&D 4… a major blow in 4E might drop you to 1 or 2 HP left, and a second wind have you back to 20 in the next, or your paladin hit you for +10.
THe lack of absolute positioning is no big deal, either… T&T has done that for 30+ years… as have many people’s D&D games.
The thing is, you can go far beyond combat with conflict. I had one session where they moved a behive… as a conflict. Attack was Apiarist, Defend was loremouse or nature, feint was Apiarist, and maneuver was Loremouse or nature. Worked great, once they started describing in terms of Defend being calming the bees and keeping from getting stung, and attacks being provoking the bees to follow… it was a hoot. (ISTR writing it up around here…)
Building that bridge across the raging river is doable, too… Carpenter or Stonemason for Attack and Feint, healer or orator for defend and maneuver. Roll the season’s nature for the weather opposing.
It is massively flexible.
It works great, so long as everyone describes what’s being done.