Why scripting?

Like a good consumer, I’m going to stick to RAW when I play the game, but I am curious about the thinking behind retaining scripting for TB conflicts.

Of course, in general, it provides a minigame that can be interesting in itself, some player vs GM psych-games.

In BW it makes sense to me because the actions are so moment by moment that the scripting can mirror the combo setups of the characters themselves.

IN BE it makes sense to me because the opposite is the case: in the macro scale, you’ve got these long-term plans and bureaucratic inertia, and we see the plans play out. Okay.

But conflicts in MG and TB seem to hit a middle area where the fictional situation changes so much, and the characters acting in it would seem to be able (and be forced) to adjust on the fly—so scripting seems artificial to me.

I’m not complaining; I’m actually wondering what the impetus behind the decision is.

(In love with TB by the way, and my enthusiasm is slowly infecting my group.)

I’m not an official BWHQ spokesperson, but I’d say there are two reasons. First,

Second, the ‘secret sauce’ of conflicts (as well as the Duel of Wits in BW, if you ask me) is that they’re geared to yield compromises, to complicate the situation in a more granular way than single-test pass/fail. It’s usually pretty hard to win a conflict without giving some sort of compromise - and that’s as much in the PCs’ favor as it is in their enemies’, I might add. With tests, you either get what you want, with or without a condition, or you fail and get a twist. A conflict compromise can do a little of column A, a little of column B.

In Torchbearer and Mouse Guard, conflicts also provide a way to rack up tests for everyone, earn a bunch of checks, and spend rewards.