Greetings,

I want to throw a ball out there. A ball that suggests combat that while expressed creatively, exploits the typical mechanics of a D&D battle preferably 3.5e to save us from that typical bullshit of I swing, I miss, you swing, you miss that I've noticed happens all the time. More importantly, I've noticed it happen in my first battle here since I've returned from guildfall many moons ago that physics and common sense environmental interactions are ignored. So in order to avoid that nonsense I would rather throw the D&D mechanics in there to help things move along fairly. Let's be realistic, the important part is the writing correct? I'd rather lose fairly and write it out in an epic fashion than win after a month of back and forth ninja shit where a single doesn't ring true.

So here is my proposal, one on one level one combat. I will create an on site dice roller for our use only. And more importantly just use common sense with the mechanics. Obviously, for attacking it will be your to hit roll plus modifiers versus my armor class et cetera. If you are attempting let's say, swinging from one tree branch to another in a game of cat and mouse you'd roll your own acrobatic checks. Or if you are trying to climb something than you make your own climb check and so on then write appropriately. If you're jumping through trees with some natural 20s than you're a fucking monkey ninja. But if you are struggling to make 9s on a climb check you can see the struggle.

If tis is of interest to anyone I'd be more than willing to oblige further information to share character sheets et cetera.

And as always, concerns, comments and questions are welcome.

Interesting.

I'm actually a free-form role-play dueller by nature (as opposed to using RPG mechanics), since that's where most of my history involving fighting-based role-play has come from, but I'm not entirely against the idea of using stat systems and game mechanics during such duels as well (so long as the system works for the particularly role-play in question; honestly my main story project's setting is far too diverse and complex for a conventional RPG set of mechanics to work in the battles, which is why my associates usually suggest I stick with my free-form style). I've run my own Tabletop RPG in the past, and implemented stat systems into some of my unique text-based role-plays before (including my own class systems and skill lists), so I understand where your appeal for this is (it helps to balance out combat if the setting doesn't require more imagination than dice and stats can handle).

On my own end, however, I have very little personal experience with D&D, so I would probably need to research D&D a bit in order to become informed enough to properly role-play using this sort of system, or formulate a strategy around it. One of my associates had me under the impression that it was standard procedure for people to use some sort of stat system in the Arena forum here, rather than play free-form, but you suggesting using dice is making me wonder if that was misinformation. Though I don't see myself getting involved in my free-form duelling on this site, for a few reasons I won't go into since they're not related to this thread's purpose.

Either way, I think it's a good idea; just uncertain if it would be something I could work with personally.

@Shoryu Magami

I think the majority of dueling here is done freeform for lack of a better term. Unfortunately, in my experience it turns into a constant pissing match of DBZ proportions where even a world ending spirit bomb leaves the opponent still able to function on some level. Which is what I am trying to avoid. I want to see a bit of realism in my battles. For example, in a battle I had previously someone was fighting in a swampy terrain with essentially giant metal claws attached to their feet but it rarely weighed them down or caused them to sink. This is a bit strange, really.

On any accord, yes, feel free to do some research if you'd like. You can find a pdf version of the 3.5 D&D Player Handbook if google it. But essentially, it is played on a d20 scale for most except for damage which is typically a d8 or d6. If you have more specific questions I can try to answer them - otherwise let me know in the future if you are interested.

@ELGainsborough
I can understand why your might want to go with some more realism; it's not for everyone (myself included) but it has its merits in the right circumstances. Admittedly, my work is definitely a lot more in the off-the-scale territory (far beyond the example you just listed), mostly because I specialize in abstract concepts and I often integrate them into my characters' skill sets; in my defence though it's usually handled in a far more complex and intricate, dare I say even believable or at least justified, way than the pissing matches you're talking about (I know the type you mean). This is one of the several reasons I hinted at in my precious post for why I don't intend on involving myself in free-form role-playing on this site; the characters I work with are frankly too "broken" for most people to handle due to the complex nature of my project, so I tend to just stay out of Arena forums unless the site is one of my own.

I'll take a look into the guide you mentioned if spare time ends up presenting itself to me. The only experience I have with dice-based mechanics in terms of text-based role-play is the advanced Final Fantasy role-playing RP forum where I got my beginnings as a play-by-post role-player, a little over ten years ago. While it was using the Final Fantasy system in terms of classes and skills, the combat system seemed to have been pulled directly from D&D, and I actually worked as a moderator occasionally on that site; I was even involved in a complete rebuilding of that system in the staff room before the forum essentially died like so many role-play sites tend to do.

Would there be specific classes that you would be aiming to have involved in the role-play? I'm unfamiliar with D&D, as I've previously said, but I assume there's the standard list of knight and mage archetypes, and then expansions or variants of them? That's probably the only question I can immediately think of.

@Shoryu Magami

I can appreciate what you deem as a "broken" character. There was once a time when I use to delve into the more powerful range of characters. Of course, it was a lot easier to deal with on my original role play medium which was a text based real time chat based on the Battle.net servers when games like Warcraft 2 and Diablo 2 LoD were big. On any accord, if it works for you there is no problem there but unfortunately I am looking for something more realistic.

Essentially, the way the D&D combat system works is that you'd essentially make a character via the terms of the book rolling up some stats, assigning those numbers - determining your armor class, et cetera. All of which are available through the book or if you want to talk about here that is okay too. Then during actual combat it is just simply you roll a d20, does your check surpass the armor class, if it does you swing and describe your attack. Then, if you hit you have the opportunity to make a reflex save to avoid that attack if it is a physical attack - something of a saving throw. Or if it is some sort of poison dart you'd make a fortitude save. It seems complicated but it is all on a d20 system.

As for the "classes" you speak of, those too would be available from the D&D 3.5 player's hand book. There is an entire section of starter playable races and classes. Of course, there are a variety of supplements that add a variety of races and classes as well. If it is something you are interested in, the system works out fairly well.

@ELGainsborough
Yeah, I wouldn't plan on involving those types of characters I mentioned here; if I involved myself in the role-play that is. I can appreciate the desire for realism, and D&D isn't as off-the-scale as a lot of settings. I simply prefer more complex and metaphysical combat over more realistic, while my project's story itself is heavily rooted in reality in many ways. I'm the type of person who doesn't like escapism at all in terms of the narrative, but prefers the action to be more interesting than just fist fighting and people shooting guns; plus I like using abstract ideas. The elements in my work's actual plot that aren't entirely realistic are there to represent whatever philosophy or symbolism I'm trying to illustrate (even then my associates usually point out how believable even the supernatural elements of my work are), while characterization and such are entirely realistic.

Either way, I'll avoid being off the focus of the thread, since I was really only using it to emphasize how this is different to what I'm used to working with. It does sound like that Final Fantasy role-playing forum I was a part of did use the D&D system at the very least in terms of combat (mostly, dice were used to determine damage and whether actions were successful), though not in the character creation like you just described. Speaking of which, that's possibly the only immediate concern I can think of for how this system works; if our stats and aptitudes are more or less chosen for us on a dice roll, aren't you concerned it could result in an unbalanced match-up? Once again, I'm not proficient in how D&D works, so I might have missed something, but I did play one Might & Magic video game in my childhood that basically rolled up your stats with dice, so I think I know what you're implying with this.

Anyway, if I get some time I'll take a look at the guide you mentioned. While I don't usually work with conventional fantasy settings like D&D, when I do play them I usually lean towards playing wizards most of the time; that's the most likely class you should expect to see from me if I get involved. Other classes I use in fantasy settings don't really work in D&D so much. The chess player in me generally means I usually don't like combat systems with a heavy dependence on luck, but if I get time to look into the guide you've mentioned I might get back to you.

The only D&D rule sets I've played with are 3 and 4, so I'm not sure how 3.5 makes mass miss streaks a thing of the past. But I wonder if it would be better to go to an even earlier version that didn't require a game grid. Was it version 1 or 2 that didn't require miniatures?

I'm typically not very interested in combat, mostly because it is free form and there's no skill involved. You're expected to try to win by way of arbitrary rules. However, the idea of playing with actual rules might make things more interesting for me. If you need someone to test this... I might be in the mood to try it out. If nothing more than a test.

My only concerns thus far is that there won't be much depth. You don't get very much strategy at level 1, and I'm afraid the battles will be won at character creation instead of the arena itself if you catch my drift.

While I think it does actually take a fair bit of skill to effectively duel in a free-form situation if the setting and the rules are probably balanced (often resulting people being incredibly creative and overall being able to defeat the opponent in a battle of wits and with understanding of their skill sets), and therefore their views and mine are in pretty significant contrast in this sense (I've been a long-standing specialist in power-scaling characters so it usually bleeds over to how I GM duels), @BrokenPromise has emphasized exactly what my biggest concern with this current role-play is (which I made clear in my last post); the idea that the match-ups will be unbalanced on arrival due to the dice rolls determining your build, though this is, frankly, common with combat systems using RPG-mechanics; I've never seen a balanced PvP in any RPG or MMORPG, for example.

I'm also generally opposed to using stat systems and Tabletop mechanics in combat during a role-play (though I've definitely tried my hands at it and even done GMing around it), mostly because it significantly stifles creativity on the part of the competitors and also because it usually ends up being far more about luck of the dice rather than any sort of tactical skill, but I won't go into this anymore since it's not the focus of the topic; more just giving my own perspective on the previous post and the whole idea of this interest check in general.

Since they've offered to test this out with you, and I'm honestly neither at home with this environment nor do I have much time on my hands really, I'll probably make this my last post here unless something in particular pops up that I feel like giving my input to. All the best with the idea, @ELGainsborough.

People in free-form battles get away with waaaay too much crap, no need to regurgitate that again in this topic. I was once fighting a mutant sausage that I'm pretty sure was borderline god modding. I can call him cheap because I won, but only because I was able to bait him into doing something reckless by going after his girlfriend. It was amusing, but rules would have made the experience that much better. I don't know how you balance a monk that fights with "sonic paint" and a sausage that can use attacks from every foe he's ever slain. And that sausage had done a LOT of dueling!

When I say "won at character creation", I'm not referring to the dice rolls. A sorcerer will naturally be at a disadvantage to a paladin because of the paladin's higher magic armor and the sorcerer's lower physical armor. Stat allocation and skill choice also play a bigger roll in more closely evened out duels. Basically, the winner is the one who prepared the right way, rather than made the best moves.

To help make things interesting, maybe giving both parties some gold to spend on weapons, armor, and utility items would be best.

@BrokenPromise

People in free-form battles get away with waaaay too much crap, no need to regurgitate that again in this topic. I was once fighting a mutant sausage that I'm pretty sure was borderline god modding. I can call him cheap because I won, but only because I was able to bait him into doing something reckless by going after his girlfriend. It was amusing, but rules would have made the experience that much better. I don't know how you balance a monk that fights with "sonic paint" and a sausage that can use attacks from every foe he's ever slain. And that sausage had done a LOT of dueling!

This is precisely what I meant when I spoke about power-scaling, as well as the mention of the setting and the rules. What many role-players (and when I say many, I'm actually saying the vast majority) fail to understand is that the term "god-moding" is entirely subjective; something that's "broken" in one setting is completely balanced in another setting. Take various licensed fictions for example; if you were to take a character from the Demonbane franchise and toss them into the Harry Potter universe, they would immediately be considered "god-moding", but in its own verse that character flows just fine. Allowing characters with such grossly incompatible concepts to face off against each other is simply bad GMing (or bad collaborating if no GM exists). When the GM knows what they're doing, the players only go as overboard as the groundwork allows, so no "god-moding" ever occurs. I've collaborated many role-playing duels this way with my friends and associates. Badly defined terms like "god-moding" are thrown around almost as often as ones like "cliché" are these days.

I'm proficient at making sure the groundwork is solid in the first place (and a lot of time has been put into power-scaling my setting's characters/concepts), which is where the vast majority of flaws in free-form duels can be dealt with. I can only imagine @ELGainsborough experienced similarly bad groundwork in the past, since we all encounter it at some point. If free-form duelling isn't for you, it isn't for you, but you shouldn't assume it doesn't work for anyone just like I'm not assuming using Tabletop mechanics won't appeal to some people.

This is all, however, off the topic of the thread, but I felt the need to give the other side to the story. We can just agree to disagree, per se.

With the real topic in mind:

When I say "won at character creation", I'm not referring to the dice rolls. A sorcerer will naturally be at a disadvantage to a paladin because of the paladin's higher magic armor and the sorcerer's lower physical armor. Stat allocation and skill choice also play a bigger roll in more closely evened out duels. Basically, the winner is the one who prepared the right way, rather than made the best moves.

To help make things interesting, maybe giving both parties some gold to spend on weapons, armor, and utility items would be best.

When I was referring to builds, I didn't just mean the dice rolls (although in D&D characters can often be thoroughly crippled simply by getting unlucky rolls on their base stats), but was also referring to builds like aptitudes and skills as well, including equipment and items. Like I said, even with all of these factors taken into account I've never actually seen a system like this done successfully in terms of balance. I'm sure it exists, but my interest in the medium is similar to yours in free-form in the sense that I don't care enough about it to go looking all around the place to find it done right. Even if you grant people a lot of resources to better their characters, match-up problems are likely to occur, and in any MMORPG that has PvP the battle is usually already decided by how the players were prepared (and luck); that's how combat in RPGs work in the first place. Another big problem is status ailments; in PvE they are often quite interesting, but in PvP they are often flat gamebreakers; the "god-moding" of the setting if you will.

This is without even considering the previous point I made about how dice roles end up playing a bigger part in the outcome of the game rather than any sort of strategy. When accuracy and evasion are left up to luck, everything is essentially a gamble. As a long-standing chess player, leaving that much up to chance instead of tactics is something I dislike; hence one of my reasons for deciding to pull out of this style of duelling. As we've both already pointed out, most of the tactics are essentially determined by how you equipped yourself, so when you role-play in this situation you're really only role-playing reactions to how the dice roll as opposed to role-playing strategy. It's enjoyable for some people, such as D&D fans, but it isn't for me; I've done it and I got over it, which is why I said I'd probably not get involved in the first place.

I'm probably late to the party, but I'd like to contribute to this. I haven't in a long time, but I used to fight in the arena section, and my god does the unwillingness of people to lose make it hard to enjoy. So I appreciate an attempt to introduce roll-based mechanics into this sort of cinematic fighting format.

But I think that out of all possible options, D&D 3.5 is a terrible system to execute this in. The main reason is that while it offers lots of character customization options, your options in combat (as a martial, at least) are extremely limited. The system often requires significant investment just to let you do fairly basic things. In a free-form battle, things like tripping, grappling and disarming are just some of the tools at everyone’s disposal for combatting their enemy. You don’t need to state on your CS that your char is good at tripping to be able to use it in-game. But in 3.5, each of those requires a feat to be able to do it without provoking an opportunity attack.

As a result of this design philosophy, low-level martials are one-trick ponies. This gets better at later levels, but there’s still little improvisation to be had: All the tools at your disposal are pre-determined. The issue of the battle being won in character creation has already been brought up, and is inherent to many systems, but D&D 3.5 suffers from this problem more than any system I’m familiar with.

Other problems that make 3.5 a poor choice for this kind of game:
- The class balance is quite poor and there is enormous potential for power gaming.
- It’s a slow and tactical game with a strong focus on grid-based movement. Opportunity attacks are not so much a single mechanic as they are an entire subsystem within the game. This design clashes with the cinematic nature of arena battles.

Point is, it would take tons of adaptation to make D&D 3.5 usable in a cinematic arena format. I suggest using a lighter system. D&D 5e is an option, since it’s easier to digest, more balanced, and less restrictive. But one of my favourite RPGs is the incredibly light-weight Barbarians of Lemuria, which has simple and unrestrictive character creation, an emphasis on creativity in combat, and a free-form magic system that lets you replicate almost any character concept. It strikes me as perfect for this purpose. The downside is that because it’s so rules light, you often need to make rulings on the fly. There is, for instance, no definitive ruling on the effect of being prone. So it requires a lot of goodwill and cooperation between players. It also needs a few houserules for balance, but it’s very easily modded due to its simplicity. You can easily find the Barbarians of Lemuria basic edition online if you want to take a look. There are other editions, but I use the basic.

Let me know what you think of my thoughts. I’m interested in making this idea work.

@Lalliman
I'm technically not getting involved, but I don't recall @ELGainsborough quitting on this thread; wait for him and you can probably make something happen. Since my knowledge of D&D is very limited I won't comment on your input; I'll leave it between you guys.

@Shoryu Magami @BrokenPromise @Lalliman

Well, let me first start off by stating that all of this information is extremely helpful. I also like to see opinions from people who know about D&D, prefer free-form over more structured systems and prefer other systems of D&D. All of this information will culminate into something useful in the end.

I can appreciate all the potential problems that have been brought up. And everything that has been brought up can easily be squelched if player's would be focused more on the writing aspect of the battle rather than the victory/losing aspect. With that being said I'd propose this...

First off, let me say that this particular combat system would induce the belonging to a group/club which is to say that this tournament would not participate in the provided statistical system. So, the victory/loss system would be different. On another note, the point system would not simply be win-lose. Points would be awarded for who wins, and who does their composition better. So example, a win might be 2 points, a loss 1 and a draw maybe 0. But the loser composed his side of the battle more eloquently, playing better to his alignment than the winner and subsequently picks up an additional two points. Or something a long those lines. Maybe each round would gain a certain number of points per post. But essentially, the standings wouldn't be win/loss based but on the point system. First place has 11.5 points, second place has 9 points. But first place could have had 6 loses but done some awesome writing where second may have had 4 wins and mediocre writing.

Also, contemplating the mechanics and what everyone has had to say - it definitely appears that any combat system cannot be drawn completely from one individual location and will certainly have to be homebrew with aspects drawn from those individual systems. But I think realistically, things such as grappling and tripping would be a normal attack move. So everone can trip and everyone can grapple there may just be feats or skills that improve such things. So if player a is a normal guy and player b has improved grappling as a gladiatorial wrestler the improved grapple gives him a +2 on rolls made during a grapple. I have been contemplating the system for a while and believe homebrew would certainly be the best bet. Essentially, a less conviluted version of 3.5...

As for the entire overpowered classes and what not - well, I think starting out gold would be available. And since you are really only focusing on purchasing weapons and combative gear any amount of gold would be fair. So that isn't a real issue there. And you'd be awarded gold and experience points to improve on a combat basis. As for the classes themselves, let's look at the idea of a paladin and a wizard. First of all, this situation may not actually happen as what wizard fights a paladin at level 1 willingly. However, let's look at perhaps a level 5 wizard versus a level 5 paladin. If the wizard happens to purchase or be awarded a wand of fireball, well that paladin just became a little less intimidating? Oh, and that wizard also knows a summon nature's ally spell? Say what? That paladin now has to deal with a mountain troll and a few fireballs.

As for the initial stats, well I tangled with that in the current D&D rp thread I'm running now. I was thinking to myself, sometimes dice rollers are unreliable. Sometimes people are unscrupulous. So I thought I would just give them stats to plug in how they saw fit. I used 18, 15, 15, 13, 13, 11. These of course could be altered to better acclimate the concept. So we don't have to worry about somone who was lucky enough to role 18 - 16 for all their stats getting stuck against someone who rolled poorly.

Can any system be powergamed sure? But my intention is to make it about the writing moreso than the actual combat. So sure, you can have your strategy and build the character towards it but lets face it, what strategy are you going to have in freeform that I can't make a character or extrapolate what is already written to counteract whatever you think you are about to do with your own character. It is my intention to get away from that. It isn't like we are going to have a level 10 druid stomping on a level 2 monk. But you might have five level 2 monks going after a level 10 druid. Which still may be unbalanced but would certainly give them a better chance.

So, people could level up. They could buy better things. They could make multiple characters. You could have team battles with awesome backgrounds. You could even have monster battles where a player goes up against a DM controlled monster. Things of this nature all making your character better, all for the sake of GOOD WRITING and not a stupid win counter where you don't have to sit there and argue about attack dodge, dodge attack or think that being "clever" with strategy by backing your opponent into a corner is going to get you anywhere because let's face it - I could model the perfect character with the perfect setting and find the perfect opportune time to strike and still be SoL when the opponent dodges because he found something that has the most minute chance of .00001 percent of actually working and takes it because I can't argue he couldn't because it had the most slightest chance of actually being successful.

Instead, I'd rather take the hit but write the loss so fucking well that people are like "Holy shit....he definitely should of won."

Discuss?

I thought the point of complex RPG style combat was to make things feel more realistic. If you don't care about winning and just want to look good, why not just flip a coin to decide who wins so that both parties involved can just focus on writing an entertaining fight?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You said in your example that you wanted to test at level 1 in arena style combat. My response would have been much different if you suggested level 5. Both characters have much more options, and gold could diversify those options even more. That troll ally the wizard summoned wouldn't fair very well against a paladin's burning mace. It could go either way for everyone.

But it sounds like what you really want to do is use dice to solve disputes. I don't think you're looking for a combat system, but a series of charts that can determine the probability of a character doing something. An example:

A young mage tries to push a Minotaur off a cliff. In order for this move to be successful, the mage has to be strong enough to push the Minotaur off balance.

Basic formula: Wizard's Strength MOD + D20 VS Minotaur's Strength MOD + Minotaur's stability (a utility stat)

For argument's sake, we'll just simplify it to 0 + D20 Vs 4 + 10 (14)

So the wizard has to roll over 14 in order to push the Minotaur.

BUT WAIT!

The wizard used his move action to charge this round! (+4)

The wizard has the grapple feat! (+2)

And his boots of swiftness give him extra speed! (+2)

AND he weighs over 200 LBS (+6)

So now he doesn't even have to roll! ( 4 + 2 + 2 + 6 = +14 bonus)

However...

He's scared of dark places, which saps his strength... (-2)

The ground is made of sand... (-4)

And he was hit with a water spell, making him slippery! (-2)

So the bonus is only +6. so they only have to roll over an 8!

But also...

The Minotaur has a stability feet... (-2)

He's taller than the mage... (-4)

And he weighs over 600 LBS! (-10)

It's going to take a critical success to roll over that 24.

But the Minotaur has some things working against him!

He's in mid swing! (+4)

He's being distracted by flies! (+2)

... and he has his back turned! (+10)

The wizard only needs to roll over an 8 to push the Minotaur off the edge of the cliff... and into the soapy waters below! Hopefully he gets a bath from the wizard this time.

That was a very, very exaggerated version of it. But if you had some base stats and some charts that told you what to do in a particular situation, it might be fun for both parties involved to find all the modifiers that applied to the situation. Or it could seem like work. I dunno...

Instead, I'd rather take the hit but write the loss so fucking well that people are like "Holy shit....he definitely should of won."

First off; this quote is awesome. While I definitely believe a convincing narrative of combat can only be achieved if those participating go into the combat with the intent to win (thereby fuelling their creativity and strategic depth), you've worded a good sentiment on how writing should prioritize over gameplay mechanics; the entire point of the post I'm about to make. You cannot actually write a compellingly realistic or entertaining narrative of battle when RPG mechanics are taking the reins over everything; they actually remove all the depth and complexity and power of mind that make combat what it is in all forms.

As you've expressed the desire to hear the other side of the story, I'll post once again. I'm currently going on over 27+ hours without sleep (with several hours to go), so I do apologize in advance if my sentences are not structured as well as they usually could be; I'm overworked as it is and I actually have a multitude of other discussion threads to deal with before I can rest as well. Since you've appreciated my input, this is the least I can do.

Given that a lot of what you've put here, ELGainsborough, (well-thought-out as it might be) is rooted in D&D mechanics or concepts that I don't particularly have an affinity for, I'll keep my comments and my thoughts focused only addressing things being mentioned that I feel my opinion is helpful or insightful with; mostly allowing for an objective analysis of everything by being the person who presents the other side of the story.

I expect my response will be a bit long-winded, due to the fact that this is a discussion I have needed to deconstruct a few times in the past. I will therefore not be contributing to the idea of using a stat system because you essentially have everything you need for one already well taken care of. I have nothing to offer towards that because (by the very definition of my presence here for you as the person who prefers free-form) I don't approve nor do I humour the notion that RPG mechanics can result in a more convincing or enjoyable narrative than actual narrative itself can free of these unrealistic restrictions. These mechanics are fun tools to create a simplistic combat system for video games and Tabletop games; they do not illustrate the complexity or deep aspects of real combat, especially when supernatural powers and advanced technology enter the equation.

There's a very good reason why, as video games have evolved over the years to become more realistic, many of the RPG genre have abandoned traditional RPG mechanics in favour of a move "free-form" method of combat. Before I illustrate this reason, I want to make one thing clear; anyone who wants to assume I'm biased in this situation can think again. The number of JRPGs I've played or experienced directly or indirectly well and truly goes into the hundreds, and the vast majority of my favourites actually use RPG mechanics over a more realistic combat system. There are definitely noteworthy exceptions, I promise you; make no mistake that certain Action RPGs are more appealing to me than most traditional RPGs are despite me having a very long history of nostalgia and enjoyment in the traditional ones, far more so in comparison to the latter ones of which I only play a few very carefully selected gems.

From the perspective of a simplistic video game that's sole purpose is to focus on keeping things basic in order to avoid complexity or depth; there's no denying traditional RPGs are the way to go. Actually, they were the only ones that existed before technology advanced in video games precisely because they are less realistic and complicated. The exact same applies to Tabletop games; they use these mechanics in order to keep things simple but by no means do fight scenes in a Tabletop resemble reality more than, say, watching a movie does. Once you take writing into the equation you suddenly start seeing a really significant problem.

I think you have a good idea of making the point system be far more focused on the quality of the written posts rather than simply have everything be determined by the dice rolls and stats; that's exactly how I used to run my role-playing duels back in the days when I actually implemented a stat system, and it was the only time I saw well-written role-play duels using stats at all. The stats were a guideline for character's natural aptitudes but in reality calculations based of statistics do not control the flow of a battle. In the end the player's actual narrative and writing skills had more impact on success or failure than those guidelines. It was still nowhere as complex or deep a narrative or competition as free-form, which is why I scrapped it. Even if you were to play entirely free-form and simply use dice to solve the minor disputes that popped up the result would still be somewhat unrealistic, especially in a battle where the intelligence and perception of the characters has any sort of impact (which is often).

Granted, you're not suggesting exactly what I used; in your case the "winner", per se, would actually be the person who wrote their reactions to the mechanics better, not the legit winner. It works for this style of role-play because while I do believe a free-form role-play can be convincingly written and well balanced with good collaboration even between two people who are actually competing I do not believe one using RPG mechanics will either tell a comparably good narrative nor will it have any sort of true competitive balance; you've solved the latter to an extent problem I feel; the only problem I see is that people would be just as likely to dispute over who wrote "better", and since writing is subjective this becomes a problem. Did you have a specific idea in mind for how the determining of the better composition would be decided? After all, doesn't this have an even bigger chance to become a flame war than the aforementioned arguments over "attacking and dodging"? Writers will be even more egotistical and competitive if their quality of writing is being brought into question and not simply one of their attack plans. This is one of the other reasons I scrapped using the system where I made writing quality complement accuracy and evasion stats, just so you know.

Having RPG mechanics does not make a role-play more balanced nor does it make things more realistic; the types of abilities the characters possess and how they use them determines realism. You could have a Dragon Ball Z or Superman role-play using dice rolls to determine everything and it would not be a more realistic role-play than a fight between two ordinary humans using guns in a free-form role-play. On the contrary, it would be impossible to cater to every possibility that the competitors in either of these scenarios could possibly use in a battle that was relying on RPG mechanics. These mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with realism at all; they usually stifle realism completely. On every role-playing forum I have ever been a part of that used such RPG systems I found my creativity and strategy censored; my detailed ideas for character concepts replaced by generic "Fire 1" spells; complex and enriching strategy replaced by dice rolls and "turn-based" rules that make absolutely no sense in the real world. Actually, there are anime series out there that have actually joked around with RPG mechanics in their fight scenes and specifically parodied it as a deconstruction; the Japanese are very self-aware that their JRPG mechanics do not translate over into convincing and realistic narrative; the mechanics are for video games and Tabletops pure and simple.

In reality, luck does not play such a major role in success or failure between proficient warriors or mages, so the very notion of allowing dice and numbers to determine everything and then just writing around the outcomes is not good writing in my eyes at all; it's out of character from the foundation all the way up, and out of character writing is the definition of shitty writing to me. How a character is written; the way they are presented; the tactics they use; the thought process in their mind as they outwit their opponent; the way they utilize the various complex tools at their disposal to trap their opponent and get in their head. None of the things I've just stated even exist when you put RPG mechanics into the situation and limit skill sets to a handful of command options. These sorts of systems do not make battles more realistic; they turn everything into calculations and calculations do not account for things like free will, unpredictability, imagination, creativity, intuition, mind games, and many other facets that I don't even need to go into. Without any of these things, the fight scenes of a novel would be less than unrealistic; they'd be fucking boring as holy hell. Number crunching does not equal a well-written battle of wits.

I'm a writer before a role-player; this gives me abilities that allow me to specialize in translating a role-play over into the form of novelization. Fight scenes using these mechanics are not convincing narrative at all in my eyes, whereas free-form is already virtually novelization without needing to be transmigrated in the first place. My only purpose here is to provide the other side of a story so things remain objective. I have no interest in involving myself in role-play duels that lack the depth and complexity of free-form anymore, whether they be played merely for "competition" or for "writing". I should probably also mention that around fifty percent of the role-plays I've taken part in that were free-form actually already had a predetermined winner settled on due to collaboration; that's actually the truth and I have document files worth of evidence to back this up, including all the OOC collaboration going on between myself and my associate. These same collaborations took place whether a winner is already decided or whether we wanted to make things more interesting and really use our creativity as writers and try to outwit each other using the groundwork we set in advance. In virtually all cases the latter of those created the more compelling story, so you know, because we collaborated a convincing battle of wits. You don't actually need RPG mechanics at all to prevent people from "cheating" if the groundwork and collaboration is well done. This collaboration and groundwork also solves the problems you mentioned involving people arguing over details with a "0.0000000000001%" chance of success, though I won't bother explaining how since it's not relevant to your idea.

On my final note, I've actually also met a very large number of role-players who used RPG mechanics for their combat systems specifically because they wanted to focus on competition rather than writing or role-playing a good fight scene. I can actually link you to several examples of these from other role-playing forums. These people wanted to compete in something akin to their old-school Tabletop days but try to make it competitive, or they were MMORPG players who wanted to write the equivalent of the PvP modes. These people were not looking at this from the perspective of good storytelling. The first role-playing forum that I ever joined was also a good example of this; I took part in several battles there. I won some; I lost some. They were never very enjoyable nor realistically written strategic battles at any point; they were as mindless as the "press the 'Attack' command button and watch you get 9999 damage then do it again" battles you expect to see in a good old-fashioned Final Fantasy game. Once again, I emphasize my point; I'm a fan of Final Fantasy games; that doesn't mean I believe their combat mechanics work in novelization or narrative in general; they belong in games. There's a reason Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is nothing like Final Fantasy VII in terms of combat; Final Fantasy VII's original combat system would have looked ridiculous in a movie.

Disclaimer: I apologize once again for the long-winded reply, ELGainsborough. I wanted to offer my input, but by no stretch of the imagination do I want to change you mind on how you present this role-play since I'm not personally going to get involved anyway. I'm simply offering my observations of what I view as a very ineffective narrative system. It works if the purpose of the game is competition, but does not tell a convincing and realistic fight scene, and the more supernatural powers or advanced technologies you introduced the more it becomes too much for the RPG mechanics to handle, which is why I fully respect the decision you've made to go with something more traditional like D&D; this sort of system is completely inappropriate for more "broken" characters or more complex battles of wits. I had to make this post long because I'm extremely overworked and do not have time to write multiple smaller posts over a period of time. I hope this information allows you do make the most of your point-based idea that emphasizes narrative over mechanics; I think it's the most reasonable way to use this sort of system.

@Shoryu Magami Well this is the arena, so yes, it is about competition.

@ELGainsborough To be blunt, you’ve still given no reason for why you would use 3.5. I interpret that your reason for using it is that you already own and understand it. Which is likely to backfire because 1) you have to spend time houseruling the crap out of it and 2) it has a steep learning curve for those not familiar, thus putting up a barrier to entry. So why use 3.5 over a game that’s inherently more suited to this concept?

Thing is, a less convoluted version of 3.5 exists. It’s called D&D 5e. If you haven’t, look into it, seriously. Both editions have their pros and cons, but 5e strikes me as a straight-up better choice for the purpose of this concept. 3.5’s focus on number crunching, which is considered a positive by most who still play it, is nothing but a hindrance when you want to focus on creating cinematic combat scenes.

(As a petty side note, granting gold for equipment does not alleviate imbalance if both parties get it. And besides, in your example, whoever said the wizard was the underdog? :P At early level, sure, but they’re god-tier by mid-level.)

Anyways, regardless of system choice, I’ve been considering the practical implications of applying dice mechanics to an arena game, and the main problem that comes to mind is: When a player tries a special maneuver to gain an advantage on their attack, e.g. leaping to attack from above, how do you rule this? You can’t let the player grant themselves a bonus arbitrarily, and you can’t make a list of roll modifiers for every possible situation. Have you considered this?

(As a petty side note, granting gold for equipment does not alleviate imbalance if both parties get it. And besides, in your example, whoever said the wizard was the underdog? :P At early level, sure, but they’re god-tier by mid-level.)

If you're just going to spend the gold on a +5 weapon and armor, you are correct. But consumable items can make a big difference in how battles play out.

@Lalliman
So long as no illusion is created that somehow using stats would make this less competition-orientated than if it was free-form (it wouldn't; stats endorse competition over depth and complexity of good writing, not the opposite), I have no other comments on the matter (just woke up, stuff to do); I've pretty much said all I need to say and I think you've all got this in hand given that unlike me you actually use/care about/whatever this sort of system.

@ELGainsborough asked for my input so I gave it. The only concerns I had to discuss were buried in that last post, such as how the "better" writer would be determined without it becoming a bigger flame war than simply debating over accuracy/evasions/etc like a couple of adults. The latter of those things can be dealt with through mature collaboration and good groundwork; the former is just elitism and cockfighting between writers (and that's fucking short-sighted given that writing is a very subjective form of art in nature). I've been on (and run) advanced role-playing forums where posts get graded (always being one of the highest level writers on the forums I was part of, frequently having the character sheets that were considered the best quality as well); I know what I'm talking about. This sort of practice leads to elitism and elitism does not create a good role-player because (unlike writing) role-playing is facilitated by teamwork and community.

Beyond that, my only statements revolve around the detail that most people whose role-playing experience comes from D&D or other Tabletops need to understand that from a narrative perspective these mechanics do not work when actually creating compelling and realistic writing. Once you introduce text to a role-play, the rules of writing become as important as the rules of role-playing; many people miss this fact.

I don't believe ELGainsborough thought a dice system would remove the competitive aspect of the fights. He did say that he felt if people were less competitive and focused on writing a good story that all of the problems we mentioned would go away. I think we all know the desire to win is too great for most people to pass up, which is why both rule based and free-form RP arena battles suffer.

Anyways, regardless of system choice, I’ve been considering the practical implications of applying dice mechanics to an arena game, and the main problem that comes to mind is: When a player tries a special maneuver to gain an advantage on their attack, e.g. leaping to attack from above, how do you rule this? You can’t let the player grant themselves a bonus arbitrarily, and you can’t make a list of roll modifiers for every possible situation. Have you considered this?

Just to play Devil's advocate, the point of using a dice system or anything gamey is to set up a set of rules. In chess, a knight cannot charge across the battlefield and take out swaths of foes. Instead, they move in a very awkward L shape and crush whatever's beneath them at the end of their turn. It's not realalistic, but it makes for a fun game between two players. By simply having a small list of special maneuvers that actually do work in game, we can simply deny bonuses to leaping attacks or other attempts at power playing. That, or we set up rules so that the players involved can prepare for moves like this and execute/deny them with the right setups.

I don't believe ELGainsborough thought a dice system would remove the competitive aspect of the fights. He did say that he felt if people were less competitive and focused on writing a good story that all of the problems we mentioned would go away. I think we all know the desire to win is too great for most people to pass up, which is why both rule based and free-form RP arena battles suffer.

Just to play Devil's advocate, the point of using a dice system or anything gamey is to set up a set of rules. In chess, a knight cannot charge across the battlefield and take out swaths of foes. Instead, they move in a very awkward L shape and crush whatever's beneath them at the end of their turn. It's not realalistic, but it makes for a fun game between two players. By simply having a small list of special maneuvers that actually do work in game, we can simply deny bonuses to leaping attacks or other attempts at power playing. That, or we set up rules so that the players involved can prepare for moves like this and execute/deny them with the right setups.

Part of the post before my previous one was emphasizing that lacking the competitive desire to win actually can cause a battle-orientated role-play to suffer just as much as possessing that desire. In fact, while good collaboration and groundwork (some of the foundations of a good role-player) can actually remove the issues created by possessing the desire to win they cannot remove the issues created by not having this desire.

In order to write a character's perspective in battle in a way that is convincing you actually need to want to win just like the character does (in the same way that a role-player who lacks a certain mental disorder will never be able to write it as well as a person who actually does suffer from it). Without this, small holes in the person's writing are actually visible to me and I don't even believe the role-play I'm reading. My attention to detail in most matters is very acute and I'm not able to shut it off while reading a role-play or piece of writing (there's a reason suspension of disbelief is so common with tropes); in fact I can often work out how a person's mind works just by reading their IC/OOC posts. Battle-orientated role-plays are a psychological concept and reading people is one of my specialties.

As for what was contributed involving chess; I'm a chess player myself so I can actually appreciate the sentiment brought to the table here greatly. This is precisely one of the reasons why I believe that integrating RPG mechanics into a battle-orientated role-play actually hinders its depth and complexity (read: quality of writing). It's very similar to comparing checkers to chess; if you're a solid chess player and you try to play checkers you immediately feel like you're being forced to dumb yourself down because checkers has far less tools and options available to it than chess, which is why a lot of people who are good at checkers are shit at chess but most people tend to be more or less equal at checkers.

The exact same comparison exists between role-playing a battle-orientated piece of writing in a free-form style when compared to RPG mechanics; free-form role-play is the chess in comparison to its checkers. This is why the more of these mechanics you implement the more dumbed down (read: unrealistic) a fight becomes; neither chess nor checkers actually offer a perfect representation of true combat or strategy and one of them is simply a bit deeper than the other one. Chess only goes so far as a simulation of warfare, and when you take unpredictability and supernatural powers into the equation it becomes even less able to keep up.

No respectable writer is going to write a fight scene in their latest novel while using dice, and I should make a point that when I write or role-play two characters who are fighting each other I always get into the mind state of both of them; I'm capable of writing a role-play fight against myself while actually still making it look convincing.

This all being said; since this role-play is using D&D as its setting the decision to simplify it like this makes sense. I don't actually mean to keep turning this into a debate, @ELGainsborough, but I have a personal hatred for things lacking objectivity (though I consider subjectivity just as important and those who lack it piss me off just as much; one cannot understand the whole picture without both). I can only assume this is why you consider my input helpful. It's simply in my nature to be blunt and forthright.