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.

And I read that, and I felt it was irrelevant in a world where 99.999% of the participants "play to win."

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).

Another way to word what you just said is "It's impossible to know what it feels like to drown unless you are drowning right now, so if you want to write a drowning character, you need to go submerge your head in a bath tub." And I disagree strongly with this. Once you've almost drowned once, you probably don't need to do it again because you'll carry that experience with you. I still remember what breaking my arm felt like, and that was a decade ago.

You can write for someone who plays to win without playing to win, provided you have that experience.

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.

Why does everyone assume the writing has to reflect EXACTLY what's going on in the game? Just because i'm performing a basic attack doesn't mean I can't write "The barbarian king Jetorio wiped the sweat out of his eyes and charged his opponent. With each step his speed and bloodlust grew. His massive body was generating it's own wind current as he kicked the fall leaves into the air. With a trail of leaves and blood behind him, the barbarian king performed an ariel somersault and came down on his opponent with his bearded double ax."

You also completely ignored the bit about Chess being more fun as a game because of it's rigid rule structure.

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.

I think the above invalidates most of this, but I'll continue by saying that I've yet to write an free-form RP piece that felt as engaging as a video game. I have admired the strategy presented in RPG games, but never that in these writen free-form battles. You likened free-form to chess, I liken it to make believe. You've spoken a lot about balancing and exiting combat, but you haven't said a word about how you actually go about making it fair or realistic. Not in depth anyway.

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.

Respectable writers aren't co-writing a battle with someone else either though. What does how you write battles in normal roleplaying have to do with any of this?

Look buddy, I get it. You have a strong opinion about Free-form roleplays and RPG mechanics. Most of your arguments are based on personal preference and wordplay, which doesn't really move a debate forward. What this topic needs is more actual observations instead of clever wordplay. HOW are these free-form battles actually done? WHY do you feel they are more solid "strategy wise". WHAT do you do when BS moves happen?

Look buddy, I get it. You have a strong opinion about Free-form roleplays and RPG mechanics. Most of your arguments are based on personal preference and wordplay, which doesn't really move a debate forward. What this topic needs is more actual observations instead of clever wordplay. HOW are these free-form battles actually done? WHY do you feel they are more solid "strategy wise". WHAT do you do when BS moves happen?

Woah, attitude much?

@ELGainsborough
This has devolved to the point that I had a feeling it would, so I'm going to pull out. If my input actually continues to prove useful to you, then I request you send me a PM; I've got enough on my plate now without having to deal with passive aggressiveness. I genuinely do hope this role-play goes well for you and if my input can prove helpful then I'm glad to give it, but I'm not interested in the direction this thread is going; I've had way too much experience with this sort of thing and I got over it years ago.

@BrokenPromise
Since you've decided to turn a debate into a flame war by getting personal with me, I'm not even going to bother dignifying this with as much of a response as I normally would. In case you haven't noticed, I'm doing exactly what the GM of this thing asked; allowing the perspective of people with multiple views to be present by offering my stance on things as someone with a preference for free-form. Did you not even bother reading his post about that? If you don't agree with me, I don't care in the slightest, but actually trying to get aggressive with me? I'm not impressed. Due to that, I'm only going to answer the things you've brought up in a simple manner (since I want to keep doing as the GM requested); this thread is no longer worth my attention apparently and I'm already being multitasked enough. Attack the idea, not the person; rule number one of debating and the moment that ceases from one party it stops being a debate. If he actually had a problem with me giving my input like this, don't you think he would've said something? It's disappointing to see this conversation go down the direction I was predicting it would; that I was being tactful to prevent it from going down.

It's completely relevant even if the majority out there "play to win". You can actually remove all of the problems created by competitive attitudes by having proper groundwork (as I keep pointing out) and still manage to prevent any of the inherent problems that come up from not using free-form (of which I see no purpose to repeat again). You can't do the same with RPG mechanics without making things rigidly boring (read: for people who actually find rigidness boring; which I do and you don't, and the purpose of me being here is to provide the other side) and creating a situation where the writing doesn't reflect a real battle at all.

Once you've almost drowned, yes, but not before then. So tell me, have you ever been in a life or death fight before? I basically have. If you have, I sincerely doubt that every single possible situation that could've come up in a battle took place there; no one can "experience" that. Why is that relevant? Even if you have "experience" like you keep pointing out (for what I can only suspect is you presuming you have more experience than everyone and simply talking down to people; not the best attitude to have around people you know nothing about), every situation is different. Insight, wisdom, perception, and strategy are where the importance lies (to name a few things), and these are more important than "experience"; the state of mind is everything. Actually getting into the mind state of a competitive attitude will cause a person to see openings and options in a competition that they won't find if they don't have this mentality; there's a reason it's been shown through countless polls that people who lack a competitive streak are terrible in working world situations that demand competition. If you don't go into it with that mentality, you'll miss things you wouldn't normally (not unlike how a competitive player participates with less skill when they're playing casually; something I do all the time in a variety of mediums); you can disagree all you want but it's basic psychology as far as I'm concerned.

You're assuming way too many things; I know perfectly well that writing a basic attack from gameplay mechanics doesn't have to be written as such, and if you'd actually seen any of the role-plays I'd taken part in that involved RPG mechanics you'd know that. On the other hand, if you honestly think that every possible offensive or defensive concept that could be conceived or creatively thought up for a character is somehow conveniently going to fit itself into a handful of attack commands, you're wrong; this is why I said this sort of system becomes progressively less efficient the more complex the characters or setting get. That's not even taking into account how stupid role-plays look when what would clearly be a killing blow (say, nearly any attack for example outside of a fist fight) in the written form only does a chip on the opponent's life bar. There's a whole trope built around how RPGs make no sense in this regard when translated into writing.

Assuming I ignored the part about chess being more fun because its rigid nature is also a mistaken assumption; if you'd looked at my post when I compared it to checkers I was making it entirely clear I understood your post, I simply didn't agree with it. Checkers is incredibly boring to a high level chess player because checkers is fundamentally too rigid and limited in comparison. The fact that I don't agree with the sentiment that dumbing things down makes them more fun does not translate to me ignoring your post, but since it's apparent you're looking for every chance to just start something with me here I'm not surprised you interpreted it that way.

Role-playing and writing are by their very definition "make believe". You honestly think RPGs or D&D are realistic? This post also shows that you didn't just interpret my last part as me ignoring it; you openly knew I hadn't ignored it and chose to disregard the fact anyway. Do I even need to waste the GM's time going into how to make free-form role-plays more balanced when that isn't the point of this thread? So what if you've never found an engaging free-form role-play; I've never found an engaging RPG mechanics role-play. This is all a matter of preference, so why get personal when all I'm doing is giving the perspective that was asked of me? I didn't use the [ @Mention ] feature in my last post because everything I wrote was for the GM, not for you; I didn't even care if you bothered to look at my post.

If you'd actually taken the time to properly read my posts instead of just pick out things that you could use seemingly as flame bait, or whatever could be used to support your idea while dismissing the rest (bias and selective reading are not signs of a good debate, which requires you to scrutinize all the details and face those facts head on), you'd know that writing has everything to do with this. Co-writing is still writing, and all of the tools needed in order to make a successful narrative are needed in order to write a successful role-play if that role-play is done using text instead of on a Tabletop. There's a reason most of the high level play-by-post role-players on this site also happen to be novelists. If you can't appreciate that I don't have anything else to tell you.

Your arguments are based on personal preferences as well; that's the entire point of each of us posting up here like the GM asked; to offer perspective. If you want to brush off viable debates as just "wordplay" (debates that multiple associates of mine happen to be reading just for the record) then why should I even bother explaining something like that, especially when it has nothing to do with this role-play? I've given all of the information I need to give for the GM; deconstructing inherent flaws in the system from my perspective and offering compliments and advice on the strengths of the idea. If you actually cared about how I approach these things, which you apparently don't given how you don't like free-form in the first place, I'd be happy to explain them in a place that wouldn't count as being off the point of the thread. So you know, I actually did explain some of the things you're asking in my posts already; I just didn't go into needless detail because it's off the purpose of my presence here. If the GM asks me, I'll go into it... if I feel like even investing my valuable time in this thread again.

For anyone who failed to pick up on the part... Or maybe it was I who failed to mentioned it but in fact mentioned it in a different discussion... I use the concept of 3.5 because it is relatively well know.

However, let it be said that any such system would have to be find tuned and tweaked to be something entirely different from D&D or any established system. What we would have to work with is an entirely -new- system.

All of you have put forth some very valid input. However, the majority of cons have all related to a couple key ideas.

- People are entirely too set in their ways. They like to fight freeform because they feel they can keep things fair one way or another. By matching each others character levels, "strategy," et cetera. But this is not what I have seen while looking through a number of battles on the first couple of pages.

- If you throw dice in there things get arbitrary, and conviluted taking away the fun from the player. Once again, this is all in how you view the arena. If it is just for winning then sure, perhaps it isn't the place for me because I prefer writing well and getting credit for it than winning or losing. Quite frankly, you could win every battle but if your writing is garbage, well... its self explanatory.

These are fine reasons. And none that I can really refute because as with any role play, to each their own or don't participate. But quite frankly, and not to sound like an ass but we've gotten entirely too long winded. Let's keep this discussion with TL:DR mentality for future use.

I may be working on a system, or I might just use dice for my own enjoyment to dictate how things go.

My main gripe remains. Because let's face it, what is called "strategy" is generally just power gaming. How powerful can I build my character within the confines of this particular rule set to put myself ahead. This is evident by many of the combat threads in the arena. And this works for many, which is fine. It just does not work for me.

So we'll see how things progress from here when I have a wee bit more time to consider the system.

-

@ELGainsborough
Like I said, I'll avoid posting here from now on; there isn't a need for me now that I've given perspective and allowing things to not flow towards only a single bias. If you would actually like me to give my input concerning the matters of your idea that have nothing to do with free-form (I've already posted them, but I won't hold it against you if you don't want to read all of this) then it will need to be over PM; I intend to ignore any further flame baits directed at me.

You're entirely right about it being "to each their own". That was the entire reason I joined this thread in the first place; to give another perspective. All of this is by its very nature subjective, and there's no problem with that. If you want a role-playing duel that emphasizes collaboration and good writing over power gaming and competition, I simply believe what I've been suggesting is the more viable way to achieve that. You've set this up to work under the D&D system, at least based on the opening post, but since you wanted my input I've given it.

All the best with your journey.

P.S. In order to avoid long-windedness (as you've asked), I've decided to leave a portion of the post I had planned for you in a hider; whether you want to use it in order to contribute to your goal of prioritizing writing over competition is entirely your call. I don't plan to post here again.

I disagree with the bashing on freeform as a disorganized craft, lacking in strategic input, as i disagree with the notion of competitiveness spoiling the game. A true competitor knows and appreciates the unspoken rules of roleplay combat and abides then, knowing that limiting oneself in exactly what makes it challenging and entertaining for them. Said rules aren't set in stone only because they're supposed to be intuitive, based off of real-life analogy and logic, physics and spatial relationships. While seldom seen (compared to superpowered), so called 'realistic melee and hand-to-hand' are considered the founding stones of roleplay combat - environments, where both players are equally lacking in any sort of supernatural power, winning only by pure virtue of knowledge and cunning, exploiting the exact same tools they have i possession to outplay the opposition. Anyone starting off is usually nudged in this direction, as it most clear of all shows the underlying mechanics and prevents a reliance on lowkey overpowered abilities or rule breaking from developing.

Shoryu may compare it to chess, but there's another analogy i've heard that's better to my liking: roleplay fighting is a debate, where by analyzing and carefully setting up the various inherent factors of a fight - body positioning, momentum, commitment, timing, spacing - you must convince your opponent that they're stacked in favor of your action. This, and the fact that there is no rulebook of sorts, is why i (and i assume Shoryu) believe that the ability to collaborate and maintain good sportsmanship is the glue of freefrom fighting that makes it work as a competitive craft.

Initially i intended to simply observe this thread, but i see the bashing freeform has received here as largely undeserved, so i couldn't help but chime in.

Since you've decided to turn a debate into a flame war by getting personal with me...

Nope, wasn't flaming. I had no intention of upsetting anyone, causing IRL rage, etc. I'm even going to say I'm sorry if that helps at all. I won't read the rest of that rant though.

- People are entirely too set in their ways.

If I'm going to be honest, the only time I've enjoyed writing a fight with someone was when we decided on the victor before hand. But you're right, passion is pretty high in this topic for some reason.

Shoryu may compare it to chess, but there's another analogy i've heard that's better to my liking: roleplay fighting is a debate, where by analyzing and carefully setting up the various inherent factors of a fight - body positioning, momentum, commitment, timing, spacing - you must convince your opponent that they're stacked in favor of your action.

I actually agree with this. While it's not something i'll ever enjoy, I do understand now why some people would enjoy or even prefer this over a dice system.

Glad to bring clarity.

As an insider, i too, understand the opposite side of the argument, as i can testify from first hand experience that keeping it under control is a constant struggle - but as you may have guessed, i deem the payoff to be worth it.

A respectable outlook, @Vordak.

I've heard about these measures to ensure free-form fights don't get too crazy, but I haven't seen any examples of them. While honoring ELGainsborough's wishes, would you mind giving a TL;DR version of how you deal with such things? Would you attempt to balance or even entertain a fight between a monk who fights with chi powers and a human-sized-sausage that copies the attacks of his defeated foes? Or are such duels not possible to manage properly even by free-form standards?

I know I said my "final input", but I wasn't expecting another poster. Considering I'm quite certain the new poster actually read my post, most of what I say directed at him is for his eyes; neither the GM nor anyone else present is obligated to read that portion if they don't have the time for it, though it does provide important perspective and details. Since it's not focusing on the primary goals of the GM I'd also like to make this my last post if possible; I have other things to do and my attention isn't needed here anymore.

@Vordak
My decision to use chess as an analogy was strictly in reaction to a statement that was made by BrokenPromise when they brought the game up as part of the debate; I'm well aware that a lot of people do not like long posts here (despite the fact that this is meant to be a writing-focused website) so I attempt to shorten the output of my posts by only deconstructing arguments presented instead of bringing every single idea I have to the table. I'm a master of the details and unfortunately it's becoming clear to me that a lot of people on this site don't really appreciate details (read: you can't get every possible detail of a debate across in a short post); I happen to debate with even more detail in person. I'm also the type to put their own argument through deconstruction before posting it (I'm my own biggest critic; I'm not the biased type), not only to predict the other side's reaction but also to make sure I don't miss details, so getting brushed off by people who don't even read (thoroughly) really does make me disappointed in their character. This is a general statement however; not directed at any one person on the site.

To be completely honest with you, that analogy of thinking it like a debate is exactly the sort of wording I'd have used (and therefore I won't be building on what you said because you've already expressed my view on it); I engage in debates all the time and I do so without it ever turning into a cockfight. I approach everything, from my philosophy discussions all the way to my free-form duels and general strategy talks, in the same way. I didn't just come across as passionate in my debating here because of the subject matter; I'm like this when I debate period. This debate analogy you used is exactly what I was getting at with parts of my posts in this thread so far, and is the root meaning behind the following quote:

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.

If checkers is the dumbed down version of chess, then chess is the dumbed down version of debating. This was the exact conclusion I was reaching with my posts before things seemingly got a little too personal; I wanted to avoid going into it needlessly when the details of free-form role-play wasn't the focus of this thread, especially since the other side is clearly not listening. I consider debating (and mind games; psychological warfare) to be the medium of which neither checkers nor chess can keep up with in terms of effectively illustrating strategy; you cannot debate (nor use tactics rooted in reality; a staple of good writing even in a superpower battle) in a setting where dice and statistics are an unquestioned god. You've essentially said exactly what I would've (minus the mention about using basic hand-to-hand fighting as a starting point for free-form role-play, since I never needed to do that to grasp higher level free-form role-play) had I allowed my post length to get any longer than it already was. Apparently I was expecting too much to think that the complete meaning behind that quote I just listed would've been understood.

You're also right in assuming that I believe that good collaboration and sportsmanship prevent the competitive problems of free-form from getting out of hand; they keep the competitive problems of it and Tabletop mechanics under check, so this debate should never (and on my end, was never) about which of these was superior on a competitive level (a debate I could go into but it's not the purpose of this thread and is technically spam due to that); it was a debate about my preference for why one results in better writing quality than the other. The GM wanted multiple perspectives brought to the table, so I gave it.

You joined this discussion for the same reason I invested more time into it than I initially did; I originally came to this thread because I wanted to see the GM's idea come to fruition and not because I wanted to take part in it myself. This isn't the first thread I've joined under the assumption that the role-play probably wasn't for me and I simply wanted to see it move forward anyway. Once other people expressed interest I thought my work was done... then the bashing commenced. I would've looked away, but the argument was entirely biased and some of the passive aggressive snark made it all the more intolerable.

@BrokenPromise
Referring to my post as a "rant", when it was actually a well thought out counterargument (one which apparently Vordak appreciated and respected given his reaction to it) to everything you'd been throwing at me, is not a very sincere way to apologize. If you'd simply said you weren't planning on reading it then that would be your call because it was there for people who appreciated it, but referring to it as a "rant" is disrespectful and disrespecting or talking down to me is the easiest way for me to not take anything a person says seriously.

As for giving you a "TL:DR" (I've only just now looked this up to find out what it means; I dislike all this urban slang) answer to your question, I'll keep it simple. In a previous post I did mention that the match-up you described sounded like bad groundwork from the beginning, but I actually think I probably could balance it out; it largely depends on the full extent of what that chi wielder is creatively capable of doing with that ability and what the "sausage" you referred to had managed to obtain so far through its power; both things that could be discussed out before a duel took place if good groundwork was needed. Without the details about both characters there's not much else I can input here.

I've never actually lost a free-form role-play duel (that wasn't scripted by me that way due to me GMing an antagonist who needed to lose for the plot to continue, which I do all the time) before, but in all of my time free-form duelling I have usually played the "underdog" of sorts. I've fought against people who had a ridiculous combination of several overpowered characters from various anime, going up against them with one of my OCs who had a relatively contained but versatile skill set, and still won simply because I'm able to be creative and outwit the opponent. This detail was emphasized in the information I gave the GM in my previous post that was put into a "Hider" for the sake of making my post easier on the eyes; I suspect that information simply wasn't read.

In my opinion, if the groundwork is good, how you use the powers available is more important than what your powers are, which is why in my last post I mentioned I've never power gamed before. Say, for example, your character's ability is electricity manipulation; if you're creative this doesn't just mean shooting blasts of lightning at people, there's a damn lot people can do with electricity (especially when electromagnetism is directly connected to it, to name one of a few things). I also happen to use competitive free-form role-playing with some of my friends and associates as a way of testing the water with new characters or abilities I've created; a "simulation" if you will. These simulation-based competitions would never have worked realistically if we weren't actively trying to beat each other.

On the other hand, you're making me consider writing up an FAQ about good free-form role-play groundwork, if my time ever frees up...

*shrugs* A shame @Vordak hasn't elaborated on how he balances out these "debates" yet. If it couldn't help along this project, it would be pretty useful for the off-topic section!

I don't think this type of system is ever going to appeal to free-form writers. The only way I see this system working is if there's a clear disconnect between what's being done in writing and what's being done in the game itself. As an example:

Player X performs a basic attack

Player Y casts attack amplification buff

Player X casts dispel, removing amplification buff

The above scenario could be written in a variety of ways. It doesn't even have to be an actual fight. We could have Joe (player Y) trying to convince his wife Anna (player X) not to have a divorce with him. The "fight" starts out with Anna accusing joe of cheating on her. Joe then asks Anna to recall the time they first met, granting a buff to all his "remarks." But then Anna dispells it by announcing that they only met because he was so drunk he mistook Anna for his date that night.

The people interested in a system like that, one that asks it's players to wrap the rigid rules in imagination, are not ever going to appeal to free-form players. Free form players are debating. But what Vordak didn't mention is that it's a debate between opinions. There are few facts in the debate-like fights in free-form battles. The only thing that's fact is the character sheets, while everything else is making up powerful suggestions.

You have two very different ideas here, and I don't think one will ever appeal to the other. I don't think anyone is set in their ways, just that there are those of us who prefer rigid rules and those of us who prefer free-form fights. It's like comparing turn based RPGs to action based RPGs, the same concept for very different people.

@BrokenPromise
Referring to my post as a "rant", when it was actually a well thought out counterargument to everything you'd been throwing at me, is not a very sincere way to apologize.

I was hoping that you were going to just accept my apology and get this out of the way... but I guess I was expecting too much from someone who'd rather gossip about the event in a chat room. I have no problem talking things over with people who think I'm flaming. Accidents happen. But I have no respect for drama mongers. You lack the level of maturity required to have a civil argument with me, and I refuse to read arguments written by such people.

Wanna know why I can enter your chat room and not rant my head off? I chose to be like Bill.

@BrokenPromise
I'd sooner believe you're not ranting your head off in the hang-out thread because you know everyone there would back me up -- after all, why else have you bothered to message me somewhere that you think they can't see instead of just be forthright about it? You somehow think I didn't know you've been peaking into the chat thread? I've been watching you in there the whole time; commenting about it to people; anticipating the moment this was coming, and here it is. I said it in the thread instead of in a PM because I wasn't hiding it from you -- I've got nothing to hide. You might've found a way to earn my respect if you'd actually posted there and discussed it civilly, but now you've done nothing but show me I was right about you. Also, if you're that bothered having people know about this thread, you couldn't feel too proud of your conduct here.

If you really wanted to be the 'bigger person' about this whole situation, then why waste time posting to me like this? I didn't see you make any attempt to be 'civil' about this situation from start to finish -- you were bigoted from the moment you stepped into this thread. You've also been giving nothing but snark and passive aggressiveness this entire time - even before the debate escalated - or did you somehow think I didn't notice that childish little emote you tossed up to be a smartass?

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)_/¯

That is a lack of maturity -- immaturity which I happened to tactfully ignore entirely as I continued the debate like an adult until you decided to attack the person and not the idea (you clearly attacked the person because you didn't have a solid debate against the idea -- stay out of debates if you can't handle the responsibility for the consequences of your actions when the discussion doesn't go your way; in fact, your inability to handle this debate maturely only shows exactly why you're unsuited to free-form role-play); blatant violation of the site's rules by the way. Would you like me to let a mod know about this thread? A friend's already thinking about it. How confident are you that they'll consider your conduct more mature than mine? Let's not forget that I'm not the only participant in this thread who thought you were bashing free-form role-play out of pure bias instead of having a real debate. I offer well-thought-out counterarguments rooted in logic, and you retort with mere snark -- that's not how you move a debate forward.

If I'm looking for drama, then riddle me this... How come everyone else agrees your apology wasn't sincere? That whole 'sorry, not sorry' nonsense is a waste of my time, and 'I'm sorry you took offense' is not a real apology -- it's complete childishness and an attempt to escape responsibility. I suggest you consider growing up and realizing that all I'd like to do is get back to my life on this site without you continually fishing for drama. I've got a lot better things to be doing with my time than this -- there's no reason for me to waste my time on people who don't show me respect. You can act like you're merely 'disagreeing' with me, but the moment you stoop to being disrespectful or snarky it becomes a flame war (which by its very definition is determined by being hostile or insulting; exactly how you've been behaving with the snark, childish bashing, and eventual attitude when you couldn't debate out of the situation).

Also - in case you haven't noticed - the GM has stopped bothering with this thread. I've already given you the same information anyone in the arena forum likely would've, just without much detail since I'm not wasting my time posting to someone who doesn't read nor understand my posts. The fact that you're incapable of grasping how the debates that are free-form role-play can be balanced is your problem, and neither he nor myself are obligated to enlighten you when you're behaving so disrespectful and entitled. Also, notice this thread was actually civil 'til you arrived? You mentioned passion was high in this thread for 'some reason'; did it ever occur to you that it might have something to do with you waltzing in here and starting to bash free-form role-play instead of focusing on the real discussion? Food for thought.

I didn't know this thread was exploding. I'll check up and read through during breaks at work.

I'm interested in dice rolls but not entirely sure I'd like to learn d&d to do so.

@ImportantNobody
Honestly, this thread is nothing but a big headache I'd like to put behind me. I'm not interested in using dice rolls at all - for a multitude of reasons, but mostly because it cripples writing in my eyes - and this thread only made me feel that way more than I already did.

That being said, you should direct yourself to this thread if you want to give it a try. I only plan on sticking around for the one duel I'm currently having, but the GM is looking to take on multiple challengers at the same time. Perhaps you two can work something out so there's no need for you to learn D&D -- I personally don't know D&D at all since it doesn't interest me.

I see dice rolls being useful in certain rare circumstances. For example, if someone is shooting at someone else and you are up in the air if bullets would be hitting and how many. Sometimes it's a struggle to be fair and logical in such circumstances, leading me to worry if I'm being unfairly accurate or, if I'm dodging, unfairly dodging everything. I tend to just take the hit if there's questionable stuff.

As a main fight mechanic it's not preferred if going for realism but could keep things more exciting where you aren't sure how it will turn out and have to adapt. Could also be funny if you roll a 1 and have to come up with some rediculous reason why your character failed so badly.

Not using dice and instead going for story purposes and rule of cool would be best if you and your opponent aren't competitive. Then I wouldn't have to worry about accidentally abusing stuff and being op because they would be okay with the outcomes.

@ImportantNobody
In spite of everything I'm about to say, I'd like to remind everyone that I want to put this thread behind me.

I see dice rolls being useful in certain rare circumstances. For example, if someone is shooting at someone else and you are up in the air if bullets would be hitting and how many. Sometimes it's a struggle to be fair and logical in such circumstances, leading me to worry if I'm being unfairly accurate or, if I'm dodging, unfairly dodging everything. I tend to just take the hit if there's questionable stuff.

This is where things can get a bit more understandable, but - as I mentioned multiple times in this thread - using dice for this sort of thing becomes more unreasonable the more powerful/complex/skilled/intelligent/etc the characters are. For example, I usually work with very high tier and broken characters due to be my story project's setting being incredibly powerful -- most of my characters are well and truly beyond the point where anything luck-based could ever impact them.

To put it into perspective -- the GM used the example of how many competitive role-play duellers will make their characters dodge something even if there's only a 0.000000000000000001% chance of successful doing so; however, this is actually justified if the character can manipulate probability and causality, which even the bottom tiers in my setting can do. I should also make a point that - despite how powerful my characters are - I have never role-played a duel that utilized even a fraction of their true power, and my opponents were also given similarly powerful abilities in order to allow fairness.

When my characters dodge something, there is always a well-thought-out strategy and concept behind it.

As a main fight mechanic it's not preferred if going for realism but could keep things more exciting where you aren't sure how it will turn out and have to adapt. Could also be funny if you roll a 1 and have to come up with some rediculous reason why your character failed so badly.

You've just described one of my main gripes for why I believe using dice rolls actually ruins realism and stifles writing - not just destroys competitive play - because I've frequently had to write my characters incredibly out of character in the past in order to cater to a dice roll -- out of character writing is one of the top definitions of bad writing in my eyes. You're not just 'adapting' to the dice rolls if you have to blatantly write something your character would never do in order to work with them, which happens far too often.

Not using dice and instead going for story purposes and rule of cool would be best if you and your opponent aren't competitive. Then I wouldn't have to worry about accidentally abusing stuff and being op because they would be okay with the outcomes.

I believe - in order to achieve a truly ideal balance for free-form role-play - both players need to have some level of competitiveness while balancing it out with good collaboration and sportsmanship. I think the best way to describe a good free-form role-player compared to a bad free-form role-player would be to think of them as a person who has an adult debate in comparison to someone who has a childish argument.

Also, as I've mentioned several times in this thread, I've met many role-players who actually use dice rolls and stats specifically because they wanted to use them to power game -- they sucked at free-form role-playing and wanted to exploit these mechanics.

@ImportantNobody I think a partial system like what you're mentioning would be the most accessible to everyone. Though if you're both non-competitive and don't care who wins, why not let the dice decide everything? It could build excitement, as nobody knows who's going to win.

@ImportantNobody I think a partial system like what you're mentioning would be the most accessible to everyone. Though if you're both non-competitive and don't care who wins, why not let the dice decide everything? It could build excitement, as nobody knows who's going to win.

Ultimately, for the exact reason I described above -- relying on dice rolls actually causes people to have to write their characters incredibly out of character at times to cater to failures that the character simply wouldn't do. There's a severe limitation placed on realism, as I've mentioned several times in this thread now and @ImportantNobody just reaffirmed in his post. You'll notice he also referred to having to write out the reaction - to rolling a 1 on the dice - as 'ridiculous' -- that's because it can't be taken seriously.

The only way this sort of thing could work in a piece of writing and be 'good' is if the role-play was meant to be played for laughs, and I don't work with joke role-plays. There's nothing exciting about out of character writing, nor is out of character writing actually ever good writing. Even if the role-players aren't playing to win, the role-play still needs to go down realistically to be good writing. A person who appreciates strategy and in-depth writing - what good free-form role-players are - will also never find it exciting to let dice control all of the intellectual and tactical elements of a narrative -- combat is meant to be intuitive, not something outside the control of the competitors.

That being said, I could see the partial system working under circumstances where it's appropriate, but as I've explained a few times now the characters can get to a point where they're so far beyond luck that even using dice rolls in the background is unrealistic. That's why I agreed with the GM for choosing a very low tier setting for this thread's role-play.

Edit: Also, just for the record, I'm not using the [ @Mention ] feature with the GM's name because - as I've stated a few times now - he's completely abandoned this thread. Me and him started role-playing elsewhere and he's no longer interested in this thread from what I can tell.

Alright, that was a nice light post, so I decided to read it. No flipping out and accusing me of flaming because of how I choose to phrase questions, M'kay?

Ultimately, for the exact reason I described above -- relying on dice rolls actually causes people to have to write their characters incredibly out of character at times to cater to failures that the character simply wouldn't do. There's also a severe limitation placed on realism, as I've mentioned several times in this thread now and [ImportantNobody] just reaffirmed in his post.

While I understand this is your experience, it isn't my reality. Okay, so I have a totally badass ranger who never misses his shots. I roll a 1 and am forced to miss a shot. But I don't have to write the miss like my character actually has horrible accuracy. why can't I just have my opponent stumble and fall out of the way? Maybe my rolling a 1 isn't my character missing, but their character evading. And realism? Sorry buddy, even the best shooters are prone to miss. Especially when you consider stuff like moving targets, wind, debris, etc.

With enough creativity, it just doesn't seem like an issue.

I also feel that using dice would remove all the fluff that nobody really enjoys reading, like the three or four paragraphs about the angle of the sword swing that's suppose to ensure a clean hit. That's not necessary when the dice are in charge.

That being said, I could see the partial system working under circumstances where it's appropriate, but as I've explained a few times now the characters can get to a point where they're so far beyond luck that even using dice rolls in the background is unrealistic. That's why I agreed with the GM for choosing a very low tier setting for this thread's role-play.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. What is "beyond luck"? What is "a low-teir setting"? Am I to assume that being beyond luck is being in a situation where there's only one outcome? Is low-tier like low powers/realistic? This sounds like one of those points that we might just have to agree to disagree on.