@Shoryu Magami

Well, as our previous discussion had yielded - exploiting a system of dice for the arena to use globally may be more unrealistic than I thought. I believe I broke it down into percentages for that particular roll, which came out around 70%. If your character is fearless, which is very well possible given his typical encounters with the undead and other terrible beasts perhaps he false into the 30% of those that would be ineffective by his attempt. The good thing about a lot of these checks, it isn't like I can do another intimidation check. "Retries" as they are typically referred to are provided such a negative modifier that it would surely fail. Subsequently, it makes the players adventure even more difficult. But I digress, essentially the target would roll a d20+wisdom modifier+level. It would be different if I had rolled a 23 but with 30% wiggle room you may not be intimidated at all.

@Shoryu Magami

So I've thrown in a little filler post. Unfortunately, I believe our characters are entirely too far part to fairly traverse the landscape realistically and still have room to attack without being totally exhausted on my character's part. But there it is. I hope my last post was fairly explanatory. But like the initial post stated, the dice are merely for my own purposes. You can choose to use them or not. Essentially it is going to help me build a viable system for everyone I battle with to use. But it will become better illuminated once combat actually ensues.

@Melonhead

I saw you lurking sir. If you are interested, let's chat. We can get a second battle going. I can get another character up. We can get another setting. We can even make another thread if you'd like or we can just add a color to our posts to differentiate them from the original combat. These are just some thoughts. But if you are just lurking that is okay too. Let me know what's on your mind sir.

I'm interested to see how this goes, perhaps I'll even try it out. Dice rolls are not really what I 'want' out of Arena combat, or what I think the Arena as a concept should be about, but that doesn't mean I don't think it will produce something worth reading. In fact, it will probably produce something better, from an outsider perspective, but I think the Arena is about more than just writing the most pleasing story.

So for now, I'll lurk, if you don't mind. Maybe make comments here and there, if welcome.

@ELGainsborough
I'm just glad that my insight was able to contribute to offering some clarity in the previous discussion. I don't have an inherent problem with you using the dice for your own amusement, especially since you clearly have a history with D&D, but I'll only allow them to play a major impact on my posts in situations where I feel they don't cause an out of character scenario on my part.

Either way, I've checked the post now; I'll work on a reply once I've gotten food. Once again I'm here later than planned.

@MelonHead
I noticed you lurking too, actually.

A good portion of the previous discussion that was just referred to focused on emphasizing inherent problems that relying on dice during combat could bring to the table during a role-play. I don't plan to go into every detail I brought to up there, but the abridged of my side of the debate revolved around the idea that quality of writing would actually be stifled (creatively and competitively) and made less compelling (strategically and realistically) if dice or video game stats were implemented as the primary deciding factor for everything; there's plenty of ways to prevent the negative problems of free-form role-play - problems usually fostered by bad sportsmanship or poorly established groundwork - without dumbing things down like that. I won't go into further detail, however, since the previous discussion is available to read; it is a little long-winded though, so be warned.

While it might seem appealing to someone with a history of using these things or to those who don't understand how to properly debate/collaborate and establish an arena battle, to those who grasp the deeper and more intricate nuances of free-form role-play there are a lot of inherent imperfections in the narrative created by focusing on RPG mechanics. I think a more compelling and detailed story is produced from avoiding the use of dice, and I'm someone who actually does engage in role-playing duels for the purpose of good storytelling instead of having competition as the motivation; having the competitive attitude simply helps the writing be more convincing if good sportsmanship and collaboration are maintained.

Nevertheless, there's nothing stopping you from observing; commenting is more on the GM's end but I imagine it isn't an issue. Just keep in mind that, if you do get involved, you're not obligated to use the dice; I'm clearly not using them, and I believe the GM is mostly using them for his own enjoyment. The only time the dice will become essential from his perspective is seemingly if a disagreement can't be reached through collaboration, which for the time being I'm confident won't become an issue. I'm mostly taking the dice rolls into account during my posts for the sake of indulging ELGainsborough's preference for this sort of thing, but only so long as I find it reasonable; I don't plan to make an unrealistic post based off them, since that's precisely one reason why I find such RPG systems unpleasing when writing; the novelist in me loses his willing suspension of disbelief when presented with such issues.

Give it a try if you're interesting. It doesn't sound like the dice are going to be invasive (my usual experience with them), which is why I took the GM up on this in the first place.

[@Allyn evensen] @maylien @screenacne

I see more lurkers. I'm on my phone so I'll keep it short. If you're interested make it known. We can work something out. If you want to discuss or throw your two cents in that's cool too. Don't be shy. All comments concerns or questions are welcome.

@ELGainsborough

Yeah, sorry for the quiet lurking. I've just been curious to watch the battle since Shoryu is here. I like the way things are going so far :)
Arena RP isn't quite my cup of tea, but if it's okay with you, I'd like to keep observing. If I were to do any writing, it'd be from a more passive perspective as Evelyn.

@ELGainsborough
I figured I'd clarify two of the people you've mentioned.

@Ailyn Evensen is actually my fiancé; she's been mentioned in my bio a few times. @MayLien (also mentioned in my bio) is a role-playing friend of mine who I've known for roughly a little over ten years. Both of them were primarily here to read because I'm involved in this, and while Ailyn does like getting involved in role-plays with me she (as previously implied) isn't into one hundred percent combat-focused role-play. I won't speak for MayLien in regards to their own interest in this, but all of their role-playing with me was done using my own setting (which we're all planning to do again soon). Don't be surprised if we get some other watchers who're connected to me.

With that all said, @ScreenAcne is the only person I can't account for.

Also, I've contacted one of the moderators about this thread's "Ranked" status now.

@Ailyn Evensen @Shoryu Magami

Lurking is fine. Friends or otherwise. And I will always encourage involvement regardless. On any accord I'm willing to bring any one in who would like to participate. It doesn't have to be in this battle. Could be entirely different.

As for the moderator, that's fine. Like I mentioned, it doesn't bother me either way.

@ELGainsborough
Yeah, no problem. Mostly all for clarity, especially since combat-focused role-play really isn't Ailyn's thing.

I'm still working on my post; a few problems came up and need to be dealt with.

@Shoryu Magami

There's nothing wrong with that. I'm at work anyway. I won't be able to post for another four hours or so.

The whole dice thing really hasn't swindled any of my creativity at this point. It has just stopped me from nailing you with two arrows, which presumably would have been blocked. I'll be rolling dice for when you attack my character as well just so I don't need to run around being impervious to everything. I really think there is a system that could work in the arena using dice to remove the more competitive side and allow players to focus on the writing. It'll be more apparent once we actually start fighting which I presume will be in our next posts. I just hone it doesn't bring anyone to shy away.

@ELGainsborough
I don't think using dice to solve situations where luck would play a stronger factor, or perhaps situations where it's very difficult for people to reach a convincing agreement from a debate perspective, is a major problem, but I do feel like most free-form role-players who actually know what they're doing would grit their teeth at the notion of allowing dice to determine everything rather than the narrative and battle of wits themselves; I know I feel that way.

I've included some reflection on the whole idea below, but only read it if you feel like it.


Long story short, what you're suggesting will work for some and won't work for others; it probably doesn't work for me but that doesn't mean everyone will have a problem with it. Some of the people from that first role-playing forum I was part of (that I mentioned in my thoughts above) would have liked the idea of using the dice more than either myself or Ailyn do, and more than a free-form role-player would. The better people are at free-form, the more compelling a piece of writing. Overall, I'm mostly here to exercise myself a little since I'm incredibly rusty. I couldn't see a system involving dice ever working realistically with the sort of characters I normally use or with the types of battles that I specialize in conducting; they work here, but only within certain boundaries.

I don't particularly want to debate the whole thing again, so think of this are more me analysing what I expect the reception will be like.

Edit: I've dealt with the post now. Honestly, there was a certain aesthetic detail in my last two posts that was bothering me, but I've decided to just roll with my current solution for the time being.

I noticed you lurking too, actually.

A good portion of the previous discussion that was just referred to focused on emphasizing inherent problems that relying on dice during combat could bring to the table during a role-play. I don't plan to go into every detail I brought to up there, but the abridged of my side of the debate revolved around the idea that quality of writing would actually be stifled (creatively and competitively) and made less compelling (strategically and realistically) if dice or video game stats were implemented as the primary deciding factor for everything; there's plenty of ways to prevent the negative problems of free-form role-play - problems usually fostered by bad sportsmanship or poorly established groundwork - without dumbing things down like that.

I've only recently got into DnD, while I have been an active (and successful) participant in the Arena here for about four years. My assertion is that DnD dice rolls are a method of establishing outcome in a world where nothing is certain, as of yet, I have not seen dice rolls stifle creativity. The plans of action, the description of the intention, these things do not change with dice rolls. What dice rolls can sometimes do however, is have your plan fall flat. Your arrow misses the mark, you fumble with your pocket sand, your sword glances off armour. There is, to my mind, no loss of creativity in describing the effect of a success or a failure based off dice rolls.

What you are right about is that dice rolls do significantly reduce individual agency, and therefore the competitive nature, in the game. They put the game entirely in the hands of luck, which is fickle at best, and hardly indicative of which character has really employed the most successful strategy. In real life, it is better to be lucky than skilled, but in a fantasy world, I think I'd rather see the latter.

As for preventing the negative problems of free-form play, I have yet to see any one successful method employed between two genuinely competitive individuals. If two people want to win, there will be a point of contention at some point in the fight. The best thing to do is just to employ an impartial judge to mediate on these points of contention, but they will never be eliminated entirely aside from in circumstances where one or both players are not competitive or particularly assertive.

Albeit, this is anecdotal evidence, but it's based off extensive experience on this forum, and experience on others as well.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see how this goes. I'm only interested in potentially joining this fight to experience the dice rolls, I have fought more than enough times in free-form (and am still fighting) for that to not be a significant enough draw alone.

@MelonHead
Think of this more as observation from my own experience; by no means am I looking for an argument, and you're not obligated to read any of this either. I'm simply putting it down for those who want to read my own thoughts on the matter.

There is, to my mind, no loss of creativity in describing the effect of a success or a failure based off dice rolls.

What you are right about is that dice rolls do significantly reduce individual agency, and therefore the competitive nature, in the game. They put the game entirely in the hands of luck, which is fickle at best, and hardly indicative of which character has really employed the most successful strategy. In real life, it is better to be lucky than skilled, but in a fantasy world, I think I'd rather see the latter.

The combination of these two statements is part of where a lot of my perspective with free-form role-playing against D&D mechanics stems from. For me, personally, putting things in the hands of luck doesn't just stifle competition, but storytelling and creativity as well. Like I've said a few times to people, I prefer the storyline and characterization to direct the combat, not for the combat (mechanics) to direct the story and characterization.

There are many strategies and powers that simply cannot be realistically illustrated in writing that is being dictated by RPG mechanics, and this absence of the realistic portrayal of strategy is why I consider the writing and creativity itself to be stifled, not just the competition, by using these mechanics such as dice and stats. I don't think combat should be portrayed through writing if it's done in a way where strategy isn't portrayed realistically and in-depth, which is why I believe these systems actually ruin creativity, especially with more complex and intricate tactics. I don't believe good writing is limited to simply writing reactions to dice; the competitive strategy is where a large part of the good writing is born in a battle-focused role-play.

As for preventing the negative problems of free-form play, I have yet to see any one successful method employed between two genuinely competitive individuals. If two people want to win, there will be a point of contention at some point in the fight. The best thing to do is just to employ an impartial judge to mediate on these points of contention, but they will never be eliminated entirely aside from in circumstances where one or both players are not competitive or particularly assertive.

Albeit, this is anecdotal evidence, but it's based off extensive experience on this forum, and experience on others as well.

I've admittedly utilized battle moderators to work as impartial judges in the past; the fact that most of my best role-plays have also happened in my main story project's setting also allows me to work as the ideal moderator and judge for this sort of thing because I know every rule of my world in perfect detail; I'm able to confirm whether something would work because I created the setting.

Another crucial factor is groundwork, a concept I frequently comment on but apparently people don't know what I'm referring to; essentially it has to do with having all of the character's abilities (whether they by the mental, physical, supernatural, and so forth) established from the beginning, and the setting as well. When I accept character profiles I also accept each ability or skill individually, that way no one is pulling some new out of character power out of nowhere in order to win; I believe successful free-form duelling is more about "who uses their abilities more strategically and creatively", not "who is more powerful". On the other hand, even if both people want to win, so long as they're able to debate like adults (that's what free-form role-play is; a debate) there should be no problem; sportsmanship and collaboration is essential. Having good debating skills is part of the groundwork.

However, one of the most important details (that for some reason everyone seems to be missing and not realizing I'm saying) I've been saying to a lot of people I've been having this discussion with is that, in my own experience, I've actually seen more people who are bad sports on a competitive level, and people who focus entirely on power gaming instead of on writing a good battle narrative, in communities that use dice and stats. The number of people I've seen who focus on using gameplay mechanics as a way of power gaming instead of as a way of telling a good story far outstrips the number of people I've encountered who focus on power gaming over writing in a free-form role-playing situation.

Many of them like exploiting the RPG mechanics competitively to compensate for their own lack of actual strategic narrative skills and debating skills. This is very similar to people who are terrible at chess trying to force their chess playing friends to play checkers with them because checkers is a very dumbed down version of chess that can essentially be won by anyone. So in my eyes, this whole logic that "free-form = competitive, RPG mechanics = writing" is entirely subjective, and I happen to be the opposite side of those experiences. I'm more interested in which tells a more convincing story.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see how this goes. I'm only interested in potentially joining this fight to experience the dice rolls, I have fought more than enough times in free-form (and am still fighting) for that to not be a significant enough draw alone.

I'm mostly here to get a little bit of exercise, since it's been over five years since I role-played on a forum; I've been mostly doing it with my circle who use my story's setting, primarily over IM. I really only joined this site because a lot of those people have disappeared and because IM programs are becoming obsolete.

@ELGainsborough
I've contacted a moderator now, and they've told me they don't have the ability to change it, so unless @Rilla can do it we're stuck like this. So long as it doesn't automatically have an impact on the "Win/Lose/Draw" ratios, I'll stick around so long as something is put into the opening post of the OOC to confirm this isn't really going to be ranked. If it is automatic (which it sounds like it isn't) then I'm pulling out.

As for my post, as usual, if you have concerns let me know. I mostly worked around the distance, since realistically that's what this character would do in my eyes.

@Shoryu Magami I should point out, I at no point said I was an advocate for stats or number systems in Arena. I only said that using dice rolls to determine the success of an action (which arguably replicates real life factors, such as people not being able to perform physical moves to the optimum level all of the time, particularly in marksmanship) would still allow the participants to write in a creative manner. When the success of your attack is determined by your opponent, things sometimes get bogged down with revisionist posts and meta-snark, no one can particularly complain about a dice roll.

Oh, by the way, the ranking system is completely manual. Marking the fight as ranked only means you want it to be judged as such, but only Rilla can actually carry out that judgement and adjust win - losses. If you just mention him and say 'don't count this as ranked' provided he ever shows up it won't be added to your win / loss.

@MelonHead

I should point out, I at no point said I was an advocate for stats or number systems in Arena. I only said that using dice rolls to determine the success of an action (which arguably replicates real life factors, such as people not being able to perform physical moves to the optimum level all of the time, particularly in marksmanship) would still allow the participants to write in a creative manner. When the success of your attack is determined by your opponent, things sometimes get bogged down with revisionist posts and meta-snark, no one can particularly complain about a dice roll.

Oh, don't worry, I'm aware you weren't advocating them; it's simply part of my nature to bring the other side of any debate onto the table in order to create objectivity. I even frequently play "Devil's Advocate" to my own beliefs in order to show that my views are not biased and when I am debating against an idea I'm doing so fully understanding the other side even if I don't agree with it. This is why I appreciate the additional discussion.

As you said, they arguably replicate real life factors; arguably being the most appropriate word because in my own experiences and contemplations I personally believe the number of realistic implementations that can be created by dice are significantly outweighed by the factors of realism and strategy that they sabotage. This is all a matter of opinion, and I like to give my own input on matters. I never implied you were advocating; I simply had a different opinion about what you said and felt like being honest about it.

The only time I could ever generally accept dice being used to settle a debate in a free-form role-play would be if a mutual agreement is completely incapable of being met (a rare occurrence with people who possess good collaborating and sportsmanship), and it can be objectively stated that both characters' strategies, wills, skills, intelligence levels, and power levels, are all on an equal footing. Only in this situation do I personally consider relying on luck to be acceptable. Even then, only if an impartial party can't draw a conclusion. Also, using dice to determine things like marksmanship becomes unrealistic once factors like superhuman skill/intelligence/senses/etc are on the table.

Oh, by the way, the ranking system is completely manual. Marking the fight as ranked only means you want it to be judged as such, but only Rilla can actually carry out that judgement and adjust win - losses. If you just mention him and say 'don't count this as ranked' provided he ever shows up it won't be added to your win / loss.

Good to know. Cheers for the information.

@ELGainsborough
I've taken a look at the post now; looks like things have finally started. I might have a few questions about some of the dice rolls once I wake up, since with the state I'm in it's unlikely I can post currently. If you'll be around long enough to hear the questions out, I could go into them now possibly.

Also, are we no longer using the [ @Mention ] feature during the IC posts?

@Shoryu Magami

I wish there was something I felt like I needed to add to the conversation above. However, I'm not here to convince anyone about the means I use to generate results. I think we have pretty much beaten this topic into the ground between the two threads. So I won't beat it into the ground.

However, as my last post should show - I'm not losing out on creativity in the process of rolling some dice. This will only become more apparent as the battle goes on. With that being said, the other threads that I am currently involved with do well to show case that creativity as well. Nothing is being lost on my end.

With that being said I could divulge that I have been role playing for about two decades at this point fighting IRT-pbp on Battle.net, using pbp on DesertRealm as well as on here before Guildfall and any number of forums in the past or the number of dice games that I play as well. We could talk about tertiary education, degrees and mental achievements. We could talk about personal experience with martial arts or spectator experience as well. It all comes down to one thing - there is always a way out. Short of a gun to the face, 99.9% of the time a way out can be discerned. I am taking that out of the picture - at least for me.

I can easily write out how my characters do battle with or without dice. However, using dice takes away that urge to use logic and reason to a point where we are playing dodge poke dodge all day. I may very well lose every battle - but I'm okay with that because I can still be creative and write it well. Fighting is dirty, messy, and rarely goes as anyone think it should. This dice just make it more fun for me. Use my mechanics, don't use 'em. Not going to ruin the fun for me.

But I think we've beaten this discussion topic into the ground. So I'll stop now becaues I don't want to piss you off where to stop paticipating.

But more importantly, just for clarification what spells has your character cast. You are using what I presume to be latin as your words of focus. But I'm not quite sure what spells you have cast. This information is vital in order to write appropriately how it might influence my character.

Otherwise, I have added the disclaimer for your benefit since apparently Rilla is a dead-beat moderator. And I have posted.

Now I am going to sleep. I may be able to post before work tonight. Otherwise, I won't be able to do so until tomorrow morning.

As always comments, concerns, and questions are always welcome.

Edit: Ask your questions, I'll get to them. But like I always mentioned, you are not required to use them. You don't even have to look at them if it is easier for you not to. Also, we are - I just forgot. My apologies.

@ELGainsborough
I should emphasize that the main reason I've been discussing these things as I have is because I believe in everything being on the table. I'm not really the type of person who's all that concerned with where a person gets their knowledge or insight from, but more so interested in the wisdom itself. I'm not interested in people talking about what pieces of paper they have or what they have or haven't had the opportunity to do in their lives; all I care about is the content of a person's debate. Honestly, if anything will piss me off, it's people not being able to appreciate that, since I have no tolerance for disrespect nor for superficial social classing. This is not a statement directly against you; I'm making a statement about myself and nothing more. I don't know you personally and you don't know me personally. I simply don't like to filter my thoughts, for my own reasons.

Nevertheless, everything I say is only meant to be food for thought; not an attempt to create an argument. If my honesty bothers anyone, I don't see why that's entirely my fault. I only joined this thread to see it move forward, exactly as I did with the other role-play I joined; which I had to pull out of eventually for personal reasons. That being said, I'd like to see this through so long as it retains my interest. Since I've obviously made a point that this type of system isn't for me, I obviously wouldn't use it personally when I can avoid it. I've also pointed out that I've worked with both systems in the past as well, but my attitudes towards these systems are not rooted entirely in my experience because ultimately experience is subjective. I don't have a problem with you using the dice, and I've never stated a problem with you using them.

On my own end, I simply believe that the necessity for reason and logic becomes more significant as the supernatural capabilities of the characters present become more complex and in-depth, and also becomes more significant when dealing with more intelligent characters (hence why I say characterization can be stifled from using these mechanics), to the point that I simply do not believe this sort of system could work with or survive less grounded combat, which is exactly why I was in agreement with you about the setting you chose; I'd never even consider using one of my primary characters in this sort of setting because I currently feel the vast majority of the strategies I might employ could never even be catered to by this system. I even discussed this debate with a friend of mine over the phone yesterday.

I understand your reasoning; you want to remove the elements that prevent a battle from lasting excessively long, and in order to do so you're removing the motivation to use tactical faculties to outwit the opponent. That's exactly the problem which causes our preferences to differ; I'm only interested in role-playing a duel for those tactical elements, not for the purposes of competition but due to my preferences for writing. As someone who largely works with strategy, whether it be in competitive video games, chess, debating, understanding other people's (or my own) inner psychology, or philosophy discussions in general, all of my passions are rooted heavily in the mind (I've got no interest in citing my qualifications nor the sources of my insight because I believe such things are meaningless).

Removing those tactical faculties actually removes the entire reason that I consider reading (or writing) a combat-based piece of narrative enjoyable in the first place. I don't work with simplified combat in my writing; I'm constantly focused on a battle of wits between my characters even when combat isn't actually happening at all, and even standard discussions in my work are full of psychological warfare. This is why I keep emphasizing that this is all a matter of opinion; you're not wrong to have fun writing without those elements and I'm not wrong to enjoy writing because of those elements.

That said, my apologies for not giving clarity about the specific spells I was using. Perhaps in my constant sleep deprivation I've missed that detail; I actually thought I did make it clear, but I'll edit my posts after reading to ensure I'm more specific about what I used. To some extent, the spells I've casted related to one of the questions I need to ask you, so perhaps you not knowing exactly what I used had some impact on my confusions with your dice rolls. Also, you're right to assume I'm using Latin, but you should know I consider it broken Latin rather than proper Latin; while I'm confident in my insight on the fields I specialize in or have passion for (regardless of how I got my insight), I'm not going to claim that Latin (or language, period) is one of them; I'm half-arsing that part using the internet because I felt like using English didn't feel aesthetic enough for this setting. In my own work, sometimes I use scripture or poetry; sometimes nothing at all. Either way, I'll make myself more clear with some edits.

As for my questions:

• I'd like to know a specific detail concerning the "success ratios" you've been giving for each of the actions, since we're finally in direct combat. The nature of how these dice rolls work is very vague to me and I'm actually earnestly trying to indulge you as much as possible (without compromising my views, of course) by taking them into account, so some clarity will help. Generally speaking, I consider a missed action to be a more significant failure than a blocked action, since miss punishment is generally far more capable of being detrimental than block punishment is. With this in mind, how do the dice rolls factor in the likelihood of evasion, blocking, and hitting? Is there a certain point where a percentage becomes low enough that it is more likely dodged than blocked? Also, does a high percentage automatically imply a high percentage of hitting the opponent or merely connecting with their guard, and at one point does the line between the two appear? These are all factors I need to be able to make an unbiased reaction to your dice rolls. I understand this is a success rate for connecting the blow, but don't know exactly where the hit/block/evade concept is worked into it, if it is at all.
• Which support magic was being factored into the dice rolls, and how was it implemented? Given that you might not have known which spell I activated first and which I activated second (which I'm assuming you consider to have been activated successfully before I reached you due to the fact that you're referring to "spells", not "spell"; I should point out that my post actually was written in a way to offer you the chance to interrupt that incantation, but it seems you didn't take me up on it). I was actually in the midst of casting the speed-enhancement spell while you were approaching me, but if you consider it activated before you closed the distance then assume my character is a little faster than normal now. The first spell I activated was the endurance-enhancement spell (which, from my understanding of The Elder Scrolls, is the physical defence stat; presumably this would impact how much damage wounds could inflict and how easily my guard and armour can be broken down). The third and currently unused support spell is meant to fortify his stamina to make it harder for him to get physically tired. He usually uses this on pilgrimages but would also use it if a battle went on for an excessively long time.
• I misread your first attack as an attempt to actually interrupt the casting of my second spell by knocking me off guard. Apparently I was wrong about that, since you're speaking as though two spells are already active on me. Unless when you say spells, you're referring to one active spell and one almost active spell, but your dice rolls implied two are active from your perspective. Just for the record, I'm aware that shield strikes as used to disorientate the opponent, so this question is only relevant to whether or not you were attempting to interrupt my second spell or not, which I'm assuming you weren't given a lot of your statements.
• Considering that, realistically speaking, a single blow to a specific area of a person can actually destroy that section, how should I interpret a 33% ratio of damage? It's not like we have a health bar or life points. The same sort of question applies to whether or not you hit my armour instead of me, obviously.
• Also, trivia, but are we no longer using the [ @Mention ] feature during the IC posts? No need to reply to this last question; I've noticed you actually edited it into your new post later.

Edit: I've made sure the spells were clear in my posts now.

@Shoryu Magami

Alright... so I worked 12 hours last night. I've running on a little more than five hours of sleep right now. I guess it is time to answer some questions.

• This damage ratio represents not the percentage of damage that is caused per se but more so the potential contact. Essentially, I am dividing the rolled damage by the total potential. For example, I could have potentially gotten a 14. So let me use the arrow as a prime example, where I produced the roll of a 2 our of a potential 6 which was about the same ratio. I would have merely been a graze if it had been unsuccessfully defended against. I suppose one could say use your imagination. The results of such will be more apparent once attacks are returned and I can showcase them thusly.
• Well that depends on your position. To clarify an action is usually listed as about 6 seconds of play. At least that is how I've always pictured it. The determination of whether or not my shield bash interrupted your spell depends on whether or not you could cast the spell in the duration of time it took for me to clear 60 feet. This is about 12 to 18 seconds given a determined walk. I can take certain liberties but breaking your concentration is nothing something I can determine without some undertanding of how your spellcasting works. On that note, if you can caste your speed enchantment before that distance is closed obviously it doesn't interrupt anything. As for where the character is hit (or the armor), well I was fairly specific. As auto-hits are "god modes" I'll leave it up to you to determine exactly what happens. If I rolled a 14/14 I would consider the hit to be rather solid (how destructive would still be up to you) where as these measeley 5/14 may be something that strikes the armor just enough to cause discomfort should the armor be something capable of deflecting slashing attacks effectively.
• The spells being implemented were nonspecific. I knew the list of your spells. But I was not sure which one was being cast. So to be fair I applied a negative modifier to my rolls to account for that, typically a minus two modifier. However, knowing the spells you cast now made me think it was an appropriate action to take. As for any modifier effect the damage you can take, I could not take any liberty with that because that would only be influential if you've only allowed your character to be hit.
• So an attack roll works like this. If it is a ranged attack you roll 1D20 plus a dexterity modifier. Essentially, if you roll above a players AC - 17 in my case you hit the target. In our application it is produced as a success ratio. Where essentially a natural 20 is an automatic hit/potential critical hit. Where of course, even an automatic hit can still presumably be evaded. If the attack roll is a melee strike you can 1D20 plus a strength modifer. But the same subsequent steps apply. The applicable modifiers can be seen on my character sheet. The resulting roll is then taken out of the total possible minus 1 to account for a potential critical strike which is "always" (in game terms) a hit. If I turn it into a success ratio rather than a die roll, I felt it would be more useful here. So let's for example take one of my attacks which I believe was a 65% hit ratio. This means that there is a 35% chance of evasion, block, or effectively thwarting the blow to a point where a character can deal with it effectively - I.e. a shield bash blocked by a shield with feet well positioned to deal with the impact. How you deal with the attack is up to you of course. So in the instance of a 1, it's always a miss and a 20 (in most instance) always a hit in game mechanics you could still evade, block et cetera to an extent (because instant hits are against the rules in this case.)

Does any of this provide clarification or just more confusion?