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?
If you don't want people to think you're flaming, choose your words more thoughtfully in the first place -- flame wars are, by definition, insulting, so all your disrespect and backhanded snark is actually flaming whether you accept it or not. Also, blaming the other person instead of the words you choose is just blatant running from responsibility for your actions. There's an explicit rule on this site about attacking the idea; not the person -- this same rule also happens to be pretty much 'Debating 101' in a nutshell. I've thought about letting a mod know about this thread for this exact problem -- I might still do it, especially since multiple friends think I should too.
Also, if you're not going to bother reading long posts in a debate (which are usually the source of the best insight due to being detailed), don't try to brush off the person's logic -- I take the time to read everything the other person writes and that's why I have the right to express an opinion. Something doesn't become a 'rant' just because it's long -- most of the more intelligent debates and speeches in the world are incredibly long-winded. I don't plan on dumbing down my debates for people, so if you're not going to read them then don't comment -- it's ignorance of the highest calibre to attack a concept you haven't researched, and I always understand my opposition before presenting a debate against it. Calling a viable debate just 'wordplay' also doesn't make it any less a viable debate that's being ignored.
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.
First off - since we're dealing with dice rolls here, which are inherently random - you're very likely to roll low numbers so many times that it will end up making that supposedly totally badass ranger miss constantly -- there's no realism in that at all. I've seen this happen more times than I care to count, and the status that this character is supposedly skilled at their profession very quickly loses its viability. There's also plenty of dice rolling GMs who write a 1 as a blatant failure, not just a miss. How many professional archers shoot themselves in the face? How many master wizards accidentally cast their own attack spells on themselves or their allies? I've seen both of these happen.
As for the latter comment involving the best shooters missing, I explain this in my comments concerning 'low tier settings' below. Also, while you're debating against my thoughts on this, you would do best to remember that the other free-form role-players here have actually been agreeing with me that using these mechanics gets in the way of realism. Your experiences and our reality are different -- and the entire purpose of this thread was to bring multiple subjective opinions to the table to get the full picture.
Ultimately, there's a fine line between 'creativity' and 'jumping the shark' -- a line I've seen crossed all too often. I believe ImportantNobody pointed out how dice aren't favoured if you want realism for exactly this reason.
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.
Unfortunately, this statement is assuming that everyone else feels the same way about it as you do. 'Nobody' enjoys reading all the detailed descriptions of how the battle - both the physical and the psychology aspects - takes place? 'Nobody'? I suppose you should know -- I do, and so do a tonne of other writers and novelists (who, as I've made a point in the past, make up the majority of the highest level role-players) since they wouldn't write such detailed descriptions if they didn't enjoy it. I don't think you actually realize just how many people on this site you've offended with this statement. In the end, this is all just an opinion. Plenty of people don't like letting dice dictate everything precisely because they enjoy writing and reading the details. The fact that you don't feel that way is no justification to assume everyone doesn't. This is a writing-focused website -- if you don't like reading, why're you here?
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.
Characters who are more powerful, more intelligent, et cetera, reach a point where luck simply isn't a factor anymore. Do you seriously think that a character will miss if they have the power to manipulate probability and causality? By their very nature those things allow you to possess a 100% attack accuracy. This is just a single example, of course, but it gets the point across. So yes, when I say 'low tier settings' I'm referring to something like D&D or Rurouni Kenshin as opposed to - for random examples - Xenogears or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.
The more powerful, deep, and complex the setting is, the more difficulty the dice and stats have catering to them -- I've stated this numerous times in the thread already. I've been discussing this whole debate over with a good friend of mine (they're on this site, but I know them in person) who happens to play D&D frequently and they agree with me too. A long time collaboration role-playing friend of mine - who plays Tabletops and hosts them too - also agrees with this. D&D mechanics are better used in a game, not in writing. We can agree to disagree if you want, but these beliefs are not uncommon, especially amongst play-by-post role-players.
I've also made a point that a partial dice system is only useful in situations where it's appropriate - and even then only for people who have bad collaboration and sportsmanship - since there are plenty of times even in low tier settings where it's inappropriate and gets in the way of maintaining realism and depth. In the end, there's a good reason that the dice/stats role-play forum (Tabletop) is separate from the regular role-playing forums on this site, including being separate from the arena forum. Writing should drive the narrative, not dice. As far as I'm concerned, that dice/stats role-play forum is for people who prefer Tabletop games -- it's not for writers. There's bound to be exceptions, since there always are, but most people I know - on and off this site - have no interest in that forum whatsoever as writers or readers.
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.
I can enjoy completely played for laugh fights, maybe like 10% of the time, while the rest might have a joke or two thrown in there or completely serious depending on my opponent. I would only do a fight completely using dice (and taking possible outcomes to the extreme) if I was in the mood for the more zany side of things. We do indeed agree that relying on dice too much could cause unrealistic stuff to occur. We seem to disagree that it could be exciting or good writing. Good is subjective, of course.
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.
I agree with Broken here, which ties in well with my system of using rolling as a guide in situations where things could go either way. Going of the example, a gunman fighting what could be a nimble opponent is bound to miss sometimes despite being a great shot. As such, if he sometimes misses and sometimes hits in a certain scenario, using a dice in such circumstances makes sense if the options given are hit and miss rather than an option to also shoot himself. Now if it's an expert swordsman swinging at close range at someone, I don't see dice rolling as valid of a thing as it's more evident the outcome of the slashes. The opponent could still dodge or block somehow, but this is more common sense if they could manage where bullets whizzing through the air and dashing opponents is more open to "luck" where we can't predict as well.
Despite defending this dice rolling system, I still wouldn't use it much.
@ImportantNobody I've just lost a portion of my work again, so you'll need to forgive this next response being rushed -- as soon as I post this I've basically got another night of getting back lost data ahead of me, which probably means another night without any sleep too.
I can enjoy completely played for laugh fights, maybe like 10% of the time, while the rest might have a joke or two thrown in there or completely serious depending on my opponent. I would only do a fight completely using dice (and taking possible outcomes to the extreme) if I was in the mood for the more zany side of things. We do indeed agree that relying on dice too much could cause unrealistic stuff to occur. We seem to disagree that it could be exciting or good writing. Good is subjective, of course.
Exactly -- it's subjective. The entire point of this thread was to get multiple subjective views, rather than allow a single bias to dictate things (which, just for the record, would've happened if I hadn't been here). The only reason I even bother to keep posting here is to make things more objective. That being said, we agree that it can make things less realistic, and I - personally - do not find comedic battles entertaining nor do I find combat which lacks tactical realism to be exciting or enjoyable -- my attention to detail and nature as a deconstructionist/reconstructionist means I do not have much of a willing suspension of disbelief, a statement I've made a few times in this thread actually. I also consider out of character writing to be the greatest blasphemy a writer can commit, which is why I despise most fanfiction.
I agree with Broken here, which ties in well with my system of using rolling as a guide in situations where things could go either way. Going of the example, a gunman fighting what could be a nimble opponent is bound to miss sometimes despite being a great shot. As such, if he sometimes misses and sometimes hits in a certain scenario, using a dice in such circumstances makes sense if the options given are hit and miss rather than an option to also shoot himself. Now if it's an expert swordsman swinging at close range at someone, I don't see dice rolling as valid of a thing as it's more evident the outcome of the slashes. The opponent could still dodge or block somehow, but this is more common sense if they could manage where bullets whizzing through the air and dashing opponents is more open to "luck" where we can't predict as well.
I don't recall ever disagreeing with the notion that a partial dice system could be useable in appropriate situations involving archery or gunslinger battles, did I? All I've been saying is that I've seen plenty of times when the dice rolls ended up constantly coming up badly and each of these so-called experts fighting each other ended up looking like complete amateurs. That's not even considering that I've seen role-plays where getting a 1 meant you shot yourself instead of simply missed -- the term 'critical fail' was used. It led to the sort of thing you'd only see in a parody comic.
That being said, my entire side of the debate was centred around situations where dice were inappropriate, such as the sword fighting you just described, but even long-ranged combat can become completely inappropriate for dice when many different types of superpowers are in the equation (hence why I keep saying dice are less appropriate in higher tier settings) -- I listed one such example in my last few posts but plenty of others exist, many of which I've used before. There's even minor superpowers - like enhanced senses or reflexes - that can completely negate dice having any sense of realism, and I can think of vastly more complex powers than this. My long time collaboration role-playing friend met me on the same dice/stats focused role-playing forum I constantly cite as my introduction to how many problems systems like this can create, but once he suggested I create a role-playing forum focused on my own setting we immediately were in agreement that a dice/stat system could never work with it due to its depth and complexity.
Despite defending this dice rolling system, I still wouldn't use it much.
I wouldn't use it, period -- it's completely incapable of catering to the style or tier of battles that I specialize in. I'm only humouring the GM using them in our role-play because he isn't obligating me to do so and I'm just using that role-play to exercise a bit since it's been years since I've done this.
my attention to detail and nature as a deconstructionist/reconstructionist means I do not have much of a willing suspension of disbelief, a statement I've made a few times in this thread actually. I also consider out of character writing to be the greatest blasphemy a writer can commit, which is why I despise most fanfiction.
If the story is supposed to be more realistic (of course suspending disbelief for things like magic) and stays consistent and suddenly breaks suspension of disbelief due to a mistake, poor writing, etc. then I don't like it either. Even small things can still get to me that way.
There's this one famous fanfiction of harry potter where they're all goths and Dumbledore curses Harry out or whatever. Pretty hilarious if you ask me. XD Do you hate 4th wall breaking characters like Deadpool?
All I've been saying is that I've seen plenty of times when the dice rolls ended up constantly coming up badly and each of these so-called experts fighting each other ended up looking like complete amateurs.
I could come up with another rule for my dice roll and say that if they get a bad luck roll, they get bonuses to future rolls for a bit to make sure they can't keep missing shots that could go either way.
Kind of pointless discussing that with you, as you wouldn't do it, but if someone else likes this dice rolling idea than feel free to use it.
@ImportantNobody Before I respond to your replies, I should also point out that have no respect for the insinuation I'm getting from certain comments that anyone who doesn't enjoy writing reactions to dice rolls is somehow less 'creative' or 'experienced' than someone who likes to leave things outside of their control like that -- creative writing is by its very nature limited when something controls it. Few authors that are worth paying heed to actually enjoy it when the editor butts in and tries to censor their imagination -- to me dice are just meddling executives.
There's this one famous fanfiction of harry potter where they're all goths and Dumbledore curses Harry out or whatever. Pretty hilarious if you ask me. XD Do you hate 4th wall breaking characters like Deadpool?
Lol, that sounds painful. xD
As for your question about Deadpool and fourth wall breaking, I'm very hit and miss about it -- I don't particularly like Deadpool (I wouldn't say I hate him -- I just don't get the hype and I'm not a fan), but it's more for other reasons. Disgaea constantly breaks the fourth wall and is actually somewhat entertaining for it, and one of my favourite JRPGs of all time - the original Shadow Hearts - has a few moments of fourth wall breaking despite it being a very dark and serious story for the most part. It's not something I'd do in my own writing much, but it can work, especially in parody.
I could come up with another rule for my dice roll and say that if they get a bad luck roll, they get bonuses to future rolls for a bit to make sure they can't keep missing shots that could go either way.
Kind of pointless discussing that with you, as you wouldn't do it, but if someone else likes this dice rolling idea than feel free to use it.
That's not a bad idea at all, honestly. I give merit where it belongs even if I don't think I'd use the system personally -- just because I dislike FPS games doesn't mean I can't appreciate when one of them does things better than the others do. It's too bad the people on that forum I keep mentioning didn't do that.
@Shoryu Magami Both of us have grounds to cry wolf, but that was a full week ago.
Do know that my goal is not to convince you, or people who side with you, that "dice > free-form," or that every arena RP should be a dice battle. as I've said in the past, I'm well aware it will never work for you. It's to figure out exactly why dice have failed in the past and make a system that people who side with me find enjoyable to play. Please do not read too much into my own opinions. I'm aware I use absolutes a lot in my opinions, like "nobody" and "everyone", but I am talking about my kind of crowd when I do that.
Now that game mechanics are being tested and things are starting to take shape, one has to be careful how they present speculations. Things like past experiences, analogies, and even opinions were helpful in the beginning. But in the face of a beta system or counter points built on new ideas, those tools make for weak counter points by themselves.
-Attacks miss too often? Clearly this is a balance issue. I'd increase the chance of a hit happening to counter this.
-As I've been saying... There should be a complete disconnect between the game and the prose. For some reason you're hung up on the fact that a miss on a dice means you have to write it as your characters fault. You don't. If my badass ranger was as accurate as I wanted them to be, they'd put an arrow in your throat first round and the battle would be over. Not much drama in that. Speaking of which, Just because a dice says I missed doesn't even mean I have to miss! The attack just won't contribute to my ranger's potential victory because it did no HP damage.
-The house rule that a critical miss means you have to injure yourself is also simple to fix. DON'T USE IT! (unless you like it of course)
-None of your friends played with my system. Furthermore, majority vote =/= the truth. If there are 100 marbles in a jar, you say there are 100 marbles in the jar, But all of my friends and I say there are only 99 marbles in the jar, you're still correct.
. . . .
So far, I have yet to see anything that can't be fixed with simple balancing, keeping in mind that not everyone from the free-form crowd will use this system. What i'd like to hear from you are specifics, not just the outcomes.
Both of us have grounds to cry wolf, but that was a full week ago.
>Looks up the term 'cry wolf' since all of this 'urban language' is something he cares nothing for at all. He knew the story about the boy who cried wolf, but wanted to confirm it had a similar meaning in this context.
Huh, so it meant roughly what I suspected...
Just for the record, it's not 'crying wolf' when virtually every person who's discussed this thread with me and actually given me their opinion - including people you're talking to in the hang-out thread since some of them actually follow my posts even without me mentioning them - actually agree that your conduct here isn't professional. I've also been getting feedback from people before each of my posts - including this one - to ensure I'm being tactful because avoiding bluntness when a debate gets personal is usually not my strong suit -- I generally do not tolerate disrespect tactfully, but I've exercised a considerable amount of self-restraint in this thread and despite people thinking I should get a mod involved they don't believe I've personally done anything that will offend said mod.
As far as I'm concerned, my only 'crime' in this thread is allowing my posts to be a bit long-winded, which is only a bad thing based on some people's opinions and in reality is required in order to give a compelling debate. Beyond that, all I'm doing is deconstructing flaws I see in arguments or behaviour.
That being said, I wanted this put behind me ages ago -- I've got bigger problems, if the fact that I basically haven't slept properly for days now thanks to my workload isn't enough of a hint at that.
Do know that my goal is not to convince you, or people who side with you, that "dice > free-form," or that every arena RP should be a dice battle. as I've said in the past, I'm well aware it will never work for you. It's to figure out exactly why dice have failed in the past and make a system that people who side with me find enjoyable to play. Please do not read too much into my own opinions. I'm aware I use absolutes a lot in my opinions, like "nobody" and "everyone", but I am talking about my kind of crowd when I do that.
I'm glad you've clarified, because unfortunately without making things clear people can only read off of what you've written. Using absolutes has created quite a mess here -- there's a reason that Vordak came into this thread stating you were 'bashing' free-form role-play (that's what it was -- 'bashing', not discussing), and honestly that's the way I've been reading your posts right from the first one you posted here. I'm simply a bit more willing to express my discontentment about it than a lot of the other people are, which is probably why none of them said anything until my frustrating led to my decision that this thread was no longer worth my time.
Now that game mechanics are being tested and things are starting to take shape, you have to be careful how you present your speculations. Things like your past experiences, analogies, and even opinions were helpful in the beginning. But in the face of a beta system or counter points built on new ideas, those tools make for weak counter points by themselves.
No matter what the circumstances are, logic will always remain logic. I only use logical counters when they're effective. There's a very good reason I'm able to diffuse the attempts of 'trolls' on this site to start something with me -- making counterarguments and deconstructing ideas are some of my specialties. With that point made, if I don't personally (as whether they're weak or not is, again, subjective) think those tools are appropriate then I won't use them.
-Attacks miss too often? Clearly this is a balance issue. I'd increase the chance of a hit happening to counter this.
It's definitely a problem I see more often than not, and you're right that increasing the ratios would help solve it, as @ImportantNobody also mentioned too.
-As I've been saying... There should be a complete disconnect between the game and the prose. For some reason you're hung up on the fact that a miss on a dice means you have to write it as your characters fault. You don't. If my badass ranger was as accurate as I wanted them to be, they'd put an arrow in your throat first round and the battle would be over. Not much drama in that. Speaking of which, Just because a dice says I missed doesn't even mean I have to miss! The attack just won't contribute to my ranger's potential victory because it did no HP damage.
I'm not 'hung up' on the fact -- over the course of this thread, including the last few posts, I've offered numerous issues regarding these mechanics, so I'm hardly focusing on a single problem. You've also completely ignored the point I've made about how higher tier settings can negate any of the logical reasons for why said archer would miss in the first place - due to whatever superpower they have - despite this being a counterargument that the arena forum regulars have been agreeing with. Most of the counterarguments I'm getting just don't hold any weight if you go into a less basic setting, which I once again emphasize is why I was in agreement with the GM about his choice of setting for this (and even if you don't agree with this logic, he's openly admitted he picked this setting for that reason). If you're going to make a counterargument, you need to scrutinize all of the details, not just specific ones -- that's technically what free-form role-playing is all about in the first place actually.
With all of those details out of the way -- I don't actually disagree with any of the comments you've brought to the table on your own side, such as the mention of doing no damage instead of missing (though, once again, implementing HP into a piece of writing also gets in the way of realism more often than not -- this is a point I've also made a few times in this thread now), and also the idea that there's not much drama if a battle ends instantly; however, this is the exact same situation as free-form role-playing -- in free-form role-playing, there'd be no drama if people didn't look for every logical opportunity to out-debate and counter their opponent's actions to keep things interesting. When all is said and done, where you draw the line and say 'enough is enough' is all a matter of personal preference, and also something that would be discussed before a duel takes place if good groundwork (a concept you haven't shown any appreciation for but is nevertheless the agreed upon foundation of good duelling between myself and everyone I've been discussing this thread with) is used. That's really no different to not using mechanics or game rules you don't like.
-The house rule that a critical miss means you have to injure yourself is also simple to fix. DON'T USE IT! (unless you like it of course)
Indeed. I do feel sorry for people who're given no choice in the matter.
-None of your friends played with my system. Furthermore, majority vote =/= the truth. If there are 100 marbles in a jar, you say there are 100 marbles in the jar, But all of my friends and I say there are only 99 marbles in the jar, you're still correct.
They don't need to play with a specific system -- they've played D&D and this entire thread's point was a discussion about whether or not D&D mechanics were appropriate for utilization in a role-playing duel; honestly, the fact that you have your own system is irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, these people agree with me about Tabletop mechanics stifling creativity and detail - as well as weakening realism - which is the main points I've been making in this thread -- their gripes against these mechanics have nothing to do with 'balance' issues because - like me - they believe these mechanics are for games and not for writing. Also, I'm fully aware that majority vote doesn't equal the truth -- I'm usually on the underdog side of debates actually, yet I still believe I made the right choices in those situations.
With that point made, I think the fact that none of the arena forum regulars are responding positively to the idea of using dice/stats as a replacement for free-form role-playing (in fact they've mostly been opposed to it outside of a few idle comments suggesting they might partially try it for an experiment) should be a clear indication that these mechanics belong in the Tabletop forum that's focused on them, not here in the arena.
So far, I have yet to see anything that can't be fixed with simple balancing, keeping in mind that not everyone from the free-form crowd will use this system. What i'd like to hear from you are specifics, not just the outcomes.
Unfortunately, this has far less to do with balancing and more to do with an emphasis on these mechanics getting in the way of realism and writing -- that's the main point I've been making this entire time. Video games can be balanced perfectly fine, but it doesn't make them as effective a storytelling medium as novels (or visual novels, for those like myself who enjoy having some pictures and music too).
I could go into a lengthy post about all of my specific problems - in order to work balances around them - but for the most part there's actually no real point doing it, since neither I nor anyone else in the arena - to the best of my observation currently - actually wants to take part in this sort of duel -- perhaps it would be better to go to the Tabletop forum and suggest a one-on-one battle there? Also, you've neglected to keep in mind that - on several occasions now - I've actually made a point that I've run systems like what you're suggesting myself -- I know how to balance them, but that doesn't mean I like them or think they result in good writing.
I'm sure you'd get better reception with the Tabletop forum since the topic of the thread would be more appropriate. My biggest personal specific problem with this sort of system is one of the points I've already made several times -- this sort of system can't cater to the higher tier settings that I - and many free-form role-players - prefer to use. Every example being used is minimalistic in nature (archery, sword fighting, fisticuffs, et cetera), which are very weak arguments for claiming the system is appropriate for deeper and more complex battles.
When all is said and done, the GM abandoned this thread ages ago and me and him started role-playing -- I've mentioned that a few times. I'm not exactly sure if there's a specific reason why you're still trying to work on this system here in the arena, because I honestly haven't seen any positive reception for the idea so far. If you know people in the arena who actually are interested and aren't voicing their opinions about it, then fair enough -- I can't be held accountable for not knowing of their existence when they say nothing. I believe one person was actually interested in taking him up on this sort of duel here, and disagreements about which version of D&D they should use was seemingly all it took to end communication between them.
You've also completely ignored the point I've made about how higher tier settings can negate any of the logical reasons for why said archer would miss in the first place - due to whatever superpower they have - despite this being a counterargument that the arena forum regulars have been agreeing with.
Do keep in mind i've been doing this roll play dance for over a decade now. I have quite the backlog of people who agree with me and yadda yadda. I just don't cite them as reliable sources because "More people agree with me than you!" is an extremely weak argument.
Simply put, when you deal with high power settings, you have to assume that both fighters are in a like range of power. Let's upgrade my badass ranger to the goddess of arrows. Her arrows defy all logic and always hit their mark. For a decent fight, we need to put her up against another god that can somehow negate what is essentially "god modding" for a fair fight, and that means making her able to miss via whatever powers the other god has. Maybe the arrows harmlessly pass through his mist form, or maybe they bounce off his armor most of the time? If there was no way for the other player to avoid being turned into a pin cushion on battle entry, I'm sure someone would ask me to nerf my arrow goddess.
While higher tiers make the fights more sophisticated, they are still fundamentally the same. There needs to be room for every attack to fail, or at least be avoided by the other party. The only think higher tiers changes is flavor.
However, this is the exact same situation as free-form role-playing -- in free-form role-playing, there'd be no drama if people didn't look for every logical opportunity to out-debate and counter their opponent's actions to keep things interesting. When all is said and done, where you draw the line and say 'enough is enough' is all a matter of personal preference, and also something that would be discussed before a duel takes place if good groundwork (a concept you haven't shown any appreciation for but is nevertheless the agreed upon foundation of good duelling between myself and everyone I've been discussing this thread with) is used. That's really no different to not using mechanics or game rules you don't like.
I don't like debating, despite what my time in this thread might have you believe. I'd rather fight the character than the player. Other players attempts to squeeze out a tactic that would never work, recover from a lethal attack, etc, ruins the immersion for me. There's a difference between a desperate fighter and a desperate writer. I realize it works for the regulars, but it didn't work every time I tried it. Again, this is just preference. different for everyone. But that's the key reason why I like the idea of dice.
No one has yet to specify what good groundwork is, just that it balances everything. Maybe there's a guide to help me understand?
They don't need to play with a specific system -- they've played D&D and this entire thread's point was a discussion about whether or not D&D mechanics were appropriate for utilization in a role-playing duel; honestly, the fact that you have your own system is irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, these people agree with me about Tabletop mechanics stifling creativity and detail - as well as weakening realism.
I just don't feel the big question is over, which is if RPG elements belong in the arena. I mean sure, I could make a new topic, but I don't plan on making more than a few posts here so it seems kind of silly to do so. at least before I finally work out everything (if I ever do). I still say it's relevant to the topic, as the OP stated they wanted to use D&D 3.5 because it was most popular and easiest for people who know it to transition to.
And people genuinely hate new ideas when they've become comfortable with something that works. And the arena does work, so why dedicate time to learning how to RPG?
I've actually made a point that I've run systems like what you're suggesting myself -- I know how to balance them, but that doesn't mean I like them or think they result in good writing.
And all I can do is question how well it was done, just as you have every right to question the free-form battles I've participated in.
. . .
You are probably right that the table top section would be a better place to have a fight of this sort. Certainly it is worth discussing with them, people who adore complex rule sets and the like.
Something else to keep in mind is that there is a lady on here (the forum, not the arena) who runs all of her non-tabletop RPs with dice rolls and bits of randomness and is revered as one of the best GMs on this forum. While the arena goers may not like the idea, there is evidence that dice rolls and good writing can co-exist.
Do keep in mind i've been doing this roll play dance for over a decade now. I have quite the backlog of people who agree with me and yadda yadda. I just don't cite them as reliable sources because "More people agree with me than you!" is an extremely weak argument.
I wasn't stating it to make my argument stronger (I don't need to -- I know my argument's strong and would think so even if I was the only person who felt this way, but I'm not the only person). The reason I made this statement is due to my belief that using these mechanics is inappropriate for the arena forum, which is also why the GM was concerned he had offended the arena forum regulars - a statement he made in another thread - until I clarified a few things for him.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the people who agree with you are people who - like you - prefer to use dice/stats? This makes their opinions no more subjective than your own are, just like the people in the arena forum here agreeing with me is as subjective as my own beliefs are. Like I said, I only brought it up to emphasize that people in the arena forum do not agree that dice/stats can co-exist with realistic role-play duelling, so you should take this discussion to a forum where people who like RPG mechanics role-play -- that was my only point with that quote.
Also, while we're on the subject of citing inappropriate sources as a basis to make arguments stronger -- you've commented about having a lot of 'experience' several times in this thread now, while I've generally avoided specifying how long I've been doing this (it's over a decade too, just for the record -- well and truly more than two and a half decades now if we don't just count play-by-post; however, I'm not saying this to compare myself to you, so consider it some trivia about my background) because I don't believe that a person stating how much experience they have holds any weight whatsoever when compared to the content of their debate.
I care very little for prestige, reputation, education, or background -- I only care about the content. I don't actually believe my experience has any weight on my insight or wisdom, as I possessed much of these intuitively before I even got the experience (which is why I was a competent player - and GM - even as a child). Subsequently, people citing their own experience is meaningless to me.
Simply put, when you deal with high power settings, you have to assume that both fighters are in a like range of power. Let's upgrade my badass ranger to the goddess of arrows. Her arrows defy all logic and always hit their mark. For a decent fight, we need to put her up against another god that can somehow negate what is essentially "god modding" for a fair fight, and that means making her able to miss via whatever powers the other god has. Maybe the arrows harmlessly pass through his mist form, or maybe they bounce off his armor most of the time? If there was no way for the other player to avoid being turned into a pin cushion on battle entry, I'm sure someone would ask me to nerf my arrow goddess.
I agree with the specific example you gave -- I don't believe this sort of system can adapt to a wide range of examples I could give you though, but I don't actually consider bringing them all up appropriate since I don't actually care for this type of role-playing in the first place - based on plenty of time trying it out, which presumably is where you got your distaste for free-form role-playing as well - so debating the finer balancing problems doesn't serve much purpose unless people in the arena forum actually start showing some interest.
While higher tiers make the fights more sophisticated, they are still fundamentally the same. There needs to be room for every attack to fail, or at least be avoided by the other party. The only think higher tiers changes is flavor.
To an extent -- the example you gave above is an example of it just being a flavour change, but I work with a lot of very complex and metaphysical combat systems and I don't believe they can be written to their full capacity using stats and dice. You're more than welcome to disagree with that, but me and my associates clearly don't feel the same way as you and your associates since me and my circle decided stats and dice were completely inappropriate for my setting when I started building forums around it. Just for the record, my setting isn't the only example where this problem can appear either. As I've been saying, my feelings about dice and stats are not concerning whether or not they can be balanced, but whether or not they result in good and realistic writing -- we simply don't see eye-to-eye on the answer to that.
I don't like debating, despite what my time in this thread might have you believe. I'd rather fight the character than the player. Other players attempts to squeeze out a tactic that would never work, recover from a lethal attack, etc, ruins the immersion for me. There's a difference between a desperate fighter and a desperate writer. I realize it works for the regulars, but it didn't work every time I tried it. Again, this is just preference. different for everyone. But that's the key reason why I like the idea of dice.
In a good debate, you're not fighting the player -- you're debating with them. I engage in entirely friendly debates with my associates on a regular basis, and at no point does it ever end up turning into the 'fight' that this thread has been at risk of becoming several times. It's definitely a matter of preference, as you said -- what you consider to be a character desperately squeezing out of an attack or recovering from a lethal blow might ruin immersion for you, but for other writers it will be enjoyable because it's completely appropriate to the setting in question. Personally, there's no immersion for me without that depth.
The reason I work with highly complex and powerful characters capable of a lot of deep concepts is because I find standard fare combat completely boring. My project actually has a very realistic and heavily rooted in reality focus on characterization - as well as a plot that's very rooted in philosophy and real life social commentary, as opposed to merely being escapism - but if I wrote all of the fights as entirely 'normal' I wouldn't find the battles engaging at all. There's a good reason Naoki Urasawa's Monster is the only series that was completely realistic that I have ever liked, period -- that series had such good characterization and plot that I was able to ignore the fact that I think normal gunfights are dull and unimaginative. My work also discusses ontology and theology quite extensively, so it's inevitable that 'gods' are going to come into the picture and I don't like stories that portray battles between higher beings as mere sword fights.
Essentially, you like dice because it removes the need to debate -- you're the same as the GM in that regard. For someone like me though, I find the debate - and the strategic realism created by that debate - to be one of the key factors for why I actually enjoy writing and reading combat in the first place. I actually explained this in more detail in the OOC of the thread me and the GM are role-playing in currently, and while he might not share my preference I do believe I've made it clear to him now why using dice and stats is entirely inappropriate for me based on what I - and most arena role-players - want out of combat-based writing.
All I'm really saying is that good debating isn't 'fighting', which is why I put so much emphasis on collaboration and sportsmanship, and also why most of the arena forum regulars seem to be backing this sentiment up. If you dislike debating, or don't have experience with debating that wasn't 'fighting', then your feelings towards free-form role-play duelling completely make sense.
No one has yet to specify what good groundwork is, just that it balances everything. Maybe there's a guide to help me understand?
Honestly, I don't blame you for needing clarification -- there's no actual guide anywhere concerning good groundwork for free-form role-playing to the best of my understanding, and I've even considered writing one myself at some point. A lot of free-form role-play duellers struggle constantly to balance things, but I personally don't have this problem and never have. It's also possible that people don't use the term 'groundwork' conventionally, since I'm entirely self-taught and I don't do things 'by the book', so this term is something I coined myself.
I wasn't going to go into detail about it - even though I have mentioned some elements of it several times in my posts throughout this thread, which I assume were missed - because I've largely been under the impression you weren't going to read my posts. Since you've actually asked again, I'll take the time to go into it but I'm only going to give a summary -- if you want more details you'll need to wait until I have more time on my hands. Nevertheless, it will be a bit of a read, so absorb it in your own time.
'Groundwork' refers to everything that's established before the role-play takes place, and therefore good groundwork is referring to this foundation's quality and how thoroughly detailed it all is in order to ensure balance and intricacy. You've been referring to dice/stats as complex mechanics and rules set out in order to better the role-play -- 'groundwork' is the equivalent set of complex rules and details used with free-form role-playing. While they are mostly common knowledge amongst role-players, many (bad) role-play duellers seem to forget to use some - or all - of them during competition.
The Setting
No, I'm not patronizing you by stating something this obvious. First and foremost, picking a setting is absolutely essentially in most cases -- as far as I'm concerned, if two role-players engage in a free-form role-playing duel without an established setting worked out then there's a very good chance that they don't truly know what they're doing.
While it's certainly possible to take part in a role-playing duel that occurs in a 'neutral dimension' (a.k.a. no established setting) and do so effectively, more often than not a lot of the problems in the other categories are caused due to this one being missed -- before you even establish characters, you should establish the world. This applies to free-form role-playing and also to role-playing that uses dice and stats, and is the reason why I've commended ELGainsborough for establishing the setting first (regardless of whether or not the setting is my own cup of tea).
The reason I suggest having the setting established beforehand is because it makes registering and accepting appropriate characters a lot more manageable and balanced -- if there's no magic in the setting then no one can be mages; if there's no gods in the setting then no one can be deities.
You should think of this as setting the rules for the game, much in the same way you select 'house rules' for a Tabletop.
Character Sheets
Once you've got the setting worked out, both participants should go about creating their character sheets. This should include the usual details about a character you'd expect to see in any role-play, but I also think a summary of the character's personality and intelligence should be included -- this way you don't have characters who seem like morons being written as genius strategists, or characters who are meant to be brilliant tacticians being written as fools.
It's probably standard procedure to have character sheets include a list of the characters' powers and skills (if it isn't, then people are way more incompetent than I thought they were), but I don't personally believe that people understand the full extent of what this should entail. When I have characters accepted on my role-plays, every individual power that the player wants to introduce to the character must be accepted and fleshed out individually in order to make sure it follows the setting and the specifications of the character in question. This includes all powers that a character is registered with, and all powers that are registered at a later date in time.
This shouldn't just include getting the powers accepted, but also the extent of what the character's proficiency in these powers is. One good example is registering someone whose powers involve electricity manipulation -- it should be established in the character sheet if they're limited to simply shooting blasts of electricity; if they are capable of electromagnetism; if they can manipulate computers and electronic equipment; if they can manipulate electrons; et cetera.
In one of the posts I made in this thread (back one page), I pointed out that part of my ability to balance out the fight you mentioned - the one between your monk and the 'sausage' they fought - would depend on how well-established the full extent of their abilities were -- was it ever actually worked out before you started? Did you establish the depth of what your monk could do with their 'ki'? Did your opponent establish all of the abilities this 'sausage' had managed to absorb beforehand? If the answer is no, these things should've been worked out as part of the groundwork. If the answer is yes, it was either a badly established match-up or someone went against their character sheet.
All of these details should be established in the same way that a D&D character sheet is put together beforehand.
Insight & Resourcefulness > Power Gaming
I should make a point that unbalanced match-ups are, unfortunately, realistic -- in most fictional stories - and reality - two characters or people are seldom ever truly evenly matched, and in RPGs all of the players and monsters are rarely balanced either. With this in mind, I'm moving to what I consider one of the most important skills that a lot of free-form role-players (and Tabletop role-players -- though unfortunately there's less ways to fix it when it comes to this type of game) sorely lack -- insight and resourcefulness.
While I've mentioned this before in the thread already, I'll go into it again -- I've never lost a non-scripted (scripted by myself, I'll have you know -- I've scripted myself to lose plenty of times since I'm playing the antagonist who needs to lose for the story to move forward) free-form role-play duel before, but in my time free-form duelling I've usually played the 'underdog'. Despite how powerful and broken the characters in my setting are, I never use their true potential or play the higher tiers. I've gone up against people who had a ridiculous combination of several overpowered characters from various anime (or comic books), facing against them with one of my own characters who had a relatively contained but versatile set of abilities, and still won simply because I'm able to be creative and outwit the opponent.
If the groundwork of the previous categories in a free-form role-play duel is good, how you use the abilities available to your character (insight and resourcefulness) is far more important than what your powers are. This is - in my eyes - the foundation of what makes a good free-form role-player and why I don't even slightly believe that free-form role-playing is more inclined towards power gaming than systems that use dice/stats (which have clear cut statistics that people can - and do - try to exploit for competitive gain).
While my setting and narrative do possess extremely powerful and broken characters, I don't need to use the full extent of those characters in order to be a successful free-form role-player -- no good free-form role-player actually relies on power gaming. Sure, there's some match-ups that are inconceivably unbalanced, but if you have good groundwork in the areas listed prior to this then it shouldn't happen.
Once again, I'll use the electricity manipulation character as the basis for my explanation -- there's a whole lot more that people can do with electricity manipulation than just firing blasts of electricity at people, and if you're creative the power is actually way more broken than it might sound (which is why establishing the extent of the wielder's proficiency in the character sheet is important), especially when electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are implemented.
I've actually used competitive free-form role-playing with 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 never would've worked realistically if we weren't actively trying to beat each other and test the limits of abilities, but the main purpose was to contemplate all the applications of an established power.
Long story short -- the person with the more blatantly powerful character doesn't win; the one with the more insightful and resourceful strategy wins. This is, at the very least, what happens when groundwork is well-established.
Debating 101 - Sportsmanship & Collaboration
As a general rule, if either of the competitors is unable to be respectful or civil when discussing things in the OOC then they should be considered a bad free-form role-play dueller by default -- this doesn't just apply to duelling, but is a universal rule regarding all forms of role-playing. By its very nature, role-playing is a social activity as much as it's a creative activity -- contrary to what some people think, this doesn't change simply because of competition.
It's very easy to tell the difference between a good competitor - in any sport/game/whatever - and a bad competitor by their behaviour. At the very core, the same can be applied for debating -- someone who lacks the ability to debate in a manner that's civil and mature is an unskilled debater, and these people don't belong in free-form role-play duelling. These people should stick to non-competitive role-play for the exact same reason that people with bad sportsmanship should stick to single player video games instead of multiplayer video games -- I have to deal with these poor sports all the time when I play fighting games, dealing with a constant assortment of sore losers and 'rage quitters'.
For the true competitor, the actual challenge and enriching experience of being able to put the mind to the test and grow as a person is the ultimate goal -- the victory is only the icing on the cake. Winning is far less important than the battle itself, but that doesn't mean that the battle should be dumbed down to remove the competitive elements because a lot of the quality is born from those elements.
With that said, part of the groundwork that many people fail to consider is picking a suitable opponent in the first place -- are you honestly going to play against someone in a competitive video game if you know for a fact they're going to 'rage quit' every single time you're about to beat them? I don't think so. Similarly, I won't - generally speaking - participate in competition with a bad sport in a role-play for the same reason I won't invest my time into a debate with someone who disrespects me.
Once an appropriate opponent has been found, the rest of it comes down to the same type of good collaboration that is used for virtually all forms of role-playing. There's a reason that the arena forum threads have an OOC just like all the other forums do -- you're supposed to use the OOC to discuss things and make sure that all sides play the game fairly and debate the strategy like adults. Debating is the root foundation of this, and if you don't like a friendly debate then free-form role-play duelling simply isn't for you.
Actually, the role-playing thread I'm currently participating in is a great example of what I'm talking about, since me and ELGainsborough are - for the most part - civilly discussing our posts and opinions regarding the IC. I'm admittedly at the disadvantage because he's the GM and has established the rules of the role-play, but the only reason I'm willing to even role-play with him - which I'm doing primarily as a bit of casual exercise - is because my thoughts and opinions are also being taken on board.
Perhaps another good way to think of good sportsmanship is by considering the amount of detail in a post. The more vague you make your post, the more difficult it can be for the opponent to react to it effectively and find openings, while at the same time the more vague you make your post the more options you leave your opponent to interpret as they wish and therefore the easier it can be for them to react.
This vagueness with posts is a double-edged sword, so I believe that doing your best to be as thorough and detailed with your posts as possible prevents misconceptions -- this is all in the name of sportsmanship. Any details which are uncertain can also be discussed in the OOC, since a person with good sportsmanship won't hesitate to fill you in on questions you have. Obviously, not exploiting OOC knowledge in the IC to gain an advantage is also a staple of good role-playing and should be exercised here.
GMs/Battle Moderators: The Optional Safety Net
This isn't actually a requirement -- if the rest of the categories listed above are well-established then there's really no need whatsoever to have a 'referee' for the match, but it's indeed a viable option if you want a safety net to ensure nothing becomes problematic. Some people prefer to let dice be the referee and use them just in worst case scenarios, but I think battle moderators are another option; an option that doesn't compromise the nature of the free-form role-play.
In a setting with a GM, that GM (myself in the case of my own setting) is able to be the most objective referee, but you can also assign battle moderators so long as they're both insightful and impartial -- my best role-playing associate is knowledgeable enough about my setting to act as a battle moderator for the most part.
Naturally, in order to be a battle moderator the person must also be a mature debater themselves, and this sort of safety net only works if both participants are mature enough to accept that this person has the final say in controversial matters.
I just don't feel the big question is over, which is if RPG elements belong in the arena. I mean sure, I could make a new topic, but I don't plan on making more than a few posts here so it seems kind of silly to do so. at least before I finally work out everything (if I ever do). I still say it's relevant to the topic, as the OP stated they wanted to use D&D 3.5 because it was most popular and easiest for people who know it to transition to.
I believe the GM choosing to leave this thread was basically the acknowledgement that he got his answer that it isn't appropriate for the arena forum, and he's more or less suggested such feelings to me in our own thread since then. If you take anything from this discussion, perhaps let it be that free-form role-players and Tabletop role-players should duel separately instead of trying to push preferences on each other. I don't see any reason why people in the Tabletop forum can't open up a duel there -- you've made a point you don't like the competitive element, so not having the ranking system - which I also hate, just for the record - in that forum shouldn't bother you at all.
And people genuinely hate new ideas when they've become comfortable with something that works. And the arena does work, so why dedicate time to learning how to RPG?
As I've said, I actually took the time to learn both before I formulated my own opinion, which is why I don't believe I'm being biased and (presumably) you don't think you're being biased. Now that I've decided which style is more appropriate for the type of writing I want to create, I don't see a reason involving myself in the other -- I'm only humouring the dice rolls that the GM is using in our thread when it doesn't compromise my writing style, and he's completely okay with that.
And all I can do is question how well it was done, just as you have every right to question the free-form battles I've participated in.
I do question the free-form battles you've participated in, mostly because of the examples you've given, but I've also suspected for quite a while - and now had confirmed in your last post - that your feelings towards debating itself are also a large part of where your views come from -- a negative attitude towards debating makes your feelings regarding all of this very clear to me.
All I'll say in my own defence is that I believe that the Tabletop role-playing I've experienced was fairly well-executed, especially since my closest associate specializes - from what I can tell - in GMing Tabletop role-playing games as a major hobby and he served as my right-hand man, per se, throughout most of my play-by-post role-playing career. This exact same person agreed with me about dice and stats being inappropriate when the decision finally came for us to shift the role-playing setting to my project's world.
You are probably right that the table top section would be a better place to have a fight of this sort. Certainly it is worth discussing with them, people who adore complex rule sets and the like.
Similarly, I personally - and most free-form role-players who know what they're doing - enjoy the deep and complex mental and metaphysical elements that are created by letting debating (plus well-thought-out tactics, intuition, mind games, et cetera) be the controlling factor over a piece of combat narrative rather than mechanics which - in my own preference - should stay in video games and Tabletops.
Something else to keep in mind is that there is a lady on here (the forum, not the arena) who runs all of her non-tabletop RPs with dice rolls and bits of randomness and is revered as one of the best GMs on this forum. While the arena goers may not like the idea, there is evidence that dice rolls and good writing can co-exist.
Most of the non-arena goers I've spoken with also dislike the idea, but that doesn't discredit what you've just said about the GM -- it's interesting to know, and I have a rough speculation in my head about who you're referring to, but that doesn't mean that I would personally enjoy their role-plays, nor would my associates automatically enjoy them. I do understand that it serves as a decent argument for why considering dice outside of the Tabletop forum is a valid discussion, but I don't think the way a single GM - no matter how hailed they are - does things should dictate how other GMs operate.
I don't think the way a single GM - no matter how hailed they are - does things should dictate how other GMs operate.
Of course not. But this is simply an example without leaving this forum. I think we already covered that i'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
Thank you for the read about "groundwork." I know that probably took some time to type out. Unfortunately, my monk VS sausage fight actually didn't deviate from your groundwork bible very much. The only offense was that it was never explicitly said what the sausage's entire list of fighting moves entailed. Truth be told though, it must have been balanced fairly well. I mean, I "did" win. But I only won because I attempted to harm his girlfriend, something he brought in mostly for flavor. Quite a few spectators were like "just so you know, you're the bad guy in this fight." The guy I was battling was a pretty good sport about it. It should be noted he never asked me to duel again though, haha!
. . . .
All other remaining points I'm either in agreement with or agree to disagree, so I think I'm done here. I'm glad this was how things ended between us.
Of course not. But this is simply an example without leaving this forum. I think we already covered that i'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
Pretty much, and neither am I.
Thank you for the read about "groundwork." I know that probably took some time to type out.
No problem at all. I've been considering writing up a much more elaborate version eventually (I mentioned that in a previous post here) due to believing that many role-players don't have these concepts established very well. They've honestly always just been common sense to me, even at the beginning of my role-playing career.
Unfortunately, my monk VS sausage fight actually didn't deviate from your groundwork bible very much. The only offense was that it was never explicitly said what the sausage's entire list of fighting moves entailed. Truth be told though, it must have been balanced fairly well. I mean, I "did" win. But I only won because I attempted to harm his girlfriend, something he brought in mostly for flavor. Quite a few spectators were like "just so you know, you're the bad guy in this fight." The guy I was battling was a pretty good sport about it. It should be noted he never asked me to duel again though, haha!
How the fuck does a giant sausage have a girlfriend...?
Depending on the match-up in question, the detail that your opponent missed out leaves a lot of openings for 'god-moding' and out of character behaviour, so I can't say I'm entirely happy to hear that, but I've had battles in the past where I didn't list every single ability simply because the entire purpose of the duel was to be an experimental ground for me to come up with move lists. With that said, him having a girlfriend (no, seriously... how the fuck does a giant sausage have a girlfriend...?) actually served as a good weakness to counterbalance his arguably unbalanced skill list, which is another reason why I believe establishing the character's personality and intelligence level is important for duels, not just for non-battle role-play.
All other remaining points I'm either in agreement with or agree to disagree, so I think I'm done here. I'm glad this was how things ended between us.
I feel the same, honestly -- the only time we'd ever have a need to go into the elements we disagree on is if more people actually wanted to try to branch between the two styles of role-playing, but since this is all mostly a matter of preferences for what people want out of their writing I don't see the need to go into it currently.
