It's all there in the title. What methods do you fine people use to settle physical altercations in a non-physical text world?

@TwelveOf8

This a question regarding PvP specifically, or just an overarching question about writing combat into text? I don't have the time for one of my extensive 'leave no stone unturned' posts that goes on forever, so I figured I'd find out exactly what the question is focusing on before I say anything.

To avoid "altercations," I simply discuss who's going to win the fight between our characters. Sometimes this is as simple as deciding what would be more interesting to see, while other times we will discuss what would make more sense. It takes all the OOC drama out of it.

If you're talking about PvP, that is a topic that I personally have no interest in and try my best to avoid. Shoryu Magami is a bit more invested in that sort of stuff, as well as anyone else who frequents the PvP forum.

Stats systems work out pretty well. Or even dice rolls, to determine level of success of an action. Keep dice rolling until someone hits the number that's critical loss. Alternatively the two players can agree on which character "winning" would make for a better story.

Gonna attempt to keep this a lot shorter than it could be, since I still don't know exactly what this thread's about.

With regards to the replies so far, this is all pretty much why I asked what they specifically were looking for comments on. Is this a discussion about how to determine who should win in a battle, or it is a discussion about how to actual write battle scenes into text (as in techniques for writing combat, as opposed to determining a winner)? It isn't actually clear in the opening post.

If it's about determining the winner of a battle, I find that stats and dice are only useful in specific circumstances, because they make battles unrealistic otherwise. For example, not all characters are created equal -- the harsh reality is that people are seldom equally gifted/talented/equipped, so using things like stats to 'balance' the characters just screams escapism, which is only fine if the role-play isn't aiming to be taken seriously. Using a dice roll to determine who would be more successful between an amateur with no combat experience and a veteran warrior is a blatant violation of realistic IC writing. Just a basic example, of course. You can't just hand wave this by giving one of them better stats than the other, because a lot of factors (not even including luck) could shift the tide of the battle strategically. I'm pretty heavy on strategy and analysis, so this sort of stuff tends to be up my alley, as Broken implied.

With this in mind, I find that using stats is only acceptable in a story that's not really going for realism (a.k.a. is taking on more of a video game logic to its battles), and dice are only a viable option when a battle situation would realistically be completely a matter of luck, which, contrary to popular belief on role-playing forums, is actually far fewer situations than people think.

When determining who should win in a battle, many things need to be factored in, including the abilities of each character, their strategic capacity, their personalities (there's a reason personality categories are so important for a CS even in a PvP role-play) and the impact their current mind state would have on the battle, et cetera. These are just a few of the factors, but ultimately trying to simplify combat with stats or dice can completely remove the very critical realism that exists in battle. In other words, to successfully determine who should win, a good amount of OOC collaboration is actually needed, as well as both participants being more focused on objectively working out a compelling result instead of just 'fighting to win' -- most good PvP role-players are more interested in seeing a deeply intricate battle be presented, rather than just fighting to try and win (it's all about storytelling and interesting strategy, but just 'picking the winner at random' does not make a good story, and neither does prioritizing winning over good writing/tactics). At the very least, that's how I feel about it. I've got quite the 'ego' on me, to be honest, but I only engage in PvP combat role-play for the intricate details of strategy and creating a compelling piece of battle fiction -- I don't need to role-play to satisfy my ego.

While you can try to discuss who would win out in advance, and in might work in certain situations, I feel that this sort of 'predetermination' takes out some very crucial elements of unpredictability. You don't really know the outcome until you start seeing the characters duke it out and the situation they get into, which is why it's better to discuss (read: discuss, not argue) the outcome as it goes, which is the very core of what good PvP is when it's not done with stats/dice. I find the only people who can't do this successfully are bad sports, such as people who rage quit in fighting games (it's hilarious how often people do this against me). If you two can actually work out who'd win in advance by factoring in all their abilities (like I said, this is more complicated than it sounds), then that works just fine. I've done it before, actually.

Honestly, I think being forced to write your posts around dice rolls is fundamentally the same as having someone god-modding your posts. The exact same thing can apply if a winner is chosen in advance and then you have to write your character OOC to achieve this 'plot-induced stupidity'. That's why I think being able to maturely discuss these sorts of things out is what determines someone's ability to write a compelling battle scene with another writer.

This is, of course, all assuming that the discussion is about determining a winner, instead of techniques for actually writing fight scenes from a literary point of view. I'll provide another response if it's about the latter, because I can help with that too. I wanted to wait until I knew for sure, but since other people responded I figured I'd throw my two cents in.

@Shoryu Magami It really depends on what kind of writing you're going for. What you're describing mainly applies to stuff like Arena, which I haven't really dabbled in since I was younger on another forum, but for a story driven game? Having the involved players talk among themselves and determine the outcome is usually the best solution. It keeps a fight scene from dragging out from a lot of repetitive back and forth and it can lead to an honest assessment of the character skills and their advantages and disadvantages. By walking through the scene and what would likely happen via PM or IM, you can streamline the process and make it into a collab that reads excellently and the outcome is unknown by the rest of the RP.

I'm experimenting with dice rolls for some mechanics and it has flaws, for sure, but so far, it's the only viable alternative to players having a gentleman's agreement about the outcome.

Again, I realize Arena is entirely a different beast that is entirely about two players writing out a fight and seeing who would win via a multitude of back and forth factors, but I'm just trying to illustrate that isn't a one size fits all solution because not all writing is the same.

Straight writing for combat, typically it's a matter of one side posting an action (or 2 or 3) and the other side reacting and posting their own actions. Rinse and repeat, either in omegasize posts in arena forum or in a clean collab. One could make arrangements beforehand, or even throw stats/dice into an otherwise statless/diceless game, but I find not integrating those things to be preferable and find them even unnecessary if the right partners are involved.

Having the involved players talk among themselves and determine the outcome is usually the best solution. It keeps a fight scene from dragging out from a lot of repetitive back and forth and it can lead to an honest assessment of the character skills and their advantages and disadvantages. By walking through the scene and what would likely happen via PM or IM, you can streamline the process and make it into a collab that reads excellently and the outcome is unknown by the rest of the RP.

This is (when used in combination with some real time simulation tests to gauge unpredictable elements in the characters' IC tendencies), in my opinion, the most ideal way to write combat when it's not strictly Arena; in fact, it's how I usually go about dealing with battle scenes in my story-driven role-plays (especially since I've done a lot of role-playing over IM in my 'career'), and I plan on doing exactly the same thing in the role-play I'm currently running on this site now (with an additionally little gimmick that should make things quite intense for the players and readers).

Ideally, people simply being good sports should be the priority in Arena -- it's what determines a good Arena player. That said, I can understand why rolling dice might be needed to people who can't be mature about this sort of thing. I can acknowledge that, since for some people the desire to win overrides the desire to win logically. Tossing in RPG mechanics just isn't something I like to do, because I feel like it takes from the realism/depth/immersion. As @ArenaSnow said, picking your opponent is the key to having an enjoyable battle role-play. Honestly, it's the same as not playing against people in fighting games who've got a reputation for rage quitting or lag abusing.

The idea you gave about doing it as a collaboration is, in my eyes, the best method. It doesn't feel as 'pointlessly long', but it's still run in 'real time' and therefore feels realistic and doesn't suffer from the OOC problems created by predetermining the outcome. I find myself pretty good at running battle simulations without even needing to write the battle, so that sometimes helps the outcome move forward smoother.

Roll for initiative!

But seriously, combat is a lot like typical romance-RP stuff, you do stuff and give the other person an oprotunity to react, otherwise it looks like you're just swarming your partner and don't want them to do anything edgewise, at which point you're pretty much fighting manniquens.

Adding maybe intent of those actions in case things start getting confusing can also help. Adding pre-arranged responses can also speed things along if they do something you predicted they'd do in your previous post (usually to your favor, but sometimes not if you've been batman-gambitted).

Usually, after a bunch of taking arbritrary amounts of pain and damage, and a lot of clever manuvering that forces them to either take damage or look like an unsporting jerk, a winner is usually declared.

Sometimes winning and losing isn't so clear if both players are forced to withdraw, lest the true final boss step-in and kill them.

@Foster

Yeah, honestly, I find that part of good sportsmanship is to make sure your posts aren't vague in terms of what your character is doing, which is why being able to write battle role-plays involves a good attention to detail. Obviously, if you've got a gambit going then you don't explain this in your post, but generally making it as clear as possible what you actions are is a good idea.

Perhaps it's just the chess player in me, but I've always got pre-planned responses in my head as replies (if I've got time, I can write them up, but I'm usually multitasking), depending on how the opponent responds to whatever I've put up; in fact, I've often got certain responses planned out several posts in advance, catering to a few different possible outcomes. Of course, the opponent could do something unexpected, but I'm usually able to factor most things in.

With that said though, I don't really find that I have this problem people talk about regarding battles 'taking too long' to reach a conclusion. It might just be due to the fact that I prioritize supernatural battles, but I find that they end pretty quickly if I actually want them to. A fist fight could go on for ages if it turns into a slugfest, and the same applies to a sword fight if people have armour. A fight with guns could end almost instantly, but I don't usually partake in those. Most of my battles are supernatural, and I've found that I can end them pretty quickly, because I usually build my characters aren't not so much around 'raw power' so much as having adaptive abilities that allow me to set up gambits that will pretty much guarantee a one-hit kill.

With regards to the other comment that you made, which followed up on what @ArenaSnow said, I think it's pretty much just common sense in all forms of role-play to not overwhelm the other side with too many actions or lines of dialogue, since the other side needs to react in order to make it all flow realistically.