Instead, I'd rather take the hit but write the loss so fucking well that people are like "Holy shit....he definitely should of won."
First off; this quote is awesome. While I definitely believe a convincing narrative of combat can only be achieved if those participating go into the combat with the intent to win (thereby fuelling their creativity and strategic depth), you've worded a good sentiment on how writing should prioritize over gameplay mechanics; the entire point of the post I'm about to make. You cannot actually write a compellingly realistic or entertaining narrative of battle when RPG mechanics are taking the reins over everything; they actually remove all the depth and complexity and power of mind that make combat what it is in all forms.
As you've expressed the desire to hear the other side of the story, I'll post once again. I'm currently going on over 27+ hours without sleep (with several hours to go), so I do apologize in advance if my sentences are not structured as well as they usually could be; I'm overworked as it is and I actually have a multitude of other discussion threads to deal with before I can rest as well. Since you've appreciated my input, this is the least I can do.
Given that a lot of what you've put here, ELGainsborough, (well-thought-out as it might be) is rooted in D&D mechanics or concepts that I don't particularly have an affinity for, I'll keep my comments and my thoughts focused only addressing things being mentioned that I feel my opinion is helpful or insightful with; mostly allowing for an objective analysis of everything by being the person who presents the other side of the story.
I expect my response will be a bit long-winded, due to the fact that this is a discussion I have needed to deconstruct a few times in the past. I will therefore not be contributing to the idea of using a stat system because you essentially have everything you need for one already well taken care of. I have nothing to offer towards that because (by the very definition of my presence here for you as the person who prefers free-form) I don't approve nor do I humour the notion that RPG mechanics can result in a more convincing or enjoyable narrative than
actual narrative itself can free of these unrealistic restrictions. These mechanics are fun tools to create a simplistic combat system for video games and Tabletop games; they do not illustrate the complexity or deep aspects of real combat, especially when supernatural powers and advanced technology enter the equation.
There's a very good reason why, as video games have evolved over the years to become more realistic, many of the RPG genre have abandoned traditional RPG mechanics in favour of a move "free-form" method of combat. Before I illustrate this reason, I want to make one thing clear; anyone who wants to assume I'm biased in this situation can think again. The number of JRPGs I've played or experienced directly or indirectly well and truly goes into the hundreds, and the vast majority of my favourites
actually use RPG mechanics over a more realistic combat system. There are definitely noteworthy exceptions, I promise you; make no mistake that certain Action RPGs are more appealing to me than most traditional RPGs are despite me having a very long history of nostalgia and enjoyment in the traditional ones, far more so in comparison to the latter ones of which I only play a few very carefully selected gems.
From the perspective of a simplistic video game that's sole purpose is to focus on keeping things basic in order to avoid complexity or depth; there's no denying traditional RPGs are the way to go. Actually, they were the only ones that existed before technology advanced in video games precisely
because they are less realistic and complicated. The exact same applies to Tabletop games; they use these mechanics in order to keep things simple but by no means do fight scenes in a Tabletop resemble reality more than, say, watching a movie does. Once you take writing into the equation you suddenly start seeing a really significant problem.
I think you have a good idea of making the point system be far more focused on the quality of the written posts rather than simply have everything be determined by the dice rolls and stats; that's
exactly how I used to run my role-playing duels back in the days when I actually implemented a stat system, and it was the only time I saw well-written role-play duels using stats at all. The stats were a guideline for character's natural aptitudes but in reality calculations based of statistics do not control the flow of a battle. In the end the player's actual narrative and writing skills had more impact on success or failure than those guidelines. It was still nowhere as complex or deep a narrative or competition as free-form, which is why I scrapped it. Even if you were to play entirely free-form and simply use dice to solve the minor disputes that popped up the result would still be somewhat unrealistic, especially in a battle where the intelligence and perception of the characters has any sort of impact (which is often).
Granted, you're not suggesting exactly what I used; in your case the "winner", per se, would actually be the person who wrote their reactions to the mechanics better, not the legit winner. It works for this style of role-play because while I do believe a free-form role-play can be convincingly written and well balanced with good collaboration even between two people who are actually competing I do not believe one using RPG mechanics will either tell a comparably good narrative nor will it have any sort of true competitive balance; you've solved the latter to an extent problem I feel; the only problem I see is that people would be just as likely to dispute over who wrote "better", and since writing is subjective this becomes a problem. Did you have a specific idea in mind for how the
determining of the better composition would be decided? After all, doesn't this have an even
bigger chance to become a flame war than the aforementioned arguments over "attacking and dodging"? Writers will be even more egotistical and competitive if their quality of writing is being brought into question and not simply one of their attack plans. This is one of the other reasons I scrapped using the system where I made writing quality complement accuracy and evasion stats, just so you know.
Having RPG mechanics does not make a role-play more balanced nor does it make things more realistic; the types of abilities the characters possess and how they use them determines realism. You could have a Dragon Ball Z or Superman role-play using dice rolls to determine everything and it would
not be a more realistic role-play than a fight between two ordinary humans using guns in a free-form role-play. On the contrary, it would be impossible to cater to every possibility that the competitors in
either of these scenarios could possibly use in a battle that was relying on RPG mechanics. These mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with realism at all; they usually stifle realism completely. On every role-playing forum I have ever been a part of that used such RPG systems I found my creativity and strategy censored; my detailed ideas for character concepts replaced by generic "Fire 1" spells; complex and enriching strategy replaced by dice rolls and "turn-based" rules that make absolutely no sense in the real world. Actually, there are anime series out there that have actually joked around with RPG mechanics in their fight scenes and specifically parodied it as a deconstruction; the Japanese are
very self-aware that their JRPG mechanics do not translate over into convincing and realistic narrative; the mechanics are for video games and Tabletops pure and simple.
In reality, luck does not play such a major role in success or failure between proficient warriors or mages, so the very notion of allowing dice and numbers to determine everything and then just writing around the outcomes is not good writing in my eyes at all; it's
out of character from the foundation all the way up, and out of character writing is the definition of shitty writing to me. How a character is written; the way they are presented; the tactics they use; the thought process in their mind as they outwit their opponent; the way they utilize the various complex tools at their disposal to trap their opponent and get in their head. None of the things I've just stated even exist when you put RPG mechanics into the situation and limit skill sets to a handful of command options. These sorts of systems do not make battles more realistic; they turn everything into calculations and calculations do not account for things like free will, unpredictability, imagination, creativity, intuition, mind games, and many other facets that I don't even need to go into. Without any of these things, the fight scenes of a novel would be less than unrealistic; they'd be fucking boring as holy hell. Number crunching does not equal a well-written battle of wits.
I'm a writer
before a role-player; this gives me abilities that allow me to specialize in translating a role-play over into the form of novelization. Fight scenes using these mechanics are not convincing narrative at all in my eyes, whereas free-form is already virtually novelization without needing to be transmigrated in the first place. My only purpose here is to provide the other side of a story so things remain objective. I have no interest in involving myself in role-play duels that lack the depth and complexity of free-form anymore, whether they be played merely for "competition" or for "writing". I should probably also mention that around fifty percent of the role-plays I've taken part in that were free-form actually already had a predetermined winner settled on due to collaboration; that's actually the truth and I have document files worth of evidence to back this up, including all the OOC collaboration going on between myself and my associate. These same collaborations took place whether a winner is already decided or whether we wanted to make things more interesting and really use our creativity as writers and try to outwit each other using the groundwork we set in advance. In virtually all cases the latter of those created the more compelling story, so you know, because we collaborated a convincing battle of wits. You don't actually
need RPG mechanics at all to prevent people from "cheating" if the groundwork and collaboration is well done. This collaboration and groundwork also solves the problems you mentioned involving people arguing over details with a "0.0000000000001%" chance of success, though I won't bother explaining how since it's not relevant to your idea.
On my final note, I've actually also met a very large number of role-players who used RPG mechanics for their combat systems
specifically because they wanted to focus on competition rather than writing or role-playing a good fight scene. I can actually link you to several examples of these from other role-playing forums. These people wanted to compete in something akin to their old-school Tabletop days but try to make it competitive, or they were MMORPG players who wanted to write the equivalent of the PvP modes. These people were not looking at this from the perspective of good storytelling. The first role-playing forum that I ever joined was also a good example of this; I took part in several battles there. I won some; I lost some. They were never very enjoyable nor realistically written strategic battles at any point; they were as mindless as the "press the 'Attack' command button and watch you get 9999 damage then do it again" battles you expect to see in a good old-fashioned Final Fantasy game. Once again, I emphasize my point;
I'm a fan of Final Fantasy games; that doesn't mean I believe their combat mechanics work in novelization or narrative in general; they belong in games. There's a reason Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is
nothing like Final Fantasy VII in terms of combat; Final Fantasy VII's original combat system would have looked ridiculous in a movie.
Disclaimer: I apologize once again for the long-winded reply, ELGainsborough. I wanted to offer my input, but by no stretch of the imagination do I want to change you mind on how you present this role-play since I'm not personally going to get involved anyway. I'm simply offering my observations of what I view as a very ineffective narrative system. It works if the purpose of the game is competition, but does not tell a convincing and realistic fight scene, and the more supernatural powers or advanced technologies you introduced the more it becomes too much for the RPG mechanics to handle, which is why I fully respect the decision you've made to go with something more traditional like D&D; this sort of system is completely inappropriate for more "broken" characters or more complex battles of wits. I had to make this post long because I'm extremely overworked and do not have time to write multiple smaller posts over a period of time. I hope this information allows you do make the most of your point-based idea that emphasizes narrative over mechanics; I think it's the most reasonable way to use this sort of system.
