Part of the post before my previous one was emphasizing that lacking the competitive desire to win actually can cause a battle-orientated role-play to suffer just as much as possessing that desire. In fact, while good collaboration and groundwork (some of the foundations of a good role-player) can actually remove the issues created by possessing the desire to win they cannot remove the issues created by not having this desire.
And I read that, and I felt it was irrelevant in a world where 99.999% of the participants "play to win."
In order to write a character's perspective in battle in a way that is convincing you actually need to want to win just like the character does (in the same way that a role-player who lacks a certain mental disorder will never be able to write it as well as a person who actually does suffer from it).
Another way to word what you just said is "It's impossible to know what it feels like to drown unless you are drowning right now, so if you want to write a drowning character, you need to go submerge your head in a bath tub." And I disagree strongly with this. Once you've almost drowned once, you probably don't need to do it again because you'll carry that experience with you. I still remember what breaking my arm felt like, and that was a decade ago.
You can write for someone who plays to win without playing to win, provided you have that experience.
As for what was contributed involving chess; I'm a chess player myself so I can actually appreciate the sentiment brought to the table here greatly. This is precisely one of the reasons why I believe that integrating RPG mechanics into a battle-orientated role-play actually hinders its depth and complexity (read: quality of writing). It's very similar to comparing checkers to chess; if you're a solid chess player and you try to play checkers you immediately feel like you're being forced to dumb yourself down because checkers has far less tools and options available to it than chess, which is why a lot of people who are good at checkers are shit at chess but most people tend to be more or less equal at checkers.
Why does everyone assume the writing has to reflect EXACTLY what's going on in the game? Just because i'm performing a basic attack doesn't mean I can't write "The barbarian king Jetorio wiped the sweat out of his eyes and charged his opponent. With each step his speed and bloodlust grew. His massive body was generating it's own wind current as he kicked the fall leaves into the air. With a trail of leaves and blood behind him, the barbarian king performed an ariel somersault and came down on his opponent with his bearded double ax."
You also completely ignored the bit about Chess being more fun as a game because of it's rigid rule structure.
The exact same comparison exists between role-playing a battle-orientated piece of writing in a free-form style when compared to RPG mechanics; free-form role-play is the chess in comparison to its checkers. This is why the more of these mechanics you implement the more dumbed down (read: unrealistic) a fight becomes; neither chess nor checkers actually offer a perfect representation of true combat or strategy and one of them is simply a bit deeper than the other one. Chess only goes so far as a simulation of warfare, and when you take unpredictability and supernatural powers into the equation it becomes even less able to keep up.
I think the above invalidates most of this, but I'll continue by saying that I've yet to write an free-form RP piece that felt as engaging as a video game. I have admired the strategy presented in RPG games, but never that in these writen free-form battles. You likened free-form to chess, I liken it to make believe. You've spoken a lot about balancing and exiting combat, but you haven't said a word about how you actually go about making it fair or realistic. Not in depth anyway.
No respectable writer is going to write a fight scene in their latest novel while using dice, and I should make a point that when I write or role-play two characters who are fighting each other I always get into the mind state of both of them; I'm capable of writing a role-play fight against myself while actually still making it look convincing.
Respectable writers aren't co-writing a battle with someone else either though. What does how you write battles in normal roleplaying have to do with any of this?
Look buddy, I get it. You have a strong opinion about Free-form roleplays and RPG mechanics. Most of your arguments are based on personal preference and wordplay, which doesn't really move a debate forward. What this topic needs is more actual observations instead of clever wordplay. HOW are these free-form battles actually done? WHY do you feel they are more solid "strategy wise". WHAT do you do when BS moves happen?
