[@ELGainsborough]
This has devolved to the point that I had a feeling it would, so I'm going to pull out. If my input actually continues to prove useful to you, then I request you send me a PM; I've got enough on my plate now without having to deal with passive aggressiveness. I genuinely do hope this role-play goes well for you and if my input can prove helpful then I'm glad to give it, but I'm not interested in the direction this thread is going; I've had way too much experience with this sort of thing and I got over it years ago.

[@BrokenPromise]
Since you've decided to turn a [i]debate[/i] into a [i]flame war[/i] by getting personal with me, I'm not even going to bother dignifying this with as much of a response as I normally would. In case you haven't noticed, I'm doing [i]exactly[/i] what the GM of this thing asked; allowing the perspective of people with multiple views to be present by offering my stance on things as someone with a preference for free-form. Did you not even bother reading his post about that? If you don't agree with me, I don't care in the slightest, but actually trying to get [i]aggressive [/i]with me? I'm not impressed. Due to that, I'm only going to answer the things you've brought up in a simple manner (since I want to keep doing as the GM requested); this thread is no longer worth my attention apparently and I'm already being multitasked enough. Attack the idea, not the person; rule number one of debating and the moment that ceases from one party it stops being a debate. If he actually had a problem with me giving my input like this, don't you think he would've [i]said[/i] something? It's disappointing to see this conversation go down the direction I was predicting it would; that I was being tactful to [i]prevent[/i] it from going down.

It's completely relevant even if the majority out there "play to win". You can actually remove all of the problems created by competitive attitudes by having proper groundwork (as I keep pointing out) and still manage to prevent any of the inherent problems that come up from not using free-form (of which I see no purpose to repeat again). You can't do the same with RPG mechanics without making things rigidly boring (read: for people who actually find rigidness boring; which I do and you don't, and the purpose of me being here is to provide the other side) and creating a situation where the writing doesn't reflect a real battle at all.

[i]Once[/i] you've almost drowned, yes, but not before then. So tell me, have you ever been in a life or death fight before? [i]I[/i] basically have. If you have, I sincerely doubt that every single possible situation that could've come up in a battle took place there; no one can "experience" that. Why is that relevant? Even if you have "experience" like you keep pointing out (for what I can only suspect is you presuming you have more experience than everyone and simply talking down to people; not the best attitude to have around people you know [i]nothing[/i] about), every situation is different. Insight, wisdom, perception, and strategy are where the importance lies (to name a few things), and these are more important than "experience"; the state of mind is everything. Actually getting into the mind state of a competitive attitude will cause a person to see openings and options in a competition that they won't find if they don't have this mentality; there's a reason it's been shown through countless polls that people who lack a competitive streak are terrible in working world situations that demand competition. If you don't go into it with that mentality, you'll miss things you wouldn't normally (not unlike how a competitive player participates with less skill when they're playing casually; something I do all the time in a variety of mediums); you can disagree all you want but it's basic psychology as far as I'm concerned.

You're assuming way too many things; I know perfectly well that writing a basic attack from gameplay mechanics doesn't have to be written as such, and if you'd actually seen [i]any[/i] of the role-plays I'd taken part in that involved RPG mechanics you'd know that. On the other hand, if you honestly think that every possible offensive or defensive concept that could be conceived or creatively thought up for a character is somehow conveniently going to fit itself into a handful of attack commands, you're wrong; this is why I said this sort of system becomes progressively less efficient the more complex the characters or setting get. That's not even taking into account how stupid role-plays look when what would clearly be a killing blow (say, nearly any attack for example outside of a fist fight) in the written form only does a chip on the opponent's life bar. There's a whole trope built around how RPGs make no sense in this regard when translated into writing.

Assuming I ignored the part about chess being more fun because its rigid nature is also a mistaken assumption; if you'd looked at my post when I compared it to checkers I was making it entirely clear I [i]understood[/i] your post, I simply didn't [i]agree[/i] with it. Checkers is incredibly boring to a high level chess player [i]because[/i] checkers is fundamentally too rigid and limited in comparison. The fact that I don't agree with the sentiment that dumbing things down makes them more fun does not translate to me ignoring your post, but since it's apparent you're looking for every chance to just start something with me here I'm not surprised you interpreted it that way.

Role-playing and writing are by their very definition "make believe". You honestly think RPGs or D&D are [i]realistic[/i]? This post also shows that you didn't just interpret my last part as me ignoring it; you openly knew I hadn't ignored it and chose to disregard the fact anyway. Do I even need to waste the GM's time going into how to make free-form role-plays more balanced when that isn't the [i]point[/i] of this thread? So what if you've never found an engaging free-form role-play; I've never found an engaging RPG mechanics role-play. This is all a matter of [i]preference[/i], so why get personal when all I'm doing is giving the perspective that was asked of me? I didn't use the [ @Mention ] feature in my last post because everything I wrote was for the GM, not for you; I didn't even care if [i]you[/i] bothered to look at my post.

If you'd actually taken the time to properly read my posts instead of just pick out things that you could use seemingly as flame bait, or whatever could be used to support your idea while dismissing the rest (bias and selective reading are not signs of a good debate, which requires you to scrutinize [i]all[/i] the details and face those facts head on), you'd know that writing has everything to do with this. Co-writing is still writing, and all of the tools needed in order to make a successful narrative are needed in order to write a successful role-play if that role-play is done using [i]text[/i] instead of on a Tabletop. There's a reason most of the high level play-by-post role-players on this site also happen to be [i]novelists[/i]. If you can't appreciate that I don't have anything else to tell you.

Your arguments are based on personal preferences as well; that's the entire point of each of us posting up here like the GM asked; to offer [i]perspective[/i]. If you want to brush off viable debates as just "wordplay" (debates that multiple associates of mine happen to be reading just for the record) then why should I even bother explaining something like that, especially when it has nothing to do with this role-play? I've given all of the information I need to give for the GM; deconstructing inherent flaws in the system from my perspective and offering compliments and advice on the strengths of the idea. If you actually cared about how I approach these things, which you apparently don't given how you don't like free-form in the first place, I'd be happy to explain them in a place that wouldn't count as being off the point of the thread. So you know, I actually did explain some of the things you're asking in my posts already; I just didn't go into needless detail because it's off the [i]purpose[/i] of my presence here. If the GM asks me, I'll go into it... if I feel like even investing my valuable time in this thread again.