[@ELGainsborough]
I should emphasize that the main reason I've been discussing these things as I have is because I believe in everything being on the table. I'm not really the type of person who's all that concerned with where a person gets their knowledge or insight from, but more so interested in the wisdom itself. I'm not interested in people talking about what pieces of paper they have or what they have or haven't had the opportunity to do in their lives; all I care about is the content of a person's debate. Honestly, if anything will piss me off, it's people not being able to appreciate [i]that[/i], since I have no tolerance for disrespect nor for superficial social classing. This is not a statement directly against you; I'm making a statement about myself and nothing more. I don't know you personally and you don't know me personally. I simply don't like to filter my thoughts, for my own reasons.

Nevertheless, everything I say is only meant to be food for thought; not an attempt to create an argument. If my honesty bothers anyone, I don't see why that's entirely my fault. I only joined this thread to see it move forward, exactly as I did with the other role-play I joined; which I had to pull out of eventually for personal reasons. That being said, I'd like to see this through so long as it retains my interest. Since I've obviously made a point that this type of system isn't for me, I obviously wouldn't use it personally when I can avoid it. I've also pointed out that I've worked with both systems in the past as well, but my attitudes towards these systems are not rooted entirely in my experience because ultimately experience is subjective. I don't have a problem with you using the dice, and I've never stated a problem with you using them.

On my own end, I simply believe that the necessity for reason and logic becomes more significant as the supernatural capabilities of the characters present become more complex and in-depth, and also becomes more significant when dealing with more intelligent characters (hence why I say characterization can be stifled from using these mechanics), to the point that I simply do not believe this sort of system could work with or survive less grounded combat, which is exactly why I was in agreement with you about the setting you chose; I'd never even consider using one of my primary characters in this sort of setting because I currently feel the vast majority of the strategies I might employ could never even be catered to by this system. I even discussed this debate with a friend of mine over the phone yesterday.

I understand your reasoning; you want to remove the elements that prevent a battle from lasting excessively long, and in order to do so you're removing the motivation to use tactical faculties to outwit the opponent. That's exactly the problem which causes our preferences to differ; I'm only interested in role-playing a duel [i]for[/i] those tactical elements, not for the purposes of competition but due to my preferences for writing. As someone who largely works with strategy, whether it be in competitive video games, chess, debating, understanding other people's (or my own) inner psychology, or philosophy discussions in general, all of my passions are rooted heavily in the mind (I've got no interest in citing my qualifications nor the sources of my insight because I believe such things are meaningless).

Removing those tactical faculties actually removes the entire reason that I consider reading (or writing) a combat-based piece of narrative enjoyable in the first place. I don't work with simplified combat in my writing; I'm constantly focused on a battle of wits between my characters even when combat isn't actually happening at all, and even standard discussions in my work are full of psychological warfare. This is why I keep emphasizing that this is all a matter of opinion; you're not wrong to have fun writing without those elements and I'm not wrong to enjoy writing because of those elements.

That said, my apologies for not giving clarity about the specific spells I was using. Perhaps in my constant sleep deprivation I've missed that detail; I actually thought I did make it clear, but I'll edit my posts after reading to ensure I'm more specific about what I used. To some extent, the spells I've casted related to one of the questions I need to ask you, so perhaps you not knowing exactly what I used had some impact on my confusions with your dice rolls. Also, you're right to assume I'm using Latin, but you should know I consider it broken Latin rather than proper Latin; while I'm confident in my insight on the fields I specialize in or have passion for (regardless of how I got my insight), I'm not going to claim that Latin (or language, period) is one of them; I'm half-arsing that part using the internet because I felt like using English didn't feel aesthetic enough for this setting. In my own work, sometimes I use scripture or poetry; sometimes nothing at all. Either way, I'll make myself more clear with some edits.

As for my questions:
[list][*] I'd like to know a specific detail concerning the "success ratios" you've been giving for each of the actions, since we're finally in direct combat. The nature of how these dice rolls work is very vague to me and I'm actually earnestly trying to indulge you as much as possible (without compromising my views, of course) by taking them into account, so some clarity will help. Generally speaking, I consider a missed action to be a more significant failure than a blocked action, since miss punishment is generally far more capable of being detrimental than block punishment is. With this in mind, how do the dice rolls factor in the likelihood of evasion, blocking, and hitting? Is there a certain point where a percentage becomes low enough that it is more likely dodged than blocked? Also, does a high percentage automatically imply a high percentage of hitting the opponent or merely connecting with their guard, and at one point does the line between the two appear? These are all factors I need to be able to make an unbiased reaction to your dice rolls. I understand this is a success rate for connecting the blow, but don't know exactly where the hit/block/evade concept is worked into it, if it is at all.
[*] Which support magic was being factored into the dice rolls, and how was it implemented? Given that you might not have known which spell I activated first and which I activated second (which I'm assuming you consider to have been activated successfully before I reached you due to the fact that you're referring to "spells", not "spell"; I should point out that my post actually was written in a way to offer you the chance to interrupt that incantation, but it seems you didn't take me up on it). I was actually in the midst of casting the speed-enhancement spell while you were approaching me, but if you consider it activated before you closed the distance then assume my character is a little faster than normal now. The first spell I activated was the endurance-enhancement spell (which, from my understanding of The Elder Scrolls, is the physical defence stat; presumably this would impact how much damage wounds could inflict and how easily my guard and armour can be broken down). The third and currently unused support spell is meant to fortify his stamina to make it harder for him to get physically tired. He usually uses this on pilgrimages but would also use it if a battle went on for an excessively long time.
[*] I misread your first attack as an attempt to actually interrupt the casting of my second spell by knocking me off guard. Apparently I was wrong about that, since you're speaking as though two spells are already active on me. Unless when you say spells, you're referring to one active spell and one almost active spell, but your dice rolls implied two are active from your perspective. Just for the record, I'm aware that shield strikes as used to disorientate the opponent, so this question is only relevant to whether or not you were attempting to interrupt my second spell or not, which I'm assuming you weren't given a lot of your statements.
[*] Considering that, realistically speaking, a single blow to a specific area of a person can actually destroy that section, how should I interpret a 33% ratio of damage? It's not like we have a health bar or life points. The same sort of question applies to whether or not you hit my armour instead of me, obviously.
[*] [s]Also, trivia, but are we no longer using the [ @Mention ] feature during the IC posts?[/s] No need to reply to this last question; I've noticed you actually edited it into your new post later.[/list]
Edit: I've made sure the spells were clear in my posts now.