[@BrokenPromise]

[quote=BrokenPromise]
Alright, that was a nice light post, so I decided to read it. No flipping out and accusing me of flaming because of how I choose to phrase questions, M'kay? 
[/quote]
If you don't want people to think you're flaming, choose your words more thoughtfully in the first place -- flame wars are, by definition, insulting, so all your disrespect and backhanded snark is [i]actually[/i] flaming whether you accept it or not. Also, blaming the other person instead of the words you choose is just blatant running from responsibility for your actions. There's an explicit rule on this site about attacking the idea; not the person -- this same rule also happens to be pretty much 'Debating 101' in a nutshell. I've thought about letting a mod know about this thread for this exact problem -- I might still do it, especially since multiple friends think I should too.

Also, if you're not going to bother reading long posts in a debate (which are usually the source of the best insight due to being [i]detailed[/i]), don't try to brush off the person's logic -- I take the time to read everything the other person writes and that's why I have the right to express an opinion. Something doesn't become a 'rant' just because it's long -- most of the more intelligent debates and speeches in the world are incredibly long-winded. I don't plan on dumbing down my debates for people, so if you're not going to read them then don't comment -- it's ignorance of the highest calibre to attack a concept you haven't researched, and I always understand my opposition before presenting a debate against it. Calling a viable debate just 'wordplay' also doesn't make it any less a viable debate that's being ignored.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
While I understand this is your experience, it isn't my reality. Okay, so I have a totally badass ranger who never misses his shots. I roll a 1 and am forced to miss a shot. But I don't have to write the miss like my character actually has horrible accuracy. why can't I just have my opponent stumble and fall out of the way? Maybe my rolling a 1 isn't my character missing, but their character evading. And realism? Sorry buddy, even the best shooters are prone to miss. Especially when you consider stuff like moving targets, wind, debris, etc. 

With enough creativity, it just doesn't seem like an issue.
[/quote]
First off - since we're dealing with dice rolls here, which are inherently random - you're very likely to roll low numbers so many times that it will end up making that supposedly totally badass ranger miss constantly -- there's no realism in that at all. I've seen this happen more times than I care to count, and the status that this character is supposedly skilled at their profession very quickly loses its viability. There's also plenty of dice rolling GMs who write a 1 as a blatant failure, not just a miss. How many professional archers shoot themselves in the face? How many master wizards accidentally cast their own attack spells on themselves or their allies? I've seen [i]both[/i] of these happen.

As for the latter comment involving the best shooters missing, I explain this in my comments concerning 'low tier settings' below. Also, while you're debating against my thoughts on this, you would do best to remember that the other free-form role-players here have actually been [i]agreeing[/i] with me that using these mechanics gets in the way of realism. Your experiences and our reality are different -- and the entire purpose of this thread was to bring multiple subjective opinions to the table to get the full picture.

Ultimately, there's a fine line between 'creativity' and 'jumping the shark' -- a line I've seen crossed all too often. I believe ImportantNobody pointed out how dice aren't favoured if you want realism for exactly this reason.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
I also feel that using dice would remove all the fluff that nobody really enjoys reading, like the three or four paragraphs about the angle of the sword swing that's suppose to ensure a clean hit. That's not necessary when the dice are in charge.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, this statement is assuming that everyone else feels the same way about it as you do. 'Nobody' enjoys reading all the detailed descriptions of how the battle - both the physical and the psychology aspects - takes place? [i]'Nobody'[/i]? I suppose you should know -- [i]I do[/i], and so do a [i]tonne[/i] of other writers and novelists (who, as I've made a point in the past, make up the majority of the highest level role-players) since they wouldn't write such detailed descriptions if they [i]didn't[/i] enjoy it. I don't think you actually realize just how many people on this site you've offended with this statement. In the end, this is all just an opinion. Plenty of people don't like letting dice dictate everything precisely [i]because[/i] they enjoy writing and reading the details. The fact that you don't feel that way is no justification to assume everyone doesn't. This is a [i]writing-focused[/i] website -- if you don't like reading, why're you here?

[quote=BrokenPromise]
I don't really understand what you're saying here. What is "beyond luck"? What is "a low-teir setting"? Am I to assume that being beyond luck is being in a situation where there's only one outcome? Is low-tier like low powers/realistic? This sounds like one of those points that we might just have to agree to disagree on.
[/quote]
Characters who are more powerful, more intelligent, et cetera, reach a point where luck simply isn't a factor anymore. Do you seriously think that a character will miss if they have the power to manipulate probability and causality? By their very nature those things allow you to possess a 100% attack accuracy. This is just a single example, of course, but it gets the point across. So yes, when I say 'low tier settings' I'm referring to something like D&D or Rurouni Kenshin as opposed to - for random examples - Xenogears or JoJo's Bizarre Adventure.

The more powerful, deep, and complex the setting is, the more difficulty the dice and stats have catering to them -- I've stated this numerous times in the thread already. I've been discussing this whole debate over with a good friend of mine (they're on this site, but I know them in person) who happens to play D&D frequently and they agree with me too. A long time collaboration role-playing friend of mine - who plays Tabletops and hosts them too - also agrees with this. D&D mechanics are better used in a game, not in writing. We can agree to disagree if you want, but these beliefs are not uncommon, especially amongst play-by-post role-players.

I've also made a point that a partial dice system is only useful in situations where it's [i]appropriate[/i] - and even then only for people who have bad collaboration and sportsmanship - since there are plenty of times even in low tier settings where it's inappropriate and gets in the way of maintaining realism and depth. In the end, there's a good reason that the dice/stats role-play forum (Tabletop) is separate from the regular role-playing forums on this site, including being separate from the arena forum. Writing should drive the narrative, not dice. As far as I'm concerned, that dice/stats role-play forum is for people who prefer Tabletop games -- it's not for writers. There's bound to be exceptions, since there always are, but most people I know - on and off this site - have no interest in that forum whatsoever as writers [i]or[/i] readers.