[@BrokenPromise]

[quote=BrokenPromise]
Both of us have grounds to cry wolf, but that was a full week ago.
[/quote]
>Looks up the term 'cry wolf' since all of this 'urban language' is something he cares nothing for at all. He knew the story about the boy who cried wolf, but wanted to confirm it had a similar meaning in this context.

Huh, so it meant roughly what I suspected...

Just for the record, it's not 'crying wolf' when virtually every person who's discussed this thread with me and actually given me their opinion - including people you're talking to in the hang-out thread since some of them actually follow my posts even without me mentioning them - actually [i]agree[/i] that your conduct here isn't professional. I've also been getting feedback from people before each of my posts - including this one - to ensure I'm being tactful because avoiding bluntness when a debate gets personal is usually [i]not[/i] my strong suit -- I generally do not tolerate disrespect tactfully, but I've exercised a considerable amount of self-restraint in this thread and despite people thinking I should get a mod involved they don't believe I've personally done anything that will offend said mod.

As far as I'm concerned, my only 'crime' in this thread is allowing my posts to be a bit long-winded, which is only a bad thing based on some people's [i]opinions[/i] and in reality is required in order to give a compelling debate. Beyond that, all I'm doing is deconstructing flaws I see in arguments or behaviour.

That being said, I wanted this put behind me ages ago -- I've got bigger problems, if the fact that I basically haven't slept properly for days now thanks to my workload isn't enough of a hint at that.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
Do know that my goal is not to convince you, or people who side with you, that "dice > free-form," or that every arena RP should be a dice battle. as I've said in the past, I'm well aware it will never work for you. It's to figure out exactly why dice have failed in the past and make a system that people who side with me find enjoyable to play. Please do not read too much into my own opinions. I'm aware I use absolutes a lot in my opinions, like "nobody" and "everyone", but I am talking about my kind of crowd when I do that. 
[/quote]
I'm glad you've clarified, because unfortunately without making things clear people can only read off of what you've written. Using absolutes has created quite a mess here -- there's a reason that Vordak came into this thread stating you were 'bashing' free-form role-play (that's what it was -- 'bashing', not discussing), and honestly that's the way I've been reading your posts right from the [i]first[/i] one you posted here. I'm simply a bit more willing to express my discontentment about it than a lot of the other people are, which is probably why none of them said anything until my frustrating led to my decision that this thread was no longer worth my time.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
Now that game mechanics are being tested and things are starting to take shape, you have to be careful how you present your speculations. Things like your past experiences, analogies, and even opinions were helpful in the beginning. But in the face of a beta system or counter points built on new ideas, those tools make for weak counter points by themselves. 
[/quote]
No matter what the circumstances are, logic will always remain logic. I only use logical counters when they're effective. There's a very good reason I'm able to diffuse the attempts of 'trolls' on this site to start something with me -- making counterarguments and deconstructing ideas are some of my specialties. With that point made, if I don't [i]personally[/i] (as whether they're weak or not is, again, subjective) think those tools are appropriate then I won't use them.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
-Attacks miss too often? Clearly this is a balance issue. I'd increase the chance of a hit happening to counter this.
[/quote]
It's definitely a problem I see more often than not, and you're right that increasing the ratios would help solve it, as [@ImportantNobody] also mentioned too.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
-As I've been saying... [b]There should be a complete disconnect between the game and the prose. [/b]For some reason you're hung up on the fact that a miss on a dice means you have to write it as your characters fault. You don't. If my badass ranger was as accurate as I wanted them to be, they'd put an arrow in your throat first round and the battle would be over. Not much drama in that. Speaking of which, Just because a dice says I missed doesn't even mean I have to miss! The attack just won't contribute to my ranger's potential victory because it did no HP damage. 
[/quote]
I'm not 'hung up' on the fact -- over the course of this thread, including the last few posts, I've offered numerous issues regarding these mechanics, so I'm hardly focusing on a single problem. You've also completely ignored the point I've made about how higher tier settings can negate any of the logical reasons for why said archer would miss in the first place - due to whatever superpower they have - despite this being a counterargument that the arena forum regulars have been agreeing with. Most of the counterarguments I'm getting just don't hold any weight if you go into a less basic setting, which I once again emphasize is why I was in agreement with the GM about his choice of setting for this (and even if you don't agree with this logic, he's openly [i]admitted[/i] he picked this setting for that reason). If you're going to make a counterargument, you need to scrutinize all of the details, not just specific ones -- that's technically what free-form role-playing is all about in the first place actually.

With all of those details out of the way -- I don't actually disagree with any of the comments you've brought to the table on your own side, such as the mention of doing no damage instead of missing (though, once again, implementing HP into a piece of writing also gets in the way of realism more often than not -- this is a point I've also made a few times in this thread now), and also the idea that there's not much drama if a battle ends instantly; however, this is the exact same situation as free-form role-playing -- in free-form role-playing, there'd be no drama if people [i]didn't[/i] look for every logical opportunity to out-debate and counter their opponent's actions to keep things interesting. When all is said and done, where you draw the line and say 'enough is enough' is all a matter of personal preference, and also something that would be discussed before a duel takes place if good groundwork (a concept you haven't shown any appreciation for but is nevertheless the agreed upon foundation of good duelling between myself and [i]everyone[/i] I've been discussing this thread with) is used. That's really no different to not using mechanics or game rules you don't like.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
-The house rule that a critical miss means you have to injure yourself is also simple to fix. DON'T USE IT! (unless you like it of course)
[/quote]
Indeed. I do feel sorry for people who're given no choice in the matter.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
-None of your friends played with my system. Furthermore, majority vote =/= the truth. If there are 100 marbles in a jar, you say there are 100 marbles in the jar, But all of my friends and I say there are only 99 marbles in the jar, you're still correct.
[/quote]
They don't need to play with a specific system -- they've played D&D and this entire thread's point was a discussion about whether or not D&D mechanics were appropriate for utilization in a role-playing duel; honestly, the fact that you have your own system is irrelevant to it. Nevertheless, these people agree with me about Tabletop mechanics stifling creativity and detail - as well as weakening realism - which is the main points I've been making in this thread -- their gripes against these mechanics have nothing to do with 'balance' issues because - like me - they believe these mechanics are for games and not for writing. Also, I'm fully aware that majority vote doesn't equal the truth -- I'm [i]usually[/i] on the underdog side of debates actually, yet I still believe I made the right choices in those situations.

With that point made, I think the fact that none of the arena forum regulars are responding positively to the idea of using dice/stats as a replacement for free-form role-playing (in fact they've mostly been opposed to it outside of a few idle comments suggesting they might partially try it for an experiment) should be a clear indication that these mechanics belong in the Tabletop forum that's focused on them, not here in the arena.

[quote=BrokenPromise]
So far, I have yet to see anything that can't be fixed with simple balancing, keeping in mind that not everyone from the free-form crowd will use this system. What i'd like to hear from you are specifics, not just the outcomes.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, this has far less to do with balancing and more to do with an emphasis on these mechanics getting in the way of realism and writing -- that's the main point I've been making this entire time. Video games can be balanced perfectly fine, but it doesn't make them as effective a storytelling medium as novels (or visual novels, for those like myself who enjoy having some pictures and music too).

I could go into a lengthy post about all of my specific problems - in order to work balances around them - but for the most part there's actually no real point doing it, since neither I nor anyone else in the arena - to the best of my observation currently - actually wants to take part in this sort of duel -- perhaps it would be better to go to the Tabletop forum and suggest a one-on-one battle there? Also, you've neglected to keep in mind that - on several occasions now - I've actually made a point that I've run systems like what you're suggesting myself -- I [i]know[/i] how to balance them, but that doesn't mean I like them or think they result in good writing.

I'm sure you'd get better reception with the Tabletop forum since the topic of the thread would be more appropriate. My biggest personal specific problem with this sort of system is one of the points I've already made several times -- this sort of system can't cater to the higher tier settings that I - and many free-form role-players - prefer to use. Every example being used is minimalistic in nature (archery, sword fighting, fisticuffs, et cetera), which are very weak arguments for claiming the system is appropriate for deeper and more complex battles.

When all is said and done, the GM abandoned this thread ages ago and me and him started role-playing -- I've mentioned that a few times. I'm not exactly sure if there's a specific reason why you're still trying to work on this system here in the arena, because I honestly haven't seen any positive reception for the idea so far. If you know people in the arena who actually are interested and aren't voicing their opinions about it, then fair enough -- I can't be held accountable for not knowing of their existence when they say nothing. I believe one person was actually interested in taking him up on this sort of duel here, and disagreements about which version of D&D they should use was seemingly all it took to end communication between them.