[@BrokenPromise] [quote=BrokenPromise] Do keep in mind i've been doing this roll play dance for over a decade now. I have quite the backlog of people who agree with me and yadda yadda. I just don't cite them as reliable sources because "More people agree with me than you!" is an extremely weak argument. [/quote] I wasn't stating it to make my argument stronger (I don't need to -- I know my argument's strong and would think so even if I was the only person who felt this way, but I'm [i]not[/i] the only person). The reason I made this statement is due to my belief that using these mechanics is inappropriate for the arena forum, which is also why the GM was concerned he had offended the arena forum regulars - a statement he made in another thread - until I clarified a few things for him. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the people who agree with you are people who - like you - prefer to use dice/stats? This makes their opinions no more subjective than your own are, just like the people in the arena forum here agreeing with me is as subjective as my own beliefs are. Like I said, I only brought it up to emphasize that people in the arena forum do not agree that dice/stats can co-exist with realistic role-play duelling, so you should take this discussion to a forum where people who like RPG mechanics role-play -- that was my [i]only[/i] point with that quote. Also, while we're on the subject of citing inappropriate sources as a basis to make arguments stronger -- you've commented about having a lot of 'experience' several times in this thread now, while I've generally avoided specifying how long I've been doing this (it's over a decade too, just for the record -- well and truly more than two and a half decades now if we don't just count play-by-post; however, I'm not saying this to compare myself to you, so consider it some trivia about my background) because I don't believe that a person stating how much experience they have holds [i]any[/i] weight whatsoever when compared to the content of their debate. I care very little for prestige, reputation, education, or background -- I only care about the content. I don't actually believe my experience has any weight on my insight or wisdom, as I possessed much of these intuitively before I even got the experience (which is why I was a competent player - and GM - even as a child). Subsequently, people citing their own experience is meaningless to me. [quote=BrokenPromise] Simply put, when you deal with high power settings, you have to assume that both fighters are in a like range of power. Let's upgrade my badass ranger to the goddess of arrows. Her arrows defy all logic and always hit their mark. For a decent fight, we need to put her up against another god that can somehow negate what is essentially "god modding" for a fair fight, and that means making her able to miss via whatever powers the other god has. Maybe the arrows harmlessly pass through his mist form, or maybe they bounce off his armor most of the time? If there was no way for the other player to avoid being turned into a pin cushion on battle entry, I'm sure someone would ask me to nerf my arrow goddess. [/quote] I agree with the specific example you gave -- I don't believe this sort of system can adapt to a wide range of examples I could give you though, but I don't actually consider bringing them all up appropriate since I don't actually care for this type of role-playing in the first place - based on plenty of time trying it out, which presumably is where you got your distaste for free-form role-playing as well - so debating the finer balancing problems doesn't serve much purpose unless people in the arena forum actually start showing some interest. [quote=BrokenPromise] While higher tiers make the fights more sophisticated, they are still fundamentally the same. There needs to be room for every attack to fail, or at least be avoided by the other party. The only think higher tiers changes is flavor. [/quote] To an extent -- the example you gave above is an example of it just being a flavour change, but I work with a lot of very complex and metaphysical combat systems and I don't believe they can be written to their full capacity using stats and dice. You're more than welcome to disagree with that, but me and my associates clearly don't feel the same way as you and your associates since me and my circle decided stats and dice were completely inappropriate for my setting when I started building forums around it. Just for the record, my setting isn't the only example where this problem can appear either. As I've been saying, my feelings about dice and stats are not concerning whether or not they can be balanced, but whether or not they result in good and realistic writing -- we simply don't see eye-to-eye on the answer to that. [quote=BrokenPromise] I don't like debating, despite what my time in this thread might have you believe. I'd rather fight the character than the player. Other players attempts to squeeze out a tactic that would never work, recover from a lethal attack, etc, ruins the immersion for me. There's a difference between a desperate fighter and a desperate writer. I realize it works for the regulars, but it didn't work every time I tried it. Again, this is just preference. different for everyone. But that's the key reason why I like the idea of dice. [/quote] In a good debate, you're not fighting the player -- you're debating with them. I engage in entirely friendly debates with my associates on a regular basis, and at no point does it ever end up turning into the 'fight' that this thread has been at risk of becoming several times. It's definitely a matter of preference, as you said -- what you consider to be a character desperately squeezing out of an attack or recovering from a lethal blow might ruin immersion for you, but for other writers it will be enjoyable because it's completely appropriate to the setting in question. Personally, there's no immersion for me [i]without[/i] that depth. The reason I work with highly complex and powerful characters capable of a lot of deep concepts is because I find standard fare combat completely boring. My project actually has a very realistic and heavily rooted in reality focus on characterization - as well as a plot that's very rooted in philosophy and real life social commentary, as opposed to merely being escapism - but if I wrote all of the [i]fights[/i] as entirely 'normal' I wouldn't find the battles engaging at all. There's a good reason Naoki Urasawa's Monster is the [i]only[/i] series that was completely realistic that I have [i]ever[/i] liked, period -- that series had such good characterization and plot that I was able to ignore the fact that I think normal gunfights are dull and unimaginative. My work also discusses ontology and theology quite extensively, so it's inevitable that 'gods' are going to come into the picture and I don't like stories that portray battles between higher beings as mere sword fights. Essentially, you like dice because it removes the need to debate -- you're the same as the GM in that regard. For someone like me though, I find the debate - and the strategic realism created by that debate - to be one of the key factors for why I actually enjoy writing and reading combat in the first place. I actually explained this in more detail in the OOC of the thread me and the GM are role-playing in currently, and while he might not share my preference I do believe I've made it clear to him now why using dice and stats is entirely inappropriate for me based on what I - and most arena role-players - want out of combat-based writing. All I'm really saying is that [i]good[/i] debating isn't 'fighting', which is why I put so much emphasis on collaboration and sportsmanship, and also why most of the arena forum regulars seem to be backing this sentiment up. If you dislike debating, or don't have experience with debating that wasn't 'fighting', then your feelings towards free-form role-play duelling completely make sense. [quote=BrokenPromise] No one has yet to specify what good groundwork is, just that it balances everything. Maybe there's a guide to help me understand? [/quote] Honestly, I don't blame you for needing clarification -- there's no actual guide anywhere concerning good groundwork for free-form role-playing to the best of my understanding, and I've even considered writing one myself at some point. A lot of free-form role-play duellers struggle constantly to balance things, but I personally don't have this problem and never have. It's also possible that people don't use the term 'groundwork' conventionally, since I'm entirely self-taught and I don't do things 'by the book', so this term is something I coined myself. I wasn't going to go into detail about it - even though I have mentioned some elements of it several times in my posts throughout this thread, which I assume were missed - because I've largely been under the impression you weren't going to read my posts. Since you've actually asked again, I'll take the time to go into it but I'm only going to give a summary -- if you want more details you'll need to wait until I have more time on my hands. Nevertheless, it will be a bit of a read, so absorb it in your own time. [hider=Free-form Role-playing - Groundwork] 'Groundwork' refers to everything that's established before the role-play takes place, and therefore [i]good[/i] groundwork is referring to this foundation's quality and how thoroughly detailed it all is in order to ensure balance and intricacy. You've been referring to dice/stats as complex mechanics and rules set out in order to better the role-play -- 'groundwork' is the equivalent set of complex rules and details used with free-form role-playing. While they are mostly common knowledge amongst role-players, many (bad) role-play duellers seem to forget to use some - or all - of them during competition. [u][b]The Setting[/b][/u] No, I'm [i]not[/i] patronizing you by stating something this obvious. First and foremost, picking a setting is absolutely [i]essentially[/i] in most cases -- as far as I'm concerned, if two role-players engage in a free-form role-playing duel without an established setting worked out then there's a very good chance that they don't truly know what they're doing. While it's certainly possible to take part in a role-playing duel that occurs in a 'neutral dimension' (a.k.a. no established setting) and do so effectively, more often than not a lot of the problems in the other categories are caused due to this one being missed -- before you even establish characters, you should establish the world. This applies to free-form role-playing and [i]also[/i] to role-playing that uses dice and stats, and is the reason why I've commended ELGainsborough for establishing the setting first (regardless of whether or not the setting is my own cup of tea). The reason I suggest having the setting established beforehand is because it makes registering and accepting appropriate characters a lot more manageable and balanced -- if there's no magic in the setting then no one can be mages; if there's no gods in the setting then no one can be deities. You should think of this as setting the rules for the game, much in the same way you select 'house rules' for a Tabletop. [u][b]Character Sheets[/b][/u] Once you've got the setting worked out, both participants should go about creating their character sheets. This should include the usual details about a character you'd expect to see in any role-play, but I also think a summary of the character's personality and intelligence should be included -- this way you don't have characters who seem like morons being written as genius strategists, or characters who are meant to be brilliant tacticians being written as fools. It's probably standard procedure to have character sheets include a list of the characters' powers and skills (if it isn't, then people are [i]way[/i] more incompetent than I thought they were), but I don't personally believe that people understand the full extent of what this should entail. When I have characters accepted on my role-plays, every individual power that the player wants to introduce to the character must be accepted and fleshed out [i]individually[/i] in order to make sure it follows the setting and the specifications of the character in question. This includes all powers that a character is registered with, and all powers that are registered at a later date in time. This shouldn't just include getting the powers accepted, but also the extent of what the character's [i]proficiency[/i] in these powers is. One good example is registering someone whose powers involve electricity manipulation -- it should be established in the character sheet if they're limited to simply shooting blasts of electricity; if they are capable of electromagnetism; if they can manipulate computers and electronic equipment; if they can manipulate electrons; et cetera. In one of the posts I made in this thread (back one page), I pointed out that part of my ability to balance out the fight you mentioned - the one between your monk and the 'sausage' they fought - would depend on how well-established the full extent of their abilities were -- was it ever actually worked out before you started? Did you establish the depth of what your monk could do with their 'ki'? Did your opponent establish all of the abilities this 'sausage' had managed to absorb beforehand? If the answer is no, these things [i]should've[/i] been worked out as part of the groundwork. If the answer is yes, it was either a badly established match-up or someone went against their character sheet. All of these details should be established in the same way that a D&D character sheet is put together beforehand. [u][b]Insight & Resourcefulness > Power Gaming[/b][/u] I should make a point that unbalanced match-ups are, unfortunately, [i]realistic[/i] -- in most fictional stories - and reality - two characters or people are seldom ever truly evenly matched, and in RPGs all of the players and monsters are rarely balanced either. With this in mind, I'm moving to what I consider one of the most important skills that a lot of free-form role-players (and Tabletop role-players -- though unfortunately there's less ways to fix it when it comes to this type of game) sorely lack -- insight and resourcefulness. While I've mentioned this before in the thread already, I'll go into it again -- I've never lost a non-scripted (scripted by myself, I'll have you know -- I've scripted myself to lose plenty of times since I'm playing the antagonist who needs to lose for the story to move forward) free-form role-play duel before, but in my time free-form duelling I've usually played the 'underdog'. Despite how powerful and broken the characters in my setting are, I [i]never[/i] use their true potential or play the higher tiers. I've gone up against people who had a ridiculous combination of several overpowered characters from various anime (or comic books), facing against them with one of my own characters who had a relatively contained but versatile set of abilities, and still won simply because I'm able to be creative and outwit the opponent. If the groundwork of the previous categories in a free-form role-play duel is good, how you use the abilities available to your character (insight and resourcefulness) is far more important than what your powers are. This is - in my eyes - the foundation of what makes a good free-form role-player and why I don't even [i]slightly[/i] believe that free-form role-playing is more inclined towards power gaming than systems that use dice/stats (which have clear cut statistics that people can - and do - try to exploit for competitive gain). While my setting and narrative do possess extremely powerful and broken characters, I don't need to use the full extent of those characters in order to be a successful free-form role-player -- no good free-form role-player actually relies on power gaming. Sure, there's some match-ups that are inconceivably unbalanced, but if you have good groundwork in the areas listed prior to this then it shouldn't happen. Once again, I'll use the electricity manipulation character as the basis for my explanation -- there's a whole lot more that people can do with electricity manipulation than just firing blasts of electricity at people, and if you're creative the power is actually [i]way[/i] more broken than it might sound (which is why establishing the extent of the wielder's proficiency in the character sheet is important), especially when electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are implemented. I've actually used competitive free-form role-playing with associates as a way of 'testing the water' with new characters or abilities I've created -- a 'simulation' if you will. These simulation-based competitions never would've worked realistically if we weren't actively trying to beat each other and test the limits of abilities, but the main purpose was to contemplate all the applications of an established power. Long story short -- the person with the more blatantly powerful character doesn't win; the one with the more insightful and resourceful strategy wins. This is, at the very least, what happens when groundwork is well-established. [u][b]Debating 101 - Sportsmanship & Collaboration[/b][/u] As a general rule, if either of the competitors is unable to be respectful or civil when discussing things in the OOC then they should be considered a bad free-form role-play dueller by default -- this doesn't just apply to duelling, but is a universal rule regarding all forms of role-playing. By its very nature, role-playing is a social activity as much as it's a creative activity -- contrary to what some people think, this doesn't change simply because of competition. It's very easy to tell the difference between a good competitor - in any sport/game/whatever - and a bad competitor by their behaviour. At the very core, the same can be applied for debating -- someone who lacks the ability to debate in a manner that's civil and mature is an unskilled debater, and these people [i]don't[/i] belong in free-form role-play duelling. These people should stick to non-competitive role-play for the exact same reason that people with bad sportsmanship should stick to single player video games instead of multiplayer video games -- I have to deal with these poor sports all the time when I play fighting games, dealing with a [i]constant[/i] assortment of sore losers and 'rage quitters'. For the true competitor, the actual challenge and enriching experience of being able to put the mind to the test and grow as a person is the ultimate goal -- the victory is only the icing on the cake. Winning is far less important than the battle itself, but that doesn't mean that the battle should be dumbed down to remove the competitive elements because a lot of the quality is [i]born[/i] from those elements. With that said, part of the groundwork that many people fail to consider is picking a suitable opponent in the first place -- are you honestly going to play against someone in a competitive video game if you [i]know[/i] for a fact they're going to 'rage quit' every single time you're about to beat them? I don't think so. Similarly, I won't - generally speaking - participate in competition with a bad sport in a role-play for the same reason I won't invest my time into a debate with someone who disrespects me. Once an appropriate opponent has been found, the rest of it comes down to the same type of good collaboration that is used for virtually all forms of role-playing. There's a reason that the arena forum threads have an OOC just like all the other forums do -- you're supposed to use the OOC to discuss things and make sure that all sides play the game fairly and debate the strategy like adults. Debating is the root foundation of this, and if you don't like a friendly debate then free-form role-play duelling simply isn't for you. Actually, the role-playing thread I'm currently participating in is a great example of what I'm talking about, since me and ELGainsborough are - for the most part - civilly discussing our posts and opinions regarding the IC. I'm admittedly at the disadvantage because he's the GM and has established the rules of the role-play, but the only reason I'm willing to even role-play with him - which I'm doing primarily as a bit of casual exercise - is because my thoughts and opinions are also being taken on board. Perhaps another good way to think of good sportsmanship is by considering the amount of detail in a post. The more vague you make your post, the more difficult it can be for the opponent to react to it effectively and find openings, while at the same time the more vague you make your post the more options you leave your opponent to interpret as they wish and therefore the easier it can be for them to react. This vagueness with posts is a double-edged sword, so I believe that doing your best to be as thorough and detailed with your posts as possible prevents misconceptions -- this is all in the name of sportsmanship. Any details which are uncertain can also be discussed in the OOC, since a person with good sportsmanship won't hesitate to fill you in on questions you have. Obviously, not exploiting OOC knowledge in the IC to gain an advantage is also a staple of good role-playing and should be exercised here. [u][b]GMs/Battle Moderators: The Optional Safety Net[/b][/u] This isn't actually a requirement -- if the rest of the categories listed above are well-established then there's really no need whatsoever to have a 'referee' for the match, but it's indeed a viable option if you want a safety net to ensure nothing becomes problematic. Some people prefer to let dice be the referee and use them just in worst case scenarios, but I think battle moderators are another option; an option that doesn't compromise the nature of the free-form role-play. In a setting with a GM, that GM (myself in the case of my own setting) is able to be the most objective referee, but you can also assign battle moderators so long as they're both insightful and impartial -- my best role-playing associate is knowledgeable enough about my setting to act as a battle moderator for the most part. Naturally, in order to be a battle moderator the person must also be a mature debater themselves, and this sort of safety net only works if both participants are mature enough to accept that this person has the final say in controversial matters.[/hider] [quote=BrokenPromise] I just don't feel the big question is over, which is if RPG elements belong in the arena. I mean sure, I could make a new topic, but I don't plan on making more than a few posts here so it seems kind of silly to do so. at least before I finally work out everything (if I ever do). I still say it's relevant to the topic, as the OP stated they wanted to use D&D 3.5 because it was most popular and easiest for people who know it to transition to. [/quote] I believe the GM choosing to leave this thread was basically the acknowledgement that he got his answer that it isn't appropriate for the arena forum, and he's more or less suggested such feelings to me in our own thread since then. If you take anything from this discussion, perhaps let it be that free-form role-players and Tabletop role-players should duel separately instead of trying to push preferences on each other. I don't see any reason why people in the Tabletop forum can't open up a duel there -- you've made a point you don't like the competitive element, so not having the ranking system - which I also hate, just for the record - in that forum shouldn't bother you at all. [quote=BrokenPromise] And people genuinely hate new ideas when they've become comfortable with something that works. And the arena does work, so why dedicate time to learning how to RPG? [/quote] As I've said, I actually took the time to learn both before I formulated my own opinion, which is why I don't believe I'm being biased and (presumably) you don't think you're being biased. Now that I've decided which style is more appropriate for the type of writing I want to create, I don't see a reason involving myself in the other -- I'm only humouring the dice rolls that the GM is using in our thread when it doesn't compromise my writing style, and he's completely okay with that. [quote=BrokenPromise] And all I can do is question how well it was done, just as you have every right to question the free-form battles I've participated in. [/quote] I do question the free-form battles you've participated in, mostly because of the examples you've given, but I've also suspected for quite a while - and now had confirmed in your last post - that your feelings towards debating itself are also a large part of where your views come from -- a negative attitude towards debating makes your feelings regarding all of this very clear to me. All I'll say in my own defence is that I believe that the Tabletop role-playing I've experienced was fairly well-executed, especially since my closest associate specializes - from what I can tell - in GMing Tabletop role-playing games as a major hobby and he served as my right-hand man, per se, throughout most of my play-by-post role-playing career. This exact same person [i]agreed[/i] with me about dice and stats being inappropriate when the decision finally came for us to shift the role-playing setting to my project's world. [quote=BrokenPromise] You are probably right that the table top section would be a better place to have a fight of this sort. Certainly it is worth discussing with them, people who adore complex rule sets and the like. [/quote] Similarly, I personally - and most free-form role-players who know what they're doing - enjoy the deep and complex mental and metaphysical elements that are created by letting debating (plus well-thought-out tactics, intuition, mind games, et cetera) be the controlling factor over a piece of combat narrative rather than mechanics which - in my own preference - should stay in video games and Tabletops. [quote=BrokenPromise] Something else to keep in mind is that there is a lady on here (the forum, not the arena) who runs all of her non-tabletop RPs with dice rolls and bits of randomness and is revered as one of the best GMs on this forum. While the arena goers may not like the idea, there is evidence that dice rolls and good writing can co-exist. [/quote] Most of the non-arena goers I've spoken with also dislike the idea, but that doesn't discredit what you've just said about the GM -- it's interesting to know, and I have a rough speculation in my head about who you're referring to, but that doesn't mean that I would [i]personally[/i] enjoy their role-plays, nor would my associates automatically enjoy them. I do understand that it serves as a decent argument for why considering dice outside of the Tabletop forum is a valid discussion, but I don't think the way a single GM - no matter how hailed they are - does things should dictate how other GMs operate.