If you want to right something about getting the Pope's blessing, you have my approval.
Awesome, thanks!
If you want to right something about getting the Pope's blessing, you have my approval.
I'm not sure where to end my post. I don't know if the GM wants to throw in an event before we escape.

<Snipped quote by TomeBinder>
I'm kind of interested but I don't know, I'm holding of committing until I can be sure I'll stick around. I really like that you seem like a good GM. My concerns are that I am playing another zombiepocalypse soon and I don't know if I will sustain interest in this too, plus I know I don't usually post within 48 hours being the slacker I am. So I lurk. :D I'm subscribed to this though so I'll let you know when I'm sure of joining.
<Snipped quote by TomeBinder>
I can see both pros and cons to your approach on the genre, both widely hypothetical of course. I can't imagine it would work for just about anyone, but if you have the drive necessary to pull it through, it could work out really well.
So here's what imagine some of the ups and downs could turn out to be.
Pros:
- Looking at the combat example you provided, it's possible that you're able to avoid long and unnecessary drawn-out battles, which tends to happen in the standard format (I'm assuming you're at least slightly familiar with how battles usually go down around here, if not, I'm happy to elaborate) - Which is definitely a good thing. This could be nullified if the gm (you in this case) is slow to respond on the in-betweens, but that shouldn't be much of an issue.
- At first sight, the system you propose seems to be more unforgiving and "lethal" than the standard format. More-so because there's a third party that decides the effect of every "round", rather than the two fighters going back and forth until one of them gets locked into an in-inescapable position (which is why those fights often gets dragged out, you gotta check-mate to win) - I would consider this a good thing, but that's more of a personal taste.
Cons:
- The fact that there's a third party deciding the effects/results of every attack/defense, players are likely to feel that third party's judgement might be biased/incorrect. This really only becomes a problem based on your own ability to inspire your players to trust your judgement, and how you deal with players who feel like the situation would play out differently than you ruled. The latter is easily solved by stressing a requirement of detail in an attack/defense. If they think their character was supposed to foresee the counter-attack coming from an odd angle, and dodge accordingly, they will have to mention that (in their attack post) before the counter-attack is thrown at them, and not afterwards. Kind of basic, but it's one of those kind of things that are best to mention, underline, repeat, and really nail down. Arguments could very easily break out if there's confusion on either side, because of the third-party-decides-the-outcome rule.
TL:DR; Your way of doing it could be a refreshing take on the arena-combat genre, and is mostly at risk due to the possibility of the ruling third-party's judgement to be incorrect/biased/not respected. At least that's what I think, in theory.
Group 1, normally. Please don't kill me if I don't post within 24 hours though ;)