Forum Dueling Basics -- Quick Links

A set of quick links to all the FDB stuff I've written over the years.

---

And I Thought This Wasn't Possible: Overpowering, and why it is and isn't.

The Long Road: A thought on how to improve your writing.

Dialogue: The Misfortune of Talking to Others: Natural conversation as opposed to forced.

The Art of the Internal: Internal monologue and its place in dueling.

Judging Focus: An idea on where and how a duel should be judged.

Just Die Already: A thought on the invicibility of characters and their inability to take damage.

How to Be: Things that can be done to give oneself an advantage in a duel.

Tech: An analysis of tech and its uses in a duel. It's strengths, weakness, and why you want it. (Vol. 1, Vol. 2)

Flow: A basic overview of flow in writing.

Forces: Talking about the amount of force (all the way up to deadly) a character can put out.

Attack/Counter Scenarios: A series of scenarios involving attacks and counters illustrating how there are multiple ways of dealing with an attack.

Forum Dueling Basics - And I Thought This Wasn't Possible

Authors Note: This was originally written in May of 2009, but I never posted it. So, here it is in all its glory.

---

Funny thing happened yesterday. I thought it'd be amusing to join a Newb Duel Tourney on RPFF, since it was open to everyone. I submitted a character that I've had for a while through a sign up, spent all of fifteen minutes writing up the backstory I hadn't bothered to put down on a page -- and then was summarily told it was a good character, but the weapons had to go. I asked why, and it was called over-powering. I thought about this, started an asinine argument on my own part. Thought the whole of the world had become more retarded than it already is, but came to a realization.

I can understand where the judges are coming from, in their rejection. They believe that simply by having a weapon it will be used no matter what. A stupid assumption if you ask me, but an assumption somewhat valid by their own train of thought. The character I had created was designed for a futuristic world where the weapons he was equiped with were commonplace things, and having them was the line between surviving and dying. The argument raged, and I finally decided it wasn't worthwhile, even though I was still angry. So I re-thought parts of the argument, turned it over again and again in my mind. I found problems with the reasoning of both myself and the judges. I could poke holes forever in either part, but it wouldn't change the outcome.

But a new thought hit me. Throughout the whole of the argument I was told my character was over-powered. Over-powered by the standards of the tourney they were creating. But yet, it was an under-powered character in a different climate of duel. So, it struck me: there is no such thing as an over-powered character, and there never will be. There is only the over-powering actions of the duelist or RPer in the match itself, since you can easily supe up a character in a match to give it that extra edge, and that's what a lot of over-powering duelists do.

I can understand where the judges are coming from, but I realized that there are no such things as over-powered characters, since a character is designed with that power in mind to take on a specific challenge. The challenge is created by the author of the character to make the power necessary. The problem of "over-powering" arises not from the character, but the duelist or RPer boosting the power already there DURING the match, not before it. That's what the judges don't see. They see that because a character has missiles on him, that he'll use them instantly and begin firing them off at the opponent. They don't see that a missile against a person is a massive waste of munitions, since a missile isn't designed for solitary humanoid targets.

Now, back to the sign up method, I have believed for a long time, and still believe, that it is a poor method for gauging a persons writing ability, and an even poorer method still for gauging a characters power level, since those levels, and abilities, can sometimes change while in a duel itself. Asking for as much detail as possible calls on the honor system, and while many will list numerous abilities, there are many more that aren't listed, and yet even more that just randomly show up in the match itself that were never accounted for at the beginning of the match.

Which brings me back to my original point that it is not the characters that are over-powered, it is simply the fact that in the match itself the circumstances change. People don't want to see their characters hurt, harmed or otherwise touched. They want to see the character come through the match looking just as pristine and wonderful as it did at the beginning. That's where the problem comes in. The duelist increases the power as they see necessary to make certain that said character isn't harmed.

Forum Dueling Basics - Dialogue: The Misfortune of Talking to Others

So, dialogue has a time and place, much like persons wanting to experiment (it's known as college), but in dueling, RPing or even writing in general, we know when dialogue shouldn't be happening: when you're driving a fist down another persons gullet with intent to find their reproductive organs through their intestines. This of course means that when you're fighting, you shouldn't be talking, and if you're talking while fighting, you're doing it wrong. You're a fighter, not a talker. The grand warrior. Warriors do not bandy speeches about. They aren't masters of rhetoric. Look at a barbarian -- the most he's gonna managed is a grunt, and that's while driving the club through your skull to bisect with your spine.

Conversation should always feel natural. Before or even after a fight, it should feel natural. Forcing it makes it awkward. If one is talking during a fight, that suggests you aren't fighting anymore. The engagement of wills through force has stopped and moved on to an engagement of wills through intellect. Conversation must flow from a desire for the two persons to talk in the first place. If there is great enmity between these persons, why would they talk? If they know they're here to d-d-d-d-d-duel, why mouth off in the first place? We're not talking about badly dubbed martial arts movies where their mouths are moving but no sound is coming out. A real fight is fast, over quickly, and has the minimum of vocal content.

Now, this moves into another thing about dialogue: there has to be a reasonable amount of reaction to what's being said. Characters, much like people, will react to what is said by the protagonist in varying ways. The response to something as silly as "Wassup!" will differ depending on who is being asked. Some could reply in kind, others with something else, while others still will be offended. Remember this when crafting conversation in the first place. Like in physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is how conversation should play out. That what is said will provoke a response, either by continuing the conversation, causing an expression or particular look, or an action in reaction to what was said.

This now moves us onto the third part of dialogue, and that is understanding appropriate dialogue. This is a bit more difficult, in that it requires of the writer a certain level of maturity, in that it's expected for them to understand people. Real people. It doesn't have to be a lot, but some. In understanding people, you understand how they react to varying instances of conversation as well as expressions or looks. How your mother replies to you when you say something. How a friend waits or interrupts you while you're speaking. Understanding these things can help you craft convincing conversation. What moment would be appropriate for someone to say something, or interrupt? When does someone show emotion? Answering this questions can help one create better conversation between characters.

And finally, this roles right back into the start: would it make sense for two people in a blood feud to start off by introducing themselves by name before jumping out with machetes before jumping back to continue to talk? Writing mimics life, and like life, there needs to be a level of logical conclusion to things, an understanding of agency (that is the power to act and do things). This means that when it is in your power to act, why would you talk? So, if you as a person wouldn't talk a long monologue about pants under a blood moon in May, why would a character do the same?

Mind you, time and place for everything. Writing seriously, this all makes sense. Writing camp, you do the opposite. But dueling, role playing (and most writing) is a serious endeavor, so why wouldn't it be a serious reflection of the lives we live?

Gauntlet Intro - Enter Kajil

A series of rings flow forward, each smaller than the last in the shape of a cone. The edges enflamed green. The center is like a pool of water, focused onto a point small and black. Looking into it, the eyes follow the edges, but the feeling of the soul being pulled inward, ripped away and thrown...

"Daek'tar."

Head snaps to the left. A figure walks somewhat behind, a halo of light escaping from him. Floating displays, talking heads, coursing data. He is it and it isn't him.

"Yes, doctor."

"You'll be traveling to the Orutaelas System in the Caetura Universe. Your orders will be unlocked upon arrival. Good luck."

An arm flung forward, a half flap like a bird or the paddle of a boat, whichever, and he spins in direction, flowing on a new breeze. Unspoken, she is told to walk the plank.

A step...and her body is jerked forward.

Broken and battered and full of vigor, she hobbles and walks proudly through the expanse of crushing gravity while floating. A bridge extends and collapses. The light is so bright as to be darkness complete. Lively dead eyes cast about while inflexible hands grasp for the edges of infinity that crack from her years of indolent un-use. And...

And reality bends as the latticework of truth becomes a lie. It ripples. From it, this pool in the air that wavers like heat rising, yet dropping down into an infinitely black dot steps the creature. Before and behind is blue sky and shuddering clouds unfolding like arms swimming through the sea. An estate stands proud before, a boulevard lined with soldiers. Follow the yellow brick road, she is told silently.

Data packages begin to unfold as the Baajin takes her first step on foreign soil. Artificially enhanced mental functions combined with field scans pull in information as sharp, slitted eyes drink in everything.

Another step on a hock-jointed foot with a hooked dewclaw clicking against the stones. Baggy kapries with side pockets, sleeveless shirt covered in a specialized ceramic-metaloid armor covered in molle attachments. An SMG styled gun on the back of the waist with a large knife-like implement below it. Another on the left breast with the handle of a knife poking out from the left shoulder. The left thigh has long pouches strapped to it while the right thigh has circular diskettes about hand-sized coupled into the very fabric. Fingerless gloves topped with silver points with forearm braces and hardened elbows.

The shock troop flicks a forked tongue into the air. It tastes revolting...

Dueling Theory, A Discussion on a New Style/Form of Dueling

(22:49:31) Wolf: Okay, here's a thought. Let's break down exactly what a duel is into the core components that make it up.

Intro 1; it usually defines the setting and places the main protagonist. Generally it implies that the character specified is looking for a fight (or interaction of some kind, action or story based).

Intro 2; this is done by the antagonist who provides a counter-balance. The setting is further defined, redefined, or expanded upon by the second character to suit that char's outlook. This acts as the introduction to any kind of conflict between the two characters and sets up how the series of events (responses to the interaction) will take place.

Attack/Counter 1; the initial poster will then respond, and based on how the antagonist introduced himself, this could lead to either an attack (if the antagonist didn't do one himself in his own intro) or a counter. Attack and counter, as verbiage, can also signify an exchange of threats, condescending conversation, arrogant, supercilious interchanges or even a weaving of story into the exposition. Situationally dependent on the characters/writers involved.

Attack/Counter 2; this is lead by the antagonist, who upon being attacked (physically or otherwise) will move to counter the initially engaging motion. This can also be where, if the action is more drama and story-involved, be where they begin diving into the depths of character development. However, if it is an actual fight, will be where the antagonist moves to counter, evade, turn aside, or parry the incoming attack from the protagonist. The conflict will most likely escalate at this point after the opening attacks have been done. With the counter 2 comes either the attack 2 or 3 (situationally dependent). Again, the story, or action, will be moved forward by these events.

Now, taking a step back to look at the scenario so far, it isn't the protagonist that drives the motion of the encounter, but whoever is playing the antagonist, as they provide the main source of conflict. This is because the second poster/writer is foreign, and by interjecting their own ideals/imagery into the scale of the tale, create that conflict. The conflict needs not be actual combat. It just is by the mere presence of the second individual affecting and changing events for the primary character, the protagonist, just by showing up.

Attack/Counter 3: again, there is an escalation of force. This will either be actual attacks/combos/counters or in the continued story-telling. The conflict most proceed forward, and the protagonist will respond to whatever the antagonist presents. Conversation, actions, thoughts, motions -- all of it leads the protagonist along on an invisible leash. Through this, the antagonist actually leads even though they did not create the initial setting.

Attack/Counter 4: it follows that the antagonist will continue the onslaught, conversationally or through combat.

At some point, either through a series of events, there will be resolution, as there will always be in any kind of story or tale. The problem with dueling, however, is that duelists/writers always feel the need to get the last word in. Sometimes they might decide upon a limit to their interaction, or other times, if they cannot reach a resolution, will ask a third party (judge) to provide an outside resolution even though the characters are not properly resolved in their conflict.

If you think about it, all duels follow that formula. You can't NOT follow it. Whatever exchange takes place, there will be a form of conflict. You can postpone the actual fighting, but there will be an exchange regardless, either story defined or generalized fighting. In this regard, dueling is somewhat stale in its turn-based medium

(23:08:47) StarryKnights: We will do better. We will improve the duel. Higher level dueling, almost but not quite it's own story. Imagine Preamble/The Alliance. There's conflict, or going to be, but it's largely a story told through not-antagonists interaction. What I want to do is toned down, more streamlined, but still separate from a duel in the traditional sense.

For instance, I've thought a very long time about how to twist the intro post protagonist role on its head.

(23:11:37) Wolf: You mean have the protagonist lead instead of the antagonist?

(23:11:52) StarryKnights: Where the intro may create its own setting, but the intro maker is the antagonist of the story. Such as, there is a mall. The antagonist is the sniper entering the mall to shoot people. Antagonist first, then protagonist.

(23:12:29) Wolf: I think many people think of the antagonist is the reactionary force, but in reality, they aren't. They are the dagger piercing the world created by the protagonist and forcing the protagonist to react to the antagonists dance. It's a simple idea, but I've never really seen it done.

(23:13:14) Wolf: I form the idea of protagonist as the person who creates the intro, regardless of moral vibe

(23:14:39) StarryKnights: Hrm. You are correct, it can be viewed that way.

(23:15:19) Wolf: The antagonist is merely such because they provide the conflict for the antagonist. Moral compass has nothing to do with the labeling, at least not in my mind.

(23:15:46) StarryKnights: Perhaps then it should be more like a dance where the lead changes, where neither is consistently the antagonist or protagonist. Although, the protagonist is generally considered the hero, or goodly. The main character.

(23:16:15) Wolf: I'm aware of that. I think that's a fallacy based on English teachers.

(23:17:08) StarryKnights: So you propose that the protagonist is some kind of neutral force which the antagonist acts upon like gravity to a interstellar dust cloud?

(23:17:17) Wolf: Yes.

(23:17:37) StarryKnights: I shouldn't say neutral. Untouched force?

(23:17:46) Wolf: Something like that, yeah.

(23:17:53) StarryKnights: A roaming army of death can't really be called neutral in any sense.

(23:18:18) Wolf: The antagonist acts as the force that pulls the protagonist in. A force that cannot be denied or ignored. Pretty much the train wreak that railroads your RPG.

(23:21:02) StarryKnights: However, dueling the way I've seen it has been someone standing around going "I await mine enemy." With said enemy showing up in their intro.

(23:21:29) Wolf: Yeah, still conforms, though, because they are reacting to the arrival of the enemy.

(23:22:02) StarryKnights: I've not seen an intro where the protagonist goes after the antagonist, is the source of conflict, along with creating the battle arena. Perhaps that's because the general thought in GameFAQs RPing, and RPing in general, is that doing such is too presumptuous, doesn't give the other RP'er enough control of the situation.

(23:24:34) Wolf: Probably. I think it's because of the way posting is set up, too, which leads to the way it follows the same formula. There must always be a singular intro.

(23:26:48) StarryKnights: A lot of this has to do with perspective. A different kind of duel would have the antagonist be willing to enter a world outside of their own, as they would in a RP. Limited effect on their environment. A traditional duel has the protagonist write from a relatively limited perspective...in the end it boils down to a single area for the first to take place. It doesn't matter if they create a whole universe, the antagonist can still utterly change it in their own intro.

(23:28:10) Wolf: Yup.

(23:29:03) StarryKnights: For the idea I have, the protagonists creation has to altered minimally. The storyline needs to trump the world building. You and I duel. I create the stage, but anything you add onto it will only further elaborate on the set involved, not add new pieces or twists that change the purpose of the stage. The protagonist is carrying extra water in this situation, because they can't rely on other to do the world building work for them. They need to fully elaborate and detail the battleground involved, or well enough that there will be no question it's a forest with a giant, uncuttable giant tree in the middle.

(23:31:33) Wolf: XD

(23:31:36) Wolf: True enough.

(23:32:08) StarryKnights: The antagonist's ego is important, here, as they have to be willing to let go enough control to view the duel closer to a RP. Perhaps we can't redefine the duel, but we can refine it, certainly. First, flip the way the intro is handled. The intro details not only that there is some kind of conflict wanted, it starts the conflict as well as defines the stage as a whole.

(23:35:01) Wolf: Instead of interjecting the antagonist as the method of conflict.

(23:35:11) StarryKnights: Exactly. Attack/Counter 2. The problem I have with dueling now, and you encountered years ago, is that there is too much chatting during it. Storyline and combat must be separate. Real combat is quick, brutal, and instinctual. The duel as commonly executed is full of purple prose and introspection. I think you hit the nail on the head with Stent in this respect. Quick, detailed and technical, with limited wandering off the rail.

(23:38:10) Wolf: Yeah. Never mind the rants I did in regards to that filed under FDB. Combat is fast and brutal. The flowery introspection which often-times takes place detracts from the actual fighting, and in some ways, ruins it. You can be a class A act, top-notch writer, but if you destroy your ability to fight by thinking too much, you're as good as a coward who runs from battle. True fights don't have people thinking.

(23:39:11) StarryKnights: What I tried to do with the last section of my intro for Preamble is attempt to do a combat situation where there is no chatting, just doing. Not perfect, but I'm far more comfortable with it than I am with the way I used to do combat scenes.

(23:39:56) Wolf: Well, that's the point of the whole thing. Animalistic instinct is what drives combat. Rational thought usually takes a backseat unless you've been trained to have your body react leaving your mind open to interpret.

(23:40:26) StarryKnights: That's the whole point of training. Turning non-natural reactions into instinct. I have no idea how to pull apart a gun and put it back together without a guide. You can do it in your sleep.

(23:41:55) Wolf: Well, not in my sleep, but I can do it and chat about something else while I do it.

(23:42:21) StarryKnights: Another reason working with you is optimal, since you've had real life experience. I could mimic it in a respect, sure, but you'll always be able to write it a bit better. That's my weakness. No real life experience. You understand the guts. I write well, but if you ask me to break it down and explain why I write good, I'd fail pretty miserably. It's more instinct with me.

(23:44:17) Wolf: I couldn't properly explain it well, either. It is an instinct. It's like artists that draw. They can show you, but only through rigorous practice can you attain the same level.

(23:44:54) StarryKnights: True enough. I feel we need to change the attack/counter relationship, along with the combat storyline relationship. Or, rather, "fix" them as they currently are implemented in dueling. Attack/counter is a very rigid way to fight someone, almost like a move in an RPG where you only find out a second or two after the attack whether it worked or missed.

(23:47:38) Wolf: You mean how the whole thing is rather disjointed?

(23:47:46) StarryKnights: Yeah. Basically.

(23:48:12) Wolf: It is a turn-based battle system, though. I think there-in lies the problem, but it can't be helped.

(23:49:21) StarryKnights: That is the problem, and I'm not sure if anything can be done to mitigate the situation. Perhaps introduce a concept of continual flow. While there's an attack/counter, there's something else going on at the same time.

(23:49:50) Wolf: That'd work. But how would you introduce something? We're have to get back out there and duel to show examples.

(23:49:54) StarryKnights: Maybe one guy's throwing a grenade at the enemy, another moving to take a secondary position. The grenade is the toss up, while the secondary position is the continual flow aspect. This is where more detail is required overall. Most duels have guy 1 and guy 2, and it's centered on them. Here, it's not centered on a single person.

(23:52:09) Wolf: Would also require a certain, limited amount of surrender in regards to character control.

(23:52:22) StarryKnights: Elaborate.

(23:54:31) Wolf: To gain that form of continual flow would probably, I think, require surrendering partial control of ones character to the opponent. Like, you set up your attack, and end before finishing, allowing me to finish your attack and the motions you went through before going into my own attack, which I never quite conclude. It's a similar formula, but then it could, sort of, keep everything moving.

(23:56:15) StarryKnights: Like the grenade.

(23:56:21) Wolf: Yes.

(23:56:34) StarryKnights: An acceptable loss in comparison to what is gained.

(23:57:03) Wolf: The style is almost...Mix like. Not quite True anymore, is it?

(23:58:18) StarryKnights: RP'er discretion, therefore ego and skill, is very important. For instance, it would help the storyline if I could knock you to the ground, then pull my weapon back for a kill. Your post, you knock my sword aside, have a dagger going at my gut by the end of it.

(00:00:46) Wolf: That actually sounds like a fun scenario. Less control, but more fluidity, and possibly, a far better story overall. Quicker action sequence, too. Probably leads to shorter posts. This would solve a lot of the conundrum of over-long dueling posts, which generally is unnecessary and superfluous.

(00:01:59) StarryKnights: I don't think a single style truly encompasses what I'm aiming for. A lot of it depends specifically on the lack of sharply defined rules and a lot more on the writer's to know the limits in a given situation. For instance, the above scenario. I know not to stab you, and you know not to have the knife gut me, though you've bashed my hand aside by some method, possibly crippling it.

(00:03:56) Wolf: Definitely a Mix style. Would have to give it a new definition.

(00:04:35) StarryKnights: Let's review what we have so far. The protagonist is the main stage setter, as well as the main source of conflict. It is very important to define the stage well, while not completely snuffing out the ability of the antagonist to elaborate upon the stage.

(00:05:34) Wolf: Current dueling falls too much into a "same-old" predictable pattern where the antagonist retains far too much situational control of the formula, and possibly, the outcome.

(00:06:38) StarryKnights: Attack/counter scenario is more fluid, a more "mix style" as you say, where limited control of the actors are allowed in a situational basis. Needless to say, the duelists on all sides need to be willing to take injury and have their pretty boy characters fucked up. Storyline and combat segregation. Not purple prose introspective bullshit between pulling the sword back and stabbing someone with it unless the character is having a complete meltdown during the battle and is going to be useless anyway.

(00:08:58) Wolf: That pretty much covers it, doesn't it?

(00:09:04) StarryKnights: Neither the antagonist nor protagonist control the flow of the storyline, ideally, but the protagonist will in this scenario have a bit of an advantage given.

(00:09:57) Wolf: The reason Mix got it's name because it took elements from Cheez (preemptive auto hits) and True (not describing full attack damage). This uses the idea of Mix (with small auto-hits and character control) with something else that is new to the idea.

(00:10:42) StarryKnights: In a perfect world, people would know to die and such styles wouldn't be needed...people would take and give on a relatively equal basis. Means to an end. This conversation is the culmination of an idea I've had for years, but neither had the mindset or proper opponents to test it on. Attack/Counter 3: While any good story is going to have a climax, it can't be easily defined if it's going to be any good. The problem with most duels, I find, is that the attacks get bigger and more ridiculous as the battle winds on. While a realistic battle is going to have both sides wearing out, getting weaker until one runs out of poop to shovel.

(00:13:02) Wolf: Yeah, because nobody wants to lose (both the match or their character). It follows a simple escalation of force rule.

(00:13:22) StarryKnights: Or, God forbid, one side or another retreats or starts gorilla warfare. Again, it goes back to being too predictable. Partly because of what you said, people don't like losing characters or having them crippled (Requiring a shift in ideas and plans), partly because most people aren't creative enough to be willing to change their ideas midstream. Like real combat. When shit hit the fan, you didn't Hulk out and keep doing the same thing over and over, you changed tactics to keep from being killed. Because, it's reality. Reality is something sorely lacking from duels as a whole. You have to understand your character is not God, and besides a few special powers, is generally not much harder to kill than a normal person when weaknesses are known.

(00:16:16) Wolf: I'm a proponent of a bit more reality in dueling, but there are...persons who disagree with me.

(00:16:26) StarryKnights: See, example: Ice person. Just because you control ice, does not mean you can create ice swords and ice armor. You do not innately know how to make a sword using your ice power. That requires training and years of experience. Same with ice armor. Are you immune to your own ice powers (Required secondary abilities). Hell, Bioshock 2. Little Sisters. Heal quickly, their bones don't automatically fall back into the correct position. So correcting a fucked up limb requires breaking the bone again..and again... This is different issue related to people not thinking out their characters on deep levels, but becomes apparent in duels when people take a relatively broad power - pure darkness, for instance - and can do anything with it. Again, the ice person. If they lack immunity to their own ability, they can severely damage themselves if it gets out of control. Which, in the midst of combat, is likely. Besides, the ideal route for killing someone with ice powers is getting close enough to them that you freeze their chest. Ice swords not only require the ability to make the sword, BUT also the ability to use it. Swords take many years of experience to use proficiently.

(00:21:29) Wolf: Ice swords would also shatter pretty quick.

(00:21:35) StarryKnights: Yeah.

(00:22:19) Wolf: Mind you, you don't want to completely remove the superpowers, otherwise it isn't completely interesting anymore. But definitely needs to be balance.

(00:22:39) StarryKnights: Regardless. Predictability during the 3rd cycle is boring. Again, model it after real life combat to an extent, plus superpowers. Real combat has a flow to it. Things happen that change the flow, and thus tactics used. Improvised explosive goes off, takes out the guys who're going to cover for you while you take out a house full of squishy terrorists. You need to change something in the formula, or you're going to end up getting raped from the flanks. Ending: Has to be flexible. A lot of this has to do with a general lack of goals in duels. No point A to B, no obtain Naked Gold Monkey Butt Statue. Predictably previously in the duel is at its worst, here, since it's here that the previous movements will have the most impact. Then again, given that most duels go through with neither side taking meaningful damage...the ending itself is worthless since nothing is really fought or died for.

There must go a goal for both sides. Both must be willing to die or be several injured for the goal. Predictability and cliches must therefore be avoided to prevent the ending from being cheezy. A series of checks and balances must be in the duelist's mind during each round of combat. "Is this move predictable?" "Should my character be able to dodge this/take minimal damage?" "Are my forces being overwhelmed by the enemy's forces? If so, can I turn a disadvantage into an advantage by changing my tactics?"

It's important to de-emphasis on main characters. Because it encourages ego, predictability, and limits what can be done with the stage that's been set. More people controlled, I feel, the better the duel will be to an extent. Also requires higher skilled players, of course.

Everyone Else Except Me

So, a while back I posted a generalized blanket statement made by a person about the state of affairs in forum role play and dueling. And it is a generalized statement that covers a lot of ground in a very pretentious know-it-all way. Well, I recently posted the statement on the Veteran's board on GameFAQs just to see what I could get out of it. Open a dialog, see what peoples thoughts were. I didn't get much, except this: "I'd say he's right about everyone except us."

A very profound statement, and a completely ignorant one at that.

"Everyone else is bad, except us. Everyone else sucks, except us." A completely close-minded, ignorant, cut-off from reality statement. Truthfully, everyone cribs off existing tropes. That's just media, and by extention, writing in general. Fresh, witty, original stuff will always fall back on existing tropes whether intended or not. Not a bad thing, either. It just happens. I understand this very well, even if the person who originally made the statement probably didn't. However, what bothers me most is that instead of properly analyzing the statement and disproving or proving it, people have instead just either agreed (not saying why they agreed), or calling the originator of the statement a pretentious hack. Nothing has become of the actual statement beyond that. But I digress.

Going back to the statement that "he's right about everyone except us," and looking at it, it assumes that the close-minded individual believes that there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the group he participates with. It's a rather simple fallacy, that everyone else would be in error except him and his group of friends. I've found myself to be wrong more times than I can count, and even in my own articles, especially ones past, as things change they lose their relavence. To err is human. But to believe outright that there couldn't be anything wrong with his own writing... Well, I'll leave it all up to you.

Thoughts?

Condensed RP/Dueling Guide

The whole role playing guide scene has a few big names in it, or at least a few big names if you've been around long enough to recognize them, otherwise they're just names, nobodies, has-beens and the forgotten of an age long dead. The guides they wrote are still around, still used and still circulated. However, time passes, and like some buildings, or even people, the guides themselves have not aged well. Dated is the best word for it. Stuck most definitely in a simpler time of role playing, back in the infancy of Forum Role Play and Dueling, even before dueling actually came about! This is a somewhat straight-forward attempt to revise all those guides, amalgamate them into a single entity that can be easily updated from time to time. That's my hope at least; we'll see how it goes.

• [1.0] Introduction
  • Forum Role Playing is the act of creating and playing as a fictitious, imaginary character through written means; i.e.: you write about your character.
  • Forum Dueling is the use of the aforementioned character to fight someone elses character.
  • Forum Wars are several duels stuffed into a single thread involving many people
• [1.1.0] Character Creation
  • A character seen to be played most often grows to become a representative of the player in the RP world.
  • It's good to design representative characters well.
  • It's good to know representative characters thoroughly.
  • Is the most important part of any role play or duel.
  • What a character begins as is irrelevant; they generally evolve over time and use into something greater.
• [1.1.1] Name
  • Names aren't always necessary.
  • Easier for others to address/reference a named character.
• [1.1.2] Age
  • Age and lifespan can be either realistic or surreal.
  • Most of the time determines abilities or knowledge attained.
• [1.1.3] Gender
  • Male and female are the norms.
  • There's also hermaphrodites, egg-layers and more. Try something different and new!
• [1.1.4] Race
  • Race can be anything from human to alien or mythological beings.
  • If your character is described to be an angel or demon your peers may automatically assume it is the typical model with the typical attributes.
  • Heads up: wholly demonic/angelic/etc. characters are often initially regarded by hardliners as tasteless and amateurish; dare to dream/change their mind.
• [1.1.5] Appearance
  • Anime is usually the typical inspiration in appearance.
  • Gruff, overwrought persons with bad-hair aren't typically done, but are enjoyed.
• [1.1.6] Personality
  • The emotional spectrum of a human, or something odd and alien if you're into the surreal stuff.
  • The actions, attitudes and peevish (or pet peeves) behavior of your character.
• [1.1.7] Weaponry
  • Weapons can be any number of types from guns (small, large, energy) to magic to blunt force trauma (clubs, spears, swords and everyones favorite, the katana).
  • Magic is the antithesis to tech and vice versa.
  • Magic drains a user, tech uses gadgets that drain batteries.
  • Guns and missiles travel fast; evasion of them is difficult at the best of times.
• [1.1.8] Special Abilities
  • Can be any number of things.
  • Consists of elemental control (fire, water, wind, lightning, etc.) if magical.
  • Is any number of tech abilities (lasers, missiles, teleportation devices, etc.) if you have the gadgets.
  • Some abilities are innate, others require a gadget to perform or the knowing of a specific spell/incantation.
• [1.1.9] Elementals and Antithesis
  • Main elements are: fire, wind, water, earth, holy/light, unholy/darkness, time/space, ice, lightning, gravity.
  • Sci-Fi/Tech are: pyrokinesis, telekinesis, hydrokinesis, geokinesis, photokinesis (for light and dark), telepathy, cryokinesis, eletrokinesis, and telepathy again.
• [1.1.10] Background
  • Character history; the backbone to any major, fully fleshed out character.
  • Can elaborate on character flaws, if any.
  • Is a method of making a character more noteworthy or interesting; can sometimes backfire.
  • Some character histories will contain great struggles/turmoil in the characters past; is a means of making the character more believable
• [2.0] What is Dueling?
  • Interactive combat through writing expression; involves the usual attack/counter scenarios, sometimes with more story-oriented plot if so chosen.
  • Is considered an art form of a kind.
  • Does not always have to be action or fighting oriented.
  • Can sometimes be completely story based/driven sans action.
  • Various people advocate different areas of dueling more than others; i.e.: action over storytelling or vice versa.
• [2.1.1] Description
  • The language/words chosen to convey thoughts and expressions.
  • Main use in creating attacks, setting and mood.
  • Weighs in on the strength of the attack/counter/defense/evasion; is equated to power.
  • Good description is clear, concise description.
• [2.1.2] Creativity
  • Catch phrase; integral to dueling.
  • The use of ideas to make for original, awe-inducing and inspiring attacks.
  • Enhances the writing and character.
  • Power overwhelming.
• [2.1.3] Ingenuity
  • Being clever or inventive; using skill over brute force in writing.
  • Not just doing something new, but doing something old and making it new.
  • Using characteristics or weapons your character already has to maximum effect.
  • Not resorting to Dues Ex Machina tactics.
  • Can trump other attacks over being original if done well.
• [2.1.4] Originality
  • Key to dueling.
  • Doing what isn't the norm or hasn't been seen before.
  • Makes for a more enjoyable read.
• [2.1.5] Quality
  • More necessary than quantity.
  • Is used to gauge style of writing and use of language/words.
  • Bad writing is bad quality is bad dueling. Vice versa isn't always true.
  • Good writing isn't always quality which isn't always good dueling.
• [2.1.6] Attention to Detail
  • Ability to read, understand and comprehend all kinds of posts.
• [2.2.0] Styles
  • [2.2.1] True
    • No allowed auto hits; you do not describe damage inflicted to your opponent at all.
    • When attacked, do not fully avoid or negate enemy attacks.
    • Opponents decide damage done to their characters from your attacks through your writing.
    • No use of your opponents character.
    • Avoid god-modding.
  • [2.2.2] Mix / Semi-True
    • Allows some pre-major attack hits, called auto-hits; auto hits cannot be avoided.
    • Auto-hit damage is described by the attacker; is not to do major damage to opponent character.
    • Must be well described and executed to be enjoyable.
    • Participants agree to rule-set before the match.
    • Avoid god-modding.
  • [2.2.3] Cheez
    • God-modding.
    • Doing anything you want to your opponents.
    • You are immortal and cannot be killed.
    • Designed for more humor-based dueling.
• [2.3] Duration
  • Length of time in duels is variable.
  • Time flow is set by the players.
  • Can be hours to days to weeks, or even months in the extreme cases; this includes not only time within the duel, but real-life time.
  • Can be an agreed upon post count; i.e.: five posts each, intro, three attacks, outro.
• [2.4] Advantages
  • Your opponent leaves themselves open to attack all the time; look for these openings and exploit them.
  • Be aware you leave yourself open in your attacks as well.
  • Be decisive, take the initiative.
  • Be aggressive, don't let up attacks.
  • Smack talk is leaving yourself open to attacks because you stand there; in reality, nobody stands and listens to you blather on, they look to hit you in the face.
  • Be flexible, in that a duel is a constantly changing series of events and you must bend and flow with them.
  • Be exploitative, in that you must take advantage of every opening your opponent has.
  • Never jump back when you can sidestep; never sidestep when you can duck; never duck when you can catch your opponents attack and turn it against them.
• [2.5] Fair is Passé
  • Both sides will agree to rules in a duel.
  • Some rules are unspoken agreements, generally relating to dueling style; usually true is the default.
  • Changes to these unspoken rules must be made in advance and agreed upon before the duel, not during.
  • The expectation is that you will not deviate from these agreements.
• [2.6] Attack Types
  • Three distinct forms of attack: physical, magical and technological.
  • Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
  • Tech can be seen to be the strongest because it places the least amount of stress on the user (player) as opposed to magical or physical attacks.
• [3.0] General
  • Extremely short posts with no useful information are annoying.
  • Multiple short posts that could have been consolidated into a single post are even more annoying.
  • Leave your character open to interaction with others.
  • Always seek to improve your writing; by proxy, this should improve your role playing ability.
• [4.0.1] Coincidences and Knowledge
  • There is a difference from what you know (the player) and what the character knows.
  • You cannot know what another character knows; exceptions would be extrapolating or using conjecture to come up with the answer; this may only be done well if you know of the other character in an RP of some kind previously.
  • As in reality, if the opponent character is a stranger, you know nothing of them or their abilities.
  • You are not omnipotent and cannot know everything.
• [4.0.2] Out of Bounds
  • You cannot control your opponents characters in duels; same goes for RPs.
  • It is impossible to know what a person would do with their own character in every given situation.
  • Is a reference to cheez.
• [4.0.3] Common Sense; Not so Common
  • Don't use language not suited to the RP; i.e.: 1337-speak, or slang in a medieval RP.
  • The better you RP, the better your posts will be (in theory!); writing style and ability does play into this as well.
  • You don't always have to be the super-special, amazingly awesome character; try NOT being super-powered and over-done.
  • Being "special" is a bit of an oxymoron; your character is (generally) different from someone elses; this isn't true if your character is tall, has silver hair, carries a katana and goes by the name 'Sephiroth.'
  • Don't limit your creativity; every little bit helps for something more interesting.
  • Unless it's normal for your character, random murder is a no-no.
  • When joining an RP, don't jump in without a clue; either read everything to become familiar with what's going on or ask for a summary.
  • Take into consideration all description; it offers information that could be useful.
  • Stay within the bounds of your character; i.e.: only have your character do what it would NORMALLY do, unless sudden changes are meant for a reason.
  • Know the direction location of all characters in an RP or duel; this is so you can properly correlate the information to your character, such as being a specific distance away from the target, etc.
  • Understand key differences in direction of a person and their incoming attacks.
• [5.0] Role Plays
  • There are various kinds.
  • Some are more action, others more story, and some fall in between.
  • A moderated RP is driven along its course by a host; host gives problems for players to solve and goals to attain.
  • Planned quest RP is player driven, with a core group mapping out what will happen in the course of the RP.
  • Serious Quest is similar to planned, only with more players; involves only a basic storyline with players making it up as they go along.
  • A battle RP, duel or war, usually quick paced but sometimes happening over a series of days or even weeks until completed; detail sometimes overlooked more in favor of getting action oriented posts out; generally involve two people, but more can join in.
  • There are two main styles of RP, being the fantasy RP and the real-life; second is based on reality.
  • Can be hurt in progression if there are too many people on any one side; i.e.: too many good guys or bad guys.
• [6.0] Abbreviations
  • OOC: Out of Character
  • IC: In Character
  • FRP: Forum Role Play/Playing
  • FD: Forum Duel/Dueling
  • RPC: Role Playing Character
  • RP: Role Play

Forum Dueling Basics - Judging Focus

There's a lot of talk about where the focus should lie within dueling for the purpose of judging. What criteria should play into it; that is, should it be on the writing or the actual actions -- i.e.: the fighting -- of the match? While I won't dispute that the writing carries those actions forward, molds them into something useful, readable and enjoyable, I think the attacks should be the focus. After all, it is a duel, so in turn, you're judging more in turn the attack, and also the defense, of the post itself. The writing plays a part, but in its essence acts only as a mode of transportation to the attack or defense, a means of getting itself off the ground. It is therefore secondary.

The two, while combined, need to be separated. The attack/defense, built out of words, and while being as flimsy or strong as the words they're constructed from, should be considered their own identity. They are more the bread and butter of a duel than the writing itself is. Basically, I consider the attack/defense to be like a house. The words are the structure that put it together while the attack/defense is the stunning architecture. When a person sees a house, they don't rip down the walls to look at the structure; no, they grade the house on its overall appearance and other little nuances that it has. Its character, if you will. This is how it should be with attack/defense scenarios in duels. Grade the attack/defense of the post first, then look at the structure that makes it up if you felt the whole thing needs a renovation.

Now, while I'm saying that the writing plays a secondary role in dueling, I'm not saying to ignore all the different watchwords when it comes to writing in general, such as creativity, expression, flow, dynamism and the usual bludgeoning tool of grammar and spelling. You should very well pay attention to these as most people will consider your writing quality of higher precedence than that of your attacks. What I am saying is that the focus shouldn't be so hung up on the writing itself for a duel match, and more centralized about the fighting. After all, it's called a duel for a reason. Why not wake up to that reality and judge the actual fight, eh?

Just my two cents.

The Perfect Weapon for Any Occasion

Ultimate role-playing and dueling weapon? According to a buddy of mine: A laser katana that shoots katanas that are also laser katanas. Can't argue with that, unless of course it's a rocket propelled chainsaw.

The State of Affairs in RPing

From ysqure3: Most RPers are either pretentious hacks who recognize that they can't write worth dick or pretentious hacks who think that their purple, Tolkien-ripoff prose is the shit. They're all people who come to the table from railroaded JRPGs with magic and bullshit mawkish dialog, and are incapable of writing an original character, so they crib off existing tropes.

I'm wondering what the readership (if I really even have one) thinks about this quote. Thoughts, and do you agree or disagree, and why?

Forum Dueling Basics - How to BE

There are many advantages to be had while dueling. You and your opponent constantly make mistakes while not realizing it, leaving yourself open. For every advantage you think you have, your opponent has five more that they don't know about.

People try all sorts of things thinking they are giving themselves an advantage. Every attack you make leaves you open in some form, even distance attacks. While you might think you have an advantage, you don't. This is how real combat is. Each advantage can also be a disadvantage, so plan wisely. Also, you should try to keep track of EVERY advantage you give your foe, or as many as is possible. Why do this? So you can counter them when he uses them against you, plus it also gives you something to expect. But don't assume that your opponent will always go for an advantage you think you've given him/her. He/she might have seen something you didn't and will use that. Be prepared for anything, as most anything is possible. However, there are sometimes strategies for not only predicting your opponents' move, but forcing them into taking the move you want them to.

But, as with all things, there are things you need to take into account in a duel. Tactical thinking aside, a good strategy is 'to be' a whole number of things in your match all at once, or as much as it possible. They will give credit to your attacks and your ability to overcome your opponents attacks. They include:

• Be Decisive
  - Never let your opponent have the first move if you can help it. Why would you want the first move? Because then you can throw in a wussy attack and gauge how your opponent reacts. Or you can use a forceful attack off the bat just to set the tone.
• Be Exploitative
  - Look for weaknesses in your opponents attacks quickly. Look for where your opponent is leaving him/herself open and take advantage of that. Don't sit back throwing punches you know won't hit unless you want to follow it up with something else. You want to win and win fast. The longer and more drawn out a battle becomes, the less of an edge you have--unless you're just that good.
• Be Flexible
  - Never let yourself be caught stuck in a rut. Be flexible to situational changes in the duel, adapt to the constantly changing environment you are in. Don't be caught out in the rain on an attack, but instead flow with it.
• Be Quick - Don't let up, ever. Continue attacking. If your opponent stops, they're leaving themselves open - take advantage of this.
• Be Aggressive
  - You can play a conservative role in your dueling, and throw up a mighty defense, but a defense is just that, a defense. The more you attack your opponent, the more you keep him reeling and off balance the quicker you can deal massive damage.
• Be Creative - Creativity nearly always trumps any kind of brute force attack. Why is this? If your opponent is trying to beat you to death with some kind of oversized weapon, evading and coming up with inginuitive ways of tiring him/her out and forcing them into a corner will almost always get you a win. Plus inginuitive attacks can throw your opponent off, mess up their timing to the point where you can exploit an advantage.

Then there are things you should take note of:

• Balance Displacement
  - Keep them off their guard. The more often they don't know what to do and are off balance, the more they slip up and leave themselves open. The best way to do this is to continually do something unexpected, but do it too often and your opponent will begin to see through the tactic.
• Use the Environment
  - There are many things in the environment that can be exploited at any time, by you or your opponent. Roots, branches, rocks, gas mains, electrical lines, etc. All can be used to cause harm to your opponent if done right. Keep track of this stuff.
• Running the Distance
  - Don't change the distance to suit your own purposes. This is short sighted and can sometimes make things more difficult for yourself in the end. If you're close, stay close. If you're distant, stay distant. Try and find what works and stick with it. Jumping away simply because your opponent is attacking can leave you open to a much larger attack and is just poor planning to begin with.
• Jumping
  - Never jump back when you can sidestep. Never sidestep when you can duck. Never duck when you can catch your opponents attack and turn it against them. Parrying blows is often more effective than blocking them; you can turn attacks away to make your opponent leave themselves open. An excellent and useful tactic.
• Talk is Cheap
  - Don't spend time talking in a duel. It detracts from the realism or immersion. When was the last time you saw a couple cage fighters jump back to exchange verbal garbage before jumping back in at one another to rain blows? Never. You wouldn't have time to do it in reality, so don't do it in a duel.
• Not an Anime
  - Dueling is not an anime. Throw away everything you see in an anime, from the jumping back to talk about how recklessly awesome and badass you are, to doing it just to charge forward and swing your weapon (if you're using a melee weapon) blindly. It shows bad planning, lack of creativity, poor quality of attack or even writing, no originality, and excessive amounts of stupidity.

Remember, dueling is fighting. If you aren't there to fight, get out.

Funeral for a Friend -- Duel Intro

He was escorted into the small, square suite, resplendent with its two chairs of cherry and a boorish, square oak-colored table. A half a wall was given over to a giant mirror set directly into the wall--a one way mirror. Opposite the steel door was a tiny eight inch by sixteen inch window with bars across it; you couldn't see through it because of some white coating on it, but it let through an anorexic shaft of light that looked ready to molest the next person it touched with its pallid illumination. He was asked to sit, and moved across so that the little light could scratch away at his scalp.

"Okay, Mister Filsinger, do you know why we brought you here?"

"Yeah. I saw your buddy yesterday, and his buddy the day before, and his buddy the day before that. Do you want the short or the long, you know, 'cause I can do either."

The officer sighs, rubbing his forehead with exaggerated motions as though he already had the headache he knew was coming.

"The long version, if you'd please."

"So anyway, I'm at my apartment and I'm watching the game, right. There's this huge ass band playing across the street, souns like a funeral march, 'cause, you know, there was a funeral. Long line of people, all in black, following behind this casket. Probably cost more than I make in a year, I bet. I found out from a friend, 'cause I called him up as it was happening; he tells me that it's the old Don of some Mafia group died. Right, so I'm like, 'no ****! Really?' And 'course my buddy says yeah. And I'm joking with him, now, telling him how the people are crying and sobbin', even the guys! And they look like ****in' zombies! Zombies! Rocking back and forth on their feet."

"What's your friend's name?"

"Johnny."

"Johnny?"

"Oh, John Baker."

The officer gives him a look.

"And where was this funeral taking place?"

"Broker and Fifth. You know, the big cemetery there. Can't miss it. Got a big brass sign out front, says it's the best place to put your loved ones, you know, when they're dead."

The officer shows Mister Filsinger a photo. There's a graveyard with a brick road winding up to a gardeners shed in the middle built from more brick. There are a half dozen mausoleum styled grave sites, as well as tall and short tombstones. Some have statues, others don't, and a long string of plaques amid lusciously green grass. Trees are thrown up like warding hands around the pathways and around some of the mausoleum-styled grave sites.

"This it?"

"Yeah, yeah. Same place." "So, you were saying, about the people looking like zombies."

"Yeah, so the people were walking toward the grave, and they get there, start lowering it. I turn the game down, 'cause the priest there looks ****ing funny as hell. And then, I swear to you, he says, "Dead man, grave in, Amen." And then the people start crying more, and the, and one of the guys carrying breaks out laughing and loses his grip. They, they ****ing drop the casket! Drop it, and it slips into the grave, and people are shreiking when the thing breaks open and the Don's dead body spills out! There's this, this dead body, and it's flpping around! And the women are cryin' and the guys are tryin' to shoove it back in. And, and, you had to be there. God."

"Was there anything else? You said before you saw a man loitering before."

"Oh, yeah, him. So, there's this guy, standing at the edge of the funeral. He's doesn't really seem a part of it. He's pale, like a, like a vampire; dressed in this black suit, or maybe a dark blue. Anyway, he's standing there, and as the Don falls into the grave, face planting right out of his casket, he doesn't do nothing, at least, not yet, right? Not smiling, not even laughing. But I'm watching, and he seems all odd. Out of place, you know?"

"No, I don't know, Mister Filsinger."

"Anyway, this guy, after a bit of watching the screaming, he walks up through the crowd, grabs the priest. I sweat, threw him like a rag doll, right into a statue. Jumps into the grave, grabs the ol' Don, picks him up like he don't even weigh a thing! Everyone there is still screaming, and now some punk comes running at the guy, but the guy does some Star Wars thing, uses the Force, and sends buddy boy packing. Whoosh! Right over the hole in the dirt and into another statue. Then this freak pulls out a sword or something and starts hacking away at the Don! It was like watching some demented horror movie!"

"So, what happened next..."

"Well,..."

Forum Dueling Basics - Tech, Vol 2

Tech.

Last time I discussed tech, I spoke on how anyone can use tech and how it is by and large can be more powerful than magic because there generally aren't any adverse effects on the user.

With tech, you must build the device to accomplish the action you want. Some devices are multi-function and are capable of various input to do various output, while others are specialized. The end result, though, is that you must have the device/object that does what you want it to. A description of size, shape, color, maybe even weight and you're done. This is generally where tech shines, in the description: basically, it's the proving ground of the concept. Most writers in a duel with just say what the device is called and what it does, but others try to approximate something close to reality in how it works. If the device is based on some kind of reality, it gives itself/gains some credibility. Of course, since you are dueling/RPing, you will suspend some of the belief because at current, such devices aren't possible. But like I said, it's an approximation of current-day technology, an extrapolation if you will, of what tech could very well be capable in some far-off distant future if we were to advance far enough.

The function of tech is limited only by creativity. If you can dream of it, tech can do it. It's the same for magic, but again this comes back around full circle to the fact that tech can accomplish for the user without draining the user, while magic is the opposite -- it sucks the user dry to accomplish the end. Now, I'm not going to say what kind of devices you should create, because that would be stupid -- you need to create weaponry based on your personal preference and what works for you. But as to categories and the types of tech you can create, while the sky might be the limit, here are a few: bodyarmor, firearms, lasers, missiles, rockets, grenades, and etc. I could go on for a long while with more categories, but won't.

These are just broad categories. I can already hear you saying (possibly complaining even!) how you can't use these, that they don't suit. Why not? Because they sound like they might be right out of today, that they're modern and not futuristic at all? An example of a futuristic weapon would be a railgun. You think cool. But a railgun is a firearm; depending on the size, it can either be a rifle or a massive artillery piece.

So, the questions in the end are: what're you going to build? How much description should you put into the device to make it feasible? Would the tech you've built be considered cheez, god-modding or over-powering?

The unfortunate part, though, is that the third question is where you're going to hit a speed bump. A lot of tech will be considered over-powering because of its ability to perform its actions on the fly, instantaneously without having to go through any kind of warm-up sequence. Just going to have to be careful with it. And that's that.

Forum Dueling Basics - Flow

Flow in writing is the toughest, and probably one of the most asked, questions to be answered. Flow is a bitch. She comes at you with a knife in one hand, a silver tray on the other, and when you think you got both of those steadied out, she kicks you in the balls.

The best way is to relate flow to Lego. Your words are the bricks and you're attempting to build yourself a nice "wall" of text. Now, you can grab any word, or brick, you want. Builds up a wall fast, but it won't look right, you get mismatched colors, and it won't feel right. It becomes gaudy, messy, and puts people off. The other side of it, though, is that you choose the wrong parts for the job, or wrong words, and the whole thing crumbles under its own weight. You have to do a balancing act. And even then, supposing you get all the right pieces, the right words, and fashion a wall of a single indiscriminate color, you get something that stands good, but is bland. You need some color to liven things up, but you don't want to over-do it and make things seem gaudy or right out to lunch.

There isn't really a definite answer, and won't be, since you style your writing however you want, and some people will either love it or hate it. This brings back the balancing act where you try and use the right pieces for the right role. I can't say I'm perfect in this aspect, as even I fuck up and I know it. You can only do your best at it.

Probably the best advice I can give is to read more, unless you happen to be TEW. It'll give you more ideas to use, and to see how different authors and writers approach writing. Some things, you'll find, either reach up and grip you by the throat in a choke-hold of death and won't let you go until its done and you feel like you were raped in a most unpleasant way, while others will put you in a headlock and barrel you through the most awesome things you've seen and never let go until the end where it leaves you satisfied and wanting more.

It comes down to a trial and error thing. Find what works and what doesn't. Plain and simple.

Forum Dueling Basics - Forces

During my two months in the field, there are times when you get moments to sit around on your ass and wait for the next phase, the next thing that's going to happen. This can sometimes be mere minutes or several hours. It's called the "hurry up and wait" syndrome, and happens all the time. Well, while during one of these lovely sessions I was graced with, I had a thought about RPing, as it struck me purely out of the blue.

Prior to going into the field, I had had an argument with a number of people about characters in general and the amount of powers they were "allowed" and what overpowering was and all that jazz.

No character is made the same; in this no character have the same abilities or powers or even thoughts. To assume they are is asinine. We're told constantly to get away from the cookie-cutter mould that a lot of characters are created from, to seek originality of concept. Well, in doing so, in making these different characters, they all come in different shapes, sizes and varying degrees of ability. And it is because of this inherent difference that it is difficult to properly match skill levels of the characters without it appearing that one is overpowering the other.

The answer? Simple. Regulation of the force necessary to the bare minimum to accomplish a specific task, such as beating so-and-so into a bloody pulp. It could be reasonable to suggest that a person who is considered an excellent role player would limit his power and ability, not take it away altogether, to the minimum levels necessary to fight. But the average person can't believe this, and whenever they see someone who is highly capable, instantly think that said person will overpower because they can't.

Sure, it's an assumption on both sides, but the whole "well you can't use that because you're going to overpower" rather inhibits more than a "well, sure, fight the guy, but keep it reasonable."

Just a thought. I might be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, but leave some comments on what you think.

Forum Dueling Basics - Tech, Vol 1

Tech.

Tech is varied and diverse in its function, its limit being only the users imagination. Tech has long been considered one of the more difficult aspects to duel with, since it can be unpredictable, versatile and deadly in the right hands, with no real ability cap at the high end. It can be made to do anything at any time with absolutely no lag time in-between, unlike magic. This is what makes tech both deadly and difficult to use without over-powering.

Most people can easily relate to magic. Magic is used in fantasy novels, movies, anime and cartoons the world over. Because of this, those who role-play magic users can see the magic, its effect, and can then take the attack they've seen previously and modify it to suit their needs and purposes. Tech, on the other hand, encompasses a more scientific outlook; one must have at least some understanding of the method behind the machines ability to create the phenomena. This is actually a misnomer: any particular joe can use tech. But remember, to an uneducated person who doesn't understand tech, it is magic. By using this parallel thought, it's easy to use tech. All you have to do is think of it as magic that a machine makes using internal power supplies instead of your character using his own essence.

Tech offers up more bonuses than magic does without the side-effects of wear on the user that would inhibit or otherwise cause the user of tech to tire or exhaust him or herself over time. While in reality, a gadget can be prone to failure from any number of internal errors, most tech users simply choose to ignore these common-place effects. This furthers the difficulty in tech use, as wear-and-tear on the devices and gadgetry used are ignored in the same fashion that most role-players and duelists ignore the devastating effects the casting of large, powerful spells have on their characters.

To further the gap between magic and tech, tech requires literally no training time to use by comparison. And the devices need not be large to contain enough power to level four city blocks. These differences differentiate one from the other by large extremes, and make tech look to be extremely over-powered with just a glance, especially in high-end/level tech which is styled more towards massive matches against like opponents.

However, tech isn't as over-powered as many might think. Take for example a rocket. It's generally assumed that because it's a rocket, it's over-powered. But if a magic user knew anything about a rocket, they'd know that a rocket has no guidance systems and can travel in only a straight line, unable to deviate from its initial flight path. This makes a rocket fairly simple to dodge, as it contains no sensors, just a booster and a warhead. The average magic user doesn't know this, and doesn't bother to educate themselves about this, which is where the problem with tech begins: a complete lack of understanding. Magic is easier to understand. Everyone has an innate understanding of it, even if they've never been told about it. Tech is the opposite. Not everyone has an understanding of it, and fewer go out of their way to learn about it.

Forum Dueling Basics - Attack/Counter Scenarios

A little something I put together with Tier a while back. A cause/effect on strategies and possibilities for attacks and counters to attacks. Some attacks are similar, and remember, while I might see several openings, I might not catch them all myself.

So, a setting for the attacks to take place in:

* Stent stood in a small glade, a light smattering of water sliding along her scaly legs. She wore only a set of dull black knee-high trousers with orange stitching. A tank-top that was the same orange, but dull and lackluster. She only wore a pair of finger-less black gloves with silver markings on the back of the knuckles. The sun shone, a breeze played with the leaves, and her thin, muscular arms were tattered with an array of silverish tattoos that seems to course like veins. A dull armband around her left arm was the finishing touch. Everything about her bespoke boredom and dullness--not a thing of interest, even with the tall grasses flicking against her legs. She was...bored.

Now, comes a reply from my opponent. A basic attack.

* Tier launched forward from the shadows his blade flicking from its sheath to launch upwards from the ground spraying Stent with mud and hopefully drawing her attention away from the blade ripping through the ground to come up towards her groin area.

Now, from this there are several possible replies in which to do, several ways to counter it. I'll use only a few physical counters, although even using the ones I had there are dozens upon dozens of possible counters. from such a generic attack.

1. Stent's chest and face was wrapped in mud. She paid it little heed, forcing her left hand into a fist, she smashed it into the incoming blade, a small force shield eminating from the silver contact points on her knuckles. This was coupled with a spin to the left, turn and swung an outstretched right arm, also a fist, at the face of the unnamed warrior, knuckles flashing with energy...
2. Stent jumped up and forward in a dive. The blade came up past where she had been while she used her whiplike tail as she twisted in the muddy water to slap at the legs of the foe and drop him into the water.
3. Stent backflipped, landing on her feet out of range of the upsweeping blade. before rushing in. Both hands came up to form a grip ready to take the blade if it suddenly came down as she jumped up and forward, her knee blazing for the face of her new foe.
4. Stent rolled to the left, came up onto her feet and as the blade swept ever upward, brought the palm of her left aimed for her opponents chin while her right sought his elbow.

These are just four possibilities that can be used to counter the initial attack. There are still many ways left open to use. Now, if we continue the example as above, using say counter number 1, then we could possibly get something along these lines:

* As the knuckles slammed into the blade driving it into the mud Tier released the hilt swiftly to keep the force from breaking his wrist. As he looked up to see the spinning reptile's backhand whipping towards his head Tier moved in and grabbed her elbow and brought his left elbow towards the back of her head.

Now, I have three possibilities, although you still have to remember, there are more than the ones I put forth.

1. Stent let the fool grab her elbow, continuing her twist. However, she ducked her head as though to go under her own right arm, grabbing the arm of the moron who now held her elbow. Using the twisting momentum and bending forward to bodily throw him out into the marsh.
2. Stent stopped her turn. She brought up her left hand, still a fist and moved to smash it into the oncoming elbow, her knuckles ready to impart their deadly energy.
3. Stent stopped short, ducked her head in the motion and twisted her arm to release the sudden hold on it. But she wasn't finished. She bent backward into an arch as the elbow came in--and her tail flashed between her legs straight for the man's groin.

This is then followed by using counter number two:

* As soon as the attack was launched the reptile stopped spinning and Tier looked over in time to see the knuckles flying towards his elbow. Grinning he grabbed her wrist and used the two contact points to exert enough force to throw the creature over his head and out into the water. His body arched forward to help keep momentum.

Again, various combinations to use.

1. Stent flew, twisted in the air and landed. As soon as she touched water, a small splash, except that the water kept rising, kept moving. The ruddy, brown water rose up in a wave , the forward edge nearly becoming solid with spikes coming down on the fool.
2. Stent landed with a splash, the globules of water spraying everywhere. But it wasn't enough when she didn't surface right away. There was an inky blackness that crawled through the water, a shade of depth that suddenly rose from the water, a blackness that shot forth as though to wrap around his face and gag him to death.
3. Sploosh! Stent landed in the water, the noise abrupt and prompt. It didn't end, though. She stood up, covered head to toe in mud, her muscled arms glowing silver. She raised both hands in the air, the knuckle points glowing an intense aquamarine before she brought both arms down and thrust them forward. A series of aquamarine lasers flashed away seeking the man's gut.

You will notice that by adding distance between yourself and your opponent, the style of attacks suddenly changed. In two of the last three possible instances, the character Stent reverted to distance attacks. In this case, however, we must note that if you are a specific distance, more than say twenty-one feet (roughly seven meters, although a little less) distance, it would be considered optimal to resort to some kind of distance attack.

Distance attacks vary in two types: technological (guns, lasers, missiles) and magical (spells). There are, however, varying kinds of attacks that could be strung together. Like saying you used your telekinetic powers, if you had any, to pick up a rock and whip it at your opponent. This is a simple example of a distance attack. Distance should be equated with power attacks. The more distance you have, the more time you have to power up a massive attack. If you plan on jumping back, you better have a good reason to.

The more distance you have, the larger and more powerful your attacks can be because your opponent can't get to you in time to stop it.

Remember, you must:

1. Use the enviroment to an advantage
2. Be creative
3. Use everything at hand

By using the environment, you can be assured or a near-constant advantage to be exploited throughout the match. Creativity nearly always trumps any kind of brute force attack. Why is this? If your opponent is trying to beat you to death with some kind of over-sized weapon, evading and coming up with creative ways of tiring him/her out and forcing them into a corner will almost always get you a win. By using everything at hand, again I mean using your surroundings to advantage.

Special Thanks:

A big thank you goes out to Tier Bladesinger, who acted as our dummy throughout a good many of the examples given. Without him, the inception of this guide probably would never have begun.

In the Shadow of Giants -- Duel Intro

The road twisted between the mountains, hard-pack trodden underfoot by thousands of people before, perhaps millions, or even more. There were no toll booths to keep track, but the steady roar of the old-age wheeled vehicles and the much more modern hover-craft blitzing along the highway wafted up the craggy heights of the age old monoliths that stood watch. Great boughs of jutting granite lay crawling and bulbous hands along the valley floor, making for a convoluted pass, and many smaller valley's hidden in the waiting arms of the larger mountains.

It was up a trail that switchbacked several times. A steep trail set near forty-five degrees with large trees canvasing the overcast sky, clawing away with thick branches and a just-after-rain stench. It was about five kilometers, that a lake stood. It was small, with reeds dotting one edge, the other framed by a towering face of granite and sparse pine and hemlocks. A thin mist blanketed a corner of the lake. The only indication that there was a waterfall was the sound, but beyond the roar and gurgle, there were more trees and rocks. The trail circled the small lake, scrambling up the large building-block-like rocks even higher into the ridge-line.

The weather was in a foul mood, overcast in a belligerent frown and blustering out an even fouler wind. The day had started with a light drizzle, but with a kind of cold that infiltrated bones and set about an inner freeze that made everything especially lethargic, like time slowing. It began to sleet. The rain and snow mingling in a perverse near coitus act, sloshing into the ground in a rough-and-tumble play as they moved in and around one another. Mud began to bubble up as the cold ground rejected the skies urination. A curse and a ruffle of clothing followed as a hood canvased a head and arms pulled in tighter around a body. He danced a short jig, blood flow warming extremities that began to chill. He reminds himself why he's here, and why he feels cold instead of warmth.

"Stupid, bloody, cold. Just had to pick the worst spot, didn't you."

Nobody answered; he didn't expect anyone to answer, not now.

Amarouk turned dead eyes at the sky, then turned them on the waterfall percolating at the far edge. It seemed to always have a renewed sense of vigor, like crystal-clear coffee--nothing but a warmth and a feeling of wired purpose. A jazz that tingled the nerves. He barked out a curse at the cold again, which normally never affected him, and at the waterfall, and at his opponent, who had yet to show his, or her, face. What a rout.

Forum Dueling Basics - Dead Weight

It sinks like a stone in water, a bird that just got caught in a hail of rounds from a duck hunting party. It isn't graceful in the least. It's monstrous, bulbous, and it's crashing with the finesse of a cannonball at a diving competition in the Summer Olympics. It's dueling and role playing, and it's in decline, and fading beneath the waters like a sad little wet dream by a teen ashamed to have been caught with a mess in his bed. If you ever stopped to look at role playing and dueling, you'll even see it isn't the once vibrant, living being of sunshine and rainbows it once was. Instead, you see a husk, a decaying and malnourished creature barely surviving on the limited scrapes fed to it by the few still interested in the art, and even their interest is waning.

But the question is why? The answer is actually simple: lives. All those teens who found their mainstay on the boards in dueling and role playing got on with their lives. They got jobs, went to university and college, dropping dueling and role playing like so much dead weight. The sadder part, though, isn't that these intrepid creationists who built up the art left, it's that they didn't bother to pass it on to anybody else. They just left, ran off the track with the baton and forgot to give the next runner in line a chance at equaling or besting the record. No, instead you have the current generation of role players and duelists that are lackluster at best, and when one of those so highly esteemed in legend for their prowess in the art happens to come on by, all they can do is complain angrily that something they spearheaded with such ferocity is being destroyed.

Sad, really.

Now, the bad part on my behalf is that I'm being hypocritical in a sense. I'm just as bad as any other person who happens along and complains about how good the old days were compared to how they are now. I'm one of those people who found a job, found a life, grew up and moved on. But I still have the spark, somewhere, and maybe if I can revive that little bestial thing, I might return to my former glory and actually deserve the respect that's been given to me. A dream, but a start.

So, how do you fix this problem? Well, the current role players and duelists could just learn how to write in the first place, and learn to put some effort and love behind what they do. That would work, but only so far. You can't convince all the people who left to come back, either, to fix the problem themselves. Their lives interfere, and whatever takes priority in their life, be it their job, their spouse, their gaming habits or even children, would take precedence over dueling and role player. In the end, it really falls into the hands of the current and new generation. They have the opportunity to build on or destroy what the previous generation did. You could also cut out the older folks who don't do anything other than complain (myself included), which would improve things as well.

Several things you could do. They might work, might not. But it's not in my hands to decide what goes down. Your problems, you fix 'em. I'm just the advice guy in the corner.

Laziness Strikes Again!

Everyone is inherently lazy. Even the most active of writers are lazy in some respect. Duelists and role-players are no exception. You'll find that we're all lazy on some level, whether it be in the time it takes them to write a post, or when it comes to the creation of their character and its background. An interesting thing, at least I find, is that some role players seem to gloss over the motivating factor behind their character.

Their character shines, sparkles, has that new-car gleam and smell to them. They go from 0 to 240 MPH in sixty seconds, can pull off amazing acrobatic moves and is capable of slaughtering whole armies without breaking a sweat. And we have no clue as to why said character with all this ability is doing it. We don't know their motivation, their reasoning. All we know is that they're off killing.

Some people attempt to counter-act this and give a passing glance at their "motivation," which sometimes really isn't much motivation for a person to fight. Tournaments, yeah, you're there to win. It's a tourney, state it as such. But the "random encounter duel," you need a reason to be fighting. It's that simple. You can suddenly just jump at each others' throats unless your characters are nothing more than rambling, psychotic creatures.

So, where's the motivation? And better yet, where's mine?

 

- W. Visarett