Welcome to Gaia! ::

My approach is pretty simple:

1) Does the attack make sense? Is it possible for my character to block/deflect/etc in some fashion? More importantly, is it probable?

2) Out of any given number of potential responses, which makes the most sense for my character?

and sometimes

3) Did I like the attack?

1 and 2 come naturally to me, I usually only have to read a post and bounce the situation in my head around before a response or number of responses crop up, and I go with what feels natural for my character, even if it means he's caught off guard or is forced to take the hit flush, rather than shunting some of the damage or dodging entirely.

3 comes into play in situations where I have wiggle room and could go either way, but if I felt like the attack/defense/counter was really creative or just neat, I'll let it fly even if I might have known of a response that might have put my character into a better position in the fight. It rarely comes into play though, not because my opponents are uninteresting, but because there's usually a combination of factors involved.

If I ever fall short of giving the appropriate response, it's just because I make mistakes. I think it's safe to say that people aren't perfect, and they don't always make the most logical or fair decision, even if they have no intent of being unfair. They just go with the flow, and sometimes they over reach or overstep.

It happens. I can read back in fights and go "I think I should have done something different" even if my opponents were fine with what I did. I think whether or not we fall short, it's more important that we remain critical of ourselves so we can improve.

Whether you make a mistake is less important than whether or not you can admit it and learn from it. Everybody makes mistakes, but not everybody is gonna admit it or learn from it.

I was asking Iyam in this case, since he claims I do not have the proper mentality.

I would agree with him if this was a story-driven RP that focused on character development. But it's a tournament. I entered it knowing that it was a competition and thus designed my character's skills to excel at fighting what I perceived as the metagame for said tournament. I'm reasonable and willing to work out a conflict, but at the same time I appreciate being able to stay within the realm of at least partial plausibility, and also expect the judges to back me up in that regard. When neither happens, I get pretty upset.

I didn't come to write a massive story arc, I came to present fights in which I sell my own character to the judge and the reader to make them side with her over my opponent, and therefore win. If I just want to write story, I can write a novel without help. When people read my fights, I'm aiming to have them go "Damn, Sigil's character seriously outwitted his/her opponent, and with style to boot. That was a good read!".

I always sell myself first, and the opponent second when in a competition. This is opposed to selling the opponent first, or only selling yourself.

Sweet so I just finished reading like twenty pages of missed text, forgot what I was supposed to respond to, something about molestia and dont give a damn anymore cause the conversation isnt worth my time.

On the upside, I am glad I ordered pizza and as such missed the vast majority of this so far.

Shitty RPers.

Shitty RPers everywhere.

You're spot on, Tres. While I tried to remain as true to the mechanics and flavor of the character as is possible in a medium without health bars and GCDs, I also designed the character, to the best of my ability, to win.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, it genuinely surprises me that someone would not do that.

Don't get me wrong, I like to break the meta-game in every competitive game I play as much as I think using it, but at the end of the day if you are not already coming in with the mindset that what you do is meant to neutralize and counter your opponents, then why compete?