Commitment

The phenomenon describing the State of any Action before it resolves in the chronological order. A penalty attributed to the resolution of an action that must seek to resolve on the Chain of events. It serves as an opposed property to retroactives invoked by players to undo detrimental plays. Actions in roleplay combat typically subscribe to their completion on the Chronological Order, and require that every action undertaken reaches a form of finality. Commitment is applied mainly in combat to estimate States previous attacks or defenses of enemy players and gauge whether an appropriate action or reaction can be delivered in the proper Time. It functions to stabilize the chronological order from players attempting to constantly revert or change actions.

Principle
Commitment's only functions as a State of being for a character and their previous action. It is discerned by the amount of Time an action is not needed to resolve, but rather the suspension of its resolution versus changes to a situation. An enemy character's Positioning is determined by their previous commitment to an action, but the commitment is factored by the properties of the Argument in question on how it can be resolved. A player cannot simply revert an action in a play and commitment is proportionate to the amount of inertia is creates. Hypothetically all actions you invoke in the game is suspended until the enemy player's end phase is completed. A revert, undo, or alteration of a previous action is considered a Retroactive action.

A simple leap or sword swing requires full commitment as it is an established argument by whomever executes it. The chronological Order and rules of Pbp/T1 roleplay does not allow Autohitting between turns of either party, and will suspend the conclusion of an action until both proponent and opponent's play has ended in a turn. The actions are postponed temporary until they reach their resolution state where each participant or a judge determines on a chain which resolves first. Those in commitment more-so than others may or may not receive the penalty of their previous action before moving onto the next. The chronological order is logged by a series of suspended events to be determined by which begins and ends first -- hence, resolves.

There are a plethora of strategies for minimizing committal penalties from movement cancels, Auto-Defense, multis, to whole practices of combat philosophies such as Minimum Maximum to Chance Manipulation. Ideally a player wants the least amount of movement penalty in a single action between plays to optimize their chances of survival. Retroactive actions is the mechanical antonym of commitment, because they are oocly voided by either alteration to said action or outright voided to shape a situation a character is in. A fluid series of events with arguments between actions establishes possibilities of penalties and risk rather than outright negation of actions due to poor detriment of a player. Commitment enforces more strategic execution of actions in a Play since risk of intertia exist, which fosters justified Hits and even kills by reckless players.

Commitment as a penalty is only proportionate to the size or volume of an action. "How much" involved does a character have to be for the resolution of their move to take place? pokes are typically an action of choice among seasoned or wise players, as a small move requiring little bodily or whole inertia allows for justified cancels whereas special techniques or abilities like burst control act to fully stop commitment when the need arises. Bait strategies exploits commitment by intentionally goading players into an action that sets them out of position with commitment as the ultimate penalty. The more of a "whole" is necessary for an action the greater amount of inertia is required.

Examples
A classic example of motion inertia

Immediately the first mistake Prima made was his vertical ascension. Secunda intentionally agreed to every action Prima described and now his committed aerial offensive is established; though, there are allowable alterations Prima can do even from that height he will be powerless without a power or ability to aid him. He'll have to manually register the danger he faces to erect a defense whereas an optimized build of his character having Auto-Defense may afford little attention to the danger and continue accordingly. Now if he has no flight capabilities at all then he's subjected to inertia under gravity and will fall into his opponent's attack regardless of autonomous or manual defenses.

Justified alteration for defense

One could argue if it was appropriate for Prima to take damage, but he remained faithful to his previous action and is falling as promised if he not the abilities to stop. Prima did use any resource to his best abilities by using |tells to read his opponent's bodily actions. Prima took advantage that all modifications to a situation and actions that can be readily seen will be seen and registered by his character. This admitted license to craft a defense against an incoming threat and justification for warding off what would have been fatal while satisfying the chronological order. He had met the conditions necessary for resolving what was originally established while maintaining his presence in the fight no matter how badly damaged he is.

Movement cancels of the former example

This would be considered cheesy and in bad taste by some can still be justified since it meets the conditions of the established actions. This time the commitment of the previous movement was almost entirely cancelled while using telegraphs much more proactively. Prima used his Ability to achieve pseudo flight to avoid or hindering Secunda's Tracking. His direction of choice is ultimately meaningless other than to possibly serve as a buffer to obfuscate Secunda's aim.

Usage
Commiment in TZDL is de facto cause of victories and defeats. TZDL2011 especially saw the trend and dangerous of outright penalties commitments wrought. Lokanas fell victim to both Mouse and Argryia through commitment though the latter having a much more complicated ruling involving TZDL itself. Lokanas against Mouse was merely a nuanced measure of Mitsu Mazono's Auto-defense. Veatore in the same year won his match against Flamezone and then lost to Draven in the following round to a series of minor commitment.

The most explosive exploitation of commitment came in TZDL2012 between Argryia and Golaith. The combat doctrine of Chance Manipulation was birthed by the former in an epic volley of constant interrupts as the latter was deadlocked into repeated commitment that never resolved. Argryia's character rushed her opponent with pure speed using his rifle to launch faster attacks while relying on movement cancels to further enhance her opponent's inability to properly respond. Goliath's character could not resolve any of his previous actions and was unable to readjust due to the sheer pace of their fight. This resulted in a 2 post victory by Argryia.

The next last example happened in the preliminaries of TZDL2012 between Ru and Keiten. The latter had invoked an aerial manuever without assigning values to his speed property and was thus defaulted to normal values for his properties. His opponent attempted to take advantage of priority by kicking the airplane out of position to where he lanced on, but this would void his first attack Priority and hence she was forced to edit it. Her edit, on the other hand, was disproportionately more detrimental to Keiten's character and was deadlocked to resolving his first attack as he was blown apart only after by his opponent as he had not the appropriate time to respond. Ru earned another OHK.