A friend of mine made a shortish Pokemon RPG module for one-on-one play. The module turned out incredibly well and everyone in our extended RPG group has now played it (and each time the supplemental GM notes for the module grow... I hope to one day complete the Pokedex of non-human cultural spectrums I'm compiling via second hand reports for her, but we'll see).
Unfortunately, I've now been tagged to run a variation of this game for multiple players at the same time. This is a problem because the module lacks rules of the sort I'm used to using and instead provides broad descriptive regulations like
Each Alakazam is best at something different, though they are all capable of teleportation and communicating with humans. Will's Alakazam is the best at dealing with large amounts of information, for example searching the minds of a city's population for memories of interactions with the player, or getting useful prophecy from the Xatu festival. Sabrina's Alakazam is best at mind control stuff, like making people not notice that they're being mind controlled, despite radical alterations to their perception of reality. Lord Zumzibar (Tequila's Alakazam) is best at hiding his presence from psychic detection and resisting other people's psychic powers.
If the Player is friends with the Rival, he gives them the stone when he finds it, at age 9. Otherwise, Mom gives it to the player at age 12, just before the game starts. If something prevents the player from finding or knowing about the stone, Tequila still knows she needs it and will take steps to locate before or while she kidnaps the player.
Each use of the Player's Rayquaza powers causes the world to end a little sooner. Furthermore, the player's connection with Somethingness is strained, and they lose a bit of their humanity. As the player uses these abilities, the GM should increasingly restrict the ways in which they are allowed to respond to situations and the kinds of feelings they have, until at some point the GM assumes control of the Player.
These rules are useful and have worked fine for the one-on-one campaign, as given any particular task the Player attempts what the outcome should be is pretty clear (and if it's not clear "Rule 0: The Player always wins" applies). Unfortunately, not that there are multiple players, they may cause their PCs (The Players) to come into conflict, and then Rule 0 no longer applies and what should happen is pretty unclear.
Now, I have some significant experience running diceless games, so I think resolving these conflicts will be mostly possible to do in a satisfying manner. However, I have found that diceless conflict resolution (at least the way I've been doing it, inspired by my experiences with Amber Diceless) tends to benefit people who are good at speaking (or in this case, writing, since the game will be online).
Inarticulateness is the opposite of eloquence.
The two players I have been tagged to run this game for have vastly different skill levels at literary creation. One of them is a low-level editor/reviewer for a small literary journal, has kept up a weekly blog post for more than 18 months (though it just went on hiatus for the first time a couple weeks ago), writes at least one 1000 word short story every day, and a 500 word opinion piece once a week, and is generally a professional writer, minus the part where she gets paid. She also has 3 years of experience in online RPGing via chat, with a year of experience on the platform we will specifically be using.
The other player suffers from mild dyslexia, is terrible at writing both in terms of fundamentals like grammar and spelling and in terms of things like style and eloquence, has no positive experiences with chat-based RP, and didn't play Pokemon as a kid (but has, obviously, played the module/system this game will be based on).
Losing all the time is no fun, and the massively-less-skilled player here usually feels the need to create PvP conflicts, especially when they find themselves consistently losing in said situations. I'd like to arbitrate the task resolution in a manner that doesn't favor the literarily inclined person involved to the exclusion of the other. Normally, this isn't a problem because we normally play systems with more rules-based character creation, and the latter player is much better at building and using characters in such systems than the former, so things kinda balance out.
What can I do to bias things the other way, towards the person who is less good at talking?