Immediate Interrupts

[Kalidrev]

Soon here I will be playing as a character who uses immediate interrupts very heavily. This has brought up an interesting conundrum in my mind as far as their utility in the play by post format of game play.

Since most of the time, a DM will announce the bad guys's attacks and damage all at once, is it fair for someone to use an immediate interrupt after learning the result of the attack and damage rolls of all of the DM controlled creatures and NPCs, choosing which attack to use it against?

I'm pretty sure that this is a "per DM" kind of thing, but I was just curious about what the general consensus is on this so that I know what to expect for the future.

 

[elecgraystone]

Seems fair enough to me. If the GM posts monster stats, I have no problem with targeting thier low defense.

If it's an issue, then leave it up the the GM and let him know when to use it. Just say 'use it on first hit' or 'most powerful foe' or 'first crit'. You can make something like a flow chart (use it here first. If that doesn't happen then use it here. ect...)

 

[Kalidrev]

Thanks for the feedback. That's one person who has no prob with it, but what about the other GMs out there? Would you have a problem with "reactive" immediate interrupts, or would you want a "readied" immediate interrupt?

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this is an issue for specific PCs in the game system.

As such, I think each DM should realize this before allowing these PCs in their game and if they do allow them in the game, the DM should be cognizant of the issue and should allow the player of this type of PC to respond accordingly. This is only fair.

As an example, the DM in such a campaign might want to list all of the attack rolls and their potential success first and ask that player if he wants to interrupt any of them.

But, solutions like this require that both the DM and the player work together to post their decisions in a timely manner. It's not fair to other players to wait days for the player of the PC that can interrupt to finally respond to the DM's query, or for the DM to finally respond with the results of the interrupt. And, solutions like this are even more problematic if the DM posts the results of the first attack, the player posts whether he will interrupt, the DM then posts the results of the second attack, etc. I suspect that the smallest level of granularity is that of the DM posting all of the attacks followed by the player responding with any responses.

I think solutions like this can work, but interrupts are precisely that. Interrupts.

As such, they interrupt the timeliness of PBP messages as much as they interrupt actions in the game. So, I think this issue can only be proactively resolved by the DM and players involved and cannot be resolved by the community at large.

 

[Kalidrev]

KD, you're exactly right. It's not something that can be solved by the community at large as far as a "judge ruling" is concerned. I don't expect this to be treated as a proposal. I was mainly just curious about what others thought about how this should be handled. Definitely a DM/Specific Player issue and something that each specific DM/Player set will need to work out. Thanks for you input!

 

[stonegod]

It will vary from DM to DM, but usually having a set of triggers in your action block helps.

 

[KarinsDad]

It will vary from DM to DM, but usually having a set of triggers in your action block helps.

Not so much.

There are a lot of immediate interrupts (and immediate reactions) that a player might not even think of until the situation occurs. On top of that, a player might not want to use a specific II or IR in a given situation. Many situations are unique. For example, I might not want to protect the defender PC with an II as a general rule, but in a specific case, I do want to protect the defender PC and I won't know until the situation happens whether I want to or not.

But, IIs often specifically occur after a to hit roll is made, but before damage is rolled (or some other point in time). Without the ability to segregate game time to the point in time where the II can be used, it makes playing the game a lot more difficult in this area in PBP.

So having IIs specified within the action block would tend (at least for me) to be the exception instead of the rule. I might sometimes do that as a player, but most of the time I would prefer to have my options available.

For example, an attack hits and stuns a PC. The fact that the PC will be stunned motivates me as a player to use my II. If it was hits and dazes, or hits and knocks prone, I might not be as motivated. I won't know what is happening until the DM relates the required information to make the decision. If the DM does not tell me that the attack will stun my ally, again, I will make a decision based on what I know. But, I don't want to "waste" an II based on what is written in an action block and/or having to put a lot of conditional information into an action block so that an II will or will not be wasted is also difficult.

I think the only good solution is for the DM to pause and allow the player to make a reasonable decision. Unfortunately, PBP does not lend itself well to this like tabletop gaming does without proactive posting by the DM and the players.

Another possibility is to have the player do the II (or IR) after the fact. But, this would force the DM to go back a bit and change the outcome based on the results of the II. Doable, but not preferable since it could also result in IIs based on information that the player should not have had at the time of the interrupt.

 

[Kalidrev]

EXACTLY! That's the problem I'm seeing. I don't want to cheat based on info I've gotten after the fact, but also don't want to set up three pages of IF this THEN do this triggers in my action blocks on each of my turns. Maybe I'll just have to ask my DM to seperate the to-hits and damages/effects of his attacks in his posts for me (would that be an unreasonable request?), that way I only see who hit, not what they did with that hit. That is kind of an inbetween of the two. Yes I know all of the results of the to-hits, but I'm not sure which of those hits are more effective than others.

In either case, this truly does boil down to DM/player talk outside of the game, so I'll just have to cross that bridge when I get there. Thanks, everyone, for your replies!

 

[EvolutionKB]

Good discussion. I'd like to point out Rurdev, my ranger over in the other forum. I've got a reaction and interrupt as encounter powers. It does make it difficult, mostly because I've forgotten them. Tactically or player oriented DMs might change things by taking actions "best" for PCs if they "forget" to use ther abilities.

When I remember the powers, its best to state things round by round. I know you can't predict everything, but every little bit helps. If the DM uses a power it's not too hard to edit things.

 

[Theroc]

I encountered this problem in my first game here on L4W with HM. Since it was sorta new to both of us(I think, I know 4E is still new to me), he kept forgetting I had interrupts, and when I used one to protect an ally, I KO'ed the guy, but when he went back and redid actions, he rolled better for another enemy and the person I was protecting got KO'ed! I think H.M. figured out a system for that though.

Offtopic: For those I'm interacting with and the like, I'm back and playing catchup atm.

Edit: Silly me, I'm here in Eberron.