Interrupt Actions, Have the rules been firmly established yet? Options

[nathanross]

nathanross's interpretation:

CT1, IP1:
S1 attacks G1. G1 decides not to use full defense.
G1 attacks S1. Since S1 already acted in this IP, he cannot use full defense.
S2 attacks G1. Since G1 already acted in this IP, he cannot use full defense.

CT1, IP2:
S1 attacks G1. Since G1 has no action this IP, he cannot use full defense.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

CT1, IP3:
S1 attacks G1. Since G1 has no action this IP, he cannot use full defense.
G1 has no action.
S2 has no action.

That sounds about right. Penalizes G1 for not being more conservative and going on Full Defense. Because he didnt and decided to attack instead, S1 (or any multi IP character) will make meat of him. This to me is balance.

[Tarantula]

So, Balance to you is that multiple IP characters always steam-roll less IP characters regardless? Low IP characters need to be able to use that interrupt to go on full defense in order to have a remote chance of surviving against multiple IP characters.

If you want more lethal, then thats fine, say so, but don't claim that its balanced.

[nathanross]

How is lethal unbalanced? I fail to understand this. Shadowrun is always lethal, it is just equally lethal. That is the inherent point. They can still spend edge for another IP if they want, or take drugs. This means that even goons have access to multiple IPs. I am merely saying that you should have to make a choice during you turn as to whether you want to attack of defend. If you choose to attack you may leave yourself a bit open. That is just the reality of the game.

[Tarantula]

It is not equally lethal. You're removing the ability to interrupt as a defense (by not allowing someone to use their next IP for full defense if they've acted this turn). Causing more lethality. It tips the balance even more toward those with 3-4 IPs, while hurting those with 1-2 IPs.

I understand that you say you should have to choose attack or defend. My point is that by forcing that choice (and basing it on IPs and if you've acted already), characters cannot use full defense if they are attacked before their AP of the IP (One point to having initiative enhancers). Now, they cannot spend a future action to use full defense after they've attacked either (Another point to multiple IP holders, since they can sacrifice their first IP or two to defense, then attack in the later two when the other person is unable to use full defense by your ruling). This unbalances the combat in favor of those with more IPs even moreso than the base RAW rules do.

[Larme]

Tarantula is right. There are already threads on here talking about nerfing init pases because they're so amazingly powerful. Having 1 pass gimps you horribly. Why change the rules to send the 1 IP people from gimped all the way down to instant death? House rules should have a rational reason behind them. "Just because it feels wrong" is really not a good basis for changing the interrupt rules.

[deek]

Shouldn't a 1 IP person be screwed every which way when facing a 4 IP person?

All of these discussions come down to some people wanting a low IP to be safe if they choose to go full defense against a high-IP person. And the same group also wants to be able to build the defensive reactive master that can take on fleets of mooks.

The other group (which I am a part of) thinks that there should be no way a single IP guy is going to survive a 4 IP guy...that's just the inherent benefit of being fast and accurate. Same with the defensive master...he might be a little better at fighting against 2 or 3 mooks but put him against 10 to 1 odds, and everyone is trouble...

Next thing I know, people will want to make Logic 1 people smarter, Strength 1 people stronger...all so they are not as gimped as a Logic/Strength 6 player...

[Tarantula]

1 IP on full defense is hardly "safe" from the 4 IP character. They are already going to lose. These house rules just makes this losing even more assured. It isn't needed, because the 1IP character WILL already lose.

[Larme]

Shouldn't a 1 IP person be screwed every which way when facing a 4 IP person?

Yes. The thing is, they already are. You are talking about nerfing the nerfiest thing that ever nerft. W T F. Usually you need to nerf powerful things because they break the game, but you want to nerf a weak thing because it doesn't not break the game enough... Whatever (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[ArkonC]

Shouldn't a 1 IP person be screwed every which way when facing a 4 IP person?

All of these discussions come down to some people wanting a low IP to be safe if they choose to go full defense against a high-IP person. And the same group also wants to be able to build the defensive reactive master that can take on fleets of mooks.

The other group (which I am a part of) thinks that there should be no way a single IP guy is going to survive a 4 IP guy...that's just the inherent benefit of being fast and accurate. Same with the defensive master...he might be a little better at fighting against 2 or 3 mooks but put him against 10 to 1 odds, and everyone is trouble...

Next thing I know, people will want to make Logic 1 people smarter, Strength 1 people stronger...all so they are not as gimped as a Logic/Strength 6 player...

See, now you're just putting words in people's mouth...
No one ever said 1IP people should be safe from 4IP people if they go full defense...
A lot of people are just saying they should at least have a chance, if you want to scew your game so that the only important thing in combat is IPs, then so be it, but quite frankly, I don't think I'd want to be in a game that makes IPs that important...
Using theoretical examples to prove something is broken (borrowing infinite actions) doesn't prove anything...
Making non combat characters completely worthless in combat doesn't make the game any more fun...

just 2 more of my (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) ...

EDIT: And on that last point, you know what the downside is of having STR 1? It's having STR 1. No need to start having them make rolls to get up from a chair or pick up a pen. That's just pointless punishment...

[deek]

Fair enough...and I apologize, I was generalizing way too much in my comments.

I think in these sorts of situations (1IP guy v. 4IP guy), the assumption is the 4IP is going first in the pass and the intention is to let the 1IP guy interrupt that action to go full defense. The examples I normally see is the 1IP guy going first in the pass AND then interrupting the "slower" 4IP guy's action to go full defense. And in this case, that 1IP guy gets to borrow one action from a combat turn that may not even exist...and that is because the next initiative hasn't even been rolled. I think it would be more plausible to allow the 1IP guy to spend a point of EDGE to get a second IP and then borrow that for his full defense, but I don't see that included as an option in these discussions.

I don't have the same opinion that having IPs being important in combat screws the game. You still have to do something with those IPs, so it still comes down to skills, but more importantly, cover, LOS and environmental conditions. Take a look at any RPG ever created that allows characters to act multiple times in a "combat turn". More actions means better results.

While I did put words in mouths on 1IP being safe from 4IP guy, the fact of the matter is, people are still trying to give the low IP guys an extra safety to act more than they should and let them be an idiot in combat by shooting first before making sure they really are safe. If I had a 1IP player (which again, is not too common unless the whole campaign is tailored) that happened to roll high enough to act first, and they decided to just stand there and open fire, realizing that there are three more passes to go before they get another action...I don't know, is it wrong of me to shake my head and laugh at the table? I would hope the player would know the outcome ahead of time.

And why the hell don't people with 1IP use their edge in combat so they are not a 1IP guy??? That seems like the easiest way to give the low IP guys a chance...use your damn edge:)

[Ranger]

While I did put words in mouths on 1IP being safe from 4IP guy, the fact of the matter is, people are still trying to give the low IP guys an extra safety to act more than they should and let them be an idiot in combat by shooting first before making sure they really are safe. If I had a 1IP player (which again, is not too common unless the whole campaign is tailored) that happened to roll high enough to act first, and they decided to just stand there and open fire, realizing that there are three more passes to go before they get another action...I don't know, is it wrong of me to shake my head and laugh at the table? I would hope the player would know the outcome ahead of time.

I don't see how allowing a character to take an interrupt action to forfeit his next action allows a 1IP character to "be an idiot in combat" and live. As others have said, the character is still screwed. Here's what'll happen (using the S1 and G1 examples as before):

Turn 1
IP1
G1 (who has 1 IP) has a higher initiative score attacks S1.
S1 (who has 3 IPs) attacks G1. G1 goes on full defense.

IP2
G1 moves to a position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP3
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

Turn 2
IP1
G1 wins initiative again, but because he used full defense last time, he can only move and take a free action. G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP2
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

IP3
G1 moves to another position to get cover.
S1 moves to a position that negates G1's cover and attacks G1.

Repeat these 2 combat turns, or a slight variation thereof.

In short, the higher IP character still slaughters the lower IP character, no matter what. In this example, S1 gets 6 IPs to attack compared to G1's 1 IP to attack. The difference using the rule in this manner is that at least G1 is able to get off a shot once in a long while, meaning that he's not *completely* helpless.

The above example gets even worse if S1 manages to knock down G1, since G1 requires a simple action to stand up, which he won't be able to do until Turn 3. In the meantime, his movement is severely hampered, if the GM allows him to crawl at all. The book doesn't give a rule for crawling, so that's subjective.

And why the hell don't people with 1IP use their edge in combat so they are not a 1IP guy??? That seems like the easiest way to give the low IP guys a chance...use your damn edge:)

Assuming you refresh Edge at the book's suggested rate, a such a character would be out of Edge for the entire adventure after one or two combats, unless the character manages to do something that the GM feels earns him back a point. Even spending Edge, in the above example of S1 with 3 IPs and G1 with 1 IP, S1 will still always (and infinitely) have the advantage over G1. Even if S1 only had 2 IPs, he's still have the advantage because his 2 IPs are forever, allowing him to spend his Edge on other tests to help him hurt G1 or avoid injury himself.

The bottom line that Larme, Tarantula, and ArkonC are saying: 1 IP characters are already screwed. Don't screw them over any more.

[deek]

Ranger, in your latest example...I see two issues. 1) Why the hell would G1 attack first? He knows he has 1 IP. Does he know that S1 has more than that? Is G1 at range using a sniper rifle? I just think that anyone playing G1, GM included, would have little to no reason to attack first unless he is just being sacrificed or he has some sort of assurance that his first attack is going to kill or seriously affect S1's next actions.

2) What seems to be lacking here are relative dice pools, including environment/cover mods. If G1 is a 130lb human and S1 is a 400lb troll with obvious cyberware, again, is G1 going to waste a single pass on shooting the troll? Wouldn't it be smarter to run for cover or go on full defense right from the start and hope to escape?

This is what I was referring my "idiot" observation towards. Knowing you have one pass, why would you blow it for two bursts? If everything is equal in the example, dice pools and all, then its a no-win situation anyways with lower IP.

Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but I'd think if I had a character with 1IP facing a combat scenario, I'm thinking really hard on what I am going to do with my single pass.

As to your Edge comments...I'd rather blow my Edge now and survive this one combat, then worry about what I might use my extra dice for later in the adventure (which I would likely be dead for anyways).

I understand what everyone is saying here, but trying to give a 1IP character some sort of extended usefulness in combat just doesn't make a lot of sense. If I made a character like this, and faced combat, I'd either have backup (as in my other runners), drones (which have multiple IPs) or be hiding and trying to support my team via the matrix. I don't think you're going to salvage a 1IP combat character, not matter how you try to interpret the rules (for or against).

[Larme]

I just see no logic to your position. You agree they suck, and their suckiness is your justification to make them worse. Or maybe you just don't have a justification, and are nerfing something just because you don't quite like it. Either way, it's not a good basis for altering the rules. Alter the rules to fix them, not for no reason at all. Otherwise, your players are going to have to read the BBB, the BBB's errata, the BBB's FAQ, and your own BBB v2.0 full of house rules that you really don't need and don't really help the game.

[Ranger]

Ranger, in your latest example...I see two issues. 1) Why the hell would G1 attack first? He knows he has 1 IP. Does he know that S1 has more than that? Is G1 at range using a sniper rifle? I just think that anyone playing G1, GM included, would have little to no reason to attack first unless he is just being sacrificed or he has some sort of assurance that his first attack is going to kill or seriously affect S1's next actions.

Your comments here prove exactly why someone with 1 IP doesn't need to be gimped any more than he already is, because you're basically telling me that G1 in the example is dead anyway.

But still, to answer your #1, G1 will attack because with the rules as some of us interpret it, G1 still has the chance to declare an interrupt action to take a full defense if he's attacked later. This also might be G1's only chance to get in some kind of attack before he's slaughtered. Something is better than nothing.

Clearly, I simplified the example. I'm assuming all else is equal. Obviously, we can assume all else is not equal. Yeah, we can say that G1 has a sniper rifle, is hiding 1000 meters away with an imaging scope and smartlink, and S1 has only a knife standing in the open and is surprised. But, that's not the point of this discussion.

2) What seems to be lacking here are relative dice pools, including environment/cover mods. If G1 is a 130lb human and S1 is a 400lb troll with obvious cyberware, again, is G1 going to waste a single pass on shooting the troll? Wouldn't it be smarter to run for cover or go on full defense right from the start and hope to escape?

Okay, then change my example to say that after G1 takes his shots, he uses his free action to run to cover. That's fine. Assuming the firefight continues, S1 will still almost always win, all else being equal (again).

This is what I was referring my "idiot" observation towards. Knowing you have one pass, why would you blow it for two bursts? If everything is equal in the example, dice pools and all, then its a no-win situation anyways with lower IP.

Maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong perspective, but I'd think if I had a character with 1IP facing a combat scenario, I'm thinking really hard on what I am going to do with my single pass.

As to your Edge comments...I'd rather blow my Edge now and survive this one combat, then worry about what I might use my extra dice for later in the adventure (which I would likely be dead for anyways).

I understand what everyone is saying here, but trying to give a 1IP character some sort of extended usefulness in combat just doesn't make a lot of sense. If I made a character like this, and faced combat, I'd either have backup (as in my other runners), drones (which have multiple IPs) or be hiding and trying to support my team via the matrix. I don't think you're going to salvage a 1IP combat character, not matter how you try to interpret the rules (for or against).

Not sure what to say other than to repeat what's been said about not gimping already gimped characters. You're basically saying that since the character is screwed, it doesn't matter how much more you screw over the character by interpreting the rules in a fashion that hinder him even more. Basically, you're saying it's okay to do that.

I don't believe the rule is intended to be used in that fashion. That is, nathanross' #4. So, that's why I say don't change a rule as written (in my opinion) in a way that makes it even tougher for someone with fewer IPs.

[deek]

I suppose that is the disconnect...because I think we are both thinking we are interpreting RAW correctly. Honestly, I am not "trying" to gimp the 1IP guy more...its just so happens that in my interpretation of "next available action" and the use of interrupts, that a 1IP is less effective than if I allowed him to borrow actions from a combat turn that has yet to be rolled.

If you look at two 4IP guys, under my same interpretation, then there really isn't a problem.

Note that my interpretation does differ from nathanross' #4. He initially stated he wouldn't allow borrowing of an action if the player had already acted in the pass. I do allow borrowing of an action, but it comes from within the same combat turn. You can borrow a future pass from another IP, but not if it crosses into a new (and unrolled) combat turn.

While we are focusing on the 1IP guy for these examples, note that I look at my interpretation across the board. And my solution to the 1IP guy is simply to use a point of edge if they've already acted, interrupt to full defense and they'll be in full defense until their next action (which will be IP 1 of the next combat turn, if they are lucky enough to survive).

[Tarantula]

"Next available action" is clear and unlimiting. You are arbitrarily changing it to "next available action of this combat turn". If thats how you want it to be, fine, but it is not RAW.

[deek]

But it is my interpretation of RAW, just like you are saying that "next available action" is clear and unlimiting is your interpretation. I just don't the game devs intended allowing an infinite amount of next available actions be used in the current pass.

If it makes this discussion easier to swallow, then yeah, call my interpretation a house rule and yours RAW, it makes me no difference.

As to the OP, the answer you are looking for is no. There is no consensus on how interrupt actions are to be used.

[Larme]

I think there's a consensus. The majority believe that there is no limit placed on interrupts. It's just a vocal minority who disagree. They disagree based mostly on the potential for abuse using maneuvers, but that potential is so theoretical and negligible that it really shouldn't make the difference.

[Nightwalker450]

I'm part of the "vocal minority", mainly because the only arguments against the abuse is "don't ever give the character the chance to use that". Which is like saying run all the missions in a background 6, so the mage can never use his magic. Not allowing someone to play their character is not what I see as a way of handling the rules. But I've argued this so many times, and noone ever seems to get it. But I'm very happy to see some others carrying the torch this time (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Anyways as to the use of interrupts... Your 1 IP person is screwed in that he is getting a -1 to his defense every time the 4 IP person is attacking him.

C1--------------------------------------------

G1: Attacks + Moving
S1: Attacks (G1 Interrupts for Full Defense, -1 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving still
S1: Attacks (-1 DP, -3 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving Still
S1: Attacks (-2 DP, -5 if shooting SA)

G1: Moving still
S1 Attacks (-3 DP, -7 if shooting SA)

C2--------------------------------------------Explain this someone...

G1: Free Action (Still in Full Defense?, still has -3/-7 defense?)
S1: Attacks

.
.
.

Its when that next action that G1 cannot use, what happens? Is he still in Full Defense until he can actually act? Does his defense modifiers reset? There is no explanation as to how this is handled. I like to interpret that he is still in Full Defense, and he still has his -3/-7 defense modifier. If he chooses to interrupt again at this point to go on Full Defense (using his next action, thusly keeping him doing nothing but running for 4 more passes after this turn) it will reset his Defense pool.

As to why does G1 attack first when he is clearly screwed... Because if I'm facing that I'm gonna pray that I can take down the sammy in a spray of lead or a well placed grenade before he can actually get to me. I think if he acted first, I'd still soak the first shot, attack, and then go on full defense. When facing a combat monster, running only guarantees your going to die, unless he's a non-lethal sammy that will just watch you run off (and then you can return with friends, and kill him)

[Tarantula]

For your interpretation to be correct, the RAW would need to specify, "the next available action in the combat turn" or whatever. Without that text, your interpretation is adding information that is not present in the RAW.

Its when that next action that G1 cannot use, what happens? Is he still in Full Defense until he can actually act? Does his defense modifiers reset? There is no explanation as to how this is handled. I like to interpret that he is still in Full Defense, and he still has his -3/-7 defense modifier. If he chooses to interrupt again at this point to go on Full Defense (using his next action, thusly keeping him doing nothing but running for 4 more passes after this turn) it will reset his Defense pool.

I agree, the defense pool would not reset unless he interrupted with another Full Defense.

You aren't in the minority, you are allowing the ganger to go on full defense from a pass in a future combat turn. The "vocal minority" believes that you can only borrow from multiple initiative passes that you have within a single combat turn.

(Which, with their interpretation, why happens when its IP 4 and two sammies are duking it out. One attacks, and the other wants to go on full defense?

[Nightwalker450]

You aren't in the minority, you are allowing the ganger to go on full defense from a pass in a future combat turn. The "vocal minority" believes that you can only borrow from multiple initiative passes that you have within a single combat turn.

(Which, with their interpretation, why happens when its IP 4 and two sammies are duking it out. One attacks, and the other wants to go on full defense?

I wasn't even going into the multiple initiatives thing, and whether it has to be from this turn. Limiting to within a combat turn breaks continuity for me, minus the initiative roll, there should be no break between pass 4 of this turn and pass 1 of the next. For those who want multiple interrupts I have suggested before "you can borrow up to 1 combat turn ahead". This means if its pass 3 of turn 1, you can borrow up to pass 3 of turn 2. You are limited by the number of IP's your character actually has still.

I won't explain it any more than this on here (instead read it Here), since I've done it a multitude of times before. And all those who argue for the mutiple interrupts have heard enough from me on the other topics that have come up.

[Tarantula]

Night, yours is a good middleground. And honestly, unless you're playing a riposting finishing move master who is fighting of a swarm of mooks, the likelihood of a player actually hitting your limit is slim.

[Larme]

I'm part of the "vocal minority", mainly because the only arguments against the abuse is "don't ever give the character the chance to use that". Which is like saying run all the missions in a background 6, so the mage can never use his magic. Not allowing someone to play their character is not what I see as a way of handling the rules. But I've argued this so many times, and noone ever seems to get it. But I'm very happy to see some others carrying the torch this time (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

No... The rules give us clear indication that background count 6 everywhere is not appropriate. If you did that to prevent a mage from using magic, you'd be violating the RAW. But how about the riposte master? He's only "broken" if 10-20 people all try to attack him at once, and don't ever give up even after he blocks and beats down each one in turn. There is no RAW which says that if someone has that build, NPCs must suddenly become retarded, or he suddenly becomes a magnet for enemies who fight primarily with melee combat. You are not violating canon if most badguys in the year 2070 try to shoot you and don't bother punching. You are not violating the RAW if 3-4 NPCs attack the riposte master, then stop coming because it's clear he's too good in melee combat. The GM must affirmatively create an absurd, stupid, unrealistic situation where there are lots of NPCs with no brains and only melee weapons in order for interrupt actions to be "broken." This isn't a case of "don't let him use his character," this is a case of "his character is not USEFUL in a realistic situation." If the character is not useful in a realistic situation, there is no need to prevent him from using it. Useless things are notoriously hard to use, right?

[deek]

I think there's a consensus. The majority believe that there is no limit placed on interrupts. It's just a vocal minority who disagree. They disagree based mostly on the potential for abuse using maneuvers, but that potential is so theoretical and negligible that it really shouldn't make the difference.

Its not a consensus if there isn't an agreement. And where are you getting that the "majority" believes one thing or another? I've seen about an equal amount of arguments between both sides...anyways...

I'm just voicing my opinion so others that read the RAW and don't know how to interpret it have options. Not everyone is going to like unlimited actions being borrowed, just like not everyone is going to like defining a limit (whether it is per pass, per combat turn or based on your IPs). I think you're a big proponent of reading RAW using common sense, Larme. I feel that I am doing exactly the same thing, using common sense to interpret the intent of RAW.

This is just another one of those grey areas (similar to matrix actions not using an attribute, the debate with how many AR actions can be done in a turn, etc) that have a couple different workable solutions, based on common sense, developers intent and how things play at the table.

[Larme]

Its not a consensus if there isn't an agreement. And where are you getting that the "majority" believes one thing or another? I've seen about an equal amount of arguments between both sides...anyways...

I'm just voicing my opinion so others that read the RAW and don't know how to interpret it have options. Not everyone is going to like unlimited actions being borrowed, just like not everyone is going to like defining a limit (whether it is per pass, per combat turn or based on your IPs). I think you're a big proponent of reading RAW using common sense, Larme. I feel that I am doing exactly the same thing, using common sense to interpret the intent of RAW.

This is just another one of those grey areas (similar to matrix actions not using an attribute, the debate with how many AR actions can be done in a turn, etc) that have a couple different workable solutions, based on common sense, developers intent and how things play at the table.

That's why I said I think there's a consensus. That's my sense of it. Feel free to disagree. Obviously not everyone agrees, but I'm not going to argue whether that fits the definition of "consensus" or not, I absolutely hate semantics. It doesn't matter what words you use, I think most people would say that RAW does not place a limit on interrupts.

I definitely agree that RAW should be read with common sense. If there are multiple interpretations, and one thing is utterly insane, pick the sane one every time. But that's not what we have here. Common sense does not tell us "unlimited interrupts is obviously contrary to common sense." As we've said, the only situations where you could actually get a huge number of interrupts are in really weird and unrealistic situations that will never come up. You're not talking about common sense, you're talking about personal preference. Unlimited interrupts are not to your liking. You don't need an objective reason to dislike something, you can go ahead and change it however you want. I don't mind. But you're actually reading new words into RAW not because the text says something crazy, but because it says something you don't quite like. I think that limiting finishing moves to one is an example of reading words into RAW based on common sense. It's totally stupid to think the rules are supposed to allow ten thousand billion attacks in one instant, therefore common sense tells us that you only get one finishing move. But it's not totally stupid to let people borrow lots of actions in general, because honestly the situations where you could borrow a ridiculous number have probably never happened in any game of SR4 to date, and never will, because they are so unrealistic. So I don't think you can claim common sense on this one.