Reactions/Immediate actions and TTRPG design

[Schleiermacher]

Let me open by saying that in cooperative storytelling games, my instinct is that anything that requires one player to interrupt another player while he's doing stuff defaults to being bad. ("Player" here includes the GM.)
The structure of most TTRPGs, even outside of explicit mechanical resolution frameworks, is basically turn-based and if the execution of the active player's actions is complicated by MtG-style interactions with the other players, that disrupts game flow and adds disproportionately to resolution time and complexity.

There are basically two ways to deal with this: You can try to banish "out-of-turn" interactions from the game completely, or you can set up your action resolution mechanics to deal with them as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps unfortunately, I don't think the former is really possible, because any situation that can't be taken at face value can create the need for an interruption. Something as simple as a hidden trap is effectively taking an immediate action when it works as intended, interrupting a character's planned action with its "attack".

But even if the only real option is to design for reactions in your game, I think it's best to minimise the occurrence of them in abilities et al to keep the game running smoothly. This can be tricky, because once the mechanics are there, more design space is always tempting, and it is interesting design space because it can add a lot of dynamic tactics to interactions. MtG is a good game. It would not be a good combat system for an RPG, though; it takes far too long and it's far too mechanically involved.

To the extent that there's a point to my ramble, other than an invitation to share your own thoughts on the matter, here's my question: Is there a way to make a task-resolution focused RPG (as opposed to scene- or conflict-resolution focused games where the problem doesn't really arise, at least not in the same form) where there are no out-of-turn interactions, without that seeming like an omission? And do you think it would be a good idea to do so? If you think it's necessary to include reactions in the game somewhere, which ones, where and why?

[Wrathzog]

I have two issues with this
1) In a game that is nominally about Player Interactions, not allowing players to interact with another player's actions is definitely an omission.

2) In the scenario that Player A starts an action and Player B can't do anything about it until after it's resolved, Player B ends up feeling disempowered (worst case scenario: he realizes that he's losing his character and there's nothing he can do about it).

But you're completely right that removing interruptions leads to quicker game resolution and that is definitely a noble goal to strive for. Like with all design questions, it just depends on what kind of game you're trying to design.

[Schleiermacher]

Just to clarify something, when I say "out-of-turn interaction" I don't mean something like a saving throw, only things that have a chance to make the active player stop and reevaluate the situation mid-action, like a Contingency or an attack of opportunity.

With that said I'm not sure if I understand you correctly.
Of course player interaction is the point of the game, I just think that "You do A, then I do B, so you do Z"-turn based interaction is preferable to "You activated my TRAP CARD"-interactions that interrupt declared actions.

And when you say it's disempowering to be unable to do something about an action until after it's resolved, does that even hold for short, discrete actions like "I fire my crossbow at you?" Would you prefer to have reactive, defensive options (like Dodge Charms in Exalted) rather than passive defenses that you can modify by your own proactive choices? (E.g AC, and fighting defensively or moving to cover being actions you take on your turn.) If not, where do you draw the line that makes an action something you want to be able to do something about before it goes off?

[Wrathzog]

I shoulda been clearer. I have a bad habit of writing and rewriting things and sometimes I lose what my actual point was supposed to be. Anyhow, when I say Interaction, I mean the full spectrum of interaction, which will include reactions and interrupts.
So, what I really meant to say was that cutting out a significant portion of possible interactions (specifically, interrupts) in a game nominally about player interactions would be an omission.

But, again, it just depends on the game.

[wotmaniac]

as far as I can tell, Core 3.x only had 2 interrupt actions: AoOs and Readied Actions.

AoOs seem to serve 2 purposes: add tactical depth to "movement-in-combat" (by creating extra danger zones -- from the perspective of the mover), and to help keep non-attacking characters involved in the action (by allowing them to react to what's going on around them).

Readied Actions serves as an option that keeps players from necessarily having to simply put their characters on autorun ('cause that shit's boring). I mean, if a combat engine can't accommodate the likes of Readied Actions, I don't want to play it. Seriously -- the conceptual space involved is readily-imaginable (and even expected) by a goddamned 5-year-old.
Incidentally, I've always view the "rogue triggering a trap" scenario to simply be an extension of the Readied Actions (conceptually speaking, that is).

Now, I can see the gripe about AoOs; but, just by themselves, I don't have a real problem with them.
Immediate Actions, conceptually speaking, seemed like a cool idea at first. However, I do think that the expansive options that used IAs were definitely problematic. Sure, moving Feather Fall over to IA status makes sense and is completely innocuous; having an option that is used in conjunction with something that is already reactive (e.g., maybe something that allows you to move a few feet when succeeding a Reflex Save) is pretty cool; but shit that lets you simply tell the action economy to go fuck itself in the corner (I'm looking at you, Celerity) needs to die in a fire.

[OgreBattle]

M:tG works great with instants, some decks build around interruptions

I'd like to achieve a similar pace with a cooperative RPG.

[RadiantPhoenix]

M:tG works great with instants, some decks build around interruptions

I'd like to achieve a similar pace with a cooperative RPG.

One thing they do try to do, though, is keep people from making, "draw-go," decks that try to play mostly on other people's turns, or at least try to keep them from making them good.