@MelonHead it's funny how you think that just because you made no
clearly defined insults, that you were not being vitriolic. Mind you, I'm not saying you were being vitriolic, I am saying it came off that way.
Also, tone does not convey well over the internet and you're doing that thing where you speak exactly what you think while using pure logic.
I've learned well (as someone who often comes off as an asshole online when I am NOT one) that it is better to insert a bit of humor and humanity into your posts. Makes it harder for people to take you the wrong way. Then again, that takes effort and I know some wish not to spend/waste time to put forth the effort required for that.
I don't care whether you do or not, but I mean, unless you want to be a constant source of arguments (as it seems other simply you tend to be) then I'd take that advice in mind. Or at least briefly consider it. Idk, it's your life man haha.
Also, you made a pitiful attempt of understanding his system before condemning it. Pity.
@GunHmm.
Yeah, interrupts really only get absurd when you have people who move really fast, have tons of perception, can multitask a lot, and/or when you include the ability to dish out more than one attack per post or per timeframe.
Example: My whole fight with Khan in the recent tournament (Rising Darkness) in which both characters had pretty much all of the above. It didn't help that Khan wrote long posts with entire chains of actions, which were simply illogical (in terms of them occurring before my character reacted =_=).
Nonetheless. I'm quite used to interrupts myself and my discovery of them allowed a great amount of increased agency in combat--at least in my opinion.
I'm trying to figure out how your system works even after having read it just because the difference of the two systems interests me and I'd love to have a simple conversation/friendly debate about it. Nothing vitriolic. I tend not to assume things unnecessarily, so yeah.
My understanding of your "no
illogical interrupts," system:
"Interrupts are defined as Retroactive attacks/defenses/counters/evasions carried out in such a way that they invalidate(as I understand it) the other character's action(s)."
>Interrupts are allowed in the sense that you may use them as long as they do not retroactively cause a character to nullify actions taken by another character entirely.>Interrupts must be logical (You can use them if someone is clearly preparing something or you can predict/tell someone is telegraphing an attack in some manner)>Barring the above, the other character's actions as written in the associated post cannot be stopped. However, someone can move out of the way, bring up a defense, take cover or perhaps close distance so long as the action does not altogether stop their actions.>Most other things are as per the norm.