Rpg's that use an MTG style "stack"

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Rpg's that use an MTG style "stack"

Post by OgreBattle »

So in MTG you can play a card and then your opponent can play an instant and then you can try to counter that, building up a stack chain.

There any rpg's that use that as a core part of their resolution mechanic? So a round/encounter would be the players trying to play their weaker actions earlier to draw out enemy "counters" and get to a point where their encounter winning action can be played without being countered.

Exalted kinda does this with 'perfect defense' but there's not much to it other than grinding willpower.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Informally, basically all RPGs work this way. Reactions have to resolve before the actions they respond to or you can't have Counterspells or Parries or whatever the fuck. Formally, RPGs don't bother with defining a stack because RPGs typically have so few reactions piling on that it simply isn't worth the head space.

-Username17
User avatar
deaddmwalking
Prince
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am

Post by deaddmwalking »

Too many reactions cause a major problem with things like play-by-play if they require a decision to use. If they're automatic, it's less of an issue because it becomes part of standard resolution.
-This space intentionally left blank
GâtFromKI
Knight-Baron
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:14 am

Post by GâtFromKI »

D&D 3 uses that; with AoO (your opponent try a trip maneuver, so you have an AoO and you use it to try a trip, so your opponent has an AoO and use it to try a trip, but you have combat reflexes so you gain another AoO and use it to try a trip...), with contingency spell (so you can have a contingency with condition "when I enter an antimagic field", it will work since the contingency resolve before its trigger, and before entering an antimagic field you're not in an antimagic field), with readied actions (like counterspells or receiving a charge), and with immediate actions.

In actual play, you rarely see a long chain of reaction. But it can happen: you ready an action to move if an opponent wizard casts a spell (so you go into contact and get an AoO), but your movement provokes some AoO and the opponent tries to block you with a trip which also provokes an AoO...


As Frank said, basically all RPG use that at least informally. If the combat mini-game is a big part of the rules, it will be formalized as in D&D; if not, you will do it informally anyway: "I shoot him if he moves" is the kind of action you can do in any RPG, and you expect the shot to happen before the completion of the triggering action.
Last edited by GâtFromKI on Mon May 02, 2016 8:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Ice9
Duke
Posts: 1568
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Ice9 »

I believe he's talking about the stack as an intended part of the strategy, rather than simply being required to resolve timing questions. Like for example, instead of separate turns, you have something like this:

1) Dragon uses Searing Breath
2) Evoker uses Wall of Force (blocking LoE for breath)
3) Dragon uses Sudden Swoop (changing position to avoid wall)
4) Monster Hunter uses Wing-Clipping Shot (preventing that movement if it hits)
5) Bard uses Distracting Chord (lowering Dragon's defense against WCS).
6) Dragon uses Roar (blocking sonic effects such as DC).
And so forth, until people run out of applicable abilities.

In which case, that sounds interesting, but I don't know of any.
Last edited by Ice9 on Mon May 02, 2016 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tussock
Prince
Posts: 2937
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 4:28 am
Location: Online
Contact:

Post by tussock »

4e D&D tried giving out a large number of reaction abilities, naturally including reactions to reactions because the triggers were fairly broad, and it got to be pretty terrible in play from what I've read. Partly because it's not actually a card game and there's no convenient in-built method of tracking the stack.

4e had a difficult number of things to keep track of as it was, marking and conditions and when you roll saves and keywords all over the place, so adding more with an order of resolution for a reaction stack was just bad news.


I am all for spells and attacks being used as retro-effect counters, so you can ice-storm some fireball victims back to life on your next action only, or use all your melee to counter that critical hit which killed you (so no one's really dead until their team's next turn fails to save them).

I just don't think tabletop would benefit from having the originally active team get into a bidding war over that one already contested action.

1a) Dragon breathes fiery death.
1b) Players counter with WoF and get buffs up.
2a) Dragon flies around wall, gains height, and buffs.
2b) Players trip and distract dragon, others attack.
3a) Dragon clears his head and stuns players, does some damage.
3b) ... etc.

Same basic scene, easy to resolve, much easier on the headspace, no obvious benefit from any stack mechanic when you already have multiple rounds. Bard can 3b) have an anti-sonic counter so the whole team can act anyway.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Post Reply