What TTRPGs have the best tactical combat rules?

[Thomas Shey]

GURPS is a good tactical game. I'm not a huge fan of the rest of play, though, and generally speaking HERO is a better toolkit.

Its always hard to compare them fairly. They aim as a default at different ends of the realism/cinematics spectrum, and Hero is more of a build-kit while GURPS is more of a snap-on system, both of which have their virtues and flaws. I'm still probably fonder of Hero of the two, but I can quite get people who find GURPS the superior choice.

 

[Argyle King]

I mentioned Edge of the Empire a few pages ago.

Despite taking a completely different approach than the aforementioned GURPS, I feel that Edge of the Empire tends to produce a very tactical experience and does so with a very different approach.

What I like about Edge is that choices matter. I can take actions in combat which aid my allies or hinder my foes, even if I'm not directly doing HP damage. I might use a heavy weapon to lay down suppressive fire to allow for my allies to maneuver, or perhaps I use a non-combat skill to hack into a security system to get eyes on the enemy -both of which could grant either bonuses to my allies or penalties to my foes.

Speaking of non-combat skills, I like that Edge allows them to be used in meaningful ways while still in combat and without feeling like I'm handicapping my team. In contrast, I've played other games in which a skill-monkey character trying to use skills during combat ends up effectively meaning that the party is down a member during a fight because of how the action economies of different parts of the game clash. Edge typically doesn't have that problem, and that helps tactical play because I can contribute to accomplishing an objective in more ways than whittling away at a bag of HP.

From the DM side of things, Edge being able to move in and out of combat mode more seamlessly allows for creating more complex challenges and objectives -which, in turn, means more tactical approaches to play both at the squad level and when zooming out to a scenario that may include coordinating ground combat, space combat, and combat-support tasks.

 

[payn]

I mentioned Edge of the Empire a few pages ago.

Despite taking a completely different approach than the aforementioned GURPS, I feel that Edge of the Empire tends to produce a very tactical experience and does so with a very different approach.

What I like about Edge is that choices matter. I can take actions in combat which aid my allies or hinder my foes, even if I'm not directly doing HP damage. I might use a heavy weapon to lay down suppressive fire to allow for my allies to maneuver, or perhaps I use a non-combat skill to hack into a security system to get eyes on the enemy -both of which could grant either bonuses to my allies or penalties to my foes.

Speaking of non-combat skills, I like that Edge allows them to be used in meaningful ways while still in combat and without feeling like I'm handicapping my team. In contrast, I've played other games in which a skill-monkey character trying to use skills during combat ends up effectively meaning that the party is down a member during a fight because of how the action economies of different parts of the game clash. Edge typically doesn't have that problem, and that helps tactical play because I can contribute to accomplishing an objective in more ways than whittling away at a bag of HP.

From the DM side of things, Edge being able to move in and out of combat mode more seamlessly allows for creating more complex challenges and objectives -which, in turn, means more tactical approaches to play both at the squad level and when zooming out to a scenario that may include coordinating ground combat, space combat, and combat-support tasks.

I like what you are saying, and I run Traveller much the same way, but it is not an approach that has emphasis on being tactical. I'd consider this more strategic and narrative driven play.

 

[Reynard]

I like what you are saying, and I run Traveller much the same way, but it is not an approach that has emphasis on being tactical. I'd consider this more strategic and narrative driven play.

The definition of tactical play is, I think, the quality and number of immediate choices at the moment of conflict.

As opposed to strategic play, which is about choices prior to the moment of conflict.

 

[loverdrive]

The issue with "tactical" RPGs is that they are almost always reliant on player options. The end result is that there's no tactics, there's just a closed loop that works all the time. Most of the time the loop is short: "I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD!", sometimes it requires a bit of set up: "I buff myself, debuff enemy and HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD!", in the exceptional cases it requires cooperation: "wizard buffs me and then I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD".

They also provide too much freedom, which means there's almost no way to evaluate all the possible moves the enemy can make and force them to do something you want. Fine grids, objective of "kill everyone, lol" and almost universally empty maps doesn't help either.

The current game I'm working on is deeply tactical and is designed basically as a response to other combat-heavy games. Each class has two, in exceptional cases three things they can do during their turn. Each requires movement and exactly one class has the ability to do nothing, and that is a class-defining feature. The objective is also never just "kill everyone".

Spoiler: More in depth, I guess

The exactly one map I have for now is divided into zones. Adjacent zones are marked with uhm gaps in the "walls"; orange symbol in the center is the objective. Your team has to control that zone (have only your units within it) for two consecutive rounds to win.


There's three types of movement:

• Move: move to any adjacent zone
• Advance: move to an adjacent zone that has enemy units
• Retreat: move to an adjacent zone that does not have enemy units

If at the end of your turn you are in the zone your team controls, you Guard it. The first enemy to move into it gets shot.

There are four very simple classes that have very specific patterns of action that must be executed in the specified order (so if it's Advance-Attack-Move, you can't attack first and then advance). If you can't make any legal move, you immediately die. Nasty stuff.

• Scout has 2HP and can
  • Advance - Attack - Move
  • Retreat - Retreat
• Heavy has 3HP and can
  • Move
  • Attack
  • Do nothing (it's a very important ability!)
• Sniper has 1HP and can
  • Retreat
  • Mark an adjacent zone to Guard infinite amount of times (as opposed to everyone else just shooting the first enemy to walk into it and that's it); sniper also can't Guard his own zone
• Medic has 2HP and can
  • Move
  • Any allied unit can immediately end his turn if he is in the same zone as Medic
  • Any allied unit that ends his turn is the same Medic gains +1HP, up to its maximum +1 (so, Scout can be overhealed to 3, heavy can 4 and so forth)

The end result is that the gameplay mostly consist of laying "traps" that will force the enemy to take damage as opposed to just standing around and taking shots at each other.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Decision paralysis was a much bigger problem, and that's an issue with any game where you have a lot of meaningful options with trade-offs.

Yes - and multiple actions act as a multiplier factor on decision paralysis, especially when they're separated, time-wise.

(And Hero Speed was nowhere near as bad as 1st Edition SR actions, because they were spread out rather than piled up at the top).

Spread out is worse for time-wasting and analysis paralysis but better for player engagement, because you go back and forth between players and the situation keeps changing - so people have to make new decisions based on new situations repeatedly, and the sort of player who gets analysis paralysis absolutely struggles with that. If you have multiple actions in a row, you likely have a single tactical situation and your actions are usually pretty focused - attack this guy until he falls down, now attack this guy, and there's usually much less analysis paralysis (though games which do stuff like force you to use separate actions for different things can create it).

On the upside, spread out means players generally stay a bit more engaged because they wait less time between turns. In theory.

However, in practice, if one character has 3 actions/round and one has 1 action/round, the latter is going to be disengaged by that, and spread out makes that worse, because the player with one action has to wait effectively longer as the baton is passed back and forth between various people making decisions, rather than with it being stacked. So neither is great.

I have to admit, I loved the concept of multiple actions and so on in both games, but as time wears on, I tend to think extra actions should be more special rather than something that happens every single round - they can be a major part of what can make tactical RPGs tactical though.

Sorry, I don't want to be down on HERO or Shadowrun - I think both are cool systems for what they are good at. Just some groups/genres/concepts will be better fits for them than others. At least SR1/2/3 had half decent rules unlike every SR edition since! Those I will diss!

 

[FatPob]

When folk say tactical, they can sometimes mean crunch. The detail in what/how a player "activates" his character in a combat situation. What moves, can he get cover, is there flank options, can they use the trappings in a room, a table, chair, chandelier, barrel to their advantage. Can they plan with other players to create the perfect ambush set-up.

Gurps & Hero system can be played in such a way and have great rules-sets for that, you also have Conan 2d10, and also RoleMaster. WFRP and the 40k by FFG have many tactical options (also tick the crunch box).

As a curve-ball there is also TORG, offers more then "hit with sword, shoot with gun".

However I do feel most systems can be tactical if you choose to play them in that way, and it's whether you want the minutiae of the scene you are running or if you want a cinematic experience.
I like crunchy systems, but I think it can get boring really quickly if a game session is essentially a big brawl. (Unless it's a wargame RPG.)

 

[Reynard]

This thread has presented some very strange definitions of "tactical."

 

[Thomas Shey]

The issue with "tactical" RPGs is that they are almost always reliant on player options. The end result is that there's no tactics, there's just a closed loop that works all the time. Most of the time the loop is short: "I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD!", sometimes it requires a bit of set up: "I buff myself, debuff enemy and HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD!", in the exceptional cases it requires cooperation: "wizard buffs me and then I HIT HIM WITH MY SWORD".

The Hero System, which has been mentioned several times, has a number of combat options that are not dependent on particular design features of a character, just baked into the combat modifiers table. Whether these area good idea or not is dependent on situation and opposition, and often the latter is not clear at least at the start of the combat so one has to make an educated guess.

Or, to put it another way, you're overgeneralizing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes - and multiple actions act as a multiplier factor on decision paralysis, especially when they're separated, time-wise.

I really can't agree. Whether you're making the decision every phase or every turn doesn't have a significant difference in the effect. You can get a situation where, if the person with the more options has a vastly different number of actions that its more visible, but since its unusual for a group of Hero characters to differ by more than about two Speed, it really isn't significant there.

Spread out is worse for time-wasting and analysis paralysis but better for player engagement, because you go back and forth between players and the situation keeps changing - so people have to make new decisions based on new situations repeatedly, and the sort of player who gets analysis paralysis absolutely struggles with that. If you have multiple actions in a row, you likely have a single tactical situation and your actions are usually pretty focused - attack this guy until he falls down, now attack this guy, and there's usually much less analysis paralysis (though games which do stuff like force you to use separate actions for different things can create it).

Possibly so, but the overall impact is still vastly more negative because the faster character gets to take so many actions before the slower. In a game without a lot of ability to take hits without going down, its entirely possible for opposition to go down before they (or even your own fellows) can take action. That's far worse than any additional problems from decision paralysis.

On the upside, spread out means players generally stay a bit more engaged because they wait less time between turns. In theory.

However, in practice, if one character has 3 actions/round and one has 1 action/round, the latter is going to be disengaged by that, and spread out makes that worse, because the player with one action has to wait effectively longer as the baton is passed back and forth between various people making decisions, rather than with it being stacked. So neither is great.

Yeah, but at least in the context of Hero, that's a vanishingly unlikely result. Depending on whether operating at heroic or superheroic scale, you're usually talking about characters ranging from 3-5 or 4-7 (you might get someone building a speedster with a higher speed than that but it quickly becomes prohibitively expensive, and that's even assuming someone is not using a secondary cap Speed factors into). Even normals don't usually have a 1 Speed, and pretty much no combatant has less than a 3-4 at either version. While a 3 Speed relative to someone with 4 can be fairly noticeable, by the time you're getting 4-5 or 6-7 its beneficial but hardly particularly noticeable most of the time.

I have to admit, I loved the concept of multiple actions and so on in both games, but as time wears on, I tend to think extra actions should be more special rather than something that happens every single round - they can be a major part of what can make tactical RPGs tactical though.

Sorry, I don't want to be down on HERO or Shadowrun - I think both are cool systems for what they are good at. Just some groups/genres/concepts will be better fits for them than others. At least SR1/2/3 had half decent rules unlike every SR edition since! Those I will diss!

Well, that'd be a different fight since I'd cheerfully use SR4-5, but wouldn't touch 1-3 with a ten foot pole these days.