What makes a TTRPG tactical?

[Jd Smith1]

To the core question:

1) When a players choices in combat are equal to, or more important, than PC creation and items.

Classic example of a non-tactical TTRPG: D&D 5e. There, inexplicable Talents, feats, spells, and items do all the heavy lifting.

2) When injury equals impairment, and a single hit death result is a possibility.

And again, 5e is the classic non-tactical game: one hit point or or all of them, you're good to go. It is a game of attrition where a twenty-minute nap can offset being stabbed.

 

[MGibster]

What does it mean for you if a game is 'tactical'?

If I have to keep precise track of things like distance to target, cover, the speed of either attacker or defender, and various maneuvers during the ebb and flow of combat then it's tactical.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes to all of this, which is why the optimal choices need to be obscured on some level, whether through chance, interpretation, or situation. The fog of war is a thing for a reason, and a game needs to involve if not a chance of failure, at least a chance of unintended consequences.

Though sometimes its obscured simply by the tradeoffs involved. As an example, if it strongly matters that a battle is ended quickly, it may sometimes be worth taking a lower-success but more effective attack sequence, because if the dice cooperate you'll get it in the time frame you want, but if it doesn't there may be little difference between taking even longer. Or situations where you consume more resources doing the more effective set of attacks which may not be as necessary now as later (this being one of those areas where the lack of information about further encounters "obscures" it in the sense you're talking).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I understand that point of view. That is one of the reasons I started the definition with "...in common TTRPG speech." I think there is an argument to be made that typical speech and definitions often outweigh the more nuanced and knowledgeable definitions for things that have depth.

I understand the distinction you're making, I'm just saying I can't say I've seen the usage being quite that reductionist in general usage, either.

 

[Theory of Games]

Playstyle is key.

You can have a group of non-tactical players enjoying themselves with GURPS because the system accommodates all playstyles. But you can also have a group of military vets who can play a very tactical "CoD: Warzone" 1shot with RISUS: The Anything RPG (which is maybe the least tactical rpg out there).

"System Matters", with "system" being 'your group and how it interacts with an rpg".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Eh. I personally think if there's not some systemic support for tactical choices, its less "tactics" than "knowing what the GM will cooperate with."

 

[Theory of Games]

Eh. I personally think if there's not some systemic support for tactical choices, its less "tactics" than "knowing what the GM will cooperate with."

I agree. BECMI's War Machine battlefield rules are iconic, IMO.

 

[GrimCo]

Tactical ttrpg, at least in my view, is one where you get mechanical advantages for smart decisions in combat, where system rewards good tactical play and punishes bad one. If there are no differences if your party executes pincer maneuver or charge head first, then that system isn't really tactical.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

There's a map and a grid containing actors working to achieve a specific objective. Every action an actor makes may have a significant impact on the outcome, or influences the next potential actions. Position and interaction with the environment is also a factor in determining the potential success and failure of an action, respective of position and environment of all other actors.

 

[aramis erak]

I agree. BECMI's War Machine battlefield rules are iconic, IMO.

They're super abstract.