What makes a TTRPG tactical?

[MintRabbit]

I pretty frequently provide game recommendations to folks looking for different things in TTRPGs, and recently I've received a few requests for games that are "tactical", making it clear that OSR games like Mork Borg and Into the Odd are not really tactical enough. I'm looking for what people would be looking for in a tactical game - is it a game that cares about positioning? A game with extensive combat rules? A game with oodles of special abilities?

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

 

[Wolfram stout]

For me Dragonbane has the right amount of tactical weight. Each round Players decide if they want to dodge or attack, and inititive makes this a meaningful choice. Then anyone with a spell or fighting ability decides if they spend willpower or just do something basic and save willpower.

That is the bare ones of what I consider tactical. Obviously lots of games ramp those round by round decisions even more.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

You're going to find this is a very subjective term and one person's version may be radically different from the next. Shocking, I know.

That said, my personal take is based mostly on how many decisions I get to make during a combat. That includes decisions to do things that aren't actively involved in defeating the opposition like maneuvering to grab an object, interacting with environmental features to make it easier to escape a battle, deny the enemy reinforcements, or changing conditions in the scene by (say) killing the lights or venting the room to the vacuum of space. Combat decisions should go beyond simple targeting or offense/defense skews and preferably include a small menu of options specific to the character's class/archetype/personal abilities backing up a more general set of options open to everyone. I don't need a map, but some sense of the way the battlespace is laid out is important, with real variations between different combats.

I'm also fond of either "mysterious" initiative (eg a card-flipping system where you don't have perfect knowledge of who's acting next) or what's generally called popcorn initiative where the person currently acting chooses who to pass the next turn to (usually with some restrictions). The former is more exciting and probably more realistic, the latter gives you much greater control over setting up combination moves with other characters and presenting/solving "puzzles" to optimize your actions.

At the moment the Sentinel Comics RPG is very close to my Platonic ideal of an RPG combat system. 13th Age comes in a pretty close second. YMMV of course.

 

[dbm]

To me, an RPG would count as tactical if it provided meaningful choices during a scene.

In combat terms, the most basic tactics would be position and target selection, then going up to things like balancing attack and defence, broadly available manoeuvres (grappling or feints are a good example), with character or class specific manoeuvres often being highly tactical if the other pieces are in play (complex manoeuvres like a ‘whirlwind attack’ and spells are good examples here). These things should have a quantified effect on combat to count as tactical, otherwise it’s more a variation in narration than tactics in my mind.

For other pillars of the game, tactics can apply, though it’s often a bit tricker. My personal favourite system (Savage Worlds) has sub-systems which put a mechanical framework on common types of non-combat action encounters (chases and mass battles for example) which then creates space for tactical decisions.

It also has a general Dramatic Task system (similar to what was in D&D 4e but more developed) which can be used to put structure onto most any kind of scene (e.g. traversing a flooded river with an all-terrain vehicle in one campaign I ran, or rescuing the crew of a downed space pod).

I prefer tactical systems most of the time because I like tactical and strategic games in general (board games etc.) so it’s fun to apply similar sensibilities to my RPGs. But I don’t want tactical combat to be the only area of nuance in a system, far from it. In fact, perhaps a dichotomy is the more tactical combat becomes in a system, the less combats you can fit into a given session. That has ramifications on how the game is balanced / structured.

For example, D&D’s attritional system is very well suited for dungeon expeditions where resources get whittled down through a series of encounters and a key strategic choice is: can we press on or do we turn back? The class system has been designed with that concept as a key design goal in my opinion. This means it struggles with campaigns where you have only a small number of fights and they are spaced out in terms of time. If your spell casters can nova in every combat that is a very different experience than if they have to carefully manage their resources over the course of a dozen encounters between rests. This model also influences the amount of tactical complexity the base combat system includes IMO.

Systems which don’t assume attrition (Savage Worlds and my second favourite system GURPS both fit here, plus systems like Mithras or Rune Quest) are much better at supporting a smaller number of encounters which means they can all be more tactically challenging. But conversely, they often find the classic dungeon delve a tricky thing to model without careful consideration as the PCs don’t always have enough ‘gas in the tank’ to go through an extended series of encounters without re-charging somehow.

Another interesting example of a tactical RPG is Burning Wheel. With its subsystems like ‘Fight’, ‘Range and Cover’ and ‘Duel of Wits’ it is highly tactical without using things like maps for combat, and the verbal conflict is just as detailed as physical conflicts. It also has zoomed-out sub-systems for quickly moving through more trivial encounters without just hand-waving them. It’s a very interesting system.

 

[aramis erak]

I pretty frequently provide game recommendations to folks looking for different things in TTRPGs, and recently I've received a few requests for games that are "tactical", making it clear that OSR games like Mork Borg and Into the Odd are not really tactical enough. I'm looking for what people would be looking for in a tactical game - is it a game that cares about positioning? A game with extensive combat rules? A game with oodles of special abilities?

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

For me, it means more options for the fighter than "Which weapon do I attack with, and am I in range?"

The One Ring 1e: the four stances make for a strong tactical choice despite the lack of physical mapping... you balance your character's weapon, armor and to-hit chances against the similar effect upon hostiles' hit chances and damage. Each stance also has a special move, which can only be done in that stance. (Some of us added a second to some of them; my notes include my own 2 and somoene else's two, so there are 2 per stance) Using those specials, tho'? always a risk. Plus, the choice to suck it up and keep ready, or roll with it but sacrifice next round's attack...

The Fantasy Trip (TFT) (and GURPS, also) instead has ranges and facings, that make the movement a significant part of the game. Tactical in the more literal sense that a reenactor might think tactics, as opposed to a boardgamer. But it also has a touch of that second; as injuries come in, ST drops, and it may be advantageous to switch weapons.

Classic Tunnels and Trolls, (anything from 1st to 5.5th), without reading the examples of play, has the singularly least tactical combat out there... each side rolls and totals their weapons dice as a side, lower total takes the difference in damage, distributed as evenly as possible. YAWN... but once you read the examples, and see the stunting that is intended, the nature of your stunts makes the game highly tactical, as does using the idea that a melee round might see 2 or more "combats" in the same space, where one is Side A charcters 1-3 vs Side B characters a-d, and side A characters 4 and 5 are ganged up on the tanky Mr E... so you're resolving stunts to either include or exclude someone, or to shift a few points of damage, and so on... and then, as with TFT, you can change weapons in combat; if it's whiffy, due to damage less than minimum armor in the group, it may be worth it to lose a few points of Strength for a round or two by using that too-heavy weapon... then switching to the lighter one later in... so you can get the initial punch in to swing the odds. Run as intended, lots of choices that make a difference. It's just many dismiss it before getting to the bits about stunts.

Twilight:2000 4e (the current one from Free League) makes some wince when they find out it's 10m hexes... but with modern weapons, they're really quite appropriate when you consider the amount of vehicular and rifle combat happening. Facing doesn't get tracked for people, but it does for vehicles, and switching weapons has been a fraught choice for several players. Cover matters, a lot, and the colorful terrain maps provided make it a delight for old-school map-and-counter wargamers and newbs alike. Oh, and the boxed set comes with nice counters for those same said maps. We added some (thanks again to the provider) nifty 1:180 scale minis of the BTR-60 and some US and Russian tanks. (Before next time, I need to do some M-111's - since I have bought a 3d printer since then.) I am tempted to make me some 1:160 scale infantry figs...

FFG Legend of the Five Rings fifth edition. Not very tactical in the military sense, but it has a lot to its personal combat that makes for a lot of tactical thinking needed. Sure, facing is only minimally addressed, and range is relatively abstract... but the tactics involve a lot of "which ring/stance do I use this round? Which dice to keep - the safe but possibly ineffective, or the high stress explosives that may put the opponent down in one mighty blow, but drop me into exhaustion?" Not to mention that the bushi (warriors) have just as many and just as interesting talents to pick from as the shugenja (somewhere between cleric and wizard). The Shinobi have good choices, too. So do the Monks. Even the courtiers get a few combat abilities, but they excell in the non-combat techniques. So also the Artisans... It feels very tactical with moderately experienced characters.


Different kinds of tactical.
Different playstyles.

So, when someone asks for a recommend of a tactical RPG, ask which kind of tactics? Facings and maps? Lots of decisions that matter? Resource Management in Combat?

 

[Theory of Games]

I pretty frequently provide game recommendations to folks looking for different things in TTRPGs, and recently I've received a few requests for games that are "tactical", making it clear that OSR games like Mork Borg and Into the Odd are not really tactical enough. I'm looking for what people would be looking for in a tactical game - is it a game that cares about positioning? A game with extensive combat rules? A game with oodles of special abilities?

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

If my character's fighting in the rain and has a penalty to his movement, attacks and perception due to environment. If my character has a penalty to hit because his opponent is behind cover. If my character is wounded and has a penalty because he has to use his weapon with his off-hand. If my character catches his foe by surprise and gets a bonus to hit.

"Tactical" means my character gets bonuses or penalties based on the environment, terrain, cover, using the off-hand, concealment, movement, target size and all the other elements that exist around them. And it isn't just combat. Hard rain makes it difficult to hold a conversation outside, right? Wind? Large, noisy crowds?

It's all those details that can affect task resolution. RPGs like Hero, GURPS, Shadowrun and the Rules Cyclopedia offer this high-level of genre simulation for those groups that appreciate a finer degree of detail in their tabletop role-playing experience.

 

[damiller]

Surprisingly I have found Marvel Multiverse to be quite tactical (by which I mean players/gms have a lot of choices to make about what they want to do during a combat turn, its not only roll and hit).

You get an action.
A movement.
Then you get a reaction.
And you can get more of both as you advance.

What I have noticed is that reactions is where it is at tactically. Because some of them require no expenditure, or roll, on the player's part. For example: skulk, if you are within reach (1 square away or adjacent) of a non targeted character, you can "use them" as a shield. If that is the case, they take the hit, not you.

In my last game I created a NPC to challenge the player who had a reach of 10. I put the players in a small area. I gave him two reactions. He proved to be a problem.

And that is just the beginning with reactions. There is counterstrike which allows you to do 1/2 damage back to anyone who hits you. And on and on. But I didn't realize the power and fun of reactions till my players started using them on my NPCs.

Now I do and it has been fun to use them as well.

Additionally their is Focus. Its a mental resource, and it powers some powers. I wish it cost players more to use, as it would make it more important of a decision, but it is there, and it still costs.

 

[MintRabbit]

Thank you everyone for your replies! To generalize what you've talked about here, it sounds like I should be looking for games that force the players to think about what they're going to do next, not just because they have a lot of options, but also because some strategies will be more effective and some will be much less effective.

This has been incredibly helpful, thank you again!

 

[Staffan]

There's no one bright line that separates tactical from non-tactical, but it's more like a spectrum. I think the main thing that moves games along that spectrum can be summed up as giving people meaningful choices in combat other than what weapon to use and upon whom to use it. Generally speaking, these choices can be divided into three categories:

• Environmental tactics: where is everyone and how does that affect things? At the simplest levels, this would include bonuses for ganging up/flanking and penalties for range or cover, but it can also include environmental manipulation, repositioning yourself or your opponents (possibly into hazardous terrain), and things like that.
• Combat options: these are generally choices the attacker or defender makes in the moment. Do you want to do an all-out attack or fight defensively? Do you want to target a particular hit location? Do you fire a single shot or full auto? Do you want to trip your opponent? These can in turn be divided into two subcategories: deliberate or opportunistic. A deliberate combat option is something you decide before the attack, while an opportunistic one is something you can decide after. For example, in AGE a successful attack, in addition to dealing damage, has about a 50% chance of giving you a number of stunt points to spend on things like extra damage, knockdowns, and so on.
• Resource management: This is where doing a thing has a cost so you can't do it all the time, and therefore have to pick the right moment to do it. This can often create powerful options, because they don't have to be balanced with "normal" attacks. In 5e, choosing to use a Shove to attempt to knock an opponent prone is a combat option, but a Battlemaster using a Trip maneuver is resource management. These often create the most interesting tactical choices, but can feel like the game is intruding on the fiction, particularly if these are discrete abilities and not just pulling on some shared resource like "stamina". On the other hand, discrete abilities generally create more variety because you can't just pull a particular move over and over.

 

[The Soloist]

Any RPG can be tactical when the GM creates challenging combats using asymmetrical terrain, cover, and traps, and uses foes intelligently to force the players to think before they act. It's not necessary to have a mini-game puzzle of dodge, parry and attack choices in the rules to be tactical.