What makes a TTRPG tactical?

[Undrave]

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.

Personally, I'd say the choices of one player should impact the opportunities of another player. If you use a certain ability it should open up options for someone else. Creating synergies should be part of tactics.

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

Yes!

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.

Another thing would be that pure damage is not always the optimal way to spend your action. There's a bunch of options in 5e where it's just better to attack and speed up the fight, making them basically non-options.

 

[Undrave]

I agree with this. The most tactical games I've played tend to be B/X and AD&D and the like, where characters have very few options once they're locked in melee, but formation, manoeuvre and decisions about when and how to engage are critical.

That said, whenever I see people mentioning "tactical combat" with respect to tabletop roleplaying, it's clear that the term is mostly used to refer to gridded combat, precise position and the careful used of skills and abilities to create power combos, and I'm not typically going to recommend B/X if someone says they want a game with "good tactical combat".

I agree with many here, it's quite funny that the actual general meaning of tactic is related to having a plan, while it seems more common to me that RPG players call 'tactical' a game that has lots of rules and options which in practice allow (or soft-force, by overwhelming options) them not to plan, throw their PC into battle, and change idea each turn.

Not that my definition is foolproof, but to me 'strategy' and 'tactics' are different thing. Strategy is what you lay out before a fight, tactics is how you react once the battlefield is met.

A formation is strategy, what you do when an opponent breaks your formation is tactical decisions. A strategy will tell you your objectives for the engagement, tactics will decide how you get your objectives.

If you've ever played a Dynasty Warrior game I feel like you'd get where I'm coming from. In the massive battles of that franchise you have a series of goals to accomplish to win the battle, usually leading up to a confrontation with the enemy leader. If you got a high enough level you can bum rush the guy if you want, but the enemy also has conditions they can fulfill to defeat your side, so taking it slow and capturing forts to block their advances and controlling spawn points so your forces can come in might be more important.

Am I making sense?

 

[The Soloist]

As also a wargamer, the way I see it:

Tactics:
After a brief discussion among the players, the six characters split into three groups: Group One charges the enemy. Group Two circles to the left hoping to flank the enemy because the enemy looks weak on that side. Group Three takes their long spears, follows Group One, and delivers a second wave of attack from the second rank using their reach weapons. With the three-prong attack, the players plan to severely injure the enemy and provoke their surrender in round 1.

Combat Skills:
Redgar uses his 'Block' skill and avoids damage with his shield, then he uses his 'Riposte' skill to strike at the orc fighter during the enemy's turn!

You can do a lot of Tactical play with old-school D&D but if you want a detailed Combat Skills immersive experience, you should play Melee (Fantasy Trip) or Dragonquest.

In short, combat tactics are not combat skills. Any RPG can be tactical but not all RPGs have detailed Combat Skills.

 

[SableWyvern]

Not that my definition is foolproof, but to me 'strategy' and 'tactics' are different thing. Strategy is what you lay out before a fight, tactics is how you react once the battlefield is met.

A formation is strategy, what you do when an opponent breaks your formation is tactical decisions. A strategy will tell you your objectives for the engagement, tactics will decide how you get your objectives.

If you've ever played a Dynasty Warrior game I feel like you'd get where I'm coming from. In the massive battles of that franchise you have a series of goals to accomplish to win the battle, usually leading up to a confrontation with the enemy leader. If you got a high enough level you can bum rush the guy if you want, but the enemy also has conditions they can fulfill to defeat your side, so taking it slow and capturing forts to block their advances and controlling spawn points so your forces can come in might be more important.

Am I making sense?

If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition.

Your outfitting, logistics and expedition goals might be strategic.

 

[Undrave]

If you have eight to twenty combatants manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, that's tactics by any real world definition.

Your outfitting, logistics and expedition goals might be strategic.

Yeah that sounds about right.

 

[Kannik]

My quick summation would be a game that allows for meaningful choices that either improve my/our capacity to overcome the opposition and/or degrade the opposition's ability to overcome me/us.

As part of that, typically there are options, limitations, and trade-offs that need to be considered and juggled as part of the choices being made.

To me, "I use this to deal more damage now" is not a great baseline for meaningful choices in this vein. "I will do this so that the opposition has to choose between two sub-optimal options" is a better indication that tactics are supported. "And if I do this now, then they could perhaps do that, or it would perhaps degrade our ability to do this, but then it would..." is really starting to get into richer tactical nesting.

 

[GMMichael]

Dodging is a no-brainer: do it or die. Most of the monsters one needs to dodge kill PCs in 1 or 2 hits, maybe 3 for the fighter. Not dodging when one's being attacked is almost always a bad choice.

Some tactics are just situationally better, but a tactical game should mix up what the no-brainers are. Here's an example that includes dodge decisions which could be good or bad, as well as other tactics like sneak attacks and use of varied weapon ranges:

Spoiler: Modos 2 Demo

Two assassins encounter a giant and a man-at-arms, guarding the door of an inn where their patron stays. The PC-assassins use several tactics to minimize their risk.

Daggerman (D): Psst! Under, I'm back. The mark's last guard is talking with her on the first floor. They won't go quietly.
Undertaker (U): Right. Yarel's diversion of the watch won't last long. Let's take these two at the door, and hope the mark doesn't hear from inside.
D: Should I get the "drop" on the big one? (brandishes daggers)
U: Ugh, we don't have time for you to sneak up there. Just go around the side, I'll shoot the giant, and finish up with the pike. You stab it in the back, and hopefully it drops before the man-at-arms gets to us.
D: I sneak away.
Guide of Modos (GM): Daggerman, roll physical (physical contest) to sneak into position. (Daggerman gets an 8 result.) Remember, there's a lantern at the inn door, and bright moonlight all about. Everyone but the watch has turned in.
D: Do we know where the man-at-arms is on his patrol?
GM: You can't see him, but he went around the side opposite where you are.
U: I give Dagger about fifteen seconds to get ready, then I draw and loose on the giant.
GM: Roll damage. (Undertaker rolls 6, GM subtracts 2 for the giant's leather armor, and adds 4 to the giant's damage pool.) En guarde! (Everyone rolls initiative contests.) You hit the giant in the chest, but it must not have sunk deep because the giant shouts and reaches up with its off-hand to break the arrow off. It stands up, greataxe in its other hand. Daggerman, you're first.
D: I wait for the giant to go after Under. And I listen for the man-at-arms.
GM: That's dividing up your attention. Want to use an action to listen for him?
D: Sure. (Rolls mental.) 5. I hope he's not too quiet.
GM: Undertaker's next. The giant is charging in your direction!
U: I drop the bow, ready my pike, and use Spearman (small size perk) to keep the giant at bay.
GM: The giant reacts by charging you, moving into offensive posture, and you mark it as defensive with Spearman.
U: I'm done. Saving my last action for later.
D: I want to react by sneaking up on the giant.
GM: You're a little late, Daggerman. The giant is already taking a big swing at Undertaker, and you hear someone running up around the inn corner. (Rolls physical with Armed skill for the giant.)
D: Okay, I'll still charge the giant. I want to get its back before the man-at-arms shows up.
GM: Going sneaky, or not?
D: Going fast, so I don't get backstabbed myself!
GM: The giant's big swing misses as Undertaker dances away in defensive posture. 1 damage. It roars, and tries to get closer to you, Undertaker. Daggerman runs up behind, and you hear a shout from the inn corner as the man-at-arms announces his arrival. "Alarm! Alarm! Brigands!"
U: So, I have initiative on the giant, right? I'll counterattack with the pike, and just hope the giant doesn't have a bonus (fourth) action. (Rolls 12 to attack, and 5 damage.)
GM: Pro (telling Undertaker the attack's quality), but the giant avoided impalement. What happened, Undertaker?
D: I react by backstabbing the giant. It might be my last chance! (Rolls 9 to attack, 4 damage, and adds 2 damage for the backstabber perk.)
U: I made a thrust for its head, but had to back off as it approached.
GM: As the giant closes with Undertaker, Daggerman runs up and?
D: I cut its spinal cord in two for 6 damage!
GM: You stab its back, and your blade goes deep, but not to its hilt. The giant spins, swinging its axe high, over your head, Daggerman. You notice it stagger a bit when it does so . . .
D: Can I get a hero point if I leave the dagger stuck in its back?
GM: I know how many daggers you have. That's not exactly a sacrifice, but it might pay off in a different way.
D: Okay, I leave that dagger in its back.
GM: The man-at-arms rushes up, ready to fight. New round, Daggerman's up.
D: Here we go! I quick-draw a dagger (quick draw perk), take a defensive swipe at the man-at-arms, and then use Dagger Skillz (hero point) to chuck a dagger into the same slot where I left the first one in the giant.
GM: Well, one action at a time. Roll your swipe. The man-at-arms parries (rolls defense).
D: 16 attack, 1 damage.
GM: Pro. The man-at-arms stumbles a bit, trying to keep his nose in place under his halfhelm. The giant is keeping an eye on you, after what you did earlier.
D: Curses. I'm still using my Dagger Skillz, but if it's facing me, I'll chuck a dagger into the back of its hand, so hopefully it has to use the greataxe one-handed. (Rolls attack and hero point.) Is 17 good?
GM: The giant wasn't expecting you to throw the dagger, so, yes. It sinks into the giant's hand, maybe even into the axe-haft. The giant roars again, and takes its good hand off the axe, thinking about pulling the dagger out.
D: So it's disarmed? Cool, I'm done.
GM: Not disarmed, but the axe is no longer ready. Undertaker?
U: Are both enemies in offensive posture now? (GM affirms) I back off to get my pike in range. Then I'll try and finish off the giant. (Rolls 14 attack, 7 damage.)
GM: The giant wants to defend, but it wants to pull the dagger out more, so it reacts by doing that. (Compares damage to max damage) Your pike sinks in, Undertaker. How do you finish it?
U: I thrusted high, piercing a lung, and pushing it so it falls over on the man-at-arms.
GM: The man-at-arms isn't quite close enough, but the giant makes horrible gasping sounds as it falls over, struggling to breathe. Are you done?
U: Yes, I'll let the man-at-arms make the next move.
GM: He moves fast, while you're watching the giant topple. Daggerman, his sword point comes at your head! (Rolls, waiting for Daggerman's defense, if any.)
D: Uh oh. I . . . counterattack. I'm better than he is. (Rolls 13 attack, 2 damage, plus 2 backstabber perk damage.)
U: Bad idea. His weapon is bigger than yours . . .
GM: And his armor is heavier, too.
U: . . . I'd better attack too, so this doesn't get too ugly. (Rolls 9 attack, 3 damage.)
GM: You two struggle to cut through his mail shirt, and he does 8 damage to Daggerman. Ouch! What happens?
D: Gods! That's a lot. I dove in, dagger-high, without realizing that he was already stabbing at me, and I get stabbed myself. After protection, I have 4 health, Under!
U: Well, I'm a pikeman, not a healer. I think we took too long dropping the giant . . .
GM: The man-at-arms doesn't like his odds, despite Daggerman's stab-wound. He turns and runs, shouting for watchmen.
D: Stab him, Under!
U: I'm out of actions this round. He's going to get away.
GM: Do you give chase, or pursue your mark inside the inn?

. . . pure damage is not always the optimal way to spend your action.

I'd like to boil it down to this, really. Well put!

 

[billd91]

What makes a game tactical?
It's made with some webbing and has a lot of pockets?

 

[Campbell]

From a mechanical standpoint, games that include options that when invoked fundamentally shift the decision space of everyone involved. Movement rates and precise positioning are not required. For example I would consider L5R 5th Edition fairly tactical in that the conflict space is very dynamic due to the way stances work.

 

[Undrave]

My quick summation would be a game that allows for meaningful choices that either improve my/our capacity to overcome the opposition and/or degrade the opposition's ability to overcome me/us.

As part of that, typically there are options, limitations, and trade-offs that need to be considered and juggled as part of the choices being made.

To me, "I use this to deal more damage now" is not a great baseline for meaningful choices in this vein. "I will do this so that the opposition has to choose between two sub-optimal options" is a better indication that tactics are supported. "And if I do this now, then they could perhaps do that, or it would perhaps degrade our ability to do this, but then it would..." is really starting to get into richer tactical nesting.

It's why a 4e Fighter's Mark is a great tactical tool. It gives the opponent two bad options: Do I A) attack this tanky beefslab that might not even feel it if I hit, or B) I let it take a potshot at me with his massive attack while attacking their frailer comrade? Making sure to impose this conundrum was the bread and butter of the Fighter's decision tree.