What makes a TTRPG tactical?

[Theory of Games]

Well it's an interesting contradiction, because in warfare, the ideal is to not have "tactical" combat at all, but to overwhelm one's opposition.

For example, when American fighter pilots realized dogfighting the Japanese Zero was suicidal, they switched to power diving (American planes were less maneuverable but had more powerful engines). They weren't interested in "meaningful choices" or fighting the enemy on even terms; they wanted to survive the fight.

But we're playing games, not risking our lives, and one-sided, one-tactic fighting isn't exciting. So games marry tactics with a silent partner: parity (a.k.a. "balance"), something you very much don't want in a real fight. For example, in boxing, you won't fight someone 50 pounds lighter than you in a ring; they have weight classes specifically to prevent that. Parity makes the bouts more uncertain, more exciting. In a real street fight, you WANT to be 50 pounds heavier. And preferably holding a weapon. And a bunch of buddies to back you up. As unfair as you can make it.

A solid tactic is one that is clearly the best option, but that makes for a poor tactical game.

 

[SableWyvern]

I was confused as well. However, where "tactical" has been put in scare-quotes, I assume they're referring to gamey, grid-based, careful positioning and power-combo tactics.

With a generous interpretation, @borringman is thus saying that, in the real world, you don't want to engage the enemy on a level playing field and then (after you're already engaged) rely on fine-grained tactical positioning on the level of individual combatants to win the day, if you can help it. Instead, you aim to employ tactics that have already tilted the engagement heavily in your favour, before you engage.

I disagree with the conclusion that tactics that are good for real world make for poor tactical games, but they can make for poor "tactical" games.

 

[FrogReaver]

In chess, tactics are about maneuvering your pieces together in such a way as to gain an immediate advantage. Theres patterns to chess tactics, pins, discovered attacks, etc.

Strategy is more long term. It’s more about your high level plans, develop pieces to good squares, protect your king, try to win more space so you can more easily manuever. In chess this would often include positional moves which aren’t decisive but build up small advantages.

It’s often said that tactics flow from good position.

I’d say the same is fairly applicable to RPGs. Simple tactic patterns might be focus fire. More complex tactics might be to create a damage zone and knock enemies into it. These choices when made appropriately should greatly impact the difficulty of encounters. Which is one place i often see ‘tactical’ ttrpgs fail. They want to throw a bunch of options at you, but have all of them all be equally impactful in most all situations.

 

[Umbran]

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.
...

Am I making sense?

I understand your definition, but I think formations are still tactics.

Tactics are how you fight a battle. Strategy is how you fight the war.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

I think there’s a difference between tactical maneuvers and positional maneuvers.

Your outfitting, logistics and expedition goals might be strategic.

I’d suggest that solely positional considerations are strategic as well.

 

[aramis erak]

I understand your definition, but I think formations are still tactics.

Tactics are how you fight a battle. Strategy is how you fight the war.

I tend to agree...

But there is that in-between level, oft called "supertactical"...

In games, supertactical typically is company, Battalion, or regiment as the maneuver unit, facing is generally safely ignored, but it's still about the battle, not the war.

In actual practice, the two (tactics/strategy) overlap at levels between company and brigade.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think there’s a difference between tactical maneuvers and positional maneuvers.


I’d suggest that solely positional considerations are strategic as well.

If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres. This manoeuvre may be part of some larger strategic plan, but those people on the ground doing the manoeuvring are engaged in tactics (in a modern setting, we'd call it infantry minor tactics).

I'm not sure what you mean by "positional manoeuvre." All manoeuvre, by definition, is about position; I've never seen "positional manoeuvre" used as a military term, and I can't find any instance of it on a quick google.

I'm also not sure what you mean be "solely positional considerations". All strategic and tactical considerations include multiple factors, none are based on considering a single element.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd characterize it as having a fair number of combat decisions that actually matter, and ideally are at least somewhat situational so you actually have to think about what you're doing, and that are not primarily dependent on the GM to be functional. Things like movement, cover, and specific character abilities can be a contributor to those, but none are specifically required for that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tend to agree...

But there is that in-between level, oft called "supertactical"...

In games, supertactical typically is company, Battalion, or regiment as the maneuver unit, facing is generally safely ignored, but it's still about the battle, not the war.

In actual practice, the two (tactics/strategy) overlap at levels between company and brigade.

In gaming, at least, I've seen "microtactical" used a long time ago for any game that focused on individual figures (and this paralleled but was separate from RPGs).

 

[aramis erak]

If you are twenty or less people manoeuvring in the face of the enemy, you are absolutely employing tactical manoeuvres. This manoeuvre may be part of some larger strategic plan, but those people on the ground doing the manoeuvring are engaged in tactics (in a modern setting, we'd call it infantry minor tactics).

I'm not sure what you mean by "positional manoeuvre." All manoeuvre, by definition, is about position; I've never seen "positional manoeuvre" used as a military term, and I can't find any instance of it on a quick google.

I'm also not sure what you mean be "solely positional considerations". All strategic and tactical considerations include multiple factors, none are based on considering a single element.

I've seen the term positional maneuver for company—brigade level movements where it's not about engagement, but instead access to resources at some position, hence the name, but it's not a commonly used term. And it's almost always a strategic element, not a tactical one, unless said position is a fortification or cover of some kind.