Will the complexity pendulum swing back?


log in or register to remove this ad


Okay, if we're taking this seriously, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. It should be tactical and have modern mechanisms. Draw Steel, as an example.

I can understand why the question was posed.

Sometimes, I'm not sure how the word "tactical" is defined by other posters.

By "tactical," do you mean a game that has facing rules, options for things like suppressive gunfire, and things in that vein?

Or

By "tactical" do you mean having a variety of powers, manuevers, and such like D&D 4th Edition?

Or

Some mix of both? The video game Final Fantasy Tactics, for example.
 

I can understand why the question was posed.

Sometimes, I'm not sure how the word "tactical" is defined by other posters.

By "tactical," do you mean a game that has facing rules, options for things like suppressive gunfire, and things in that vein?

Or

By "tactical" do you mean having a variety of powers, manuevers, and such like D&D 4th Edition?

Or

Some mix of both? The video game Final Fantasy Tactics, for example.

I think both of those are tactical, and as you note can exist independently.

A Hero System character without any special buy-in has access to a lot of baked-in manuevers in the game that supply some serious tactical options that can change how things play out notably; there are additional things to build into the character that can expand on this, but they're not necessary.

On the other end, 13th Age has very minimalist basic combat, but a lot classes have talents, powers and related things that can bring a lot of tactical variety to combat if they're playing that sort of character and choose to deploy them.

Basically, you can have tactical variety as a consequence of the core mechanics set, or because of character options; either one will at least provide things beyond "I swing until I hit, then I roll damage until they fall down." Neither is intrinsically dependent on a GM deciding your narrative warrants a benefit and neither is a consequence of just shapeless mechanical benefits that you might put a coat of narrative paint on (as in, they don't define what's going on at all by themselves).
 

I am curious what you consider the "modern mechanisms." I don't have Draw Steel, so I don't know how fundamentally different from, say, Savage Worlds its tactical play elements are.
There are plenty of rpg mechanisms that have come about in the past 20 years that weren't in the 30 years previous. Like most everything, RPGs have evolved over the years. It's odd that this doesn't go without saying, tbh.
 

I can understand why the question was posed.

Sometimes, I'm not sure how the word "tactical" is defined by other posters.

By "tactical," do you mean a game that has facing rules, options for things like suppressive gunfire, and things in that vein?

Or

By "tactical" do you mean having a variety of powers, manuevers, and such like D&D 4th Edition?

Or

Some mix of both? The video game Final Fantasy Tactics, for example.
To get semantical, choosing PC abilities would be strategy, choosing how to use them as you play would be tactical.

Moving a representation over a playing space and using abilities to exert influence on that space is a tactical game, whether rpg, video game, board game, minis game. Draw Steel, XCOM, Memoir '44, and Warhammer 40k are all tactical games.
 

There are plenty of rpg mechanisms that have come about in the past 20 years that weren't in the 30 years previous. Like most everything, RPGs have evolved over the years. It's odd that this doesn't go without saying, tbh.
In case I wasn't clear, I am asking you to articulate them.
 




Remove ads

Top