The primary way in which RPGs differ from make believe (and other story games) is that the participant's creativity is harnessed and channeled via rules (aka the mechanics of a game). This week, I wanted to talk about one of the most important (but sometimes overlooked or misunderstood) considerations for a tabletop RPG's mechanics: Tactical Depth.
By "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both in and out of combat. More specifically, as elegantly stated by Brian Gleichman, there are three major elements of tactical game design:
The need to manage resources creates tactical decisions, namely "Where do I spend my resources, and for what benefit?"
A game becomes more "Tactical" when the players have more options available to solve in-game problems. For example, a PC can open a door with either a lock pick, spell or brute force.
On the other hand, when there are less choices or all choices lead to the same outcome, a game has less tactical depth. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), all weapons did 1d6 damage, making OD&D less tactical than the later editions.
Furthermore, the element of Dissimilar Assets plays out at both the party and at the individual level. Here, the composition of the party in games where PCs have better defined niches is more tactical because niche protection creates more distinct tools to solve problems. By contrast, when PCs are more generic, such as 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons (where every PC has healing surges and spell-like powers), this element of tactical play becomes more shallow.
A game becomes more "Tactical" as Maneuver increasingly affects mechanical resolution (e.g., movement, facing (front v. flank v. rear), range, terrain, environment, etc.). By contrast, more abstract (and often lighter) games result in less tactical depth, particularly if they are mapless (i.e., theater of the mind).
So why exactly is Tactical Depth important for RPGs? YMMV, but for most people having meaningfully different options that can change the state of the game goes to the heart of playing a "game" (and a fundamental part of the fun).
For example, Dungeon Squad 2 (2016) is a very fast, very light roleplaying game "designed for youngsters with powerful ambition but short attention spans." However, this game is so light (it's markedly less tactical than even the original Dungeon Squad) that it can scarcely be called an RPG: it has almost nothing in the way of the three major elements of Tactical Depth (i.e., there's very little in the way of resource management, there's very little practical difference between Hero and Rascal, and there's no maneuver). In actual play, the mechanics feel little different from flipping a coin. Consequently, Dungeon Squad 2 is really more a story game than an RPG.
By contrast, GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System) (1986) is highly tactical (especially if you play with the optional rules), with emphasis on all three major elements of Tactical Depth. However, very tactically deep games are not for everyone, both from a flavor and from a mental investment perspective. For example, Chess is intensely tactical but that required depth of tactical thought is a turn off for many board gamers.
In addition, RPGs may be deep in some of major elements of Tactical Depth but not others. Some RPGs may even eliminate major elements of Tactical Depth. For example, Barbarians of Lemuria (2008) has pretty much no element of Maneuver. (I would argue, however, that if a game eliminates all three major elements of Tactical Depth, it is in fact a story game rather than an RPG).
For Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, as with its Core Mechanic, I've tried to retain approximately the same Tactical Depth as its Old School roots (noticeable Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets combined with mechanically significant Maneuver) to produce similar flavor whilst playing. Again, I want to keep its DNA recognizable while fulfilling my other design goals.
 |
| Not a lot of Tactical Depth |
By "Tactical Depth," I mean the relative number and types of meaningfully different options available to PCs that can change the state of the game, both in and out of combat. More specifically, as elegantly stated by Brian Gleichman, there are three major elements of tactical game design:
- Resource Management
In order for a game to be "Tactical," at least some resources need to be limited, whether they are hit points, spells, or even time (this is the reason why tracking time is important for a certain style of Old School play). For example, in D&D, the more time one spends searching a room, the greater the risk of encountering wandering monsters.
The need to manage resources creates tactical decisions, namely "Where do I spend my resources, and for what benefit?"
- Dissimilar Assets
A game becomes more "Tactical" when the players have more options available to solve in-game problems. For example, a PC can open a door with either a lock pick, spell or brute force.
On the other hand, when there are less choices or all choices lead to the same outcome, a game has less tactical depth. For example, in Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), all weapons did 1d6 damage, making OD&D less tactical than the later editions.
- Maneuver
A game becomes more "Tactical" as Maneuver increasingly affects mechanical resolution (e.g., movement, facing (front v. flank v. rear), range, terrain, environment, etc.). By contrast, more abstract (and often lighter) games result in less tactical depth, particularly if they are mapless (i.e., theater of the mind).
So why exactly is Tactical Depth important for RPGs? YMMV, but for most people having meaningfully different options that can change the state of the game goes to the heart of playing a "game" (and a fundamental part of the fun).
For example, Dungeon Squad 2 (2016) is a very fast, very light roleplaying game "designed for youngsters with powerful ambition but short attention spans." However, this game is so light (it's markedly less tactical than even the original Dungeon Squad) that it can scarcely be called an RPG: it has almost nothing in the way of the three major elements of Tactical Depth (i.e., there's very little in the way of resource management, there's very little practical difference between Hero and Rascal, and there's no maneuver). In actual play, the mechanics feel little different from flipping a coin. Consequently, Dungeon Squad 2 is really more a story game than an RPG.
In addition, RPGs may be deep in some of major elements of Tactical Depth but not others. Some RPGs may even eliminate major elements of Tactical Depth. For example, Barbarians of Lemuria (2008) has pretty much no element of Maneuver. (I would argue, however, that if a game eliminates all three major elements of Tactical Depth, it is in fact a story game rather than an RPG).
 |
| Arguably the greatest real life example of Maneuver |
For Sorcery & Steel, my rules set, as with its Core Mechanic, I've tried to retain approximately the same Tactical Depth as its Old School roots (noticeable Resource Management and Dissimilar Assets combined with mechanically significant Maneuver) to produce similar flavor whilst playing. Again, I want to keep its DNA recognizable while fulfilling my other design goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment