Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Due a conversation I had over the difference between "tactical" and "strategic", I started to wonder how an RPG could make itself more tactical.
I decided character-building would be the most instrumental in how tactics could form-(without, of course, large armies being at your disposal) gear, traits, companions, etc but I am at a loss in how you could have options to yourself in gear, group members, etc while also having long-term risk.
I feel like the openess of strategy could lead to a safety net for poor longterm planning. Obviously, this kind of thing is better in a team-based RPG but I'd like to see how it could be done in a "single player + optional companions" experience.
How do you make character-building more strictly tactical? How do you allow branching paths in tactics without muddling the difficulty? Can you think of other ways to make an RPG more tactical?
depends, eh.
do you have all or nothing encounters or is the 'difficulty' really in the measure of success or failure?
What is evolution?
irl most encounters between predator and prey don't end even with an injury.
29 out of 30 of the herd will escape, perhaps every squirrel the cat sees that day will escape without harm even if surprised.
in games shit dies and combats are almost always to the death so the ability to kill without dying is pretty much the only goal for character building.
your character can't pick locks? Oh no! well, that doesn't actually really matter does it, cause if you come up against a lock you can't pick, you can always come back later with better eq or more skills or a different party member. Sure, it's a feature. I think they call it sandbox or open world, when a player can just do everything with no application of thought or skill.
Why not, maybe.. that locked door was guarded by some shitlord you can't possibly beat? If you went down a combat path, what rewards and adventures the lockpicker would've gained are lost to you.
imo escape should almost always be an option. sure sure it requires thinking about design, awful.
kiting witthout being gamey.
imo the differentiatio nbetween strategy/tactics/meta in gaming is all but pointless anyway, as the particular definition of each depends on the game
or do we say abstracts and application?
a safety net is created when devs allow one set of (global) practices to mitigate against (almost) all circumstantial failings, which rly makes your game a storybook adventure with some math. it's not about tactics or strategy. if cloud can beat every encounter and situation by swinging his sword..well then that's shit.
Long term, the player can acquire things to make them available for use when solving future problems. Short term, they must select a subset of the things they have acquired to tackle the immediate problem.
For example, before every combat encounter I can select the equipment loadout I will use. However, I still need to have acquired that equipment earlier. As long as the game prevents the acquisition of all relevant/desirable pieces of gear, there's still long term risk that arises from poor decision making. E.g. I ran into a dragon but I don't have any fire resist gear.
Due a conversation I had over the difference between "tactical" and "strategic", I started to wonder how an RPG could make itself more tactical.
I decided character-building would be the most instrumental in how tactics could form-(without, of course, large armies being at your disposal) gear, traits, companions, etc but I am at a loss in how you could have options to yourself in gear, group members, etc while also having long-term risk.
I feel like the openess of strategy could lead to a safety net for poor longterm planning. Obviously, this kind of thing is better in a team-based RPG but I'd like to see how it could be done in a "single player + optional companions" experience.
How do you make character-building more strictly tactical? How do you allow branching paths in tactics without muddling the difficulty? Can you think of other ways to make an RPG more tactical?
-Fewer character building choices. Strip out those with minimal impact or clearly wrong selections.
-Disposable characters that lead to building more characters.
-Quick character building UI.
-Condition the player to accept a failure state as an indication they should adjust their approach. (not save scum or try the same thing multiple times before declaring the game broken)
-Encounter design that does not allow a single party composition to get very far.
Wasteland 2, which I am playing these days, is a good example for tactical character creation. Depending on how you allocate your Character points on Coordination/Luck/Awareness/Strength/Speed/Intelligence/Charisma, you have trade offs for the derived stats Action Points, Initiative, Evasion, AP/tile etc, which are tactical considerations.
Then you have gear that may improve one of those options at the expense of another.
Wasteland 2 is a team-based game, but exactly the same system can be applied to a single character system.
Wasteland 2, which I am playing these days, is a good example for tactical character creation. Depending on how you allocate your Character points on Coordination/Luck/Awareness/Strength/Speed/Intelligence/Charisma, you have trade offs for the derived stats Action Points, Initiative, Evasion, AP/tile etc, which are tactical considerations.
Then you have gear that may improve one of those options at the expense of another.
Wasteland 2 is a team-based game, but exactly the same system can be applied to a single character system.
That is strategic character creation, not tactical, because the decisions are largely made once at the start. (Yes, you can make adjustments, but nobody takes an average strength marksman with shooting perks and levels them up into a melee bruiser.)
Isn't character creation by definition strategic rather than tactical considering it affects what your character can accomplish in the long run as opposed to tactical choices that determine the outcome of individual events such as decisions made during combat?
One of the most controversial character building systems was the vancian magic system of D&D, and it's probably the closest you'll ever get to tactical character building.
Achieving a new level of spell-caster will usually make someone completely alter their whole spell-book and likely even their battle-tactics, not to mention allow for specific builds for specific battles as they progress between levels.
Edit: Heeeeeey, do you have a keyboard stroke hacker on me?
That is strategic character creation, not tactical, because the decisions are largely made once at the start. (Yes, you can make adjustments, but nobody takes an average strength marksman with shooting perks and levels them up into a melee bruiser.)
Yes, to be accurate they are strategic decisions that affect tactics. If that's not what the OP means, then the part about the gear should be useful, ie how you can readjust your derived stats by wearing suitable gear.
In such a case, the trick with gear is that it should have trade-offs, e.g. a certain gear improves one of your tactical attributes at the expense of another (e.g., an armor/trinket/necklace that gives +1 Initiative and -1 AP). So you only use it when you know what you are doing and the situation calls for it OR when you feel that you fucked up the character creation and wish to readjust.
Consumables can play a similar role, eg a potion that gives +0.5 AP/tile and -1 AP, just for a specific battle where you need more movement than shooting.
Such a system seems perfect to me. I am still unsure if I am answering OP's question, though.
Modal abilities that you can choose to use tactically in battle? Power attack to make strong hits at cost of accuracy, finesse mode that lessens your damage but boosts critical hit chance etc.
Isn't character creation by definition strategic rather than tactical considering it affects what your character can accomplish in the long run as opposed to tactical choices that determine the outcome of individual events such as decisions made during combat?
True. I was thinking character-building during levelling (which is still more strategic than tactical) so it's really more of an armour thing. Still, it'd be interesting to see tactical character-building (perhaps binding two skills and switching between them?)
True. I was thinking character-building during levelling (which is still more strategic than tactical) so it's really more of an armour thing. Still, it'd be interesting to see tactical character-building (perhaps binding two skills and switching between them?)
Permanent effects will always have more strategic than tactical depth, unless it's a scenario where there is only a single scenario to care about, such as leveling up for the last time before the final boss. It all boils down to choosing equipment and skills assuming the latter has a system where you can choose limited amount of your total abilities that you can use in combat.
Although if the effects wouldn't persist beyond one scenario, then stat/ability distribution from character creation or leveling would only have the tactical layer.
True. I was thinking character-building during levelling (which is still more strategic than tactical) so it's really more of an armour thing. Still, it'd be interesting to see tactical character-building (perhaps binding two skills and switching between them?)
Permanent effects will always have more strategic than tactical depth, unless it's a scenario where there is only a single scenario to care about, such as leveling up for the last time before the final boss. It all boils down to choosing equipment and skills assuming the latter has a system where you can choose limited amount of your total abilities that you can use in combat.
Although if the effects wouldn't persist beyond one scenario, then stat/ability distribution from character creation or leveling would only have the tactical layer.
I guess by having certain roles for things or something that would be useful like having a lock and traps guy a stealth scout or a healer or a tank. By having ways you can build towards some of these things that are useful in the game mechanics then you have a tactical way of building characters.
Freeform building is the best way to achieve this. Maybe with locks for very useful skills based on stats that are somewhat hard to attain any game where every stat/skill/talent is going to be used instantly or you are excited to get to a certain milestone in character development is what I imagine as being tactical.
It means that if your only goal is to kill the orc and every means of attempting that either succeeds or fails, any claim to tactics the game might have is illusory at best.
It means that what the difference is between tactical and strategic varies from game to game, that whether one layer is stronger than another depends on the implementation of challenges & goals.
It means that if there is only one level to plan for, there's little to no difference between any idea of tactical vs strategic.
Take Total War, ryt? A strictly delineated rtwp & TBS game (I have not played nor read a review of warhammer)
Well, there's two very obvious layers to the game, but let's say CA make..oh.. say egyptian cavalry units larger than everybody elses, cheaper to make and just an all-around decent unit to have.
Let's say you can build a bunch of these instead of ..well.. anything else and effectively horse-roll anything (apart from city walls) they happen to meet.
Your game is no longer tactical because of a failure of the strategic layer.
Alternatively, implement the mechanics of engagement, withdrawal and movement in such a way that skilled/proper 'kiting' can turn any of 50 mediocre units into a wrecking ball worth their weight in gold.. and your strategic layer becomes almost meaningless.
You enhance tactical play by rewarding momentary use of the skills, abilities (however gained) to best advantage. That is to say that they do not do the same things in all situations. A backstab multiplier based on levelled stats, or the number of times the attacker has fought similar biological/equipped opponents before, or equipment or luck is not tactical (though it can be said it can give tactical advantage, it's not quite the same thing*). A backstab multiplier based on number of attacks or defenses the target has made that round, or the number of nearby hostiles can be altered in the given engagement to provide advantage.
Choosing to carry x instead of y (as above dragon example) is a strategic decision, choosing to take the time to swap it out of inventory in favor of some other equipment or action is a tactical one.
*Consider that the choice to equip soldiers with rifle or smg is a strategic one taken by government and the command hierarchy but the advantage/disadvantage the men fighting gain from it is a tactical one.
It means that if there are goals in an encounter other than "kill them all" tactics become more relevant, generally speaking the only real interface is often the amount of finite resources a given tactical approach might use(potions, memorized spells, ammunition, scrolls). That is to say, the relevance of tactics is often as it effects the non-tactical, the more of an interleaving of layers, the more important tactics become. for example, if a game allows for infinite sleeps or returns to shopping districts(what would be strategic decisions were there a cost), tactics (so long as the pc survives) are all but meaningless.
Heh, as this all regards character building? It doesn't, i have a hard time wrapping my head around 'tactical' character building even being possible.
The following is a hasty and ill thought out attempt to cover the fact that I don't have any idea how to justify my first post or the above, just fyi.
Perhaps if we imagine a novel? I'm reading Tufo's zombie fallout atm.
Now, Mike the PC is what he is, a survivalist cum parent cum faux-catholic. He starts out at about, I guess, lvl 5? and certainly does gain xp and some new abilities.
But functionally? The encounters aren't defined so much by his previous experience as by his current condition and the condition of his party.
Did Zombies catch him napping? Did he come upon zombies eating the girl who was supposed to be on watch? Did he just eat something bad?
Some games offer surprise modifiers and things like this, but they're generally scripted, and even when not, not terribly interactive or varied.
Let's say instead you click on the dragon's lair on the world map and....
the game/dm gets a number of decisions to make on behalf of whatever mob groups might be around.
and you get a number of decisions to make based on "whatever"
battlebrothers did something like this, thinking about it. with the "you find dudeface drinking his way through the squads run supplies" "do you lash him? Dudeface:-10mor -2AP Others: +2 Rage for 2 days (or whatever.) but i'm thinking that they'd be more an intrinsic part of enocunter mechanics, from being saddlesore to having had an argument on the ride to feeling unexpectedly vim for no obvious reason, to "the dragon isn't here, she went out to look for some halfling-baked pies to eat"
roguelike you say? sure, but with player interaction.
again battlebrothers has injuries n stuff which are essentially short-term (sometimes) character developments which some folks might call tactical, even if they're imposed by the engine and not character development in the sense of player-driven. (tho iirc you can influence triggers & outcomes for many of the events, which rather makes it definitely strategic imo)
the whole active ability thing already mentioned tho is the mst obvious expression of allowing chardev to interact with the tactical layer of rpgs. making it 'more' with this method would perhaps mean removing adjustable stats and passive abilities altogether.
You could learn alot about character building become tactical by playing Hammer & Sickle .That Russian game really teach you how to be very economical and tactical with your choice.
Not Silent Storm and SS Sentinels because of their really large pool of recruits.
To make story short and prevent too long dont play syndrome, I will give one suggestion.
Make a battle right after character building so your players can experience for themselves what the CC choices mean tactically. This kind of design was employed in good stead in three games, though HS ruined the streak by adding a stealth mission before that, and get hammered for that.
Tactical char-building.
