A tactical RPG, for me, is one that Zooms in in a more granular way to deal with something (not necessarily combat), where there are multiple options to deal with a problem and what is best will vary based on a number of different in the moment circumstances. Maps are optional. https://twitter.com/ErikTheBearik/status/1342539281160531968

To go into a bit more detail. I think of tactics as about maneuvering. And I think of it as different than skill. You could have great boxing skills, but if you have bad tactics...you could well be beaten by a boxer with better tactics but less skills technically.

You may be persuasive and charming...but when going into a negotiation with JR Ewing or Alexis Colby...if you don't have their tactical skill in negotiations it might not go so great for you.

For me, a tactical RPG also is something that requires/allows players to makes choices.

So, for example. An RPG that has a Tactics skill, where the player rolls their Tactics skill, gets a +1 and then rolls Negotiation/Punch/Accounting/etc...I don't think of that as a tactical RPG. Because the player makes no choice...they don't have to consider options.

Now, I do want to say that just because I say that a Tactical RPG requires the players to be able to make meaningful choices in the moment that are not direct simple attacks, but pondering positioning and situational factors, that doesn't necessarily mean Gamism.

Yes, there are lots of Gamist games that are tactical, and it often happens that way...but Tactical and Gamism are not necessarily the same. So for definitions, when I say Gamism, I'm talking primarily how Gamism tends to emphasize *player* skill over character skill.

And also I'm looking at this the way that Gamism often will pull the player out of character because it often requires a certain level of meta thinking that wouldn't happen in character. Using your rules knowledge to optimize your PC for efficacy, etc.

For me, my favorite Tactical RPGs allow me to make tactical decisions *in character.* And those tactical decisions may not be the most efficient...but they would be something in character. And going back to splitting skill, or optimization, from tactics.

So I really enjoy making characters that are not optimized. I mean, if the concept leads to an optimized character? Cool..then I'll do that. But I often don't make optimized characters. My character's often less skilled than other comparable PCs they might get into conflict with.

In an RPG that isn't tactical, there is often nothing I can to about my PC not being as skilled as other PCs. But in a Tactical RPG (or an RPG with tactical elements), I often do have things I can do through tactical choices...and hopefully they are also in character choices.

For me, I find base D&D 5e not all that great tactically, because I don't find there to be all that many meaningful tactical choices. The push towards optimization tends to remove tactical play. Though Kobold Press has added some weapon options that are tactically cool.

So I want to bring up some examples of Tactical RPGs--or Tactical elements in RPGs...that I have found really satisfying...some in character, some out of character.
GURPS can be played non-tactically. But it can also be played tactically. And I love it's tactical combat...a lot.

Not only because it gives me lots of a meaningful choices, but they give choices that I can make in character. This character might never Retreat, this other character might do lots of Feints and Acrobatics.

One of my greatest joys was being in a GURPS Arena for a few years (play by post) and this was all combat all the time, no RP'ing. And everyone made the most optimized PCs possible...the massive kill machines! And I...didn't. I made RP skill choices knowing they'd never come up.

I made PCs I liked who were..."objectively" not a good as the other PCs. They were stronger, did more damage, had more hit points, all of that. And you know what? When that Arena game finished, my PC had the best record out of them all. Why? I had better tactics.

I knew my character was not as strong as the others....my PC knew it too. So my PC didn't just go attack and maybe at a Reckless Attack for more damage. Rather I thought...okay, I need to maneuver around them so they can't use their shield. I need to take advantage of reach.

My PC has a 2 hex reach weapon everyone else has a 1 hex reach weapon...so if use my tactics correctly I'll always end my turn at 3 hexes away and they'll have to do something reckless to close with me which will disadvantage them. My PC worked hard for each win...I was proud!

That was satisfying Tactics. They eventually died to a Huge Ogre. But even that battle was thrilling. The ogre had armor I wasn't strong enough to penetrate with my low strength. The ogre had a massive club I couldn't parry with out breaking my Rapier...this would be a problem.

But it even though it looked bad for my PC on every level, I still had meaningful tactical choices I could make. I had to get myself in a situation where I could stab them in the eye while not getting hit...if I could do that? I think I could survive that battle. And maybe win.

I died in the end. But it was a tense battle. It could have gone either way. It was great! One of my greatest tactical experiences in a game (note...you can play GURPS without the Tactical options and using theater of the mind only if that is your preference...it can go simple)

But another, very different tactical situation! Nightwitches by Jason Morningstar. That is a Powered by the Apocalypse game about Russian women who were night bombers in WW2 using WW1 era biplanes. I generally don't find PbtA games all that Tactical...which is fine.

But Jason Morningstar designed an amazing Tactical airplane bombing mission system that has a very different vibe that many trad tactical systems. This is tactical in that you have to make meaningful decisions...but they are not about maneuvering your plane for combat advantage.

The decisions are about mental anguish and sacrifice...in a really interesting tactical way. What do I mean by this? Well, in Night Witches, you have the regular 4 box Harm track where if you get 4 harm you die, but you can heal harm through moves. But you also have a Mark track.

Each PC has a 10 box Mark track that is specific to each playbook. And Marks never heal. Ever. Each Mark is a consequence. One of them is positive (Advance And Grow), some are neutral (Tell a Story of Home), many are brutal (Witness the death of a Comrade). And the last mark?

The last mark is you die. War marks you...and it is hard to survive war unmarked. Next thing you must know? If your plane takes two hits, it crashes. Last thing to know? In Night Witches you don't advance by failing a roll like in many PbtA games.

You only advance by taking on particular bombing missions...and those bombing missions are really brutal. Also, because you are always flying, you don't have a lot of downtime. So...so you have to choose, do you fix that plane or heal harm? Or do you get more sleep?

Night Witches is, like many PbtA games, pretty rules light..but there are a lot things to consider tactically when you are about to go into your bombing missions and during. First choice? The PC who is the leader needs to decide who to put in which plane.

You have three planes to command. That is 6 women. 3 pilots, 3 navigators. You are probably going to have 2 NPCs to assign as well. Who do you put in which plane? In which position? Remember, NPCs never roll, they always fail if they must. Do you really want an all NPC plane?

There are tactical advantages and disadvantages to an all NPC plane...that players need to think about that. And then you get to the mission itself. The Lead Navigator must make a Navigation Roll, the Lead Pilot must making a Bombing Roll. No one else needs to roll.

But...those rolls are brutal. Very likely something bad is going to happen. Which brings up a lot of tactical choices. Do you take Harm? Or do you take damage to your plane? Do you take a Mark instead? Do you assign that damage to the NPC plane? If you don't succeed the rolls?

If you would fail your mission...your vital bombing mission to bomb some Nazis? Do you just go home in failure and NOT TAKE ANY MORE DAMAGE? or...do you press forward with the mission and really risk death and a lot of badness? You know what? My players always pressed the run.

OOC optimized gamist choices would say, "Just go home"--but they new how important these bombings runs were in the game world and they pressed forward and risked a lot of death. Jason Morningstar says that it is unlikely a PC will make through an entire campaign...it's deadly.

But you know what? @RocketteFox, who played the Leader of the of section, kept every PC alive. Every. One. There was not one PC death. Now...there were a lot of NPC deaths...including people they didn't want to die. And how did that happen? Fox's superior tactical skills.

Yes, we only had 12 sessions and we were an RP heavy group so we didn't play every single mission in the campaign, but the reason they survived and were successful was due to @RocketteFox's tactical leadership, and the other player's individual tactics. Brilliant!

I suppose the last tactical experience I'll bring up is FATE. I don't think many people would think of FATE as a tactical game. It is pretty rules light, it can be played super Narratively and loose...ignoring lots of rules. It have only 4 (or 5) actions. Where's the tactics?

But I think FATE is an amazing example of rules light meaningful Tactics in an RPG....even if I wouldn't call FATE a "Tactical RPG." What do I mean? Well, FATE has, canonically, 4 actions: Attack, Defend, Overcome, and Create an Advantage (there is an optional Discover).

Attack and Defend is pretty straightforward. You Attack (which could be Social, doesn't have to be physical)...you Defend. Overcome is also pretty straightforward. You need to jump over a fence...roll Athletics to Overcome the challenge. That sort of thing is in most games.

But...then there is the "Create An Advantage" action...which doesn't really exist in most other games and is where the tactical nuance and interesting-ness comes in. You can create an aspect. It isn't an attack to cause "damage" it is to...create a "condition"--let's say.

You could Create an Advantage to turn off the lights and make the battlefield more difficult to maneuver. You could Create an Advantage to make yourself seem very trustworthy so your opposition is more likely to trust you. You could Create an Advantage could grapple them.

You can shape the area of conflict in really interesting tactical ways that are completely open. Now, because it is an option that doesn't happen in a lot of other games, people often don't take advantages of the tactical possibilities of Creating Advantage.

Or the tactical possibilities of hostile Compels or of spending a FATE point to declare a story detail. If you like tactical thinking...FATE ends up giving a bunch of really cool options very different than D&D for example. So those are three tactical examples!