What is the difference between Tactical Rpg and Roleplaying game?

[Valdain the King]

It states on wikipedia that tactical rpgs are not the same as an original rpg. The issue here is that if both are turnbased it is really hard to differentiate.

 

I am playing Gorky 17 right now and it is stated there that it is a tactical rpg. Yet what is the real difference? Ive played jrpgs and they were mostly rpgs but there is still that issue where if you are in a certain battle you got to do a certain thing to advance. Breath of Fire 3 is likely a rpg but what about other games.

 

Pool of Radiance I would guess is a tactical rpg because there really isnt much roleplaying, its all about tactics.

 

Avernum, Geneforge, Avadon? I would say it is a mix of both but moreso follows the tactical rpg because its more about tactics.

 

I dont know. It still really doesnt make much sense as both genres are usually turnbased and have some rpg elements.

[Lilith]

I'd say the following are defining traits of tactical RPGs as opposed to regular RPGs:

 

* combat encounters divided into discrete maps that are taken on as a whole -- it's generally not possible to retreat from battle mid-map and come back to fight the enemies you didn't get the first time

* heavy emphasis on movement and positioning, with factors such as careful consideration of terrain and movement/attack ranges being important to victory

* limited in-combat healing and revival. Each map is a battle of attrition: if you charge into battle your healers generally won't be able to keep characters healed faster than they get hurt, at least in the long run. A character defeated in combat is usually out for the rest of the map and sometimes on a more permanent basis

* experience almost always awarded on an individual basis rather than a party basis: if you want a character to gain levels, you have to actively use them in battle, not just have them hang around

[Slawbug]

Yup. The term can be used with different breadths. Most often, it's used narrowly to refer to the specific genre Lilith described, whose most iconic series is probably Fire Emblem, but more here may be familiar with The Battle for Westnoth.

 

It can be used to refer to any CRPG that incorporates movement and positioning, on a granular level, in combat. We can go back to Ultima and Wizardry, and see that this includes RPGs that take after the Ultima games (including the Gold Box AD&D games, and all Spiderweb games), but does not include RPGs that look more like Wizardry games (including most JRPGs and most other console RPGs). The CRPG genre as a whole has gone pretty heavily in the direction of abstract combat since the late 90's, so this is sometimes a useful distinction to draw.

[Edgwyn]

So, in Ultima (like Spiderweb games) I had to choose who each of my characters was going to attack, with what and how, and in Wizardry I generally did not (multiple groups of monsters and spell choice being the exception). I see the distinction, but since I am not familiar with the context, I assume that this is only for CRPGs? The paper RPGs of the same vintage as the early Ultimas and Wizardry tended to be extremely tactical by that definition.

[Alorael at Large]

I don't think that really gets to the distinction, Edgwyn. At least not how I see it.

 

Tactical RPG is used to describe a kind of CRPG. But loosely; it's very blurry at the border with other RPGs. Lilith's list is interesting, but I think the first two are the real keys, and you need both of them.

 

The clear counterexample is the traditional JRPG, where your party lines up on one side of the screen, the enemy on the other, and there's no positioning at all. You choose which abilities your characters use, and what the targets are, but there is no battlefield to speak of. I'd say Spiderweb games are not tactical RPGs. In part that's because I expect even more emphasis on positioning and range and the like in tactical games, but in part it's because of how you can kill some enemies and run away, or just back away to more favorable battleground. That's tactical decision-making, but that's not how the tactical RPG genre works.

 

Tactical RPGs are significantly about solving battles as problems. (Not puzzles; that's something else.) Which arrangement of my units is most advantageous? How can I take advantage of height, obstacles, and all the rest? What counters the abilities of the enemies I expect to face? And on a turn to turn basis, which of my units should engage which of theirs, how do I keep from getting myself flanked, how can I use my resources most judiciously? If some of that sounds like how people approach Spiderweb fights, especially on Torment, well, I said it gets blurry. Tactics have become a cool thing in gaming and show up all over.

 

—Alorael, who agrees that while no one really talks about tactical RPGs of the pen and paper universe, there is plenty of discussion of whether games have tactical combat. D&D and its lineage show off their wargame roots and often do have careful tactics, down to the map as a grid with attacks and abilities having precise ranges and areas of effect. Other games can have much more abstract combat.

[Slawbug]

Whether it's Wizardy or a JRPG like Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy, combat in these completely non-tactical games is an abstract melee. There's no grid, no map of any sort. Combatants might be grouped together, or they might be in an ordered list where the front members are more likely to be struck, but that's it.

 

The most obvious impact of this in game is that typically, most characters can attack whoever they want. In some of these they can pick any target directly (FF), in others they might have to pick a group (DW, Wizardry), but they aren't restricted to characters that they are in range of on a map. 20 units can gang up on one enemy, then split up their attack, change things from round to round, etc. You also can't stick a tank in a doorway to absorb 100% of melee attacks, because the opposition has the same freedom. Also, although you might change party order on rare occasions, you aren't typically telling your characters to move around to obtain a better location.

[Aran]

Yup. The term can be used with different breadths. Most often, it's used narrowly to refer to the specific genre Lilith described, whose most iconic series is probably Fire Emblem, but more here may be familiar with The Battle for Westnoth.

 

Is the XP system enough to put Wesnoth in the RPG category? The other elements seem to be either common elements to RPG and Strategy (named characters, dialogue), or distinctly Strategy (territorial control / resource production, recruitment limited only by resources, rigidly defined unit types without skill trees).

[Slawbug]

I wouldn't dispute the characterization as a Strategy game -- there's certainly a range of options. Tactical RPGs and Strategy games have a lot in common, and a game like Wesnoth (especially with both campaign mode and single battle mode) might fit in both categories.

 

In campaign mode, I'm not sure what would disqualify it from the RPG label. It uses common RPG mechanics pretty much everywhere. I would also argue that the listed mechanics aren't all exclusive to strategy games... Territorial control is pretty common in regular RPGs that use grids for combat (including some SW games). Essentially unlimited recruitment is in a lot of games, too, although RPGs admittedly don't normally let you recruit mid-battle. Rigidly defined unit types without skill trees, while characteristic of strategy games, also describes a fair number of older RPGs.

[Lilith]

Tactical RPG is used to describe a kind of CRPG. But loosely; it's very blurry at the border with other RPGs. Lilith's list is interesting, but I think the first two are the real keys, and you need both of them.

 

Yeah, I put them in the order I did for a reason. I'd say my third point is mostly a consequence of design goals defined by the first: ideally, giving the party limited resources to tackle each map encourages dynamic and efficient tactics rather than turtling, and encourages you to have backup plans in case, say, your primary tank is too wounded to do his job this round and your healer can't get to him. Time limits or highly aggressive enemy AI can fill the same role that limited healing does, though, so it's not absolutely necessary, just a commonly-implemented solution.

 

I'm not sure how to explain the fourth point: it doesn't seem like a necessary design element of tactical RPGs, but in practice it certainly does appear in nearly all of them that I've played. It's common but not universal for a game in the genre to give you one or more characters who start out underlevelled but have high potential for growth, which makes keeping them alive while actively using them in battle until the investment pays off an interesting strategic challenge.

[Valdain the King]

So I am going to guess that most Tactical Rpgs dont allow you to exp farm with random encounters. That would only make sense as I dont remember Growlanser having that. They classified Knights of the Chalice as being a tactical rpg on wikipedia although the funny thing is that it might fit the bill. The game doesnt really have a story but not even that, the game is brutally hardcore on tactics. If you dont do what you are supposed to do, bye bye

[Lilith]

So I am going to guess that most Tactical Rpgs dont allow you to exp farm with random encounters.

 

Some do have various means of grinding, but yeah, compared to other RPGs it's very common for them not to: you do each map once and you get whatever you get from it.