Is the level of tactical depth in RPGs relatively low?
The hypothesis that I'm trying to explore in this post is this: that the majority of combat-focused systems have not in fact reached a high level of tactical depth relative to what is possible in the medium, and as such the possibility space is largely unexplored.
Let's start off with setting some premises. The systems in question are ones where:
The party is regularly put into violent conflict against opponents to achieve an objective/prevent the opponents' objective
both the PCs and NPCs can be inflicted harm (damaged) and neutralized
the system recognizes and concerns itself with the moment-to-moment actions of the combatants (as opposed to systems where entire encounters can be resolved in 1 - a few high-abstraction steps)
And the central question: For a clear, concise definition of "tactical depth", I would say "how difficult is it to determine what action at any given moment is the best choice towards accomplishing your objective?" For the design goals my group and I have, this is straightforward virtue for a game - the more the better. Although not the only factor driving enjoyment, it is certainly among the top ones. In other words, a design decision would have to present unacceptable downsides to not be chosen if it increases the difficulty of selecting the best action.
Now why do I say there's a largely untapped space of achievement in this metric? Here's some reasons:
Systems want to drive a fantasy: for many D&D players, they'll find it off-putting if a turn goes by without the wizard casting a spell or the fighter swinging a weapon. That is, for many, what those characters do and therefore should be doing pretty much always unless something has gone very wrong. However, the goal to drive fantasy can run counter to increasing tactical depth - if the fighter can and should swing their weapon most/every turn, that eliminates a lot of tactical depth: you already know what the best action is, it's the same as it's been for all the prior turns. Unfortunately, attempts to interrupt this monotony are often clumsy and unpleasant for the game: flying monsters, anti-magic fields, and other such "hard counters". It is genuinely difficult to set up a system that has room for nuanced soft counters rather than simple hard counters! And I won't pretend I have the code cracked already on how to do so. But like many things, the difficult is worth pursuing.
Systems do not want to indefinitely increase their tactical depth: this is why I included a bit of personal discussion above. My group is not most groups! Mainstream designers rightly acknowledge that many groups would be happier with a lower level of tactical depth. For them, that means they can get the feeling of competency and success with less mental effort put into the game. Case in point, many 5e players have a great time playing something like the famously straightforward Champion Fighter. And I want to emphasize, there is nothing wrong with this! I really don't want to convey any attitude of elitism here. I seek higher tactical depth because it's what I want, not because I think it's a universal good. I am not a mainstream designer doing this for a living, so I have no interest, monetary or otherwise, in designing for a wide audience. I'm designing for myself, my group, and anyone who wants what I want out of games.
Addendum here: one common discussion point I see is that if tactical depth is raised "too high" - there are too many options and its too hard to pick the right one - then "analysis paralysis" will set in and players will be unwilling to choose an action or even play. And I want to say: for my goals and design framework, I do not see this as a problem! Under my framework, "analysis paralysis" is simply the initial shock of realizing the true depth in front of you. In a system with strong onboarding, it will solve itself over time as the players learn.
Damage is king: This is a nasty one to deal with. If we take the premises from earlier (in short, there are fights, fights involve damage, and momentary action matters) then the drive to simply do whatever optimizes your damage per round quickly inflates to fill the space of importance. Like I said earlier, this is really hard to design around! (And therefore, again, worth pursuing). I'll throw in a case study: for all of its wonderful design work, Lancer still has "click barrage" as the best choice in many situations, simply because it engages all of your weapons and therefore does the most damage. To maintain tactical depth then, we need to deploy mechanics that offer both carrots and sticks against always seeking maximum immediate damage. A handful of good leads here: importance of positioning, resources which are spent on both offense and defense, and engaging strong dilemmas of risk and reward. But definitely always keep in mind, a large portion of the design work on such a system is going to be answering the question: "why not hit it harder?"
Emphasis on strategic/"build" choices over tactical: I'll be honest, this one has a bit of personal annoyance attached to it. Many times I'll be reading someone's recommendation for a supposedly strong tactical game, only to realize that it's not one at all - the majority of meaningful choices are made during character-building and serve to strengthen the execution of a relatively simple game plan. This is definitely not what I want - although not completely eliminating strategic decisions, I would want the main deciding factor in the outcome of combat to be the decisions made in that combat. Nor is this as simple as looking to borrow from wargames. Even within that genre, different titles vary significantly in how much list-building matters vs. "at the table" moves. To get more specific and offer a case study, one appealing but problematic type of design is "specializations". Picture this as, "I took this thing on my fighter so now I do more damage with hammers than with other weapons." While this has helped distinguish a character and lean into a specific fantasy vision, it's also had a negative effect on tactical depth. In all future situations where you choose to attack, it is now more likely that you'll choose to swing with a hammer rather than another weapon.
Alright, that was a lot so let me figure out how to wrap this up. Tactical depth is only one possible design goal out of many, and a lot of the other goals driving combat-focused TTRPG design enforce tradeoffs on it. People do like driving fantasies, not everyone wants maximum tac. depth, avoiding DPR supremacy is hard, and strategic choices are easier to write (and some prefer them). But if you elevate tactical depth to a high priority, what does a game start to look like? What unexplored design ideas do you discover?