Not too long ago, I wrote Stop Trying To Force Plays: The Application of Strategy and Tactics in Games. In that post, we explored the broader concepts of strategy and tactics in gaming. Today, we’re diving deeper, focusing on specific games, their design philosophies, and how players interact with their mechanics—often in unexpected ways.

In gaming, strategies from one world often carry over to another. Whether it’s the battle tactics from an RPG or the decision-making processes from a card game, the lessons we absorb while playing transcend the boundaries of individual games. These insights can become universally applicable, revealing patterns that enrich our overall experience. As such, this post isn’t meant to serve as a step-by-step guide to any one game. Instead, we’ll be exploring how different strategies and mechanics from a variety of games can be used to sharpen our skills, adapt to new challenges, and evolve as players across genres.

Guild Wars 2 versus World of Warcraft

Skills and Traits in Guild Wars 2

Guild Wars 2 builds its system around a combination of Skills, Traits, and Specialisations that offer much more freedom than World of Warcraft’s traditional talent trees. In GW2, skills are determined by several factors: weapon type, class, and utilities we choose to equip. For instance, a Guardian using a sword and shield will have a different set of skills than one using a staff or greatsword. The weapon-switching mechanic lets us carry two weapon sets in combat, further adding layers of tactical choices depending on the situation.

Each class also has access to Utility Skills, Healing Skills, and an Elite Skill that can be slotted according to our playstyle. For example, the Necromancer can equip utilities that revolve around summoning minions or spreading conditions (status effects), or we might decide to specialise in defensive utilities to absorb damage.

GW2 also has a Trait system, where we can select traits from a variety of Specialisations within our class. These traits act as passive bonuses that modify our skills or give situational advantages. For example, a Ranger might use the Wilderness Survival specialisation for increased defence and condition management, while another might focus on Marksmanship for damage bonuses and control over ranged combat. This gives players the freedom to create hybrid builds or specialised playstyles without being locked into rigid, cookie-cutter setups.

In contrast, World of Warcraft’s talent trees, though more varied at times, often follow a linear progression. We pick talents at set levels, and while there are choices, the game’s meta tends to push certain builds, making it harder to deviate from optimised paths. For instance, in a WoW raid, talent choices are typically determined by external factors like group synergy and specific encounter requirements. They have been streamlined into a system where each specialisation has three to four talent choices per tier, making the choice somewhat predictable.

The Fluidity of Combat

Combat in GW2 is fast-paced, emphasising mobility and dynamic interactions with the environment. Instead of relying on fixed rotations, players must adapt to the constantly shifting conditions on the battlefield. For instance, an Elementalist can swap between four attunements (Fire, Water, Air, Earth) on the fly, each offering a different set of abilities. This flexibility allows players to adapt their strategy mid-fight. In group settings, combo fields and finishers also encourage teamwork. A Thief might lay down a smoke field, and an Engineer could fire through it to stealth the entire group.

By contrast, WoW’s combat leans more on a static rotation or priority system, where the optimal sequence of abilities is often mapped out beforehand. A Frost Mage in WoW, for example, follows a very specific rotation to maximise DPS, often casting spells in a fixed order based on cooldowns and resource management. It lacks the freeform nature of GW2, where quick thinking and environmental awareness are key to survival.

Specialisations: Depth and Flexibility

In Guild Wars 2, Elite Specialisations fundamentally alter the way a class plays. These specialisations unlock new weapons and skills that aren’t available to the base class, allowing for greater versatility. For example, the Mesmer can choose the Chronomancer specialisation to focus on time manipulation and support or the Virtuoso specialisation to focus on ranged blade attacks for a more offensive playstyle. This system adds not only depth to the base classes but also gives players the freedom to experiment with different styles.

WoW’s specialisations for each class tend to lock players into distinct roles. While the game allows players to switch between specs like Arms Warrior (DPS) or Protection Warrior (Tank), each spec is tightly defined. This leads to a more streamlined experience at the cost of the build flexibility that GW2 provides. WoW specialisations often come with set roles in mind, meaning there’s less room for hybrid builds. For example, Holy Priests are designed almost exclusively for healing, whereas in GW2, a Guardian can perform multiple roles—tanking, healing, or damage—depending on the combination of traits, gear, and skill choices.

A Case for Flexibility

One of the most notable differences we’ve seen between the two games is how they handle customisation and personalisation of character abilities. GW2’s flexibility comes from its modular approach to builds—skills, traits, and weapons are mix-and-match, allowing players to adjust on the fly. WoW, by contrast, tends to put more weight on gear and external buffs for optimisation, with each spec highly tuned for certain types of content. Its talent system guides players toward specific builds, sometimes leaving little room for improvisation during combat.

Legends of Runeterra versus Hearthstone

Turn Order and Interactivity

When comparing Legends of Runeterra and Hearthstone, one of the most crucial differences is how these games handle turn order, and a good starting point is looking at how they both compare to Magic: The Gathering (MTG).

Magic: The Gathering features a complex turn structure where players can act during both their own and their opponent’s turns, thanks to mechanics like instants and activated abilities. This creates a back-and-forth dynamic, so whether we’re responding to an opponent’s spell or setting up our own play, each player has opportunities to react.

Hearthstone, on the other hand, simplifies this by removing any interaction during an opponent’s turn. When it’s our turn, we have full control over our actions without any fear of interference. While this makes the game flow faster and reduces the barrier to entry, it can sometimes feel like we’re locked into a waiting game, hoping the opponent doesn’t pull the exact card needed to counter our board. The passive nature of Hearthstone’s turn order limits its depth, and games can feel more predetermined based on card draw and deck synergy rather than reactive play.

Legends of Runeterra (LoR) bridges the gap between these two systems, offering a more interactive turn structure. In LoR, players take turns acting as either the attacker or defender each round, but with a crucial twist: they can play cards during the opponent’s turn. This creates a level of interplay similar to Magic: The Gathering. Each action can be countered, and the opponent can respond immediately, creating a constant strategic back-and-forth. We’re not merely waiting for our turn to execute a strategy; instead, we must continuously adapt based on our opponent’s choices and limited resources.

Mana and Resource Management

The way mana works in LoR also reflects this more interactive gameplay. In Hearthstone, mana is refreshed completely at the start of each turn and can only be spent during that turn. However, in LoR, unspent mana can carry over to subsequent turns as spell mana, giving players more flexibility in how they plan out their turns. This mechanic rewards careful planning and allows us to hold back resources for a stronger counter later, similar to how MTG players might hold back lands or instants for critical moments.

This constant need for adaptability in Legends of Runeterra reflects one of the core strategic lessons we see across many games: planning for the long game and responding to immediate threats is a balance that elevates the gameplay. Players can bait opponents into using resources prematurely or make risky plays in hopes that the opponent won’t be able to counter them immediately.

Simplification Versus Strategy

Hearthstone, while quick and fun, sometimes sacrifices this dynamic interactivity for speed and simplicity. The result is that Hearthstone games tend to feel more like a solitary puzzle, where we try to execute our plan unchallenged rather than a constant dance of move and countermove.

It’s also worth noting that while LoR draws many comparisons to MTG, an even better example of how to master card game strategy is Slay the Spire, a game we’ll dive into in another post. Slay the Spire popularised the concept of deck-building within a rogue-lite environment, where we’re constantly adjusting strategy based on the cards, relics, and paths available. While not a direct multiplayer experience, its turn-based combat and strategic depth offer plenty of lessons in how to think ahead and manage resources. Nevertheless, Slay the Spire remains a wonderful example of a solo strategy card game that layers complexity without overwhelming the player. But I digress…

Legends of Runeterra strikes an interesting balance between the accessibility of Hearthstone and the intricacies of Magic: The Gathering. By combining alternating turn structure with flexible mana usage, LoR keeps us thinking ahead at all times. Whether we’re playing on the offence or defence, we’re never fully on the back foot, constantly weaving between short-term tactical plays and long-term strategies.

Dark Souls versus Pokémon

Community-Imposed Restrictions

When comparing Dark Souls and Pokémon, we need to dig deeper into how community-imposed restrictions shape the way people play and perceive the game. The Dark Souls series, notorious for its difficulty, has developed a player culture that often shames certain strategies or playstyles as being against the “spirit” of the game. This culture has, in many ways, created a toxic environment, especially online, where some players gatekeep what they consider the “right” way to play.

The toxic element here isn’t unique to Dark Souls, but it’s magnified by the game’s reputation for being hard. In these communities, using certain mechanics like summoning help or employing a magic build is often viewed as “cheating” or “taking the easy way out.” This expectation that everyone must play the game in a specific, “hardcore” way is pushed under the guise of maintaining the purity of the challenge. Some players might even call others out for “not really beating the game” if they don’t defeat a boss solo or without using specific tactics.

Adaptability in Pokémon

Compare this to Pokémon, where the game is designed around a well-known type advantage system. No one criticises us for using a water Pokémon against a fire one; it’s considered smart, strategic play. The game actively encourages us to exploit these strengths, and doing so is not seen as cheap or undeserved. The equivalent in Dark Souls—using a particular build or gear to minimise the difficulty—is frowned upon by certain parts of the community. There’s a strange social contract in Dark Souls: we’re supposed to make things difficult for ourselves, and if we don’t, we’re somehow not a “real” player.

Interestingly, while competitive Pokémon has its own meta and tiers that dictate which Pokémon or strategies are most effective, players aren’t usually shamed for using optimised builds. In fact, players are often praised for making the smartest possible use of the tools at their disposal, whether it’s exploiting type matchups, move sets, or team synergy. This more open and encouraging environment highlights a stark contrast to Dark Souls, where deviation from the “hard” path is often met with derision.

In Pokémon, players are expected to adapt and strategise by creating well-rounded teams that cover a range of weaknesses and strengths. The game’s design reinforces this: every Gym Leader or Elite Four member we face follows a specific theme, often with clear weaknesses that we’re meant to exploit. No one views it as “less valid” to defeat an Electric-type Gym Leader using Ground-type Pokémon, for instance. The game rewards planning and optimisation, and the community generally embraces this depth rather than framing it as a shortcut or cheat.

Contrast in Success Metrics and Community Expectations

The contrast between these two communities underscores a key difference in how success is viewed. In Pokémon, success is defined by the mastery of systems and smart preparation, whereas in Dark Souls, success is sometimes measured by how much players suffer to achieve their goals. This cultural difference likely stems from the way each game is framed: Pokémon is a game about friendly competition, growth, and exploration, while Dark Souls is marketed and discussed in terms of brutal difficulty and perseverance.

Interestingly, this behaviour isn’t universal across all gaming communities for difficult games. Take Monster Hunter, for example. Monster Hunter is arguably more difficult in some ways than Dark Souls. The game has much shorter iframes (the brief invincibility window after dodging), and monsters hit hard and often unpredictably. However, in Japan, Monster Hunter is played widely across demographics, from hardcore gamers to casuals, including mothers and children. The game is embraced as a community-building experience where cooperation is encouraged. Japanese players often focus on teamwork, with a strong emphasis on helping each other succeed.

In the West, however, games like Dark Souls get elevated far beyond their actual design intention. The focus becomes on proving one’s toughness or skill, often through arbitrary community rules that prioritise suffering as a badge of honour. Games like Dark Souls are propped up as the ultimate test of gaming ability, often conflating difficulty with personal worth or gaming credibility.

What’s particularly ironic about this toxic culture is that FromSoftware, the developers of Dark Souls, have repeatedly emphasised that the series was designed to offer multiple ways to play. The option to summon allies, choose different builds, or find exploits is part of the game’s DNA. It’s supposed to be about overcoming obstacles in whatever way we can, but the community often rejects this freedom in favour of arbitrary rules that privilege certain styles of play.

The question of why Dark Souls, in particular, has fostered this environment, while other games like Monster Hunter or Pokémon have not, to the same extent, comes down to the narrative around the game. Dark Souls is marketed and discussed in terms of its brutal challenge, and its reputation as a punishing, unforgiving experience has drawn in a specific subset of gamers who seek validation through overcoming that challenge. It’s become a status symbol in some circles, and that culture of proving oneself tends to breed toxic behaviour.

Ultimately, what we see in Dark Souls is an example of how cultural expectations around difficulty, challenge, and masculinity can warp a game’s community. What should be a personal journey—where players decide for themselves how they want to overcome the game’s challenges—becomes a public contest of toughness. And while not every Dark Souls player subscribes to this toxic mentality, certain parts of the community elevate it in ways that are unnecessary and, frankly, harmful to the spirit of gaming.

Learn, Adapt, and Apply

Across these examples, the common theme is adaptability. Whether we’re shedding the rigid rotation mindset in Guild Wars 2, learning to juggle offence and defence in Legends of Runeterra, or navigating the fine line between smart play and restrictive community expectations in Dark Souls, the best strategies are the ones that make us adaptable, flexible, and open to new ways of thinking.

Each game offers its own unique lessons, but the true value lies in being able to carry those lessons with us, applying the principles of flexibility and strategic thinking across genres, platforms, and even into real life. Recognising that no one approach is inherently superior and that adaptability often trumps rigid planning is the key to success—whether we’re facing an unforgiving boss in Dark Souls, mastering card play in Runeterra, or simply finding our own path through the many layers of the gaming world.

Ultimately, the ability to adapt, learn, and apply is the ultimate form of progression—not just in games but in life. The ability to be flexible, to think beyond what others consider the “right way,” and to constantly evolve is what truly allows us to level up in every aspect of our experiences.