1. Introduction (feel free to skip)
► Show Spoiler
All points I'll raise ITT refer exclusively to games that feature modern firearms and melee weapons. Don't make stupid arguments about medieval fantasy games, they are simply irrelevant to the discussion. By "modern" I'll consider the Great War (1914-1918) as my historical event of choice, as it's widely understood that during this period all great powers retired their melee armed units as they were finally perceived as completely obsolete. While firearms have been around since the late medieval era, it took them several centuries of improvements until they could finally outclass melee completely and utterly. So any setting that draws inspiration from this era onwards will be subject of our discussion.
I will also point out that this thread focuses on melee BUILDS, not the existence of melee itself. Putting a bayonet under your M16 does not a melee build make, soldiers were still selected for their ability to hit enemies with GUNS, not by how much damage they could potentially deal with a well placed stab. With all that out of the way, I'll point to the elephant in the room: in every single RPG, from Fallout to Trudograd and beyond the melee build sucked balls and was objectively inferior to its armed counterpart. Yes, there are exceptions like Underrail and Colony Ship Game, but these are extremely rare. What we normally get are poorly thought out implementations of melee just so a few autists don't throw a tantrum. I will try to analyze the issues that frequently plague melee and the solutions we've seen so far. Hopefully, by addressing most of these issues a developer can make a game where melee isn't just a way to "challenge" yourself, but rather a fun and viable alternative to guns. Let's go!
3. Closing the gap
The first and most obvious problem melee builds face is the fact that they have to get close to deal damage, while their enemies can usually attack before that happens. In game terms that means spending your precious action points on movements while the enemy can spend theirs blasting you for one or even more turns. Alpha striking* is a well known and never solved inherent issue of turn based games and as a melee character you're suddenly on the receiving end of this particular quirk. Since most RPGs will have the player outnumbered by opponents, letting them all act before you can do anything about it is usually a death sentence in games that feature any degree of difficulty. Even if you win the initiative there's now a different problem: once you move your opponent shot has less range or cover penalty.
3.1 Possible solutions: teleportation
KOTOR solves this issue by cheating it: just give guardians a force jump and problem solved. That is not an elegant solution as it simply flips the table without really solving anything. Other games like KAKT feature limited usage of teleportation, a usually acceptable middle ground. While teleporting can feel meaningful in the player's hand, it quickly devolves into unfair retardation when overly used by the AI (eg DA2). I consider this to be a bandaid solution at best.
3.2 Possible solutions: mobility tools
The most logical solution to the problem is providing melee builds with tools to close the gap faster, be it gear, feats, perks or whatever BUT without breaking the movement system. Ideally such power shouldn't come for free and must have an associated opportunity cost. I like the "speed" stat in certain games as they demonstrate the potential of gridless systems. Underrail's solution of separating AP and MP is also quite elegant and it's puzzling how nobody thought of something like that before. There's also "movement AP" that some neo-Fallout games like CSG use. Balancing said tools to avoid them being too oppressive or inefficient is the real challenge a developer will face. OTOH I think including melee and providing it with no gap closing tools (like Vigilantes) is a sign of amateur development or just ticking a checkbox.
3.3 Possible solutions: stealth
Whether it's Sith assassins sneaking up on you or Blood silently approaching some unfortunate soul in Jagged Alliance 2, stealth presents itself as a viable solution for closing the gap. That's rarely stealth's only application and many games feature silenced weapons doing the same thing but better. So in order for stealth to be an actual melee tool there needs to be some extra incentive to mix it with melee, otherwise a stealth sniper will simply be better. There's also the quality of life issue, as crouch walking slowly through the map tends to be very, very boring, ESPECIALLY when done in turns.
3.4 REAL sniping or melee: pick one
The overwhelming majority of RPGs feature "fake sniping", meaning they put sniper rifles in the game but their range is usually the same as ARs or maybe slightly longer. Real sniping needs a distance of 300 meters at the very least and these very long ranges are rarely featured in RPGs, while being more common in tactical games such as Jagged Alliance 3 and several JA 2 mods. Of course, having real sniping in your game brings its own issues, but for the purpose of this thread we will focus on its impact in melee. If the engagement distances in your game favor real sniping then it's obvious that melee becomes completely and utterly outclassed. On the other hand, if you provide shorter engagement distances for the sake of making melee viable then there will be no real sniping in your game. Any attempts to do both result in the worst of both worlds, making both builds only work half the time.
*the ability to critically wound or outright kill the opponent before their turn comes up
4. Spreading yourself too thin: the stat problem
Melee weapons are force multipliers while firearms are not. In gaming terms this real life observation translates into the strength stat being important for melee and a dump stat for ranged. In most RPGs combat isn't even the only thing players are doing, there's also a social stat (eg Charisma) and a skill/utility stat (intelligence). Gunslingers will usually be able to spare a few points in these non-combat stats because of their inherent advantage while melee characters will typically dump them since they need all the help that they can get. The health stat (endurance) is also a huge culprit in this equation as melee builds usually need more survivability. Defense will get its own point, but for now I'll settle with pointing out that in the majority of RPGs the stat system is designed in a way that screws melee builds.
4.1 The solution? Ditch SPECIAL and do better
Fallout and its offspring use a system that inherently fucks melee builds in the ***. There's no bandaid solution for the stat problem, it needs to be well thought out and designed from the ground up, like in Underrail. For starters I'll say the strength stat needs to do more than just increase melee damage. I remember an old tabletop system I once played having a "physique" stat that was essentially STR + END rolled into one. It makes sense to put some measure of defense on the STR stat, be it hit points, armor requirements or something else. Any implementation of mobility tools should also be reflected in the stat system, as having "1AP/one square" movement is a recipe for melee sucking. I also believe tying AP to DEX alone makes it the KING stat and ruins the system. INT providing MORE COMBAT progression? Lmao. Just lmao. No.
4.2 What not to do: Sawyerism
Pillars of Eternity (medieval game, I know, but wait, hear me out) created a "power" attribute that increases damage across the board. This could, theoretically, be applied to a game set in the modern era, but it's the worst solution possible. By tying gun damage to a stat you abolish their main distinction of not being force multipliers. You solved the melee vs gun debate by making both equally boring. Congratulations, here's your daily dose of soy and bugs, now go ride your bike while the bull satisfies your wife.
5. No dedicated defense = no dice
All combat characters need to worry about not dying, but melee builds tend to incur a higher risk of kicking the bucket. The gap widens when you realize most RPGs feature equal defensive options for both builds. Swinging a big hammer in Power Armor? Cool, but you can get the same protection while sniping. Melee characters need to have SOMETHING to protect them from all the bullets and lack of cover.
5.1 Blaster deflection
In Star Wars Jedi defend themselves against blasters by either deflecting or reflecting the bolt with their lightsabers. The SW D20 ruleset provides rolls for these actions and is IMO a good example of a well thought out solution to the problem. In MGS Grey Fox parries your bullets with his sword. Not an RPG, but the point stands: the melee guy needs to have something in his arsenal to prevent the Indiana Jones scene from happening.
5.2 Exclusive perks
CSG and Underrail address the issue by giving melee builds access to certain feats that tend to be more effective than their ranged counterpart in terms of providing a mix of defense and offense. In RPGO (Xcom 2 mod) the Samurai can get big bonuses to evasion and mobility via certain origin feats. I think proper balance must be maintained to avoid solving the problem by just giving the melee character a much bigger stat stick. Melee should have a more efficient defense and that also relates to the previous point. It's very, VERY hard to evaluate the true value of range, but it seems obvious to me that melee options can't just copy paste the numbers of ranged options (like in Vigilantes, **** that game).
5.3 Gear requirements
I'm not a fan of STR requirements on weapons as it tends to homogenize stat distributions across the board. But armor? Hell yeah! Establishing a pattern of "more strength, better defense" is a tried and true way of providing melee characters with stronger defense compared to their ranged counterparts. Having your melee guys hoarding your best armor while gunners use what's available is a decent solution to the problem. It should be mentioned, however, that most RPGs try to "balance" light armor and heavy armor, resulting in light armor being just as good, which completely ruins the point of a stat requirement in the first place.
6. Many foes, even more issues
The player character(s) are always outnumbered in RPGs and in many cases area of effect damage tends to be the better solution for enemy mobs. And that's another area where melee struggles as they are rarely provided with AoE options, unlike say riflemen and their underbarrel grenade launchers. I don't think this issue can be solved without stepping into anime territory. Devs should instead focus on making melee characters really GOOD single target damage dealers and let other archetypes handle AoE. Adding salt to the wound, melee characters need to reposition and close another gap once they kill their designated target, while gunners can simply choose another target for shooting. Good implementation of line of sight, cover and obstacles slightly address this issue, but melee's inherent weakness in that regard can't really be fixed. OH, and having one of your guys in melee tends to make using explosives trickier.
7. (Un)focused fire
Focus fire for gunslingers is usually simple whereas melee attackers need to run up to a new target. In games where the melee hero can dispatch enemies in a single turn without any help this is not a problem, but as soon as a "boss" and his lieutenants show up the issue becomes more apparent.
8. Conclusion
Making melee a meaningful option is HARD and goes way beyond designing a few knives and calling it a day. Devs should either take these issues into consideration and come up with solutions for them OR just skip melee entirely. I hate half assed systems and I believe RPGs set in the modern era can skip melee entirely. Just like in real life.
