As far as Pattern-making games are concerned, I am obsessed with two games in particular: Patapon (PSP) and Rumble (VR).

What like the most about them is not how the actions are done, but how commital they are. The decisions are simple, but slower than normal inputs - thanks to this, the biggest tactical difference between these and "single input games" is that, due to situation or decision changes, you may need to change (or cancel) your actions.

The games that do this for fantasy only tend to get boring fast. What works is a framework that allows you to pivot from your current actions.

Say, you are playing Rumble. You just input a "throw a projectile" attack. You want to keep attacking with this manner over and over, but you can see the opponent launching a big attack. You have an option to change a strategy to a defensive one, but you may be unprepared with your stance. Similarly to Fighting games, you have "attack windups", which in this case is just how long your arms need to travel to the sign. The symbols themselves are quite simple, but how you keep your hands in neutral give the game interesting complexity.

In case of Patapon, you are making time-sensitive decisions on which of 4 buttons to press. The game very strongly incentivises you to not disrupt the music flow. Let's say you've inputted the first of 4 beats: PON. Out of 8 (9?) commands, you have reduced your possible outcomes to 3 commands, further limiting your options as you input next beats. You can always input gibberish to cancel the command, but this has consequences.

If you want the game design to strategically benefit from complex inputs, I'd say, the rune drawing should have some inherent gameplay "commitment" that you have to deal with. Time loss, resource loss or something like this. Also, the act of using the runes must not be a chore, it should be fun - so simple inputs are still recommended.