Which maneuver did you just take?

[LordHelmet]

I wonder if you tell your players which maneuver their foe just took?

In some situations it could be an advantage to know what your opponent is exactly doing and what therefore his further options are.

Example:
A: Joe is fighting Evil Bob. Bob took an All Out Attack but failed to strike through. If Joe knew that Bob took an All Out Attack he could use it for his own advantage. Knowing that Bob has no Active Defense now, Joe could decide to All Out Attack himself in the hope to finish Bob of.

B: Again Joe fighting Evil Bob. Bob now took a Concentrate maneuver (he knows some spells as well). If Joe doesn´t know which maneuver Bob took he might think, since he is obviously not attacking, he took an Evaluate maneuver. In this case he might use the lull to have a quick look around the battlefield to see what else is going on. But if he knew that Bob is concentrating on a spell he wouldn´t take the time to look around and start an immediate counterattack (cause he is very sensitive to magic).

So in some cases it is very vital to know what your foe is doing! But it isn´t allways obvious. While in case A it seems quiet obvious to "read" the effort Bob is putting in his attack as an All Out Attack but it could as well be a Rapid Strike or a Mighty Blow - which would let him his Active Defense! In case B it is a lot harder to "read" Bobs´ just standing there and looking at Joe as the real maneuver.

So my question: Do you tell your players which maneuvers their foe just took (and vice versa)? If yes, do you just tell them or do you let them roll to "read" their foe the right way?

[Extrarius]

I plan on generally only telling my players what their characters experience (which does not include game mechanics), both because I'm the only one that knows the GURPS rules very well and because it conveys the type of game I want to run.

[Ciaran]

If they're curious about the game mechanics behind your description, a Per-based roll against their highest combat skill might be a good idea. That said, an All-Out Attack is NOT subtle. Anyone should know the person using it has just left themselves open to a counterattack. The question is: do you have the stones (and skill) to stand there and defend normally so that you can, or will you All-Out Defend by reflex? In a realistic game, you might require anyone without Combat Reflexes to make a Will roll in order to do so.

[Maz]

I tell my players if the NPC's takes AoA as I think it's obvious they are "open" for counter attacks.

If they take evaluate or aim I just don't state what they are doing. Sometimes my NPC's actually do nothing. They might be surprised, they might take a few seconds to try and figure out what's going on, where their friends are or take evaluation actions. It doesn't matter much to the players.


I haven't actually had a situation where an NPC in close combat/melee with a player took concentration actions. Or at least not once that took more than 1 sec. I would probably allow a perception check to spot it (with range/darkness penalties as modifier).

[AstralRunner]

I don't tell them the exact maneuver when the example is like B, but in situations like A, I'll tell them that it was an exceptional attack when it happens, and if they want they can roll against their highest melee combat skill (+1 if that skill is also the one their opponent just used -1 to -6 when the skill is particularly different or exotic to any skill the PC knows) to know whether it was All-Out or not. This is a free action. I apply the same checks to NPCs.

Now that I think about it, I suppose one might want to make that melee weapon skill check based on PER instead of DX.

[Kromm]

The only maneuver that shouldn't be obvious is Feint. Everything else is meant to be stated openly. All-Out Attack would be zero-risk if it weren't obvious, and Concentrate over multiple seconds wouldn't be the drawback that the rules for spells and powers assume it is if enemies weren't aware of it. Another way to put it is as follows: The rules assume that everybody on the battlefield knows everybody else's maneuver, save Feint. If you don't play it that way, certain things become unbalanced.

[Kaldrin]

Originally Posted by LordHelmet

I wonder if you tell your players which maneuver their foe just took?

In some situations it could be an advantage to know what your opponent is exactly doing and what therefore his further options are.

There's got to be a disadvantage that's exploitable by those viewing the all-out attack. So, yes, I would tell people that's what he's doing. I might flourish it a bit, but in the end I tell them specifically what the guy is doing.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The only maneuver that shouldn't be obvious is Feint.

And even that's negotiable, IMHO.

I've played with open feints for some time now, and it works well. I tell a player that he's been feinted, and I even let him go ahead and roll his half of the quick contest. I like the tactical situation this creates.

(I find myself wondering how a certain variation of feint coming in MA would fail to be obvious to the victim, too, but that's probably a topic for another day.)

[PK]

Originally Posted by Bookman

I've played with open feints for some time now, and it works well. I tell a player that he's been feinted, and I even let him go ahead and roll his half of the quick contest. I like the tactical situation this creates.

The thing I don't like about that is that the player can then choose to run away, take All-Out Defense, or otherwise try to negate the Feint, which does reduce the usefulness of feinting. Given how rarely players in my games feint (which might just be my group), I want to make it as useful as possible to encourage it.

(I find myself wondering how a certain variation of feint coming in MA would fail to be obvious to the victim, too, but that's probably a topic for another day.)

As I recall, the final text did state that a b* is obvious to everyone in combat, which is nice since others can take advantage of a successful one as well.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

The thing I don't like about that is that the player can then choose to run away, take All-Out Defense, or otherwise try to negate the Feint, which does reduce the usefulness of feinting. Given how rarely players in my games feint (which might just be my group), I want to make it as useful as possible to encourage it.

This is actually what I *do* like about it -- the character having an "oh heck!" moment where he realizes he's been lured into a bad position and stops pressing his attack. (Having felt that very feeling in SCA combat, it gives me joy to inflict it on my players. . .)

Remember, the player is only rolling his half of the feint -- he only knows his MOS, and not his opponent's. Sometimes he's reacting to nothing -- a feint that woudn't have worked anyway -- and this mitigates somewhat the loss of effectiveness of feints from the surprise factor.

My players feint a lot, FWIW.

As I recall, the final text did state that a b* is obvious to everyone in combat, which is nice since others can take advantage of a successful one as well.

I didn't recall that -- that one went through several iterations to get to its final shape.