Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

You are absolutely right, GURPS was neither designed nor intended to play without a GM.

It's just that I am SO in love with the detail GURPS combat offers that I would like to play it head to head - and since I GM for my friends most of the time this task would probably again fall in my hands. Which does not satisfy me because I want to battle as well.

Apart from the "player-contract" (Which in essence just means they have to roleplay their PCs in combat and do what the PC, not the Player, would do in the situation the PCs find itself in) is there no way around... you say there isn't, full stop. Hearing this from someone as deeply rooted in GURPS as you obviously are Bruno makes me sad. Because I really want to play GURPS head to head ... *sniff*

I guess I don't have a choice other than to GM myself, get one of my players to GM or find a third party, interested in GM'ing such a game...

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

There really does need to be a GM. But it doesn't have to be you. By the way, if you have players who are cheating by acting on OOC knowledge after they have agreed not to...you really need a GM...and probably need to find more/different players.

You can join some of the online GURPS Arena games on rpol. This one involves squads and multiple tech levels. It might be up your alley:
http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=46353&date=1311032268

As for Feint. In the Arena game I played, we told our opponent we were doing an attack, but we private messaged the GM to let us know it was actually a feint. The the GM would say that we missed the attack. The next round the next player would reveal that they had actually done a feint resolve the feint and next attack all at once.

As for what I'd do in person if I didn't have multiple laptops or rooms. It depends on the set up of the scenario. Ambush (or a scenario where one party isn't moving) is the easiest. Whatever scenario I'd have the small drawn out map, and the big combat map.

For the ambush I'd just ask the ambushing player to show me on the small map where they are set up for the ambush. So I know where they are and no one else does. I also ask them how long they plan on waiting there and if they have any conditions where they'd move and mark that down. Then on the big map, I don't set up their minifigs. I have the other team start moving and they keep moving until they get they they need to safely, or they find their opponents...which might come because they walked into the ambush or because they saw the opponents before the ambush. The minute they see each other, I put the ambushers minifigs on the map.

For a situation where both parties are mobile, I would ask one player to show me on the map their planned route. "We are talking the squad from point A to point B using this route" -- not for one turn, but what they'd do if they have no interruptions (or for 5 rounds or 10). Then I'd ask the other player (who didn't see where the other players was pointing on the small map) to show me their planned route with no interruption (or for 5 or 10 rounds). Then I work through the routes, have them make vision/hearing rolls when they need to, and see if they run into each other. If they don't, we keep up with the process. The minute they both see each other, put the figs on the map.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

This looks very interesting, I've just had a quick glance over the scenarios you played and it looks perfect. Thank you very much for this link!

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Just to clarify on the "contract" I made with my players... it's not that somebody quit the friendship or left our RPG group because of conflicts that arose from playing head to head.

It's just that everybody wasn't satisfied with the result when we were playing without a GM.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

As far as I know, the only GURPS manoeuver which is supposed to be kept secret is Feint. Even though Evaluate, AoD, and Wait may look exactly the same, the rules assume that each fighter can tell the difference when their opponent does one. Two good ways of handling feints are to play online, with rolls hidden from the other player (so you declare "Attack (thrust to Bob's vitals), I miss" and send a note to the GM saying "I actually feinted, success by 3 on the Quick Contest") or to declare the Feint but roll for effect when you attack on a later turn.

Anything more complicated, like the awareness rules in GURPS tactical shooting, really requires a GM or a computer.

Here are some GM-less gladiator rules for GURPS 3e.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Why not let the players write down, what their characters do on their turn, on a note and send it to you. Then, once everyone has done so, you can game out the results.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

I've done it successfully for evil twins, some counterintelligence involving double agents both ways, and for rival Black Ops teams doing some Capture The Flag exercises. It works best if you can contrive to keep the teams sharing much of their information so that you can use the hidden maps and messages sparingly cause it can get old quick but in a mole hunt endgame scenario for instance, the drawing out of the action can increase the tension.

Sure, I'd do it again if I had the right mix of patient players. One or two hot heads are okay, it can be fascinating to watch another player pick up on this and set a trap for the impatient guy.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Many wargames have GM-less plotted movements and tactical intelligence systems; you might want to buy or borrow up a second hand copy of STARFLEET BATTLES for example to get some ideas on how this is done.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

That is correct. All maneuvers except for Feint are declared on execution and deemed known automatically to anybody who can see the fighter who takes them. This has been a core precept of the combat system since Man to Man. You always know when somebody takes Aim, All-Out Attack, Wait, etc. Feint can be tricky, but the method in paragraph 2 of Spotting Feints (Martial Arts, p. 101) works fine even without a GM. Indeed, my friends who played Man to Man ran many GM-free arena battles under the full GURPS combat system; only Feints needed a rules change, and that's the one we worked out.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

With respect to feint:
For the opponent I would call a successful feint a <missed attack>, because that is what he thinks. So in public just let the player or the GM declare: The attack maneuver failed, this happens often anyway, so it should not be suspicious for anyone.
The specifics of the "attack" (which is actually a feint maneuver in this case) should only be known by the GM and the attacking player. In a PvP-Game it is normal that the players regularly give slips of paper to the GM with secret informations about their actions and plans...