Combat: Player versus Player
 

Hi guys

I like the way GURPS does combat very much and so I would like to play "Player vs Player" GURPS combat. We've tried to do this but failed miserably.

There are two main problems that come with this idea:

Visibility of the opposing forces
Maneuvers the OpFor should not know about (Aim, Wait...)

These points could be solved by doing it like some wargames do: One map and room per faction plus one for the referee. On the referees map there would be the collected information from all the faction maps, the referee could thus tell the factions what they saw and what happened.

Of course, playing GURPS combat like this would be tedious at best and very slow. So I'm looking for a better way.

We've tried to make a "contract" between players so that they would do what their characters would do, ignoring player knowledge... eg. Run through a door where the OpFor was waiting for a victim to appear (Wait Maneuveur - As soon as someone appears in the door frame I open fire).

But as you can imagine, this led to various discussions because some people thought the others were cheating...

Has anyone tried to play GURPS tactical combat "player versus player"?
What were your results?
Do you have a better way to do this than what I suggested?

If all fails and GURPS is simply not able to do this, is there a system you could recommend which accomplishes this in as much detail as GURPS does?

Thanks!

Onkl

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Well, GURPS combat is pretty deadly as is and modern-day special ops type play makes it even more so. I wouldn't want to play when one false move means I'll be out of the game for the next hour, at least. So I would give everybody at least two or three characters in the same team to run.

The map problem is more difficult. You could try have the player's write down what they do before their round starts, but that doesn't solve seeing the other people's positions.

A solution might be to use a virtual tabletop like MapTool or Fantasy Battlegrounds. This way you would be able to hide all info from players except for what their characters see. They wouldn't know their opponents' actions either and you wouldn't have to pressure people into making quick decisions because the players who got nothing to can still play solitaire or do whatever they want when it's not their turn.

I probably wouldn't run this in any game but fantasy where melee combat and magical tricks are much more important than knowing where the enemy is and pulling the trigger at the right moment. And even then it's a bit of a let-down to have your character killed every second combat. You'd pretty much have to use pre-generated archetypes as "game tokens" to make the loss of no consequence.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

We were trying to do a GURPS version of "Jagged Alliance" where the players get a budget before battle starts, then they roll dice to see who starts and pick pre-generated characters in round-robin until they run out of money.

That could work but I don't think MapTool supports the "interrupts" that can happen when a player uses the wait maneuver... I think it would be up to the referee (GM) to handle the interrupts correctly.

Also, if possible I would like to eliminate the referee (GM) so that all involved could play a faction.

You're right, playing a Rome Gladiator style combat would be much easier...

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

I'd say that if your players cannot find comfort within the kind of contract you describe above, you're probably better off doing something else.

I was the GM of a PbP PvP game for a while. During that time we got to clarify a whole lot of things with the line editor.

One thing that was made very clear is that, if you can see your opponent, you can see what maneuver he takes, EXEPT for feint. This goes for PC's and NPC's alike.

I don't know if it's feasible, but one mehtod could be to require that players write maneuvers down, and only show the written to those who could actually see the character in question.

Hiding placement from those who cannot really see is all but impossible ... exept if you:

Use a VTT. A Virtual TableTop

What you are looking for would be possible if people were each using a laptop, and a VTT program such as MapTool (check at www.rptools.net).

This program of course requires some time to learn how to use, but it has the features to show personal maps to each player, showing only what he or she can see, while the GM of coiurse has total overview. I don't know if it's a possible solution for you, but it's a possibility.

edit: Ack! Ninja'd ;-)

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Don't have separate rooms, but do have separate maps: preferably a big one where what is known to all is displayed, and smaller copies that can be eraseably marked on for each party. The GM can track everything on his personal map, and each player can mark their positions of the moment and write their action on the margin, then pass their maps face down to the GM who updates his and theirs accordingly and passes them back. Keep things simple, just track the combatants and dropped items and maybe their footprints if the terrain allows.

Pencil on paper and wax pencils on plastic work best; dry erase markers are too fragile to pass back and forth for my taste, but they are handy for sending short tactical updates if there is a way to face them toward the GM but away from the opposing player. Some sort of divider or partition is handy, and can be as simple as a sheet of poster board or old science fair display propped up with game books.

This should help things move along, but you may want to invoke a time limit. After a couple of rounds of "you do nothing", most people learn to at least say something at the last second.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

No, MapTool won't remove the need for a Ref ...

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

This could be a solution, write down the maneuvers.

The one with the "except feint" is not a good solution IMHO, because then you would have to say:"you can't make out what the enemy is doing" which would of course mean, he's feinting...

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

This is excellent. A big board (We "play" with LEGO) where we would put our minifigs, buildings, cover, dropped weapons and mark hexes with footprints.

To me it sounds like you already played GURPS Combat like this? What was the experience like? Would you do it again?

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Eh, let them know the opponent is feinting.

MA101 has some options for delaying Feint results until just before they take effect. Or, you could just let them be aware of the success/failure of a feint right when it happens; the only real concern is a player always stepping out of range (or some similar defensive tactic) after they've been successfully feinted, which in-and-of-itself can be used to an advantage by the opponent...

GURPS combat is structured with very few, if any, necessarily secret rolls.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

GURPS is not designed to run without a GM. Full stop. There are many many places that require a judgment call by the GM - you simply cannot play this game without a GM.

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...

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

I have found that PvP combat in which the PCs are usually hidden from their opponents isn't usually very fun. It gets bogged down with note passing or whispering. I've tried it a few different ways over the years. But in every event, when the players and the GM are constantly sharing secrets, you lose the lively social dynamic that makes table-top fun.

So I'd limit the options for concealment. PCs can hide and even sneak around, but there are limited hidden avenues. Basically, secrets should be de-emphasized. If PCs need to make tactical guesses that the players know the solution to, you can have them roll randomly to see which solution they actually choose. Or have them roll on Tactics (or a contest of Tactics) to see if they can out guess their opponent.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

To quote from MA73: "Feints aren’t always phony attacks. They include breaks in rhythm, false steps, head fakes, and other ploys to misdirect the foe."

There's no inherent reason to pretend that feints are missed attacks, or to hide them entirely. In a real fight, you will often be quite aware that your opponent is feinting / has feinted. Your skill and roll will determine how hard you 'fall for it.'

And really, there are going to be circumstances where you will be aware of just how badly you fell for it, and just how penalized you are, before the ensuing attack (well, in as far as you're really aware and thinking of anything in a fight). There is OK justification for seeing a feint, and its results, as it happens.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

MA101: "The GM shouldn't tell the players when an NPC makes a successful feint or Ruse against a PC. He should do everything he can to convince them that the NPC just missed."

Of course, in the next round when the attacker can use the bonus of his feint, the defender is told that there was a feint, thus he knows it afterwards. Moreover if the feint did not succeed, the action was obvious and the GM should directly let the defender know about that try.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

I run the game trooper6 linked. I will reiterate some of the other posters by stating that my experiences with the game confirmed:

1. This would be completely impossible without a GM. You would have to scrap the spotting rules. If you did that you would probably do okay, but your game wouldn't resemble a realistic high-tech combat.

2. It is very slow.

I am still running it though, so if you are interested in a scenario feel free to send me a message over there.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Thanks to all the people who chimed in on my questions. I'll give gm'ing a 2 player PvP session a shot and see how it goes, thanks to all your suggestions I have a more positive attitude towards it now and just hope it won't get too slow..

Again, thanks for all your great tips and expertise. You guys are the best!

Onkl

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

You need three rooms and three GMs

One room has the "big map" and the leader GM. This map shows everything.

The other two rooms have player group maps where the two groups (or two individual players) see what they can see. They have a map and on it is what is visible to THEM. The two 'runner' GMs play out the actions for each group and take the new actions to the Leader GM. He plays out those actions on the "big map" and takes the results back to the two groups and so on...

It is time consuming, but it is also fun as a novelty. And it is a lot more fair since players cannot "innocently" act on information that their characters should not know.

***

Actually we ran a convention game similar to this. We had 6 tables and 6 parties and each represented a different group (in this case guilds) who were all adventuring in the same city. Different groups could encounter one an other and even engage in commerce or combat. Of course, it was a big treasure-hunt adventure where everyone was after the same bauble. Loads of fun.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Have you considered just playing a dedicated tactical infantry boardgame like ASL or something?

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Since I do not have a deep nor broad knowledge of tabletops, no! Of course I thought that there must be some game out there where you are able to play without a referee... but then again, it will probably not offer the depth and realism GURPS does...

I was hesistant to ask about other games since this is posted in the GURPS Board. I'm just now asking big brotha G what ASL is, thanks to you. If you have any other games you think might suit my needs, please tell me!

Thanks!

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

We did this a while back in a full day event we arranged for about 15 people. We had two referees, the rest were told to make up characters for "Arena Combat".

Beforehand we had designed a number of different arenas to battle in, which only we knew. Our solution to the problem was to have the team whose turn it wasn't leave the room while the other team moved. Then the referee would note down everything and set up the map to what the other team could see and bring them in to their turn. This took a while, but full combat actually began (all players visible) it sped up.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Sorry, Advanced Squad Leader.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

Thanks for the link, I will check it out.

One thing that I can't wrap my head around is the wait maneuver. Why wouldn't that maneuver also (like feint) be subject to secrecy? Is it because you should never ever (in any RPG) act upon out of character knowledge? If that is true, then why didn't Kromm mention that maneuver in his post?

So, if I a am in an arena and declare:"I wait for my enemy to step into my weapon range, as soon as he does I will attack" why would the enemy player step into my weapon range? According to above quote he would not be acting OOC...

What am I not getting?

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

The way I've always done it, and the way it was done in the Arena games I played in: you declare Wait openly, but you don't tell your opponent what your Wait trigger is, or what you'll do when triggered. That information would be given to the GM, but not announced to the opponents.

So it looks like this:

PC1 out loud: I take a Wait maneuver.
PC1 in a private message to the GM: If the opponent steps within 1 yard, I take a Giant Step around Dirty Dan to his non-Shield side and then Attack him.

So your opponents *know* that you are waiting to do something...but they don't know what or what triggers that Wait.

Re: Combat: Player versus Player
 

The way you handled the wait maneuver in your games is simple an fair. Thanks, I will use that.

God... 4am... I should really go to bed... Damn you GURPS! :P