Combat: Player versus Player

[Edges]

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.

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by OldSam

With respect to feint:
For the opponent I would call a successful feint a <missed attack>, because that is what he thinks.

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.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by kenclary

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.'

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.

[Sabaron]

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.

[Onkl]

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

[Hilary_155]

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.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Onkl

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

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

[Onkl]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

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

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!

[Fnugus]

Originally Posted by Onkl

...
Do you have a better way to do this than what I suggested?
...l

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.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Onkl

what ASL is, thanks to you.

Sorry, Advanced Squad Leader.