Combat: Player versus Player

[The Wrathchild]

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 ;-)

[Onkl]

Originally Posted by The Wrathchild

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.

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...

[kenclary]

Originally Posted by Onkl

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...

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.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by Onkl

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...

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...

[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.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Onkl

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.

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.

[Onkl]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

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.

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?

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Onkl

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?

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.