Combat: Player versus Player

Onkl · 07-19-2011, 04:30 AM

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

Blind Mapmaker · 07-19-2011, 05:32 AM

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.

Onkl · 07-19-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

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.

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

The Wrathchild · 07-19-2011, 06:07 AM

Quote:

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.

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

Bruno · 07-19-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkl

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

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.

Onkl · 07-19-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

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...

trooper6 · 07-19-2011, 08:40 AM

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.

sir_pudding · 07-20-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

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 · 07-21-2011, 02:42 AM

Quote:

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!

sir_pudding · 07-22-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onkl

what ASL is, thanks to you.

Sorry, Advanced Squad Leader.

07-19-2011, 04:30 AM	#1
Onkl Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Salodurum, Confoederatio Helvetica	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 __________________ Combat Maneuvers Cheat Sheet - Injury & Recovery Cheat Sheet - Kit Cards

07-19-2011, 05:32 AM	#2
Blind Mapmaker Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Mannheim, Baden	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.

07-19-2011, 08:40 AM	#7
trooper6 Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Medford, MA	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.