For all my recent talk of Otherworld-immersion and the desire to play “in character as the character”, it’s also true to say that I love tactical combat. This places my tastes seemingly at both ends of the spectrum between character-as-pawn and character-as-embodied-role. This paradox is something that gnaws at me.

Choosing GURPS allows me to indulge all options. The hex-grid-based tactical combat rules in GURPS Basic Set are excellent and let me indulge my inner skirmish wargamer. At the same time, these rules are optional and can be discarded when I want to play in a more imagination-based “make believe” style.

One option is to use the tactical combat but place it behind the GM’s screen so that the GM is the one managing the minis and the grid, rolling the dice, and using the detailed rules to adjudicate the fight. This allows the players to remain “in character, as character” and Otherworld-immersed.

But all that said, I love to run tactical combats with minis and all the tactical grit GURPS can offer. I think the way GURPS combat works, with the second-by-second turn and the opposed attack-defence rolls, feels exciting and detailed. I am highly engaged and find joy in the Combat-immersion which it offers.

What I’m calling out is the fact that I have multiple tastes and enjoy a spectrum of experiences powered by the roleplaying game’s one-player-to-one-character ratio. Man-to-man combat is a perfectly valid gaming experience which I love to share with friends. I’m just not sure it’s something I would use in all my roleplaying campaigns.

In other words, don’t feel you have to use all the GURPS options all of the time. Which sounds obvious to those in the know… but is not obvious to the neophyte.

Game on!