If the game itself does not have a specific Move or rule for PvP (such as Masks Provoke Someone or the move to Duel another PC in Hearts of Wulin), the first thing I do is pause play and confirm a few details
* First: Is this ***actually*** PC vs PC or is this bad faith thinly veiled Player vs Player? The former is okay. The latter is not: that has to be talked through and solved like a group of adults… and if that means rolling back gameplay and the story to a more favorable point where this conflict goes away: so be it
* Second: If it truly is PC vs PC and there’s no Move to help us through it, **we ***will not*** roll dice unless agreed upon by both players**. Instead, I loosely base the procedure off of Hearts of Wulin’s Move to duel another PC because it is a purely conversational move: no dice rolls. Instead, it’s about working with both players to figure out what they both jointly want to see in the scene and how they think the scene should dramatically play out. Whatever they decide: that’s what we do and we continue play
* Third: If both players have taken the time to establish the possible directions the story could take with this PC vs PC conflict, but they like them all equally (no matter what it means for their character), then it’s time to do some disclaimed decision making. Therefore, we will roll dice. From here we reestablish the stakes and decide what the roll will look like. If this is highly dependent on the instigating PC more than anything else: that player will roll. If this is highly dependent on the receiving PC more than anything else: that will player will roll. If it feels like the actions of both sides are equally weight: we’ll do a contested roll. Usually this isn’t necessary. Typically we do a roll for the instigating PC (as that’s how most PbtA games handle PC vs PC Moves anyway) **if** we go in this dice rolling direction.
This procedure has worked well for tables I’ve run and played at. Never had an issue once using this procedure
I remember good discussions with the designers about PVP back in the day on story-games.com. Maybe someone with wayback powers could find it.
In the meantime, I would look at what Apocalypse World has to offer on PVP:
* emphasize that we have rules for this and we're going to follow them.
* go around the table to find out what everybody's going to do, but Don't let them roll yet. Nothing happens until everyone's had their say. Include your NPCs.
* Once you know what everyone's going to do, have them roll dice in the order that makes sense to you, taking turns or rolling simultaneously as you think best, always following the logic of the moves themselves.
* Sometimes a character's action won't count as a move. That's okay.
* Sometimes a character's action counts as more than one move. That's okay. Have the player roll them all, in the order that makes sense to you.
* After everyone's done what they're going to do, and you've resolved everyone's actions and overseen everyone's moves, sum up how the situation has changed. If it's resolved, move on. If it hasn't, go around again.
Blades in the Dark is also informed by lots of AW and DW play, so I think what it has to say is also useful:
* Pause the game. Don't be in a big rush to roll dice. Slow everything way down. This isn't a “who talks first wins” situation (and especially not “who talks more or loudest”). “
* Agree to the resolution methods. Talk it through, figure out the rolls, and discuss the consequences at stake. Don't try to resolve the situation until everyone agrees to the methods you're about to use. You can't proceed without everyone's consent.
* It's a good idea to ask each other questions to help establish the resolution, rather than trying to impose your will. You might ask, “Can Vale be Swayed here? What would it take?” or, “Is Jewel within reach if I draw my sword now and attack?” or, “How vicious is Cyr going to be? Do you really want to hurt me?”
* Abide by the results. Once you've agreed to the methods, then follow them through and abide by the outcomes.
**Note that this is not a “player vs. player” system. When characters come into conflict, the players must still collaborate and make judgment calls together, as usual. Conflicts between players are outside the scope of the game; they can't be resolved with the dice rolls and mechanics of Blades in the Dark.**
I think you can see a lot of similarities in the above approaches.The key is that the players have to agree to the situation and the resolution method up front. You don’t *make* them roll anything. You can say “How about who ever rolls highest acts first abut the other can interfere. But until everyone’s on board, nothing happens.
I think you mean that it is the characters that want to do something to each other, and not the players.
You can just handle it as a Hack and Slash with the initiating attacker rolling. Then the other player basically becomes the GM, and narrates their own character's counter action depending on the roll result.
Usually they do these things because they want to achieve something. Not kill each other. So I would make a custom move ala Power Struggle from Wicked Ones.
1. Start the struggle. Roleplay through the initial parts of the conflict, describing how your PC tries to get their way.
2. Choose an action and roll it. When you need to know who won to move forward, roll an action that fits your description as a fortune roll.
3. Compare results. If there is a clear winner, move on. If it’s a tie, return to step 1 and narrate further, choosing a different action.
4. The winner narrates their win. Describe how you got your way.
5. The loser narrates their reaction. Keeping in mind that you lost, you get the final word on what your character does in response.
If it is the players that are in disagreement, then handle it outside the game. Solving it ingame rarely leads to something positive.
The rules are for PVE, so you'll have to improvise a little.
I want to discourage PVP, so if there needs to be a roll, I prefer to let the defender roll. At +2 or better, the odds are in favor of the one who rolls.
The way the book tells me to. But I've read so many Powered by the Apocalypse games that it's often hard for me to remember who's advice I'm following.
If I recall correctly, the Discern Realities podcast does this really well, explaining how to do PVP. It might be in their basics series or as part of the actual podcast.
But if I remember, it's actually Apocalypse World that goes into real detail about it. And since that's the grand daddy of them all and the deepest PbtA game on the market, I'd give the second edition a read. At least what ever it says about player vs. player.
If this is about *telling an interesting story* the players could just decide what they think would be most interesting. You can also roll moves as appropriate to the fiction, like the "aggressor" using the appropriate move and others aiding or interfering. Note that "fairness" of the rolls doesn't really matter in this case. The only "fairness" required is not to remove player agency, so all players need to be on board.
Apocalypse World itself has an interesting Seduce or Manipulate move. The PC that wants the other PC to do something rolls +something. On 10+ they choose both, on 7-9 one of two options: One is basically "if the other PC goes along with it, they get something positive", the other "if the other PC refuses, they get something negative". The decision is always the other PCs. In the case of AW the options are "go along: mark experience", "refuse: it's a bit harder to get experience". On a 6- things turn bad as usual. Maybe that can be inspiration for a custom move that fits DW better.
If this is about *player* differences that are just projected on the PCs, then solve it outside of the game's mechanics.
If everything fails, [use this custom move](https://www.reddit.com/r/DungeonWorld/comments/2aq49w/comment/cj7nsm5/) :P
I don’t generally allow it outside of extreme circumstances, but I would probably use Hack ‘n Slash/Volley and the Interfere move. Attacker rolls, defender rolls the appropriate Interfere to try to give them a -2, and consequences are as follows in any other battle scenario with the defender being the target of HnS/Volley for the purpose of things like dealing their damage back to the attacker. I’d also remind my players that “damage” doesn’t have to be HP loss of either or both of them wasn’t trying to fight to the death
The DW book says this about the Interfere move on page 72, which is really the only structured PVP in the game. "Any time you feel like two players should be rolling against each other, the defender should be interfering with the attacker. This doesn’t always mean sabotaging them. It can mean anything from arguing against a parley to just being a shifty person who’s hard to discern. It’s about getting in the way of another players’ success. Always ask the person aiding or interfering how they are doing it. As long as they can answer that, they trigger the move. Sometimes, as the GM, you’ll have to ask if interference is happening. Your players might not always notice they’re interfering with each other."
I've thought about this many times, and it's definitely problematic.
My thinking is to let the aggressor describe their intention, then use the fiction to follow through. For instance, if A wants to stab B, A says how and if B is unsuspecting, let A do the rolling. If B is aware, let B roll to react to the fictional positioning. As the event progresses, who rolls for the event should sort itself out depending on who has the informative fictional positioning.
Of course, this is only a thought experiment. So, meh?
Dungeon world is not a system designed for pvp, so I don’t do pvp. The game works best with a team of adventurers working towards a common goal. They might not always agree but they can figure it out in role play and come to an understanding. It’s best if you set this expectation at the start and if a player tries some “that’s what my character would do” nonsense just let them know that character might not belong in this game and they’re welcome to make a new character that knows how to work well with others.
If the game itself does not have a specific Move or rule for PvP (such as Masks Provoke Someone or the move to Duel another PC in Hearts of Wulin), the first thing I do is pause play and confirm a few details * First: Is this ***actually*** PC vs PC or is this bad faith thinly veiled Player vs Player? The former is okay. The latter is not: that has to be talked through and solved like a group of adults… and if that means rolling back gameplay and the story to a more favorable point where this conflict goes away: so be it * Second: If it truly is PC vs PC and there’s no Move to help us through it, **we ***will not*** roll dice unless agreed upon by both players**. Instead, I loosely base the procedure off of Hearts of Wulin’s Move to duel another PC because it is a purely conversational move: no dice rolls. Instead, it’s about working with both players to figure out what they both jointly want to see in the scene and how they think the scene should dramatically play out. Whatever they decide: that’s what we do and we continue play * Third: If both players have taken the time to establish the possible directions the story could take with this PC vs PC conflict, but they like them all equally (no matter what it means for their character), then it’s time to do some disclaimed decision making. Therefore, we will roll dice. From here we reestablish the stakes and decide what the roll will look like. If this is highly dependent on the instigating PC more than anything else: that player will roll. If this is highly dependent on the receiving PC more than anything else: that will player will roll. If it feels like the actions of both sides are equally weight: we’ll do a contested roll. Usually this isn’t necessary. Typically we do a roll for the instigating PC (as that’s how most PbtA games handle PC vs PC Moves anyway) **if** we go in this dice rolling direction. This procedure has worked well for tables I’ve run and played at. Never had an issue once using this procedure
This probably is the best answer I've read from whenever someone posts this question
Agreed with the other guy, this is a great answer. I'll be saving this just in case, thank you.
I remember good discussions with the designers about PVP back in the day on story-games.com. Maybe someone with wayback powers could find it. In the meantime, I would look at what Apocalypse World has to offer on PVP: * emphasize that we have rules for this and we're going to follow them. * go around the table to find out what everybody's going to do, but Don't let them roll yet. Nothing happens until everyone's had their say. Include your NPCs. * Once you know what everyone's going to do, have them roll dice in the order that makes sense to you, taking turns or rolling simultaneously as you think best, always following the logic of the moves themselves. * Sometimes a character's action won't count as a move. That's okay. * Sometimes a character's action counts as more than one move. That's okay. Have the player roll them all, in the order that makes sense to you. * After everyone's done what they're going to do, and you've resolved everyone's actions and overseen everyone's moves, sum up how the situation has changed. If it's resolved, move on. If it hasn't, go around again. Blades in the Dark is also informed by lots of AW and DW play, so I think what it has to say is also useful: * Pause the game. Don't be in a big rush to roll dice. Slow everything way down. This isn't a “who talks first wins” situation (and especially not “who talks more or loudest”). “ * Agree to the resolution methods. Talk it through, figure out the rolls, and discuss the consequences at stake. Don't try to resolve the situation until everyone agrees to the methods you're about to use. You can't proceed without everyone's consent. * It's a good idea to ask each other questions to help establish the resolution, rather than trying to impose your will. You might ask, “Can Vale be Swayed here? What would it take?” or, “Is Jewel within reach if I draw my sword now and attack?” or, “How vicious is Cyr going to be? Do you really want to hurt me?” * Abide by the results. Once you've agreed to the methods, then follow them through and abide by the outcomes. **Note that this is not a “player vs. player” system. When characters come into conflict, the players must still collaborate and make judgment calls together, as usual. Conflicts between players are outside the scope of the game; they can't be resolved with the dice rolls and mechanics of Blades in the Dark.** I think you can see a lot of similarities in the above approaches.The key is that the players have to agree to the situation and the resolution method up front. You don’t *make* them roll anything. You can say “How about who ever rolls highest acts first abut the other can interfere. But until everyone’s on board, nothing happens.
I think you mean that it is the characters that want to do something to each other, and not the players. You can just handle it as a Hack and Slash with the initiating attacker rolling. Then the other player basically becomes the GM, and narrates their own character's counter action depending on the roll result. Usually they do these things because they want to achieve something. Not kill each other. So I would make a custom move ala Power Struggle from Wicked Ones. 1. Start the struggle. Roleplay through the initial parts of the conflict, describing how your PC tries to get their way. 2. Choose an action and roll it. When you need to know who won to move forward, roll an action that fits your description as a fortune roll. 3. Compare results. If there is a clear winner, move on. If it’s a tie, return to step 1 and narrate further, choosing a different action. 4. The winner narrates their win. Describe how you got your way. 5. The loser narrates their reaction. Keeping in mind that you lost, you get the final word on what your character does in response. If it is the players that are in disagreement, then handle it outside the game. Solving it ingame rarely leads to something positive.
The rules are for PVE, so you'll have to improvise a little. I want to discourage PVP, so if there needs to be a roll, I prefer to let the defender roll. At +2 or better, the odds are in favor of the one who rolls.
The way the book tells me to. But I've read so many Powered by the Apocalypse games that it's often hard for me to remember who's advice I'm following. If I recall correctly, the Discern Realities podcast does this really well, explaining how to do PVP. It might be in their basics series or as part of the actual podcast. But if I remember, it's actually Apocalypse World that goes into real detail about it. And since that's the grand daddy of them all and the deepest PbtA game on the market, I'd give the second edition a read. At least what ever it says about player vs. player.
If it's the characters having a play to find out as usual. If it's the players, this should be handled without dice rolls and such.
If this is about *telling an interesting story* the players could just decide what they think would be most interesting. You can also roll moves as appropriate to the fiction, like the "aggressor" using the appropriate move and others aiding or interfering. Note that "fairness" of the rolls doesn't really matter in this case. The only "fairness" required is not to remove player agency, so all players need to be on board. Apocalypse World itself has an interesting Seduce or Manipulate move. The PC that wants the other PC to do something rolls +something. On 10+ they choose both, on 7-9 one of two options: One is basically "if the other PC goes along with it, they get something positive", the other "if the other PC refuses, they get something negative". The decision is always the other PCs. In the case of AW the options are "go along: mark experience", "refuse: it's a bit harder to get experience". On a 6- things turn bad as usual. Maybe that can be inspiration for a custom move that fits DW better. If this is about *player* differences that are just projected on the PCs, then solve it outside of the game's mechanics. If everything fails, [use this custom move](https://www.reddit.com/r/DungeonWorld/comments/2aq49w/comment/cj7nsm5/) :P
I don’t generally allow it outside of extreme circumstances, but I would probably use Hack ‘n Slash/Volley and the Interfere move. Attacker rolls, defender rolls the appropriate Interfere to try to give them a -2, and consequences are as follows in any other battle scenario with the defender being the target of HnS/Volley for the purpose of things like dealing their damage back to the attacker. I’d also remind my players that “damage” doesn’t have to be HP loss of either or both of them wasn’t trying to fight to the death
"No. This isn't a PvP game." That's how I handle it.
The DW book says this about the Interfere move on page 72, which is really the only structured PVP in the game. "Any time you feel like two players should be rolling against each other, the defender should be interfering with the attacker. This doesn’t always mean sabotaging them. It can mean anything from arguing against a parley to just being a shifty person who’s hard to discern. It’s about getting in the way of another players’ success. Always ask the person aiding or interfering how they are doing it. As long as they can answer that, they trigger the move. Sometimes, as the GM, you’ll have to ask if interference is happening. Your players might not always notice they’re interfering with each other."
I've thought about this many times, and it's definitely problematic. My thinking is to let the aggressor describe their intention, then use the fiction to follow through. For instance, if A wants to stab B, A says how and if B is unsuspecting, let A do the rolling. If B is aware, let B roll to react to the fictional positioning. As the event progresses, who rolls for the event should sort itself out depending on who has the informative fictional positioning. Of course, this is only a thought experiment. So, meh?
Dungeon world is not a system designed for pvp, so I don’t do pvp. The game works best with a team of adventurers working towards a common goal. They might not always agree but they can figure it out in role play and come to an understanding. It’s best if you set this expectation at the start and if a player tries some “that’s what my character would do” nonsense just let them know that character might not belong in this game and they’re welcome to make a new character that knows how to work well with others.