So a player asked if they could kill another player in the party.

So a player asked if they could kill another player in the party.

So a player asked if they could kill another player in the party. I for one am against the idea because his character has no real motivation to do this act, but I could see things escalating to a point where other players might want to kill him. I was just curious if there were specific game mechanics in place for PVP, or do I treat it like a two way fight with attack from one side then attack or avoid danger and repeat? Or are there ways you guys handle this in your own games? I’d love to know.

11 thoughts on “So a player asked if they could kill another player in the party.”

  1. Just play through the fiction and trigger moves as appropriate. Often the attacker will trigger Hack & Slash or Volley and the target will try to Aid or Interfere (of course that’s only possible if they aren’t surprised). Remember that on a 6- the GM gets to make a move, it doesn’t have to be “ask the target what they do in response”.

  2. First of all I would have a discussion to see if everyone is cool with the pvp turn especially the person getting killed. Make sure you have by in with the peeps involved otherwise arguments might happen

  3. The standard way to do PvP is to have one player roll Hack & Slash and the other to Interfere.

    But if you player is being disruptive, you should say “Hey Steve, this is disruptive and ruining other people’s fun for the sake of yours. Are there other things we can do that are fun to you?”

  4. There was a pretty interesting discussion between Adam Koebel and John Harper about PvP in general and the interpersonal / social dimension of it: – Blood on the Table: PvP in RPGs: Part 1

    John Harper recently recorded a follow-up video on his twitch channel which will probably find its way to youtube as well.

    For PbtA games there are two different ways to mechanically resolve PvP: Either one character makes a move and the other interferes as David Dorward suggests or the way it is described in AW 2e where both make a move and conflicting results cancel each other out.

  5. Because I initially wrote down a snarky Hamilton quote, I am now thinking about a dueling hack…. scenes are framed by demanding satisfaction, and either escalate, but most disputes die. Set this during a war, so if you lose too many soldiers to dueling there are less to fight the war.

    Huh. There might be a game in there.

  6. Step one, tell them they should be asking the other player about it rather than you. Because the other player needs to agree that it would be fun for the murder attempt to happen. If it isn’t fun for him/her, it shouldnt be allowed. Make them be social and pitch the idea so that everyone can help make it awesome or reject it together.

  7. I’ve always liked Hack and Slash/Volley Versus the Othe rplayers defy danger. With in this case, the higher number succeeding, with results of 6- doing things like breaking a weapon, or giving some form of disadvantage. (Typically 6 minus instead of being out right dangerous in this would be death battle, provide results that would cause the fight to possibly just end). If both players weapons are broken, then maybe they will stop, or if they pursue using their fist; then it wouldn’t be lethal and possibly end with both sides passed out. This is acourse based on RNGesus and its flow.

  8. I’ve already done this. We used Aid / Interfere as the two characters laid into each other. I also talked it through with the group to make sure that this was their idea and they were ready to accept the consequences.

    It was a pretty cool event all in all – quite an epic end to one of the characters.

    But remember that it is a group-game, if one of you isn’t happy with PvP and you aren’t all ready to see it through, then you’re going to ruin the game. Make sure everyone at the table wants this.

Comments are closed.