Loving the game; however it looks rather like two of my players might murder each other- what is the intended way of that playing out?
Loving the game; however it looks rather like two of my players might murder each other- what is the intended way…
Loving the game; however it looks rather like two of my players might murder each other- what is the intended way…
In the genre? They’ll come close to murdering each other, but then something will happen that will remind each of the value of the other’s friendship, and they’ll team up to stick it to some third party.
We’ve had a few mild (but possibly escalating) PvP situations, and there didn’t seem to be a clear mechanic for dice rolls.
We just had the players declare what they’re trying to achieve, each roll an appropriate skill, and whoever rolled the highest number won that contest. Essentially we fell back on more traditional mechanics rather than the (rather cool) controlled/risky/desperate system.
If it came to the PCs murdering each other, I guess we’d do the same. But before that, we’d talk (briefly?) about it OOC, and check that both players want the story to go in that direction. If they don’t, then we’d just have the players cooperatively find a way to keep working together. That might involve the GM helping – as Will Scott says, some event might happen in-game that reminds them of why they stick together.
It might also involve an OOC agreement like “OK, I know you’re the lurk, and I don’t mind you stealing money as part of the roleplay, but please distribute coins equally amongst the PCs because I OOCly want to get my fair share.” or “I know your character is a bully, but please don’t bully the other PCs. Find an excuse for why you’re friendly towards them and only bully NPCs” or whatever is needed for that group.
Will Scott “Rainbows in the Dark” đ
Usually, it’s really hard to kill a PC (they can just take Stress), but if the two players are REALLY interested in seeing one of their character die in PvP, then just make a clock to see who murders whom.
How would you handle set-up for clocks like that?
Say I want to “stab them in the back” as they walk into the room?
And they want to poison my food?
How does it work? We make a clock, they poison my food and get good success. I then stab them in the back and get middle success.
And then… uh, we carry on, with my knife in their back, until mealtime where I eat my food and die?
Similarly, what if they poison my food and contribute to that clock, but I’m then taking precautions to not eat the food they prepared? So it negates their successes?
I’m probably misunderstanding how you’d use it, but for me it feels like a series of high-stakes actions, rather than one clock. There might be a clock of “poison the food” that, if accumulated, means they die next time they eat food at the hideout. While they might have the “stab in the back” clock, and if it’s accumulated, when my PC next walks into the hideout while they’re already inside they’ll be stabbed and die. And then if those clocks aren’t full it means they haven’t yet created the opportunity to commit the murder yet.
If it’s just a straight-out swordfight, then a clock totally makes sense. Either “first to eight” or have the one subtracting successes from the other like a tug-of-war.
Yeah I was just thinking about a duel or similar.
If two PC just wants to murder at the first occasion, then I think it’s important to first know why they are so eager to do it.
Use action rolls, effects, consequences and resist rolls as normal. Usually it’s pretty easy to work out from the fiction whose acting first. The only clocks I’d use are on the character sheets; stress, harm, load, etc. already do all the work you need to reflect the fictional situation. Also, don’t forget flashbacks can be used to show how they’ve already poisoned, robbed or otherwise got their opponent on the backfoot.
Search for ‘pvp’ in this community and you can find a few threads that discuss this issue. This one is particularly good: https://plus.google.com/u/0/110549639616008158383/posts/J8hXKicRbPZ
I like what is in the thread above as an example. I might also use more of the mechanisms of play if needed, and go with it.
I would also take every step I could to indicate this is about to get ‘dicey’ and then use all the usual stuff for an action scene. Something like: “Where is your point of attack for this assault?” would signal this is about to be an engagement roll to determine the initiative (like if you were uncertain who should act first or have the upper hand). I would also assess what the other player is doing too, especially with setting consequences.
Get Buy In: If they are still on-board, also ask them what’s at stake for each of them. They probably both care about surviving, so the usual worst case scenario is that one will have to give up after resisting a deathblow (from running out of stress). The trauma that follows is pretty hefty stakes though, so see if they wouldn’t rather settle it with a mock duel (just roll to see how prevails in a straight up Skirmish v Skirmish roll).
If they actually want to murder one another, and not gain Trauma, I would remind them this is completely unnecessary and only if they insisted would I indulge them. Get them both to agree, and if they do – then running out of stress can mean death if they are that serious about it
Also uhhh đ why does one (or both) player(s) have a deathwish?
It occurs to me that in general gameplay, PCs can’t die unless their player wants them to; they just keep sucking up Trauma until they retire. You might want to remind your players of that: Blades is not a game where anyone (not even the GM) can kill another player’s character.
So I’d ask the players in question whether they actually want the other PC dead, and if they’re willing to risk their character’s life for that outcome, and whether everybody is OK with that, or what. It’s likely that they’ve got some other outcome in mind.
Will Scott Nope. A PC can totally die. Obviously if their fictional situation is not compatible with life, but also mechanically.
Sucking up consequences with stress is not always an option. A player can’t choose to resist if they can’t describe how their character could actually resist. Also, if a PC is hit with several consequences at once, the player may only be able to resist one of them and have to choose. Also, resisting may only reduce the harm threatened, not eliminate it.
So PCs often will not be able to avoid harm. And when a PC suffers enough harm, they die. That’s what tracking harm is for. For example, if the PC is badly burnt (level 3 harm), but the top harm row on their sheet is full, then they instead suffer a catastrophic, permanent consequence. And that could mean they just die, incinerated, asphyxiated, whatever.
I thought when the PC suffered enough harm they were taken out of the action.
That could be narrated as them dying, certainly, but I don’t think it explicitly says you must narrate it that way.
It COULD mean that, sure. But, unlike D&D that gives specific rolls to see if they die, BitD doesn’t. So it could just as easily mean they’re left for dead, but return later, or that they leap through the window and make their mistake but are too beat up to continue causing trouble, or any number of other things.
Also worth remembering – death is not “the end” in BitD – a PC dying might be a really fun way to switch to a ghost playbook. And from there maybe to a vampire or hull. The one PC killing off his rival might have just created an even bigger problem for himself.
Tony Demetriou sounds like you’re mixing up suffering Trauma with suffering Harm.
Suffering trauma happens when a PC marks their final stress box. “When you suffer trauma, you’re taken out of action. You’re ‘left for dead’ or otherwise dropped out of the current conflict, only to come back later, shaken and drained.”
Suffering harm is a consequence of an action roll and “represents a long-lasting debility (or death)… Harm examples… Fatal: Electrocuted, Bleeding Out, Drowned, Torn Apart “. Those fatal harm examples definitely imply the PC is dying if not instantly dead.
I’m responding to Will Scott’s claim that PCs can’t die unless their player wants them to. My counterclaim is if a PC suffers enough harm then it’s not up to their player anymore; it’s up to the GM. The GM decides if the PC suddenly dies, loses a limb, goes blind, permanently paralysed, whatever fits the fiction and the GM’s goals and principles. So yes, there’s no rule a PC must die, but there are rules that say when the player becomes the audience, not the author, of their PC’s fate.
I was thinking that the player decides to resist the harm, therefore suffering stress or trauma instead.
I guess the GM might say “you can’t resist it and it’ll kill you”, but that seems mighty harsh.
Tony Demetriou, as I said earlier, sucking up consequences with stress is not always an option. A player can’t choose to resist if they can’t describe how their character could actually resist. Also, if a PC is hit with several consequences at once, the player may only be able to resist one of them and have to choose. And resisting may only reduce the harm threatened, not eliminate it.
So sometimes the PCs can’t avoid harm.
Here’s an example of when a PC may not be able to resist and avoid suffering harm:
After multiple injuries endured in the score, the Hound gets a serious complication from an action roll and gets stuck in the smelter’s drain pipe. Unfortunately the Leech decides this is her chance, so instead of helping him out, she decides to tip a nearby vat of molten copper down the pipe until it smothers his screams.
Someone’s being harsh here, but I don’t think its the GM saying the Hound dies.
If it’s a fight to the death, I’d let the fiction decide how it goes. Whoever strikes first takes the “lead” in the fight, they say what they intend to do and the GM discusses their position. They then roll as though it were against an NPC, 6 is “you do it” 4 to 5 is a mixed result or a drop in position, 1 to 3 is you fail to do it, apply the appropriate consequences depending on the characters position. On a 1 to 3 I would have the victim take the “lead”, and the more desperate the attackers roll the more I’d increase this into 4-5.
The attacked character can then resist any harm coming their way with a resistance roll and if they roll higher on that resistance roll, take the “lead”. Or counter attack if the attacker rolls badly. They can also do flashbacks where they prepared for this moment etc.
This goes on until one person is too traumatised to continue, or until one or both are dead.
For example, two players “Bob” and “Bill” are playing Blades and “Bob” wants to attack Bill. The position is risky, because Bill could always see this coming. Bob grabs a pipe a strikes Bill from behind, he rolls his Prowl (as this is a sneak attack) and gets a 4, he does it, but not without consequence. Bill opts to roll his resistance and gets a 6, taking the lead from Bob, the consequence being that Bob has over extended in his swing putting him off ballance leaving him open for a counter attack (position desperate).
Bill comes in with a right hook, rolling his Skirmish as a risky position, and gets a 6! He punches Bob square in the jaw. Bob now rolls to resist but due to his desperate positioning, rolling a 4 or 5 becomes a losing battle for him, he spends a stress to take a flashback to where he poisoned Bill earlier, Bill must now roll to see if he noticed the poison or not.
The fight continues like this until one is dead or they both stop fighting.
Alex Boger Have you asked both players what they want? Ideally, together? These things work best when both are in agreement regarding the stakes. Having a PC kill another really needs consent.
I agree fiercely with Tony above – first you figure out OOC where you want the game to go. It’s a major, major shift of tone, that affects everybody; you need the whole group to be on board.
If PvP is what you want, then, well, I think the standard mechanics have you very well covered.
– If you attack somebody outright, during a scene or a score, then that’s an action roll.
– If you do something sneaky to get the other character killed, that is, again, an action roll.
– Nothing prevents you from using flashbacks, as usual, to set up circumstances in your favor.
– If you’re setting up the perfect opportunity to murder the other character, then that’s a long-term project, which you advance during downtime.
– If you hire somebody else to kill him, that’s probably acquiring an asset.
– If you otherwise set something in motion, that might take a while but will eventually get to him, then you’ve set a clock in motion.
Of course, the target can oppose any of these, as appropriate. He can advance his own projects; he can act to delay or destroy your projects; he can resist your actions and respond with his own, he can flashback and have on a bulletproof vest. You both have all the tools of story and system at your disposal.
As these are all very powerful tools, you should take into account that this could seriously explode. The moment you attack him outright, he’s on the defensive and can respond powerfully. The moment the rest of your crew understands you’re trying to kill each other, they’ll probably respond as well – and most crews that are even a little bit sane will probably kick one or both of you out. And, other factions can try to exploit your conflict, helping one side or another, ripping the crew apart.
All of which means that any murder attempts are going to be either very subtle, or else they’ll be detected and you’ll probably be shut down. Again – this is something for the group to discuss, OOC, before you commit yourself to this kind of a path.
Yeah, these are good responses. I think it’s clear that there’s no single way to handle PvP, but you apply the rules using your judgment just like you do with any other aspect of the game.
Definitely discuss it in the open, as players. Don’t do any secret note-passing nonsense or private talks with the GM.
If you think it’s fun to play out the (probably very long) cat-and-mouse PvP using all the available systems, then do that. If not, then agree to a situation that will decide the matter, cut to that, and make the action roll or two that will resolve it one way or the other.
If the players can’t cooperate to establish how it can be resolved, or someone really doesn’t want to do PvP, then that’s the end of it. Murderous thoughts boil under the surface, there are arguments or whatever, but no one actually follows through. (This happens in fiction all the time).