So I’ve been testing out some PvP rules for Blades taking the spirit of what is in the book and tweaking it to work a little more clearly. I would love to get some feedback on the mechanic so without further adeu heres the write up:
*PvP Actions*
When a player wants to take an action against another PC, and it requires a roll, you will need to share your power as the GM with the players.
The GM sets the effect level as usual, using fictional circumstances of Scale, Potency, and Tier to influence the final result.
However, the player not making the roll has power over the position the roller is in. You should ask them what will happen if the other player fails, what would they do in response? How bad will it be for them? This should be a conversation between all 3 of you, so that you can avoid positioning that might not make sense in the fiction.
Once position and effect is established, the player rolls their dice.
* On a 6: You do it.
* On a 4-5: You both do it, but there will be consequences.
* On a 1-3: You don’t do it; but the target does.
I think John gives decent guidelines for PVP in the book. The odd thing that came up at my own table is what to do about Resisting in PVP? If you get to the point where players are negotiating rolls against each other, it feels cheap for a player to then say ‘I Resist the consequences of this situation we just spent ten minutes negotiating.’
G. Michael Truran Seems like the “What if I Resist” conversation should be part of that negotiation.
That’s where we ended up. Basically “if you agree to the roll, you agree not to resist,” but it felt really awkward and unsatisfying in practice.
In PvP, it happens that a player will agree: “this is true, they would have snuck up on me.” Then “but surprise, I resist!”
At which point I think all is as it should be: both players agreeing, but the consequence was worth enough for one of them to resist it. and have even had two players resist each other multiple times (which fictionally looked a lot like a duel of wits)- until one wasn’t willing to resist back.
Two things on resistance:
They should have the option as it’s integral to how blades does cause and effect but remember that resisting only reduces the consequences in most cases
Also: if both parties keep resisting till they are both traumatized, I think it’s working as intended
G. Michael Truran thats the good thing about my version. Resisting works.
On a 4-5 both players get what they want and the GM inflicts a resistable consequence. So the roller can resist either the consequence or the non-rollers action.
On a 1-3 the rolling player could resist the action of the non-rolling player; but they still dont get to do what they wanted.