We’re starting a new Apoc World game tonight and in the past we’ve had a couple cases of PC’s trying to kill one another. So to help out, i wrote a quick and dirty custom move for any potential future repeats of this.
When two protagonists try to kill each other, they both roll+hard and both roll+Hx to Interfere with one another. On a 10+, they choose 2. On a 7-9, they choose 1:
-Increase the harm they’re inflicting by 1
-Decrease the harm they’re suffering by 1
-Give themselves +1 forward
-Offer their opponent an xp to call a cease-fire
On a miss, the MC does whatever the fuck he wants to both of you.
What do you think? It’s simple, but sometimes I feel that’s best.
I think exchanges of standard Moves works, but getting the jump on someone really matters in that case. On the other hand, aggressive activity with the standard Hard Moves opens you to established harm, which can be high for another PC.
do you point out in the rules where it says the pcs are supposed to start out as basically allies?
“Your characters don’t have to be friends, but they do have to know each other, and they should be basically allies. They might become enemies in play, but they shouldn’t start out enemies” (p 101)
I might make it choose 3 and choose 1 — which’d give the 7-9 player huge incentive to call a cease fire.
I think it’s unnecessary, the basic moves work quite well for pc-on-pc violence. But if it works for you, use it.
I see no use for it either, I have had little issue when doing Pc vs pc fights. The system works fine.
I think I might really like it, actually. I might go with roll+ nothing, with no interference. When going up against one of the heavy hitters of the apocalypse, it don’t matter how hard or whatever you are, shit be real. Actually. Lemme get to my computer. I think I can do something cool here!
For me, this is when debt comes into play …. Which covers a lot of your options ( I stick with the older debt options.)
In Urban Shadows, that works great. Apoc World though has it’s own difficulties.
Anyway, like I was saying. New but related hack.
When two PCs settle in to put some serious hurt on each other, they each roll +nothing, no interfering with each other, neither. When a couple avatars of the apocalypse show down, it don’t matter too much how hard you are no more.
On a 10+, add 3 hold, on a 7-9, add 2 hold. Pool whatever hold between the two of you. MC decides which of you is in a better position to go first. Then go back and forth spending hold to:
-Let your weapons fly, and inflict your harm as established.
-Grandstand, impressing frightening or dismaying all around you.
-Bunker down, getting +1 armour til you grandstand or fire your weapons. Add 1 to the hold between you.
-Offer their opponent an xp to call a cease-fire. If they take it, any hold left goes away. If they don’t add 1 hold between you.
It’s a bit complicated, but I think it would play smooth.
And what’s wrong with
Player A: I want to shoot Player B.
MC: Roll+hard, but first Player B gets to Roll+Hx
Seems like the easiest option.
Where did player B say what they were doing that was interfering? Anyway, nothing inherently. Sometimes, though, a body wants something else, something with more pizzazz, or something that discourages rampant PC v PC antagonism. Not usually me, but I’ve noticed an undercurrent of folk that do so I figured why not put something cool together that caters to it rather than calling the idea badwrong or whatev.
Assuming Player B knows Player A is about to shoot them why wouldn’t they try to interfere? My example offers the mechanical moves, not story, because story is relevant to the group not to the rules.
If you’re actively trying to discourage player vs player conflict then you’ve reset one of your agendas/principles. It’s “make the players’ lives not boring” not “make the players work together.”
PC v PC conflict can, in cases, get pretty fucking boring for their lives. Those are t cases junk like this is meant to address. There’s no need to be rewriting principles here. It can in fact be part of making their lives not boring.
Sorry, I fucked that response up. Editing
I have never seen PC v PC conflict be boring. If players don’t want to fight, they find a way not to. When a GM doesn’t want their players to fight, they create rules to hinder it, like the ones on display in this thread.
As a GM, it just seems complex and unnecessary to me. As a player, I wouldn’t like it. But whatever floats your boat, there’s no wrong way to play.
shrug, let ’em kill each other and deal with the consequences
I am of the opinion, from what I have read, that normal moves plus interference if the other player thinks of it, might work best.
Player A: I shoot at Player B as I run towards him.
Player B: I call his mother names as I dive behind cover to try and rattle him while I return fire.
Player A rolls. gets an 8…
and so on