When does PVP work in RPGs?

Player vs player conflicts can be an important aspect of role playing games. They can be an epic end of a story, or just as likely be the breaking point at which the game ends without a satisfying conclusion to the main adventure. Despite being an important aspect of the medium, there doesn't appear to be too much word count devoted to this aspect in any of the game manuals. So lets discuss this topic and see what insight we could find today.

What is PVP?

In broad sense, PVP is a conflict between two characters in an RPG controlled by the players. In theory this could mean any sort of conflict. You could have the characters competing financially in an EVE-esque market PVP. You could have two characters trying to accomplish the same goal, or get the same prize and thus competing with one another. Or you could even have some friendly rivalry of who can kill the most enemies and thus be "the better fighter".

Of course, most often when talking about PVP we are talking about two characters facing one another in a physical combat where only one of them will live by the end of the day. Two men enter, one man leaves.

The problems with PVP

There are many problems surrounding PVP, and many ways it can be done wrong unfortunately.

Probably the worst thing you could have in PVP is using it as means of spiting another player, or settling some out-of-game grudges. There is really no way this can end up with anything other than more grudges. Often you also end up dragging more people into your disagreement, either forcing them to take side or at best being awkward spectators in a conflict they don't want to be part of. These sort of things should be settled outside of the game really - you are solving nothing by making it into PVP...

Similarly, PVP might not work if used as a means of eliminating a character the group doesn't like. More often than not this is just a way of telling the player they made "a shitty character", which could be just as easily done out of the game. If the player feels they've been wronged by their character death, they can just as easily make another character that will still be grating to the group, making the conflict ultimately meaningless.

Next up would be using PVP as a method of bullying. You might not have anything against other players per-se, but you still would like their characters' stuff, or the freshly acquired loot. And since might makes right, you would flex your muscles to get what you want. This again creates more resentment at the table more often than not, and at best you might get some catharsis after the group gangs up on the bully character and murder them. Overall, not that great.

Another reason why PVP might not work, is that you'd often be able to tell who would win a given PVP engagement before it even begins. It's not fun seeing a peace loving monk going against a two meter gorilla of a fighter.

On a similar note, who wins a given PVP engagement could be dictated or at least heavily influenced by how the conflict is structured. An assassin would win if they had the chance to perform some sneak attacks, a warrior would do better in an open conflict, while a werewolf might need full moon to rip their enemy to shreds. Alternatively if you can call what way the conflict is resolved - pistols at dawn, mental competition, a debate, a duel, etc., you can achieve the same result - skewing the fight in your favour. As such, whoever can control when and how the PVP takes place can almost assure their own victory.

Lastly, PVP doesn't work if it doesn't have a meaningful point to it. If someone wants to just retire their character and they just want to get them killed by betraying the party, that's just lazy and contrived. Just skip PVP and get to the point you want to get to.

When PVP does work

Even despite the bad rep it gets at times, PVP can still be used as a good storytelling tool.

The easiest scenario where PVP works is when all of the participating players want to engage in it. It's that simple. If two players want to role play some rivals that will battle one another on regular basis until one of them will drop dead eventually (and the rest of the party doesn't mind this potential sideline to the adventure!), that's great! If some player talks to their fellow players and says they want to cross the party so much they will kill the character, that's also fine. Any scenario everyone is on board with for PVP is a good enough reason to incorporate it into the story.

Second kind of scenario would be a game that sets out to have PVP from the start. Say you want to play a group of backstabbing vampires in Requiem - that's fine. As long as everyone knows PVP is on the table, what are the rules for engagement and everyone is fine with those from the get-go, that's fair game. This way everyone is prepared for the conflict that will happen.

So in general, as long as all participants (and spectators!) of a PVP conflict know the rules of engagement, the consequences of the fight and are on board with the idea, PVP can work. It's all about agreeing to the sort of game you want to play - you don't want to think you're playing a friendly game where everyone gets along only to find out down the line that someone is about to murder your character unexpectedly. It ruins the fun.

How to PVP and make it interesting

Now that we know we'll be having PVP, it's perhaps time to ask ourselves how to keep PVP interesting. On one hand it might be interesting to have a game where anyone can attack at any moment, on the other hand roleplaying a paranoid prepper that doesn't trust anyone ever can be very taxing.

So first rule of engagement is having to make PVP fair to the players. If you have open season for PVP, you don't want any player to be getting an unfair advantage. Keep in mind the word "player" - it's more important to be fair to the players than to the characters, although one often goes along with the other. If one player can scheme and get some sneaky advantage, either the other player should also be able to get that, or have some equivalent mechanic they can use. Say, have some mechanic in play for facilitating characters' downtime activities. Different characters might need different things to have an advantage in a conflict - a warrior might be ready to go at any time, while an assassin might need a way to sneak up on their opponent, while some manipulating mob boss might need a way to send their goons to do their dirty work.

If having an open PVP season is too much, you might want to add some structure to the PVP. Perhaps you might only allow fair duels, or only engage in a given place or time.

You could also have the GM or even other players be the arbiters of how a given PVP might be structured. Say the group agrees that whenever a duel would be declared, the players that don't participate in the conflict would be able to discuss how and when the actual conflict would take place. This could mean they would be able to choose a fair way for two characters to fight one another, or even introduce a dynamic in which the players can play favourites. Maybe some favours would have to be traded for one character to get an upper hand in defeating their rival, or maybe the group would use this opportunity to get rid of the most problematic character in an underhanded way. Of course, not everyone might be interested in a game of politics and favours...

Alternatively, the players might have to come to an agreement as to how the PVP should be structured. They might have to negotiate what sort of handicaps to put in place, how to level the playing field and so on. This could be a self-balancing game - a strong warrior might have to give a large handicap to a weaker oponent until they would agree to the conflict. Perhaps one could even negotiate a number of surprise advantages the other character could spring on them in the duel they wouldn't have time to prepare for.

Conclusions

There are many ways PVP can be done poorly in an RPG, and a few ways it can actually be done well. The main problem is keeping it balanced and getting players on board with the idea of engaging in PVP in the first palce.