This isn't the same thing as *having* a PVP system of some kind, but I did finally put some thought into how you might do this with the Storium system as it currently exists.

http://gamingcreatively.blogspot.com/2016/04/storium-theory-thoughts-on-pvp-player.html

I don't think this is the only way, and maybe it isn't even the right way, but it is *a* way!

Would love to see this implemented. When pvp is consensually accepted as possible it can add a lot to the story.

Adding a mechanism for Player vs. Player conflict would allow Narrators to develop games featuring one or more "factions" of players. This could be useful for geopolitical type stories, or even the tried & true (& perhaps slightly overdone) vampires vs. werewolves type stories.

A normal challenge would resolve itself as per the current system, relying on a majority of strength or weakness cards to determine a strong or weak outcome. A special "conflict challenge" card would be resolved according to which faction played the larger number of strength cards. A faction who succeeds in gaining control of the story in a "conflict challenge" would enjoy special advantages (perhaps gaining assets or additional strength cards, etc.).

The current system is well suited and quite playable for any number of "colleagues on a quest" type of games, where the challenges are often cast in terms of players vs. common enemy/obstacle. That works great for a vast number of scenarios, but it still has a somewhat limiting effect on our ability to tell a story or play a game. Being able to pit individual or groups of players against each other occasionally would really open up a whole new set of story options here.

I found a suggestion elsewhere that seems to be a good way to handle PvP:

https://storium.uservoice.com/forums/211322-general/suggestions/5792710-permit-mutually-exclusive-obstacles-to-allow-great

@Declan That certainly works fine, but it would be interesting to have mechanical consequences, right?

Guys. You don't actually need a new system. The current system works fine...

If you check this scene: https://storium.com/game/the-crucible/chapter-1/scene-3

I created an obstacle called "Settle You Differences"
Description: Recent events have damaged the trust which has always existed between Junkyard and Tinker. Now the two officers must talk through those difference and remind each other why they trust each other.

Outcomes
Strong:
The officers come to a common understanding, and any trust damaged can be restored. How do they work out their differences? How have they agreed to represent this mornings issues? Is Deck Technician Anna Barrows going to publicly take the blame?

Weak:
The meeting ends with one of both parties unhappy with the other. What happened? Who is angry? Why?

It worked fine. You could equally well use this with injury, fear etc.

Basically the obstacle is that they need to resolve the conflict.
A strong outcome allows bloodless resolution
A weak outcome suggest an injured party.

Since most negative character traits (bloodlust, anger, overconfident, cowardly) are likely to be weaknesses and positive character traits (brave, trusting, loyal, natural leader etc.) are likely to be strengths this works really well.

And you place the onus of describing the outcome on the winner of the conflict.

Let players play cards against one another to facilitate PvP conflict.

What if we all start with a stack of 3 chi cards. During play a player can play a card to affect another character much like a challenge, except with each red box filled the character looses the ability to play one of his cards. When all the boxes are red, the character who put him there get's to describe what happens that incapacitates the character for the scene.

Conversely, if the boxes are filled with Green... the character gains an extra chi for the next scene, and thus can now play 4 cards.

I don't want this to become a PVP-focused thing or anything, and I don't see a need for dice, but it would be nice if there could be some way to kind of use Storium's system to adjudicate a conflict between two player characters. I can see putting an "obstacle" up that says "resolve conflict" right now, but there's not really much to that--players just play cards on the obstacle and it doesn't seem like it will provide any real controls over the conflict. If there's some way to maybe create a conflict system that can be started up optionally and that has a little bit of question over who will win the conflict, that would help.

One idea: you could do some kind of separate card pool for PVP conflicts only that doesn't refresh as often, so characters have to weigh how important this current conflict is to them in order to decide how many cards they're willing to spend on it before conceding?

Again, I don't want this to be a PVP thing, really--I just think it might help to have a bit of a system specially for player character conflicts. Opens up some more tension and stories.

Taking a hint from the FATE Core RPG, a conflict can be anything where two characters (players or NPCs) actively try to hinder each other - a fight, an argument, a negotiation, a bake-off.

So it might be a sub-scene or a track within a scene where the narrators ceases control to the conflicing players.

Sometimes, two characters will come into conflict. I would like a way to use Storium's inbuilt mechanics to resolve the conflict, without simply resorting to roleplaying it out and hoping everyone is happy with the outcome. We already treat NPCs as obstacles, so this would be a similar mechanic.

1. In the Make a Move dialog, Challenge Character is a new option.
2. You select the character that you want to challenge.
3. The players post back and forth during normal play, spending cards on the character challenge. This continues until no strength/weakness cards remain OR until a pre-set number of cards have been spent. As with normal Storium moves, you need to justify the use of a strength/weakness card against another character in your writing.
4. As with normal obstacles, the outcome can be a victory for your character (you spent the most strength cards), an uncertain outcome (a draw), or a loss for your character (your strength cards were not enough to balance your oponents).

If treating this an an obstacle, The Narrator could be given the opportunity to determine the strong/uncertain/weak outcomes for the challenge. Or you could leave it up to one of the players involved.

I don't know how the cards used in this challenge should count against the number of cards you get to play in a scene, or if this could be used to game the system. I just think it sounds cool!

Addendum. Obviously, just my opinion, but I don't believe there's a need for things like wound tracking and damage and stuff. Storium isn't about stats. Let's not turn this into a tabletop RPG simulator. It's a way for people to collaboratively tell a story, not roll dice against one another.

Remember, folks, Storium isn't supposed to model combat in a traditional way. For me, the Storium way to allow conflict between players would be simply to use the standard Storium mechanics.

Allow a player to add a challenge card to his or her post. The player could set the number of challenge points, the same way that a narrator does. One or more players could provide response cards, the way they do to narrator challenges. Same rules apply.

A strong or weak victory allows the challenged player to continue the narrative, an uncertain one allows the original player to continue the narrative.

I like Judson's idea, except that it would require a slight difference in how it was arbitrated. Basically, anyone playing a Strength on the "fight" obstacle would need to specify which side it was being played for. Then the winner of the fight would narrate it.

So instead of having a "strong outcome" and "weak outcome," you'd have a strong outcome for two different sides.

I would definitely like to see more interaction between players. With the mechanics geared so heavily toward responding to the narrator's challenges, there's little room for characters to build relationships with one another and drive the story that way.

The less the narrator needs to drive the story, the better.

I guess a simple rock paper scissors minigame might suffice and you write out the outcome as the winner. Maybe you're both given a Wild card, a Rock card, a Paper card and a Scissors card (4 total) and you play best of 4. If it's a tie, both of you fight to a stalemate and the Narrator decides how painfully you walk away from the encounter.

One hack in the current system would be to introduce an obstacle "Jack and Jill: Fight!" where the Strong outcome is "differences settled - explain how." and the Weak is "nothing resolved, but everyone is hurt - explain who and how badly." Maybe a note that "uncertain will mean someone is retired."

Now resolving can also mean you win the fight, dig?

FYI - I had a thought on how to do this in the current system and posted it on G+:

https://plus.google.com/106959637452815513534/posts/ZJZpEfaLRNj

Had an idea about this. As a hack, the narrator could create "damage items" to give to players. It's not optimal and players have to cooperate.

1-wound is fists, 2-wound is broken bones, 3-wound is gunshots (or whatever) and you can only spend them on a "hospital" challenge.

I was thinking about this too, and I figured that if it was important enough, you could do a new scene for the conflict where the outcome is specific to one player, and the other player is trying to prevent that, like one is trying to escape and the other is trying to catch the first, but that forces a lot of rules on the metafiction.

I suppose the Narrator could just add generic enough Challenges that the players vie over who gets to take Control, thus describing the action occurring against the other players... still sounds iffy thought.