When I played a game of Runebound the other day I told myself beforehand that I would go out of my way to be a bastard and attack the other players. We use a simple PVP XP system to make the battles worthwhile. Still it was never really convenient to track down any other players and start fights. Anyone have any suggestions for encouraging PVP?

Yes I know there are dozens of other games more suited for that but I'm interested in soaking my Runebound board in the blood of the players!

I'd check boardgamegeek.com for one of the variants there

also might want to check out some of the expansions, like the character class decks, shadows of margath, the crown of the elder kings to name a few, as they sound like they might have what you're looking for

Shadows of Margath is just a challenge deck. It may or may not be the source of the odd PvP-oriented card (I have them all mixed in so I don't necessarily know where they came from) but in my experience the overall PvP level in the game hasn't gone up for having them there, regardless of which expansion they came from.

The character decks are probably your best bet for increasing PvP (as far as official material goes.) The only drawback is that since everyone needs their own character deck, it's an investment upfront for something that may not work out like you hoped. There's also the issue of other players who don't really want PvP might balk at the obvious addition of new cards and rules designed more or less solely for that purpose.

I would, however, second the idea of checking out BGG's forum. Always a good source of variants and rules discussions there.

Q. for Steve (and others): Are the character decks PvP or CvC, and if both, how much of each as a guesstimation?

I've read only a little about them, but they seem built in part on what me and mine call the "Demigod" mechanic. It is when players (not characters) take momentary control of the game's environment (usually through a die roll or card or some penalty token) and turn the environment against another player during its turn... as opposed to a character vs character challenge.

The demigod mechanic seems to be part of many FFG games, so it must be popular... but not with my group. So I'm just curious how much it is a part of those character decks before we make the investment you mention.

JC: I have some of the character decks but have never actually used them.

From what I have read of the rules they are more of what you call PVP as opposed to CVC. Granted there are more options to customize your character with new abilities, but It seems that a bigger part of it is sending challenges at the other players. This all works through a system using menace tokens if I remember right.

Steve-O: Could you tell me a little more about the character decks that I've yet to use? I'm interested in reading your answer to JC's question. Also do they add on more game time or slow things down any? And since my group nor me have any experience with them, do you think we could play using a communal deck?

Tony P. said:

Heh. Painted myself into a bit of a corner here, I guess. I don't actually own any of the Character Decks myself. The thing about RB that most appeals to me is the lack of PvP and I have no particular interest in changing that. Everything I was saying about the character decks is based on what I've heard from other people and what I've seen of scanned cards online, etc.

To answer JC's specific question, from what I've seen of the cards it does seem to be more "PvP" than "CvC." Lots of forcing other people to roll against something or lose an item (or health, or whatever.) It makes sense they'd be built this way in that it's pretty difficult to actually reach other heroes (especially if they're actively avoiding you.) There might be a card that teleports you to another hero to fight, but you can only pull that stunt so many times if you want any variety in the decks. Nothing else in the game really pushes heroes together, so rather than fight the natural tendency of heroes to spread out and wander, they just made cards that let you hit each other from across the map.

I do own Shadows of Margath, but it hasn't changed the game really at all, aside from adding more challenges.

There is a new rule that we play by that I wouldn't say breaks out an all out PvP war but it definitely has encouraged it in our games. Whenever someone gets knocked out from a challenge, their gold and item/ally that they lost stays with the challenge on the undefeated track. Whoever beats the undefeated challenge gets the challenge reward as normal along with either the gold OR item/ally placed there from the character that was knocked out.

The only twist on that rule is that if the person who was knocked out from the challenge is the one to beat his own undefeated challenge then they recieve the reward for the challenge as normal but only claim 1/2 of the gold they lost from being knocked out and can not claim the item/ally they lost.

This has helped with knocked out players recouping some of the cost of being knocked out and has also encouraged players to drop what they are doing to race for the undefeated challenges. We all seem to like it and has caused some PvP squirmish.

Another idea we had, but never adopted it, was gaining experience for defeating other players. We had thought that beating another player should be worth experience and figured one experience point for each experience counter the character you had knocked out has. This was to be capped at 4 though so that no PvP could gain you more then what a red encounter is worth. Once again, this was just a thinking out loud idea but we never actually added it as a house rule.

Crown of the Elder Kings adventure variant has a specifically PvP oriented EndGame, but the rest of the game doesn't necessarily increase the amount of PvP throughout.

Personally I kind of agree with your initial assesment that its a bit of a pain in the butt to spend your turns trying to track down a player to fight. They can be merrily going about their business leveling and gearing while you waste movement dice and turns trying to run into them. PvP happens infrequently in the games I play and its always more happenstance like, "hmmm...he seems weak and he has an item/ally I'd REALLY like and he's on the road heading to town..." Otherwise the risk of bad rolls leading to a PvP loss tend to discourage me from wanting to try PvP.

Juj: I really like the house rule that undefeated challenges keep the item or gold and you can then win it as a reward. It certainly helps offset losing a great item to a knockout by knowing you would have the chance to win it back, while keeping the risk that another player can scoop it up in the meantime.

I'd say the official material for the game has cards here or there that increase PvP opportunities, but RB isn't designed as is to encourage a PvP focused game.

Give some thought to a "duel" house rule where players can wager items or gold against each other, but not suffer knockouts at the end of combat...people might be more willing to try PvP if those were the stakes.

Thanks to all for the explanations, but it is as I feared. It's a common mechanic, (one way or another) even beyond RB character decks, so it must be popular. My group would never go for this much of a demigod mechanic. But it leaves me wondering...

Runebound's core game (?) and deck expansions does have some cards that one keeps and plays against other characters. One might cause another player to roll one less movement die for its character, or some such. But in our games, these cards often sit at the table side and never get used; we find them boring and a faulty mechanic, and we're too busy with our own questing. We have competition and occasional conflicts, but through characters within the game, not players outside of it.

Other games use this approach. One we tried was Dungeoneer, which look quite intriguing with its boardbuilding as you go and its "quest/task" oriented structure. During play, characters build up peril points, and the players draw cards which include perils to play against other characters. The targeted character must have enough peril points for the cost of the peril, or it cannot be played on that character. One played, the characters peril points are reduced by the peril's cost, and points must be built up before another perial of the same cost can be used against it. But after three tries we never finished a game. We spent so much time watching everyone's peril levels and our own, and the peril cards in our hands, that it distracted from playing our own character.

One thing players (and some designers) miss is the underlying intention this mechanic COULD have (once did have). It puts "intention" into the game's environment for threats against the players... er, I mean characters. Its one way for the game's ultimate Enemy to have a consciousness, reacting to the heroes coming for it. In theory, the character in the lead gets hit the most, as other players try to slow it down. While that matches what the Enemy would do, it isn't the case in the way it is now used. Motivation is more often spite or that someone has something you want. This is where the demigod mechanic always fails. The Enemy would want that lead character, or one with a powerful advantage just gone, period -- it would have no interest in seeing another character get its hands on that powerful what-not.

But it does leave me wondering... for the perils make the triumph worthy for bragging rights. Without such, the win is mostly just dumb luck, aside from any limited strategy in any game. So, has anyone else ever thought about other ways to implement perils, with or without criteria such as peril points for when they become active against a particular character? We have, for we don't want to lose them, just as we don't want that flawed demigod mechanic. If you have some notions, please do share.

The two we thought of for just the basic Runebound played peril cards were:

1. the player who draws them must apply them to its own character immediately. This of course is the simplest and easiest.
2. place that card face down on top of a separate "perils" stack. That you drew it means you have heard some hint or warning word of mouth about something bad to avoid. Of course someone else might draw another peril and place it on top of that. That player now has foreknowledge of the first peril that will be faced, and you don't. The trick then is to figure out a trigger (or two) during any player's turn, something they do that forces the character in question to take that top peril card and deal with it.

Of the triggers we've consider, they all have problems.

1. Doubles, triples, etc. on a movement roll. A card is immediately drawn and faced before movement. Of course this renders down to just random chance with not God-in-the-Box influence of the Enemy making a conscious choice against you. However, some perils are just happenstance have nothing to do with a master plan or agents of the Enemy trying to hobble you.
2. Landing a terrain type that matches a double, triple, etc. Problem here is that then people just avoid landing on that terrain. It also thereby interfers with movement and getting where you're going.
3. Seeking an experience gem... either successful or not. Some type of chance skill/attribute/etc. check should be involved so that perils don't overwhelm characters early in the game with extra hardships. We haven't though of how to make this fair and workable.

Any peril once faced is put in the appropriate encounter discard pile.

Of course all of this doesn't bear upon the peril cards in those character decks. If those have something akin to perial points to be paid, then perhaps a similar approach could be done for triggers. A card is then drawn from the peril stack (if the stack has any). If the peril can be paid for by the character, it must face that peril immediately, and then discarded back to the appropriate character deck. If not, the peril is laid face up next to the peril pile and nothing happens. Once the last card in the peril pile has been turned over, and there are still cards in the peril's own discard pile, they are turned over and shuffled to continue.

And that's enough longwinded notions. Hopefully others will have some ideas to add related to character decks or otherwise.

Jujitsu said:

There's a bit of glitch in this, for one could always go pound on a weak character for quick points. If I have 8 exp. counters, and you have 4, I can go pound on you and gain 4 exp. points to spend immediately.

A better approach would be to still cap at 4 but the amount gained is based on comparing the combatants' count of exp. counters. If the winner has more, it gets nothing. If it has less, the number of counters the loser has above the winner is how many exp points are gained. For example, I have 8, you have 4, so I get no exp. points from trouncing you. But if you win, you get 4 exp pts.

This way, there's encouragement for characters to go after those who've gotten a little ahead of them while discouraging wanton bullying... based on a weaker character as an easy target for quick exp. points... based on it having any exp. counters at all.

Or if one prefers, 1 exp. point minimum as well as 4 maximum, based on still comparing the count of exp. counters between the combatants.

The only cards from the base set (that I can think of off the top of my head ) that you keep and play as penalties against other players are Atavax! and Swarm of Wasps (Bees?). I believe both of these cards have penalty that effects movement dice of the other player (i think with one your opponent rolls 1 less die and the other allows you the adjust the side of any 1 die they rolled). Both have a similar effect, they can slow down your oppenent from reaching a key undefeated challenge, town to buy an item or whatever.

It seems like a very complex mechanic you are creating to deal with a very specific and very limited type of card. You wrote an awful lot in your explanation of the mechanic you are trying to create, so I want to really give it fair consideration. It would help if you could give me some concrete examples of cards you picture being involved in the mechanic or an example of the mechanic in action.

The example I can picture now is: Atavax! is defeated as a challenge. It then is in play as a Peril. If someone rolls triples on movement dice, eliminate 1 dice from being able to be spent towards that movement. In that way Atavax! becomes an ongoing environmental effect rather than a card to play against others.

miles601 said:

Sorry, I didn't make part of that explanation clear. Options 1 and 2 are separate.

In #1, the player drawing the card immediately faces that challenge and it is then discarded. So in this option the card is not different than any other encounter draw... except the card's target is the one who drew it and no choice is made.

The demigod mechanic vanishes entirely, which isn't really desirable as a fix, but it is the cleanest way for the core game, considering how few demigod cards it has. But it wouldn't work for character decks, or any system using a concept similar to peril points.

- - - - - - - -

In #2, the player places the card face down on the peril stack, being the only one to have foreknowledge of what it is. When a trigger occurs (whatever it might be), the player that caused the trigger draws the top peril card and faces it. What happens to it after that depends on where the card had a success condition to met or was an automatic effect. If automatic, the card is discarded to its origin deck's discard pile.

If the peril has a roll of success condition of some kind... well, see the sub-option below for how that is handled.

The Peril Point approach is a subset of option #2.

Any player drawing a peril card can keep it secret (in some games). It may hold it, or play it on the peril stack at the beginning of any turn, its own or another, before any action is taken by the player of the current turn. When any player activates a trigger, it must draw the top card on the peril stack and check the card's cost in peril points.

If the player's character does not have enough peril points to pay for the card , the card is put face up on the peril stacks discard pile.

If the player's character does have enough peril points to pay for the card , if must immediately do so and encounter the cards instructions.

For Peril Cards with success conditions to overcome...

• If the success conditions are not met , the peril card is put into the peril stacks discard to be encountered again by someone later on. Should the last card in the peril stack be overcome or not, and any cards remain in the peril discard, those cards are shuffled and placed face down. Any new peril cards played by players after this are still place on the top of the peril stack by previous rules stated.
• If the success conditions are met, after the encounter the peril card is discarded to the discard pile of the deck from which it came.

For Peril Cards without success conditions...

• the card is encountered as instructed, and then discarded to its origin deck's discard pile.

When a defeated Challenge becoms a peril...

• ...meaning the card is kept to be used against another player later, it functions the same as a peril card drawn and kept to be used. There aren't any direct draw peril cards in RB core game that I remember, but this combination would come up in using the character decks, and the combination of peril card "rewarded" and "drawn" does exist in multiple games using the demigod mechanic.

- - - - - -

Essentially in #1 or #2, there is an additional "Enemy player" in the game represented by the peril stack... irregardless that the stack may have cards with different backs for the various decks from which they came. Each player acquiring a card (however) to be played on others can hang on to it and choose when to place it face down on top of the peril stack... meaning giving it to the "enemy" to be played on whoever, according to triggers. It leaves a little strategy in for when you want to put the peril into potential play at the beginning of anyone's turn, but not as a direct play upon another player, er, character.

It's not really as complicated as it sounds when seen.

- - - - - -

There are problems all over on these, I know. And yes, there are few peril cards in the RB core game (we've toyed with the idea of adding just a few of our own). We haven't implemented either of these for RB and tested them out... as we're not fully satisfied... especially on the issue of triggers.

Possible triggers include...

• doubles, triples, quadruples of rolled terrain die (one of these to be chosen for how often perils come up). Possible with a choice before the game begins, with consideration of the differing chance of perils being activated.
• the same rolls, but only if the multiple terrains match the terrain the character is currently on. NOTE: this is an excellent one for consideration of when a held peril card is played on top of the peril stack, but there's no guarantee the current player will trigger it. You play your held peril card when the other character is on a very common terrain type. This also means that characters in uncommon to rare terrains, which have difficulties of their own, aren't too often compounded by facing an additional peril.
• Any time a character's peril points total changes . Only usable with a peril point system.
• Upon gaining an exp gem. NOTE: if used with a peril point system, this option might use the gem's exp. point value as an additional or separate peril payment. If the peril drawn has a cost less than gem's exp. points (or optionally the gem pts plus the characters peril level), and that is used against any peril cost on the card. Only usable with a peril point system .
• Multiple combinations of triggers.

For now, we ignore the demigod cards until we can come up with something satisfying; we like perils but hate the player-demigod approach. (Some testing was done in DQ with the peril point version of #2 based on any time peril point total changes; adequate, but still needs work.)

It doesn't matter so much for RB's core game, but we'd like to figure out something where character decks are concerned, should we take the financial plunge. Other features of that concept appeal greatly to us, enough to find a way to overcome the hinky demigod mechanic... because those perils should stay in the game. Bringing it up here I thought might spark some fresh ideas for something that doesn't turn perils into just a standard encounter... something intelligent with at least a shadow of Enemy intent without the player-demigod mechanic.

OH MY... ANOTHER LONG POST... this is what happens when I'm writing on the fly trying to get things clear in too little time before work.

JCHendee said:

Ahhh yes, you are correct and thank you for pointing that out. I forgot to mention that bit of important information about our rule of gaining experience from PvP. It was part of the rule that you could NOT gain any experience from attacking another player that was lower in level then yourself (apologize for forgetting to state that previously).

I do like your thinking of: PvP experience gained = (attacked characters level - your characters level) but causes a concern. In my opinion, it makes it only worth while in early game and nearly non existant in late game when it seems to be more beneficial since by then characters have acquired items/allies/gold that makes it worth attacking for. It's not often that I've seen that characters are more then one or two levels above the lowest level character in game. Gaining one experience from your level 1 character attacking a character level two isn't bad but if your a level 5 going against a level 6..... well the rule is unbalanced then, one XP at that point is stingy.

This is a rule we didn't actually decide to go with though but thought I would share it in this post since it was specifically a question about PvP. I do love hearing idea's and feedback like yours regarding houserules though. I love having small simple house rules that boost the level of fun within the group, of course house rules are all based on how your group likes to play.

OHHH one last thing, it's minor but worth mentioning, if you incorporate this rule remember that your turn ends when attacking a player immediately after the fight. This means the experience portion of your turn is lost so you can not exchange experience gained from the fight to level until the experience portion of your next turn.

miles601 said:

Hmm I agree with Miles here, although this seems like a well thought out process it seems very complex. I've read your examples a few times and still a little confused on how the peril point system works and seems the pros vs cons regarding game play and added game time may be weighed in favor of the cons. I can say I am incredibly unsavy when it comes to the character decks so maybe this would make alot more sense to me if I knew more on how those decks worked, I should break down and buy a set just to giver it a try. Again, love the idea of your thought process though, think you have some great ideas!

Jujitsu said:

Maybe I missed something, but... Attacking a character with no counters is pointless by what I suggested. Therefor there's no additional incentive for picking on characters just starting out. Attacking a character that is weaker than one's self is not a real threat to winning the game, so again, the approach I suggested makes such characters less desirable as a source for exp. Attacking a character slightly more advanced does have more of a gain, as it should. As to the late game... it always should be more beneficial to face the gains challenges than to go after other characters.

Jujitsu said:

I can see you point, but you're missing something again. When having an encounter with purple (blue) or red cards, I may run into a situation when more than one card is drawn... and things get really nasty. So why should I go there if I can pound on an elevated character instead, and the encounter is resolved in one combat? The exp gained in CvC should always be lower than a similar level encounter as drawn from an encounter deck. If a target character is elevated enough to offer 4 exp for defeating it, it becomes the more desirable target vs going after a blue or red encounter... at least where exp points are concerned. That's not a good idea for keeping the game balanced, and I know players who would exploit it, especially in a game with more than two or three players. You not only gain those exp, but also knock out that player - you jump up, excessively, while your opponent gets a setback.

Jujitsu said:

Gotcha on the minimum issue and the ending of a turn; I too sometimes leave things out in my rush, or forget a standard rule in reading someone else's idea.

Overall, I agree that gaining exp could be spread further. The reason it wasn't in standard CvC (aside from as mentioned above) is that in most games you gain some possession from defeating another character; exp as well would be a double whammy, making other characters a more desirable target than encounters.

Also, many groups (not a majority) use a graduated exp system now, because the curve of advancement in RB is inverted from what is rational. It is easier to gain exp the more exp counters you have - unrealistic. Most RPGs use an approach that the higher you get the more it takes to get to the next level - greater verisimilitude.

The RB approach works for speeding up the game more towards the end; that's likely just because that's what pure boardgamers expect. But some of the old RPGers into RB's touch of that world in a boardgame have gone the other way. And as counter argument, I would think making exp from CvC less desirable in value for both early and late in the game would be a better balance. RB isn't a game for a lot of CvC, even when possible, ... and combat isn't the only kind of that to consider. I think the option for more CvC is good based on gains incentive, but not to the point of competing with the game's designed intent/focus - questing.

It seems like a very complex mechanic you are creating to deal with a very specific and very limited type of card.

Yes, you are right for the core game. Overall in that, we will likely stick with what we are doing... ignoring the demigod cards, which are rather weak and just annoyances to encounter anyways. Afterall, turning over one terrain dice another player rolls is rather lame and a waste of time.

Peril point systems are confusing until you see them in action; they don't become "simple" after that, but they aren't as complex as wordy explanations make them seem. In the end, I'll probably have to just buy one of those character decks and study it, but overall its likely to be the same as found in other games where perilous cards are played against over players... and a points system of some kind keeps players from throwing the nastiest cards too often, too much, or too compoundedly at any one opponent.

Time to count my pennies and redeploy some of my gaming budget for a sample character deck. And time to shut up and cook some breakfast as well.

I don't think we're on the same page when it comes to the mechanics of this idea. By your explanation, there is no real use for the rule what so ever, which probably is the case for most people since most rarely do any PvP, if any at all. But there are groups who enjoy the PvP aspect and I think there could be a happy medium between our two ways of thinking, something I will continue to contemplate for sure and bring up to the group next time we play. But with that all being said, the main question was about house rules to create more PvP bloodshed and this house rule would definitely encourage it I believe, whether it be either your style or mine it still functions in creating more PvP attacks. As of right now we have not even play tested this and don't really plan on using the rule, yet anyway, but if we do try it I will do both concepts and let you know how it plays out. Once again, I appreciate the discussion and feedback cause it really does help me iron out any ideas my group has for playing.

Very good! I'd be interested to hear how any of it works on live and in play.

Have you tried Frozen Waste?

Discover of the princess usually triggers a ruthless manhunt in our games.

I have heard that, and it certainly makes sense if you have to find something and then deliver it. That kind of CvC is certainly more to my taste, for it has something to do with the actual game goals. Don't had FW yet, because haven't really dove into the big boxes I have, but it is on my list!