What are some good game systems for PvP?

d20 modern

>>53703555
tabletop wargames

Chess
SkipBo
Exalted 3e

>>53703555

Monopoly

File: 1478090113003.jpg (135KB, 552x624px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 552x624px

>>53706738
You monster

>>53703555
Paranoia
MAID RPG

>>53703555
I've been thinking of making a d20-based tactical one-on-one game to represent fantastical/movie-style duels. Each player has a variety of offensive options and a variety of defensive options, and each player rolls both for attack and defense. For example, the spaniard swordsman attempts a feint and the noble rogue responds by attempting to parry. Both parties roll a d20 with some modifiers (a pure swordsman build gets a considerable bonus to the straight sword skills resulting in a d20+6, a rogue would have been better off trying to distract or dodge and thus only gets a d20+4).
If the spaniard gets a higher result, the rogue enters into the next round with a significant defensive disadvantage. If he gets a 20, the spaniard might even get an immediate strike. If the rogue gets a higher roll, he cleverly avoids being drawn into a worse position. A high enough roll, meanwhile, might let him get a riposte and skewer the spaniard.

I dunno, it's just something I've been toying with for a while. It would be an extremely small-scale skirmish game, unsuitable to dungeon crawlers. When I wrote down some ideas and concepts, I was thinking of having it be a strictly tactical game where all non-combat is roleplayed. No social skills, no knowledge rolls, no crafting rules, just pure roleplaying. But since I also thought about bringing concepts like taunting or distracting into the game, now I'm starting to think maybe a total change of venue is appropriate. Maybe it's more of a palace intrigue game, with an intense social combat aspect where each social skill is every bit as tactically deployed as a sword strike, and the dueling mechanic instead becomes one half of the game.

I dunno, is this resonating with anyone else?

>>53703677
This.
Also boardgames and card games.

Miniatures, meeples, tokens or chits. Versus is what they're usually made for.

RPGs are not designed for PVP, they're designed for teamwork against GM-run mooks.

>>53707076
That could be considered an asymmetric form of PvP.

Rpgs require collaboration and cooperation between players and game master to work. Even when there is competition in asymmetric GM adversarial games, even when the PCs are fighting each other, everyone at the table is working how to "sell it", making it work out somehow.

While PCvsPC or even PCvsGM has its place in gaming, a PvP table is a dysfunctional table.

>>53707166
It's definitely viable for an event game (like at a con or a shop), or a game that doesn't feature a GM except in a very referee-like role.

>>53703555
Fisticuffs

Jenga

>>53706842
>d20
>duels
pls no, take a look at song of swords, its literally what you describe

>>53707103
>a game in which one player has total control over the opposition much to the point that they can say "rocks fall, everyone dies" could be considered "asymmetric PVP"

you don't deserve to play traditional games

>>53707508
There are a bunch of games with (sometimes optional, sometimes not) rulesets that don't allow the DM to do that/are ran with the expectation that the DM is beholden to his own set of rules, if for nothing else then convention/tournament play like >>53707191 says.

Basically, imagine Pandemic but with more RP, and the DM making some decisions instead of randomness.

>>53703555
Song of Swords.