You low down dirty snake!

[themaque]

What do you think of Traitors in the party?

Player Characters who are sleeper agents or double agents who bide their time to strike against the rest of the party?

Is this good or something that should seldom if ever be employed?

What variables make it a viable story telling mechanic Vs. a guaranteed TPK?

Does it even really make a whole lot of sense for a long term plan?

[themaque]

One personal opinion, you have to have enough players in that taking out one block doesn't bring the whole Jenga stack down.

We had a campaign going with just 4 player characters. The way the campaign was set up, I thought being a traitor might be a fun idea! I approached the GM and he gave the go ahead.

Well, before I revealed myself, I changed my mind. I thought that with so few players if I was to suddenly turn sides it would just decimate the party. and how would that be any fun?

Turns out... ANOTHER person had already had the same idea! the start of the campaign we where already 50% infiltrated by the bad guys! And just like I predicted when she turned on us it was a TPK.

EDIT: This is just an example. I'm actually curious what other have to say, not just posting to make an old complaint.

[goto124]

It's a type of PvP, which would require very careful handling. The whole group would have to know, OOCly, that betrayal is a thing that can happen, for starters, such that everyone is alright with it.

If people are playing Paranoia, betrayal is already expected by the nature of the system. If they're playing DnD though? Make it clear that PvP is allowed and real.

And yes, the player should not PvP without permission of the GM and the rest of the group.

[HammeredWharf]

It depends on the system used, but in many cases (like D&D) PvP combat isn't thought out well and is better avoided. However, combat isn't the only form of betrayal and IMO is the most boring one anyway. "I wait for a tough fight and then backstab you" is, after all, not a particularly fascinating scenario and as mentioned above it could result in a wipe. It's more interesting if a character is a double agent who's trying to get the PCs to do something via non-combat means. He could hire NPCs to lie or kidnap PCs. He could meddle in social interaction, trying to coerce the PCs into betraying their employer or something similar. He could "accidentally" piss important NPCs off. There's a lot of possible encounters that let the betrayer do his thing without turning into brawls.

[Kami2awa]

I don't find this particularly enjoyable. The only time I've done this is when I saw a PC *really* struggling to play one of the good guys (he had created a particularly saintly PC, and wasn't able to live up to the ideal) and suggested that he switch sides. It worked reasonably well, because he was obviously fairly evil to start with! Otherwise, it just annoys the other players.

In fiction, if you do this kind of thing you really need to foreshadow it somehow, and I think it's the same in games.

[Grim Portent]

I don't know if it's just my groups or something, but in every game I've played in we're usually all quite antagonistic towards one another IC. Whether it's Black Crusade, or D&D or Vampire we've all got our own goals, our own methods and most of us would willingly knife the others if they got in the way of our ambitions and refused to move. Treachery and deception, while far from the norm, are just an accepted thing when they do happen.

[hymer]

What do you think of Traitors in the party?

Bothersome, fun-destroying, attention-hogging drama queens.


Player Characters who are sleeper agents or double agents who bide their time to strike against the rest of the party?

Worth quitting a mediocre camapign over.


Is this good or something that should seldom if ever be employed?

Only if the possibility is clearly announced early on. And generally to be avoided.


What variables make it a viable story telling mechanic Vs. a guaranteed TPK?

As someone's already been saying, it helps if the betrayal isn't one that results in death, injury, imprisonment or deprivation of possessions. But maybe those are just differences played out, more than outright betrayals.


Does it even really make a whole lot of sense for a long term plan?

It might. But if it does makes sense, you're probably in a railroady camapaign. It ought instead to make at least as much sense for the sleeper agent to become the mask (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BecomingTheMask) or to be discovered ahead of time.

[DigoDragon]

From my experience as a GM, if a player wants to employ this kind of thing, they have to expect that their character dies when the secret is discovered. PC teams rarely forgive treachery.

Now, if the party fakes a Benedict Arnold moment just to throw off the villain, that can work. It isn't real treason, but the evil boss hiring the supposed turncoat PC doesn't need to know that.

[Eisenheim]

I don't like it as a plan from the beginning. What I do like, as a player and a GM is when PCs have enough depth that sometimes their goals and motivations clash, and sometimes that means some PCs are aligned with an NPC faction that others oppose.

The reason I don't like it as a plan from the beginning, is that planning to betray the party means that PC doesn't actually have loyalty to the party, so once they turn, they're willing to kill their 'friends' and they have to leave the party one way or another. It's much more interesting when the PCs have differing goals, but were still all built as friends and allies, and thus the betrayer isn't aiming to simply screw over the other PCs and kill them, just to throw a particular conflict.

Intra-party conflict can be super fun, if it's not also player conflict. Planning to screw the party is lame, but disagreeing with them in the course of high-stakes violence while still wanting to be part of the group is interesting for everyone.

[TheCountAlucard]

Par for the course in Vampire games it seems.

My Malkavian, Arch, only deliberately screwed with fellow PCs as a means of proving a point to them (Ossa: do the job the Prince gave you; John: don't damn yourself working for the Devil; Julius: you're not as good at being clever as you think you are; Julius: your quest for diablerie will end in tears). Otherwise he was the most team-player PC in the group, and frequently dropped his own business to help the others out.

[Âmesang]

Now, if the party fakes a Benedict Arnold moment just to throw off the villain, that can work. It isn't real treason, but the evil boss hiring the supposed turncoat PC doesn't need to know that.
I can agree with this. I like the idea of a heavy Bluff-using "double agent" attempting to fool the BBEGs, lowering their guard, sneaking past security, and just zapping the party into the heart of darkness and tearing it apart from the inside (especially if my character can steal a ton of super secret info from them, too).

…and if said BBEG is fully expecting it and counters, all the more fun.

[Geddy2112]

For the most part, its bull.

Planning to betray and kill the party off the bat means the character is a psychopath. If there is a situation in which a PC will betray the party, it should be situational and specific.

The first is something that should never be allowed, unless all players are on board.

The second is rare, but also if the PC has not betrayed and murdered these people, they must have a reason to work with them. It can be done right and makes a good end of the game event. Normally, the backstabbing PC has a good reason to need the help of their fellow travelers, but in the end has a very different goal. The sleeper cleric of the destruction deity planning on summoning the big evil monster and controlling it. They need the party to get to the temple, and kill the other BBEG trying to do the same. This can be tons of fun, even more so if you know this will happen.

Opposing goals are fine, and if that means we have to part ways or fight at the end of the journey, that is fine. However, the "I wanna infiltrate and kill these people because it is fun" is pretty toxic to a ttRPG unless everyone is openly on board with this kind of thing. Most games are not setup for this, but if the group wants to play sneaky backstabby betraying, play Paranoia. The entire system is designed to support the sudden by inevitable betrayal of each PC.

[Strigon]

I think it's an idea to be handled with care.
One that can certainly work for some instances, but if there are any doubts as to whether or not the players would enjoy it, do the safe thing and steer clear.

[Mr. Mask]

Things I need to do: Have an NPC warn the party that one of them is a traitor. None of them is actually a traitor.

[Subaru Kujo]

I mean, a lot of it does depend on the execution. (http://i.imgur.com/XGAe6bT.png) (Might be a bit NSFW language here, watch it)

Aside from that, the only time I'd allow a traitor (or play one, as the case might be) is if the rest of the party treated one of the other group members like crap (like, really, what did they think would happen?). Otherwise, yeah, they are just really disruptive.

[DaveSonOfDave]

I can't say I can get behind the idea of having a traitor player in the party, especially if it's of the player's own volition, rather than the DM putting them up to it for plot purposes (and even then, it'd be kind of lame). The only thing that can be gotten out of the experience is a sense of superiority on the behalf of the traitor, at the expense of everyone else at the table. It's basically screwing everyone else over for a brief moment of limelight where you get to reveal how clever you've been, which honestly isn't a great attitude to have.

The only way it would really work is if the game you were playing deliberately called for a traitor, like in Betrayal at House on the Hill, where everyone at the table knows what's up, and the treachery becomes part of the game that the people are willingly taking part in.

[Segev]

It can also work as a temporary thing. "Hey, Bob, so remember those Perception rolls you failed last night? You got kidnapped by a doppelganger and he's replaced you. I need you to play him as if he were your character. Here's his motives and plans."

When the reveal happens, the party can go to rescue Bob's real PC and have no hard feelings IC over it.

[LibraryOgre]

A lot depends on the style of the game... an intrigue based game, where the rest of the party can be assumed to have other motives, I don't see a problem. A more straightforward adventure game, I prefer that you not have traitors in the party, except insofar as it develops naturally.

[Bard1cKnowledge]

From my experience as a GM, if a player wants to employ this kind of thing, they have to expect that their character dies when the secret is discovered. PC teams rarely forgive treachery.

Now, if the party fakes a Benedict Arnold moment just to throw off the villain, that can work. It isn't real treason, but the evil boss hiring the supposed turncoat PC doesn't need to know that.

For dome reason I'm imagining the whole "You're not a god!" scene from Road to El Dorado.

[Quertus]

I've seen it make a decent story in an already good story. Which is to say, while I'm not completely opposed to the idea, I've never seen it add anything to a game.

I think it works best when it involves feeding information to the enemy, or otherwise indirectly hindering / challenging the party. But that depends, in part, on whether you're playing in a group that wants to be challenged.

Unless it is standard for the group to discuss things like this, PvP, etc, in session 0, I would not want to bring it up before it happened. The level of metagaming - conscious or otherwise - would be unacceptable.


It can also work as a temporary thing. "Hey, Bob, so remember those Perception rolls you failed last night? You got kidnapped by a doppelganger and he's replaced you. I need you to play him as if he were your character. Here's his motives and plans."

When the reveal happens, the party can go to rescue Bob's real PC and have no hard feelings IC over it.

This, on the other hand, can be loads of fun, if the players are up for the role playing challenge. I've had fun playing my own doppelganger; although one character's doppelganger brought about a TPK (I was not in this party). Of course, i doubt this scenario would work as well with a, "you failed a perception so you're dead" intro, or with players who know something is up.

[LnGrrrR]

I haven't had a sleeper agent, but I did have a party member "turn" once.

Backstory: This town was run by a vampire lord, but he wasn't chaotic evil. He was somewhat of a Dr Doom figure; he protected his town, but used extreme measures to do so. The PCs were supposed to ask for his help in an affair, which he would have done so. Instead, they decided to be all murder-thief-hobo-y, and broke into his castle at night, after meeting with him. Even though they did earlier research and found that the town leader looks strikingly similar for the past century. And he only allowed those to speak to him after dusk. And he had a blood red carpet. And lots of historical artifacts in his hallway. And a fog that always seemed to envelop his castle. And... well let's just say I dropped like 10 hints that he was a vampire.

So, after they snuck into his basement (after finding a secret passage by destroying the master bedroom), they decided to mess around with the tombs there. This pissed off the vampire lord, who was MUCH higher level than the party. (I did the whole "he looks tough" STOMP ON FLOOR HINT HINT thing).

I left it as a cliffhanger with them all captured. I was unsure how to proceed from here. One of the PCs was a paladin, but... well, he was pretty much evil. So I took him aside and asked if he'd be willing to have his paladin turn after being bitten by a vampire lord. I told him that once he did so, that character would become an NPC, and he'd roll up a new guy, which he agreed to. (I spelled this out at the beginning of the campaign... becoming evil or generally doing anything that makes it so there's no possible way the party would continue on with you ends up with you becoming an NPC.) I assumed he'd RP it as some sort of sacrifice for the group, but he was honestly ok with it. Again, not really the best "paladin" type.

The vampire took them all to the front of his castle, and let them go, telling them to never come back. They were like, "That's it?" He said, "Oh, I'll be back for you. I already have claimed one of you... the rest will come in time. I will enjoy your fear until then." They looked at each other in concern for a moment, when the Paladin threw off his cloak to reveal the bite marks, and stepped beside the vampire lord, laughing at them. The PCs knew they'd be slaughtered... one attacked anyways, but the lord laughed and held his new hound at bay, casting him aside. He cast them out and locked the castle gate.

I figured he would become one of the new BBEG, but the group fell apart shortly after that. I don't know if it was because the group dynamic was upset, or if it fell apart due to boredom, or what. *shrug* I figured I handled it ok, but the results seemingly say otherwise.

[ReaderAt2046]

What do you think of Traitors in the party?

Player Characters who are sleeper agents or double agents who bide their time to strike against the rest of the party?

Is this good or something that should seldom if ever be employed?

What variables make it a viable story telling mechanic Vs. a guaranteed TPK?

Does it even really make a whole lot of sense for a long term plan?

I had a weird experience with this once. To make a long story short, my DM designed the entire campaign expressly to force my character to backstab the rest of the party. I'm not sure if the rest of the party knew in advance that this was the plan, but I didn't. Moreover, when I did backstab the party, the DM had so set things up that I actually managed to technically win (the party knocked me out, but I made my will save to die before they could rip out my soul, and I'd already managed to kill the Chosen One, allowing the BBEG to absorb his power and gain eternal dominion over the cosmos.

[Slipperychicken]

What do you think of Traitors in the party?

I'm tired of it. I'm sick of all the traitors, loot-hoggers, team-killers, lone wolves, "manipulators", and reluctant snarkers. It's a team game! Heroes aren't boring! Nobody's going to lynch you for playing someone who cares about the people around them.

I swear, half my campaigns have ended prematurely because someone decided that betraying the party would be a good idea. It's not even because they succeed. Even when they fail and the rest of the party stays intact, it just kills the mood such that no-one can bring themselves to touch that game again. Then we wind up with another batch of contrarians at each others' throats and the situation repeats itself.

For once, I just want a group of PCs who are all passionate, decent people, committed to what they're doing (or at least the larger goal), place some kind of relationship value on their cooperation in life-or-death struggles, and aren't about to whack each others' heads off the moment they get bored. They don't need to be carbon copies of Galahad and Robin Hood, but they should at least be team players who won't backstab their fellows every time someone asks them to.

[goto124]

Don't betray when everyone else is expecting a team game.

[AMFV]

It definitely needs to be discussed OOC with the other members of the party. You need to make sure that they're alright with it. (And give them the opportunity to metagame so that YOU don't screw them, even if your chracter tries to). That's the problem, is that you (as a player) have all the metagame knowledge, and the character stuff, plus the knowledge that you are a traitor. They don't, so when the betrayal happens, it feels like, you (the player) are screwing them over, rather than the character is attempting to.

[Lord Torath]

I'm tired of it. I'm sick of all the traitors, loot-hoggers, team-killers, lone wolves, "manipulators", and reluctant snarkers. It's a team game! Heroes aren't boring! Nobody's going to lynch you for playing someone who cares about the people around them.

I swear, half my campaigns have ended prematurely because someone decided that betraying the party would be a good idea. It's not even because they succeed. Even when they fail and the rest of the party stays intact, it just kills the mood such that no-one can bring themselves to touch that game again. Then we wind up with another batch of contrarians at each others' throats and the situation repeats itself.

For once, I just want a group of PCs who are all passionate, decent people, committed to what they're doing (or at least the larger goal), place some kind of relationship value on their cooperation in life-or-death struggles, and aren't about to whack each others' heads off the moment they get bored. They don't need to be carbon copies of Galahad and Robin Hood, but they should at least be team players who won't backstab their fellows every time someone asks them to.I'm in! When's your next game? :smallsmile:

Luckily I've never had this problem, but then I've never really played in a group outside my family, and most of the time, I'm the DM. The only time I've had players try to betray the rest is when they've been under the control of others - a Helm of Alignment Changing, or the charm of a Kopru.

Even in an evil campaign, the group should be loyal to each other. There's nothing fun about suddenly being ganked by someone you thought was a friend. If you want betrayal, play Paranoia.

[dargman69]

In fiction, if you do this kind of thing you really need to foreshadow it somehow, and I think it's the same in games.

[tomandtish]

The true first rule of D&D is simple: Is everyone having fun? (And that includes the GM). If this will be fun for everyone involved (and not just the GM and the person doing the backstabbing), then by all means go for it. But if not, then leave it out. And it can be hard to pull this off without looking like one side or the other is being favored.

There are three basic ways of handling this type of situation.

One: Both players and characters know that betrayal/PvP is at least a possibility. A good example of this is the Evil Campaign arc in Another Gaming Comic (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=459). The players and the characters know that betrayal is a possibility based on how they are brought together.

Two: More common is one where the players know, but not the characters. This is the typical “I allow PvP” game, but there’s nothing in anyone’s character concept that inherently indicates betrayal. So players may be suspicious, but characters have no inherent reason to be.

Three: The lone betrayer (which sounds like what you are talking about). In this case even players have no inherent reason to be suspicious of each other and have not been told that PvP is an option (except for the one who will be betraying them).

I’ve played in all of these, and all CAN be fun if done right. But as you go down the list they do become more difficult to pull off well. They require good roleplaying on everyone’s part, a good sense of humor, and a willingness to accept that it’s just a game.

In short, how well do you know your players? Can they handle something like this without it causing problems IRL?

[Lord Torath]

In fiction, if you do this kind of thing you really need to foreshadow it somehow, and I think it's the same in games.IN Shadowrun, there's a flaw you can take called Dark Secret. The DM is supposed to have something that will expose your Dark Secret in each adventure, unless you act to stop it. I'd say a goal of betraying the party counts as a pretty Dark Secret, and should be subject to the same threat of revelation. You know, assuming the DM is aware of it. I still maintain it's a pretty contemptible thing to do if the rest of the players are not on board with it.

[themaque]

I think one of the problems, if done poorly, is it doesn't just create distrust amongst the CHARACTERS but distrust amongst the PLAYERS.

Most role playing games, outside Vampire or some Shadowrun games, are meant to be co-operative. You work together with friends to have fun and tell stories.

If there is a "secret" traitor that the PLAYERS don't know about, than you don't just feel betrayed by Skavin the Spy but by Melisa who has been sitting next to you for years.

[goto124]

One: Both players and characters know that betrayal/PvP is at least a possibility.

Two: where the players know, but not the characters.

Three: The lone betrayer (which sounds like what you are talking about). In this case even players have no inherent reason to be suspicious of each other and have not been told that PvP is an option (except for the one who will be betraying them).

I'll say that the first two are acceptable, while the last one is the type that most often causes displeasure for everyone apart from the lone betrayer, and thus should be avoided about 99% of the time.

[Quertus]

Let me turn this question on its head for a moment. Which is better: the BBE mysteriously knowing the PCs abilities / being designed with them in mind by DM fiat, or there actually being an in game reason for it?

Personally, I would rather have a traitor in the party, feeding the BBE information on the characters, than have encounters mysteriously adapted to party strengths and weaknesses. Which is to say, I'd rather not have either, but at least I have a chance of doing something about one of those; with the other, I have no agency whatsoever.

Of course, I'm the type who'd also rather encounter "what's there" than "something CR appropriate". Since when should the emperor of the known universe suddenly become CR appropriate just because the PCs decided to attack him? ;)

[goto124]

... and what do I do if I meet a BBEG who's way above level-appropriate CR? Get out and grind my way to the appropriate level? If I can even get out at all?

[Segev]

Reading this thread again today gave me what I think is a potentially interesting idea:

A game wherein there is a mole, but not even he knows who he is. He's a sleeper agent who, most of the time, is so deep in cover that he just doesn't remember his true goals or motivations.

The GM talks to the players individually, and each one is given orders in line with an apparently ongoing plot that the party as a whole is opposing, and lets them tell him what their traitor-selves do to advance their "real" goals for or against the party.

The GM knows which one is really the traitor; that's the only one whose traitorous actions get implemented behind the scenes. The others aren't really happening. The GM incorporates party actions and NPC actions and the traitor's choices into what he tells the other players about how things have gone, mixing successes and failures in to explain why things look the way they did in response to (or in spite of) their traitorous actions.

Only at the climactic reveal-point does he reveal to the PLAYERS which one of them has really been a traitor the whole time, and which ones have merely been having bad dreams brought on by the insinuation early on that one of them was a traitor and didn't even know it.

[AMFV]

Reading this thread again today gave me what I think is a potentially interesting idea:

A game wherein there is a mole, but not even he knows who he is. He's a sleeper agent who, most of the time, is so deep in cover that he just doesn't remember his true goals or motivations.

The GM talks to the players individually, and each one is given orders in line with an apparently ongoing plot that the party as a whole is opposing, and lets them tell him what their traitor-selves do to advance their "real" goals for or against the party.

The GM knows which one is really the traitor; that's the only one whose traitorous actions get implemented behind the scenes. The others aren't really happening. The GM incorporates party actions and NPC actions and the traitor's choices into what he tells the other players about how things have gone, mixing successes and failures in to explain why things look the way they did in response to (or in spite of) their traitorous actions.

Only at the climactic reveal-point does he reveal to the PLAYERS which one of them has really been a traitor the whole time, and which ones have merely been having bad dreams brought on by the insinuation early on that one of them was a traitor and didn't even know it.

That seems like a really interesting game. I think it might be interesting to have a game where you give ALL of the players a secret agenda that they can work towards, which may not be directly opposed to the party, but basically they all have ulterior motivations. That might be nifty to explore. (Although your idea would be most excellent as well).

[Segev]

That seems like a really interesting game. I think it might be interesting to have a game where you give ALL of the players a secret agenda that they can work towards, which may not be directly opposed to the party, but basically they all have ulterior motivations. That might be nifty to explore. (Although your idea would be most excellent as well).

I've actually played in games like the one you describe. It usually evolves from the PLAYERS having their characters come from various backgrounds with personal, secret goals.

[AMFV]

I've actually played in games like the one you describe. It usually evolves from the PLAYERS having their characters come from various backgrounds with personal, secret goals.

I've seen this sort of thing as well, but I've never seen a system where there was system support for this sort of secret agenda stuff. That could be very interesting depending on how it was handled. And I don't think I've seen a game where ALL of the players had a secret agenda, or that was mandatory, which would be interesting. It would certainly have a higher incidence of player screwing player behavior though, so everybody would have to be on board with that.

[Segev]

I've seen this sort of thing as well, but I've never seen a system where there was system support for this sort of secret agenda stuff. That could be very interesting depending on how it was handled. And I don't think I've seen a game where ALL of the players had a secret agenda, or that was mandatory, which would be interesting. It would certainly have a higher incidence of player screwing player behavior though, so everybody would have to be on board with that.

In a non-serious sense, Paranoia bakes this right into the system. Every single one of the PCs is a Troubleshooter out to stop the Commie Mutant Traitors from sabotaging Alpha Complex. Being a member of a secret society is treason (and communist). Every PC has a mutant power and is a member of a (different) secret society.

[goto124]

I suspect it works better online. No need to secretly pass notes, or discuss in separate rooms, or that sort of thing.

[themaque]

I suspect it works better online. No need to secretly pass notes, or discuss in separate rooms, or that sort of thing.

Cell Phones has made the passing of Ninja notes much easier and more secure IRL

[AMFV]

In a non-serious sense, Paranoia bakes this right into the system. Every single one of the PCs is a Troubleshooter out to stop the Commie Mutant Traitors from sabotaging Alpha Complex. Being a member of a secret society is treason (and communist). Every PC has a mutant power and is a member of a (different) secret society.

Well Paranoia is kind of like that, although I would argue it's more a nonsense simulator than a game (albeit a really fun one). You don't actually have a real mutant agenda to forward and the secret societies don't really move towards anything, it's more nonsense. I love Paranoia, but I'd love to find a serious example of that kind of PvP game.

It would be awesome, a game where you have to work together, but you all have your own agenda, and it would need the right group, but I can imagine it would be gobs of fun.

[Honest Tiefling]

Honestly? I've been in so many groups where they immediately tried to murder each other for stupid reasons (loot, didn't like an NPC telling them to stop peeing on things, wanting to murder every NPC, deciding to go all pointed-ear racist, wanting to bump uglies with others out of character, wanting to bump uglies with each other in-character, etc...) that I just want the group to stop acting like idiotic psychopaths and start acting like functional human beings with some sense of morally, decency and idea that the world won't turn a blind eye to rampant arson or threats.

So a resounding no from me, but that's due to personal experience.