The long term goal is to survive by any means necessary. Currently, those means are killing or otherwise dealing with the rest of the party for the BBEG. If caught, the DM has made me an exfiltration scene where I try to get out of there ASAP. If I succeed, the DM will put my character on hold and make him a boss fight later in the game. Regardless of the outcome, the plan is to rejoin with a more traditional character afterwards, telling everyone that the traitor stuff is officially over, and we can play like a normal campaign for now.
It will basically depend on who's at your table. Are you surrounded by people who LOVE drama? Who when they make their characters and what they do, they're thinking "what would make good drama?" Because if you aren't surrounded by such folk, this twist might fall flat. Some folks hate PvP and wouldn't like this. Some would see it as getting in the way of the adventure. Some would see it as you taking the spotlight. You have to read the room. Are you surrounded by friends? If you're surrounded by friends, people you've gotten to know well, then this could turn out much better.
I don't side with the opinion that you should tell the other players. Unless you aren't friends. If you're friends then keep the surprise a surprise. If you aren't a close group, then telling them might be a worthwhile idea. But you already know how that can spoil the fun.
Try to possibly have your DM set up some "Who You Are in the Dark" moment for your character. The trope is one in which, the character is alone, and they do something that shows "who they really are" when no one is looking. Who they are in the dark. Who they are when they know that know one else will know. So like, guy is nice but reserved when with his friends, but when he's alone with a tied up goblin he tortures them for info and then gets mad when the goblin has nothing and kills them. It was just him and the goblin in that room, no one else. No one could've possibly heard as there's no one else around for miles in this little underground spot they were in or the like. You see who the guy truly is.
Having one of these moments whilst the other players are around could help alleviate the part about the players not knowing. I would suggest though still trying to keep the mystery as much as possible. Like idk you go into some dark corner to talk to someone all alone and the DM describes them as obscured but that you know just by their presence who it is. You have a vague conversation, the DM switches to the rest of the party, and then you just don't pick back up with your scene. So the rest of the players are like "hmmmm, the hecc was that" but no spoilers were given.
This will take a lot orchestration though, so keep that in mind.
That is an absolutely terrible idea. First of all because it's putting a huge amount of story and emphasis onto one character over the rest of the party, which tends to annoy the other people at the gaming table because they're sitting around playing in your game rather than theirs. Second, because very few players are willing to trust you to not backstab them again once you come in with your "normal" character. If the GM wants to run this plot, they should run the traitor as an NPC and you should play a regular character who's not secretly working for the enemy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is an absolutely terrible idea. First of all because it's putting a huge amount of story and emphasis onto one character over the rest of the party, which tends to annoy the other people at the gaming table because they're sitting around playing in your game rather than theirs. Second, because very few players are willing to trust you to not backstab them again once you come in with your "normal" character. If the GM wants to run this plot, they should run the traitor as an NPC and you should play a regular character who's not secretly working for the enemy.
This presumes that the table aren't friends tho. If the table are friends they are way more likely to know that they don't need watch their backs all the time and that holding a grudge would be a waste.
Your goal should be for there to be a surprise, but for there to be a surprise that the other players look back and say "Oh, that explains so much!" The most dangerous thing you could do from a table enjoyment setting in a betrayal situation is make it feel like the betrayal came out of the blue--then it just feels like you made a spur of the moment decision to change your character. Setting the stage early will make it feel like it is another step of the campaign that has long been in the planning, not just a random change done for the sake of making the party annoyed.
This kind of thing works in movies and books when the entire world is tightly controlled, but every time I've seen someone try it in D&D it's a binary thing - either the players have no clue and don't remember any of the hints because they were too subtle, or they figure it out on the first hint. That line is incredibly hard to walk when you have several brains writing the script on the fly.
Reserving all other judgement, I'd advise to just be ready for the game to come to a screeching halt when it's clear there's a traitor, which is likely to happen much more abruptly than you intend. I think most people would do nothing else until the traitor is revealed, and I can think of a few ways a party might throw wrenches in your "exfiltration" scene as well. Don't get too hung up on having it play out the way you see it in your head, because it rarely does without the DM being noticeably overbearing about it.
And just because you're ready for your character to die doesn't mean your allies are. It's like stepping in front of a bus with no thought for what it might do to the bus driver.
Having been in a situation where a party member did something major without telling anyone other than the DM, which caused the entire rest of the group to freak out because all we knew was that the body of the enemy priestess we were going to interrogate had been stolen out of our room in the queen's castle (meaning the enemy knew about it and could have magical means of entering and who knows what else), and so we all were trying to search around for it in our own ways, some of which led to major combat encounters... and it all ended up being a waste of effort and a wild goose chase, and hurt feelings all around.
Playing characters who are being fooling by a character can be a great time, as everyone gets to be in on the fun. A player fooling all the other players is a joke at the others' expense. It led to serious trust issues and people leaving the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Your goal should be for there to be a surprise, but for there to be a surprise that the other players look back and say "Oh, that explains so much!" The most dangerous thing you could do from a table enjoyment setting in a betrayal situation is make it feel like the betrayal came out of the blue--then it just feels like you made a spur of the moment decision to change your character. Setting the stage early will make it feel like it is another step of the campaign that has long been in the planning, not just a random change done for the sake of making the party annoyed.
This kind of thing works in movies and books when the entire world is tightly controlled, but every time I've seen someone try it in D&D it's a binary thing - either the players have no clue and don't remember any of the hints because they were too subtle, or they figure it out on the first hint. That line is incredibly hard to walk when you have several brains writing the script on the fly.
Reserving all other judgement, I'd advise to just be ready for the game to come to a screeching halt when it's clear there's a traitor, which is likely to happen much more abruptly than you intend. I think most people would do nothing else until the traitor is revealed, and I can think of a few ways a party might throw wrenches in your "exfiltration" scene as well. Don't get too hung up on having it play out the way you see it in your head, because it rarely does without the DM being noticeably overbearing about it.
And just because you're ready for your character to die doesn't mean your allies are. It's like stepping in front of a bus with no thought for what it might do to the bus driver.
Thanks for the warnings. That last point is actually a bit of a surprise to me, so I'm glad I got to hear it before the game started rolling.
I have seen a scenario like this work to the advantage of a finale for the campaign.
It was a short campaign of like 8 1-hour sessions. Somewhere around halfway, the DM and one player decided to have a plot regarding betrayal. Their motive was for the sake of the other players and not the one player.
The character was replaced with a double who had to creatively sabotage the party without letting the party know what he really was. For this, the DM stepped out of the betrayal picture once it was agreed and continued the campaign as if all were player characters on equal footing—no further assistance to the character double beyond not saying anything about it. If the player messed up the ruse, the DM was not going to cover for him.
The player had to be mindful of certain things while being a shapeshifter, such as avoiding things that would detect him or give him away (such as not touching silver but trying to keep the aversion in stride rather than straight-up, blunt rejection of anything with silver). He could never directly act against the party. Everything had to be subtle, and he had to keep up an appearance that he was a team player (though for his cover, a little short-sighted).
It was only at the battle of the BBEG was he revealed to be an agent of the BBEG and, along with the BBEG, was thoroughly trounced. In the wrap-up, they all reviewed everything that led up to the finale and realized there were hints of things he did that didn't seem like a big deal at the time but, when all added together, showed a distinct pattern that would have revealed what he was—all starting with a brief period of time when the character wandered off on his own one evening and returned the next morning which is when the original character was replaced with the double.
The player's job actually became much more difficult. All the DM had to do with just stick to the rules. The twist was worth it according to the table, and it could have happened at any time if the player messed it up.
I have wondered if the reason it went over so well is because the DM did not attempt to help the player keep his cover rather than the DM helping a player manipulate the game.
Even so, it was still a gamble that it would pay off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It's really about trust, if your just coming up with some intrigue because it's amusing to the insiders than there's less opportunity. If your friendly with the table and you all understand that the game is for mutual entertainment, than they may be excited that something unexpected happened.
I'd focus on making meaningful connections with each character, develop a scenario where your betrayal isn't screwing the party, but hits more emotionally, and expect to be side lined. There's room in a game to split the party, but all of the other players shouldn't be idle while you have solo time, if you wanna leave the table and have separate RP sessions with the DM, or retire from the table, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect the other players to sacrifice time as well as allies just to entertain a fraction of you over any extended period of time.
It's really about trust, if your just coming up with some intrigue because it's amusing to the insiders than there's less opportunity. If your friendly with the table and you all understand that the game is for mutual entertainment, than they may be excited that something unexpected happened.
I'd focus on making meaningful connections with each character, develop a scenario where your betrayal isn't screwing the party, but hits more emotionally, and expect to be side lined. There's room in a game to split the party, but all of the other players shouldn't be idle while you have solo time, if you wanna leave the table and have separate RP sessions with the DM, or retire from the table, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect the other players to sacrifice time as well as allies just to entertain a fraction of you over any extended period of time.
Good ideas! Right now, I'm seeing my character as more of a "Woobie Anti-Villain" (not wanting to be evil, but forced into it by circumstances), so the emotional stinger is absolutely there. As for not slowing the game down with my character's twist, that's gonna be a hard one, especially since we all play on the VTT Roll20. Do you have any ideas for how we can do this with a VTT?
Having been in a situation where a party member did something major without telling anyone other than the DM, which caused the entire rest of the group to freak out because all we knew was that the body of the enemy priestess we were going to interrogate had been stolen out of our room in the queen's castle (meaning the enemy knew about it and could have magical means of entering and who knows what else), and so we all were trying to search around for it in our own ways, some of which led to major combat encounters... and it all ended up being a waste of effort and a wild goose chase, and hurt feelings all around.
Playing characters who are being fooling by a character can be a great time, as everyone gets to be in on the fun. A player fooling all the other players is a joke at the others' expense. It led to serious trust issues and people leaving the group.
That's why the DM and I are trying to be very careful about this. The plan is have a couple of normal sessions, no traitor gimmicks, then hint at a traitor in-game, while confirming that there is a traitor OOC. That way, OOC everyone knows that no one's actually getting betrayed, only the characters, but we can still have the thrill of some good ol' social deduction.
Would this still work, or would there still be other problems to worry about?
The long term goal is to survive by any means necessary. Currently, those means are killing or otherwise dealing with the rest of the party for the BBEG. If caught, the DM has made me an exfiltration scene where I try to get out of there ASAP. If I succeed, the DM will put my character on hold and make him a boss fight later in the game. Regardless of the outcome, the plan is to rejoin with a more traditional character afterwards, telling everyone that the traitor stuff is officially over, and we can play like a normal campaign for now.
Having been in a situation where a party member did something major without telling anyone other than the DM, which caused the entire rest of the group to freak out because all we knew was that the body of the enemy priestess we were going to interrogate had been stolen out of our room in the queen's castle (meaning the enemy knew about it and could have magical means of entering and who knows what else), and so we all were trying to search around for it in our own ways, some of which led to major combat encounters... and it all ended up being a waste of effort and a wild goose chase, and hurt feelings all around.
Playing characters who are being fooling by a character can be a great time, as everyone gets to be in on the fun. A player fooling all the other players is a joke at the others' expense. It led to serious trust issues and people leaving the group.
That's why the DM and I are trying to be very careful about this. The plan is have a couple of normal sessions, no traitor gimmicks, then hint at a traitor in-game, while confirming that there is a traitor OOC. That way, OOC everyone knows that no one's actually getting betrayed, only the characters, but we can still have the thrill of some good ol' social deduction.
Would this still work, or would there still be other problems to worry about?
Comboing these 2 because they lead into the general.. feel of the plan to me. So the plan is.. to have a few normal sessions. Tell everyone someone is a traitor.. than when they discover it's you, your character will try to run and if successful will become a boss later.
So, there will really be no reveal or "ooooh" moment as they untangle the web because they know there's a traitor and the outcome of it all is just going to be a boss fight later on?
Perhaps there's some big motivation your character has that will maybe add something BIG to this but it sorta sounds like your motivation is simply "to survive"
I don't know your table obviously, but a few sessions generally doesn't really bring a group together for our table when we have new characters so I don't see the finding out your character is a traitor having any impact early on (again this would be amongst us, perhaps your table you guys form bonds with characters faster).
Just I'm gonna be blunt this sounds really flat, really underwhelming and the 'payoff' for it is missing
IF your set on doing this, you and the DM need to come up with a COMPELLING reason for the betrayal and there NEEDS to be some sorta... reaction to it, for some reason the players like.. have to have some sorta feeling when it occurs.. I'm not so sure I'd tell them there is a traitor, and if you feel like you need to than just don't do the thing at all. It's like the author telling you who did it in a murder mystery on page 4
Apart from the issues already mentioned about group dynamics and traitor roles, It seems a little like the campaign is laid a bit on tracks in terms of what will happen. I completely appreciate that planning ahead makes sense, but are there for example events of interactions that might cause the traitor to become "double agent"? E.g. confess to the group the intended betrayal and keep up the appearances while the group actually works together to bring down the opponents?
If that's not even a possibility, it would feel like the group is basically just being led into a trap that they can't really do anything about.
Apart from the issues already mentioned about group dynamics and traitor roles, It seems a little like the campaign is laid a bit on tracks in terms of what will happen. I completely appreciate that planning ahead makes sense, but are there for example events of interactions that might cause the traitor to become "double agent"? E.g. confess to the group the intended betrayal and keep up the appearances while the group actually works together to bring down the opponents?
If that's not even a possibility, it would feel like the group is basically just being led into a trap that they can't really do anything about.
Character development is the big one. My character may just say "screw trying to survive right now, I've gotta warn the party, it's gonna be a noble sacrifice." Of course, that one is out of the party's control (unless they get REALLY lucky), so it might not be the best option... I'll mention it with my DM.
Comboing these 2 because they lead into the general.. feel of the plan to me. So the plan is.. to have a few normal sessions. Tell everyone someone is a traitor.. than when they discover it's you, your character will try to run and if successful will become a boss later.
So, there will really be no reveal or "ooooh" moment as they untangle the web because they know there's a traitor and the outcome of it all is just going to be a boss fight later on?
They're not trying to untangle that there IS a traitor; they're trying to untangle WHO it is. It's kinda like more traditional social deduction games: you know SOMEONE is trying to sabotage everyone else, but not WHO they are. The challenge is finding them.
Perhaps there's some big motivation your character has that will maybe add something BIG to this but it sorta sounds like your motivation is simply "to survive"
That's because it is. What's wrong with that? No, seriously, I don't see any problem with making my character's goal a simple challenge of survival.
IF you're set on doing this, you and the DM need to come up with a COMPELLING reason for the betrayal and there NEEDS to be some sorta... reaction to it, for some reason the players like.. have to have some sorta feeling when it occurs.. I'm not so sure I'd tell them there is a traitor, and if you feel like you need to than just don't do the thing at all. It's like the author telling you who did it in a murder mystery on page 4
The whole point is that we DON'T SAY WHO IT IS so that we still have that element of intrigue, without running the risk of IRL feelings getting hurt.
That is an absolutely terrible idea. First of all because it's putting a huge amount of story and emphasis onto one character over the rest of the party, which tends to annoy the other people at the gaming table because they're sitting around playing in your game rather than theirs. Second, because very few players are willing to trust you to not backstab them again once you come in with your "normal" character. If the GM wants to run this plot, they should run the traitor as an NPC and you should play a regular character who's not secretly working for the enemy.
I strongly agree with your point and have seen this happen in games. But I have also see the OP's idea work, so I think it can dramatically depend on your group.
Character development is the big one. My character may just say "screw trying to survive right now, I've gotta warn the party, it's gonna be a noble sacrifice." Of course, that one is out of the party's control (unless they get REALLY lucky), so it might not be the best option... I'll mention it with my DM.
I gotta be honest, statements like this one make it really sound like you intend to be the star of the campaign, and the rest of the party are just supporting characters in your drama. Which is a sure way to ensure the game is not fun for everybody
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems like, as a player, when I hear OoC there’s a traitor, it’s going to be very hard not to meta-game that and do what others said already: stop everything else until we figure out who the traitor is. This is doubly true if the characters already have an idea that there might be a traitor. When that’s confirmed OoC, now I kind of have license to ferret them out. Which seems like a lot of PvP insight and deception checks, or maybe someone casts zone of truth. Not my idea of a fun session, but others may disagree. (And not for nothing, if one of the other characters has a high passive insight, they should be noticing the numerous lies your character will need to be telling to make this work. And if they don’t notice, they will quite rightly be upset and their abilities being ignored.)
Overall the big problem is (as I think others have said) tricking characters is one thing, but this is tricking the players. You want the fighter to stand there open mouthed and shocked, not the person playing the fighter. That’s a nearly impossible line to walk. Maybe you are all friends, in which case you don’t have to worry too much about game-ending hurt feelings. But the whole still a very metagame ploy, where you are actually tricking the other players.
Seems like, as a player, when I hear OoC there’s a traitor, it’s going to be very hard not to meta-game that and do what others said already: stop everything else until we figure out who the traitor is. This is doubly true if the characters already have an idea that there might be a traitor. When that’s confirmed OoC, now I kind of have license to ferret them out. Which seems like a lot of PvP insight and deception checks, or maybe someone casts zone of truth. Not my idea of a fun session, but others may disagree. (And not for nothing, if one of the other characters has a high passive insight, they should be noticing the numerous lies your character will need to be telling to make this work. And if they don’t notice, they will quite rightly be upset and their abilities being ignored.)
Overall the big problem is (as I think others have said) tricking characters is one thing, but this is tricking the players. You want the fighter to stand there open mouthed and shocked, not the person playing the fighter. That’s a nearly impossible line to walk. Maybe you are all friends, in which case you don’t have to worry too much about game-ending hurt feelings. But the whole still a very metagame ploy, where you are actually tricking the other players.
Okay, I should clarify. I'm sorry for not doing this earlier.
We are STILL going to give the party an IN-GAME hint about the traitor, and ALSO confirm their existence OOC.
Replying to #19
The long term goal is to survive by any means necessary. Currently, those means are killing or otherwise dealing with the rest of the party for the BBEG. If caught, the DM has made me an exfiltration scene where I try to get out of there ASAP. If I succeed, the DM will put my character on hold and make him a boss fight later in the game. Regardless of the outcome, the plan is to rejoin with a more traditional character afterwards, telling everyone that the traitor stuff is officially over, and we can play like a normal campaign for now.
It will basically depend on who's at your table. Are you surrounded by people who LOVE drama? Who when they make their characters and what they do, they're thinking "what would make good drama?" Because if you aren't surrounded by such folk, this twist might fall flat. Some folks hate PvP and wouldn't like this. Some would see it as getting in the way of the adventure. Some would see it as you taking the spotlight. You have to read the room. Are you surrounded by friends? If you're surrounded by friends, people you've gotten to know well, then this could turn out much better.
I don't side with the opinion that you should tell the other players. Unless you aren't friends. If you're friends then keep the surprise a surprise. If you aren't a close group, then telling them might be a worthwhile idea. But you already know how that can spoil the fun.
Try to possibly have your DM set up some "Who You Are in the Dark" moment for your character. The trope is one in which, the character is alone, and they do something that shows "who they really are" when no one is looking. Who they are in the dark. Who they are when they know that know one else will know. So like, guy is nice but reserved when with his friends, but when he's alone with a tied up goblin he tortures them for info and then gets mad when the goblin has nothing and kills them. It was just him and the goblin in that room, no one else. No one could've possibly heard as there's no one else around for miles in this little underground spot they were in or the like. You see who the guy truly is.
Having one of these moments whilst the other players are around could help alleviate the part about the players not knowing. I would suggest though still trying to keep the mystery as much as possible. Like idk you go into some dark corner to talk to someone all alone and the DM describes them as obscured but that you know just by their presence who it is. You have a vague conversation, the DM switches to the rest of the party, and then you just don't pick back up with your scene. So the rest of the players are like "hmmmm, the hecc was that" but no spoilers were given.
This will take a lot orchestration though, so keep that in mind.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
That is an absolutely terrible idea. First of all because it's putting a huge amount of story and emphasis onto one character over the rest of the party, which tends to annoy the other people at the gaming table because they're sitting around playing in your game rather than theirs. Second, because very few players are willing to trust you to not backstab them again once you come in with your "normal" character. If the GM wants to run this plot, they should run the traitor as an NPC and you should play a regular character who's not secretly working for the enemy.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This presumes that the table aren't friends tho. If the table are friends they are way more likely to know that they don't need watch their backs all the time and that holding a grudge would be a waste.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
This kind of thing works in movies and books when the entire world is tightly controlled, but every time I've seen someone try it in D&D it's a binary thing - either the players have no clue and don't remember any of the hints because they were too subtle, or they figure it out on the first hint. That line is incredibly hard to walk when you have several brains writing the script on the fly.
Reserving all other judgement, I'd advise to just be ready for the game to come to a screeching halt when it's clear there's a traitor, which is likely to happen much more abruptly than you intend. I think most people would do nothing else until the traitor is revealed, and I can think of a few ways a party might throw wrenches in your "exfiltration" scene as well. Don't get too hung up on having it play out the way you see it in your head, because it rarely does without the DM being noticeably overbearing about it.
And just because you're ready for your character to die doesn't mean your allies are. It's like stepping in front of a bus with no thought for what it might do to the bus driver.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Having been in a situation where a party member did something major without telling anyone other than the DM, which caused the entire rest of the group to freak out because all we knew was that the body of the enemy priestess we were going to interrogate had been stolen out of our room in the queen's castle (meaning the enemy knew about it and could have magical means of entering and who knows what else), and so we all were trying to search around for it in our own ways, some of which led to major combat encounters... and it all ended up being a waste of effort and a wild goose chase, and hurt feelings all around.
Playing characters who are being fooling by a character can be a great time, as everyone gets to be in on the fun. A player fooling all the other players is a joke at the others' expense. It led to serious trust issues and people leaving the group.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Thanks for the warnings. That last point is actually a bit of a surprise to me, so I'm glad I got to hear it before the game started rolling.
I have seen a scenario like this work to the advantage of a finale for the campaign.
It was a short campaign of like 8 1-hour sessions. Somewhere around halfway, the DM and one player decided to have a plot regarding betrayal. Their motive was for the sake of the other players and not the one player.
The character was replaced with a double who had to creatively sabotage the party without letting the party know what he really was. For this, the DM stepped out of the betrayal picture once it was agreed and continued the campaign as if all were player characters on equal footing—no further assistance to the character double beyond not saying anything about it. If the player messed up the ruse, the DM was not going to cover for him.
The player had to be mindful of certain things while being a shapeshifter, such as avoiding things that would detect him or give him away (such as not touching silver but trying to keep the aversion in stride rather than straight-up, blunt rejection of anything with silver). He could never directly act against the party. Everything had to be subtle, and he had to keep up an appearance that he was a team player (though for his cover, a little short-sighted).
It was only at the battle of the BBEG was he revealed to be an agent of the BBEG and, along with the BBEG, was thoroughly trounced. In the wrap-up, they all reviewed everything that led up to the finale and realized there were hints of things he did that didn't seem like a big deal at the time but, when all added together, showed a distinct pattern that would have revealed what he was—all starting with a brief period of time when the character wandered off on his own one evening and returned the next morning which is when the original character was replaced with the double.
The player's job actually became much more difficult. All the DM had to do with just stick to the rules. The twist was worth it according to the table, and it could have happened at any time if the player messed it up.
I have wondered if the reason it went over so well is because the DM did not attempt to help the player keep his cover rather than the DM helping a player manipulate the game.
Even so, it was still a gamble that it would pay off.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
It's really about trust, if your just coming up with some intrigue because it's amusing to the insiders than there's less opportunity. If your friendly with the table and you all understand that the game is for mutual entertainment, than they may be excited that something unexpected happened.
I'd focus on making meaningful connections with each character, develop a scenario where your betrayal isn't screwing the party, but hits more emotionally, and expect to be side lined. There's room in a game to split the party, but all of the other players shouldn't be idle while you have solo time, if you wanna leave the table and have separate RP sessions with the DM, or retire from the table, that's fine, but you shouldn't expect the other players to sacrifice time as well as allies just to entertain a fraction of you over any extended period of time.
Good ideas! Right now, I'm seeing my character as more of a "Woobie Anti-Villain" (not wanting to be evil, but forced into it by circumstances), so the emotional stinger is absolutely there. As for not slowing the game down with my character's twist, that's gonna be a hard one, especially since we all play on the VTT Roll20. Do you have any ideas for how we can do this with a VTT?
That's why the DM and I are trying to be very careful about this. The plan is have a couple of normal sessions, no traitor gimmicks, then hint at a traitor in-game, while confirming that there is a traitor OOC. That way, OOC everyone knows that no one's actually getting betrayed, only the characters, but we can still have the thrill of some good ol' social deduction.
Would this still work, or would there still be other problems to worry about?
Comboing these 2 because they lead into the general.. feel of the plan to me. So the plan is.. to have a few normal sessions. Tell everyone someone is a traitor.. than when they discover it's you, your character will try to run and if successful will become a boss later.
So, there will really be no reveal or "ooooh" moment as they untangle the web because they know there's a traitor and the outcome of it all is just going to be a boss fight later on?
Perhaps there's some big motivation your character has that will maybe add something BIG to this but it sorta sounds like your motivation is simply "to survive"
I don't know your table obviously, but a few sessions generally doesn't really bring a group together for our table when we have new characters so I don't see the finding out your character is a traitor having any impact early on (again this would be amongst us, perhaps your table you guys form bonds with characters faster).
Just I'm gonna be blunt this sounds really flat, really underwhelming and the 'payoff' for it is missing
IF your set on doing this, you and the DM need to come up with a COMPELLING reason for the betrayal and there NEEDS to be some sorta... reaction to it, for some reason the players like.. have to have some sorta feeling when it occurs.. I'm not so sure I'd tell them there is a traitor, and if you feel like you need to than just don't do the thing at all. It's like the author telling you who did it in a murder mystery on page 4
Apart from the issues already mentioned about group dynamics and traitor roles, It seems a little like the campaign is laid a bit on tracks in terms of what will happen. I completely appreciate that planning ahead makes sense, but are there for example events of interactions that might cause the traitor to become "double agent"? E.g. confess to the group the intended betrayal and keep up the appearances while the group actually works together to bring down the opponents?
If that's not even a possibility, it would feel like the group is basically just being led into a trap that they can't really do anything about.
Character development is the big one. My character may just say "screw trying to survive right now, I've gotta warn the party, it's gonna be a noble sacrifice." Of course, that one is out of the party's control (unless they get REALLY lucky), so it might not be the best option... I'll mention it with my DM.
They're not trying to untangle that there IS a traitor; they're trying to untangle WHO it is. It's kinda like more traditional social deduction games: you know SOMEONE is trying to sabotage everyone else, but not WHO they are. The challenge is finding them.
That's because it is. What's wrong with that? No, seriously, I don't see any problem with making my character's goal a simple challenge of survival.
I strongly agree with your point and have seen this happen in games. But I have also see the OP's idea work, so I think it can dramatically depend on your group.
I gotta be honest, statements like this one make it really sound like you intend to be the star of the campaign, and the rest of the party are just supporting characters in your drama. Which is a sure way to ensure the game is not fun for everybody
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Seems like, as a player, when I hear OoC there’s a traitor, it’s going to be very hard not to meta-game that and do what others said already: stop everything else until we figure out who the traitor is.
This is doubly true if the characters already have an idea that there might be a traitor. When that’s confirmed OoC, now I kind of have license to ferret them out. Which seems like a lot of PvP insight and deception checks, or maybe someone casts zone of truth. Not my idea of a fun session, but others may disagree. (And not for nothing, if one of the other characters has a high passive insight, they should be noticing the numerous lies your character will need to be telling to make this work. And if they don’t notice, they will quite rightly be upset and their abilities being ignored.)
Overall the big problem is (as I think others have said) tricking characters is one thing, but this is tricking the players. You want the fighter to stand there open mouthed and shocked, not the person playing the fighter. That’s a nearly impossible line to walk. Maybe you are all friends, in which case you don’t have to worry too much about game-ending hurt feelings. But the whole still a very metagame ploy, where you are actually tricking the other players.
Okay, I should clarify. I'm sorry for not doing this earlier.
We are STILL going to give the party an IN-GAME hint about the traitor, and ALSO confirm their existence OOC.
Get the permission of everyone at the table beforehand.
In other words, get the players to conspire against their characters.