This is a very tricky thing to make work and can either lead to a car crash campaign or a fantastic one for the following reasons.
You are asking a player to be an evil character but, they need to be subtle with it so as not be caught out. This requires sublime roleplaying skills, or a table of players who are experts at not metagaming things in game. The longer it goes on the harder it is. The player also needs to accept their character will eventually die
Communication with you, during each session the player will want to do things, you need to work out a way to communicate this to you without giving the game away.
You are reliant on the player maintaining the pretense the entire time you want to tell the story.
By making the player the BBEG you are either taking your agency away (what if the player decides to “go rogue” he doesn’t want to take that amulet and raise the evil god, he wants to just slaughter the villiage and make himself emperor), or you are railroading one player forcing them to make decisions based on what you want the story to be.
Never make the whole plot hinge on one character. What if that character dies, or the player quits or moves away? Then you’re stuck with no bad guy. Now, you could make it an NPC they all know, a trusted figure from session 1 or 2, even. It’s not as much of a twist, but its a lot easier to give plot armor to an NPC.
God am I going to be the first person to reference Coville in a thread....it had to happen at some point.
so he talked in a video he did (don’t remember which) about playing in a superhero campaign where his character turned out to be the BBEG - basically he had a backstory as a robotic version of the original hero who had replaced them thinking they were dead and tried to hide it from the group - and then the original hero turned up.
so upto the point he turned up he didn’t know or play like he was a villain - he just played. Then at the point we’re the reveal happened the DM switched the character sheets. The robotic version became the villain controlled by the DM and Matt the player became the human version.
you could try something like that - that way your player isn’t in on it and still gets to be part of the story.
RotFM has the concept of secrets that you start with - maybe give all your players a secret that could potentially mean any one of them could potentially be a villain and don’t decide which it will be - play a few seasons first.
I think at that level, you're asking that player to go beyond being a mere player. You're effectively asking them to co-DM the campaign. And that's fine, as long as they understand what's going on. You'll both be in on the secret. You'll both have to communicate in-game without the others getting suspicious. And most importantly, you'll both need to debrief and plan in between sessions to keep the plan going in the right direction.
It is possible. But you're asking that player to accept a great deal of responsibility and trust, and you're taking an enormous risk with the rest of the party. As Scarloc pointed out, in the long run this will either be the greatest thing that you've ever pulled off, and the players will marvel at your genius for years to come - or you're going to p*ss them off so much that they will likely leave your table forever.
I applaud the idea, and I think it's worth a shot. Just be sure your co-DM understands the risks and the responsibilities in advance.
Never make the whole plot hinge on one character. What if that character dies, or the player quits or moves away? Then you’re stuck with no bad guy. Now, you could make it an NPC they all know, a trusted figure from session 1 or 2, even. It’s not as much of a twist, but its a lot easier to give plot armor to an NPC.
The twist npc concept is too stereotypical in my opinion. In fact, in the first homebrew campaign I ever ran, I had a twist npc that the players KO'd about 20 minutes after, just because he was taking too much of their time.
I want them to trust the bbeg at first, but my party is one of those that when you breathe, the wizard screams "I CAST DETECT MAGIC". They barely trust me, but trusting a fellow player is easier.
As for the twist PC dying before he's supposed to, I'll just make sure to pack the party with reviving equipment, and I can always fudge dice rolls, so I think we're covered there. If they quit, I'll just play his character myself; the party will think I'm just trying to keep the game even, while He's scheming behind their back. It will be kind of hard for him to move away, because this is a virtual campaign. NGL I can't wait until that is a problem I'll have to face (screw you, covid)!
Plot armor becomes pretty cheesy and pretty obvious pretty fast.
If the character knows They're actually the party's enemy. They should be making regular deception rolls. and sooner or later, they'll roll below someone's passive insight.
The whole thing will take a lot of fudging to really pull off, and at the end, the players may feel a bit cheated. Maybe they won't, you certainly know your players better than I do. Good luck, though.
A variant you can use: "One of you is a traitor. None of you know who it is. Not even the traitor...". Then the actual traitor is determined later depending on events (the board game Betrayal at House on the Hill gave me the concept).
God am I going to be the first person to reference Coville in a thread....it had to happen at some point.
so he talked in a video he did (don’t remember which) about playing in a superhero campaign where his character turned out to be the BBEG - basically he had a backstory as a robotic version of the original hero who had replaced them thinking they were dead and tried to hide it from the group - and then the original hero turned up.
so upto the point he turned up he didn’t know or play like he was a villain - he just played. Then at the point we’re the reveal happened the DM switched the character sheets. The robotic version became the villain controlled by the DM and Matt the player became the human version.
It was #82 Collaborating with a Player and I think it is extremely relevant to this topic. Any advice I could give here would basically just be my regurgitation of what Matt has to say about it.
It's difficult to think of anything that has not been said already. I hate the idea. Even if everything goes exactly as planned, everyone has a great time, and so much fun was had that everyone is eager for the next game, it's still a loss. The players can never trust anything again. They are always going to be wondering what you're going to do to screw them over next. Even if you're a player next time, they can't trust you.
It's difficult to think of anything that has not been said already. I hate the idea. Even if everything goes exactly as planned, everyone has a great time, and so much fun was had that everyone is eager for the next game, it's still a loss. The players can never trust anything again. They are always going to be wondering what you're going to do to screw them over next. Even if you're a player next time, they can't trust you.
I disagree with this, I have run campaigns like this and been part of them as a player (many different systems) in fact our cyberpunk game my best mate in real life, it turned out his character was a corporation spy sent to track me, he had been messing up with all our plans as well, had left enough small clues that we could have spotted it. Thanks to the brutality of combat in Cyberpunk, and the fact he was a weak net runner, I ended up strapping a pack of C4 to his body and throwing him down a lift shaft mid combat (he loved that cinematic moment). Are we now looking around wondering if anyone can be trusted, yes, is that part of the mindset of Cyberpunk, of course in fact all roleplay systems should have an element of tension and doubt about them, what are this persons motivations really, why are they going after this thing, at the end of the day over a 2 year (real time) campaign you have probably only spent about 10 or so months adventuring together, unless you have artificially added in time jumps, that is no way that is long enough to truly know someone.
If your players wont enjoy it don't do it, you know them, I know at my table the main point of contention would be why one particular player got to play it out.
I did once run a campaign, short lived 6-7 months only, where every player apart from one was lawful evil and I told every player to keep it a secret, I also gave every player a secret goal to achieve most of which where in opposition to each other, an attempt to recreate the joy of my fav ever roleplay system, paranoia, in DnD, it worked brilliantly. Turns out you can have loads of fun in DnD backstabbing, stealing and plotting against each other.
The problem here is that it makes one player's character dramatically more important than everyone else. The other players might hate that. It's risky. I personally wouldn't chance it. But it CAN lead to something cool, if all the stars align.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is a very tricky thing to make work and can either lead to a car crash campaign or a fantastic one for the following reasons.
You are asking a player to be an evil character but, they need to be subtle with it so as not be caught out. This requires sublime roleplaying skills, or a table of players who are experts at not metagaming things in game. The longer it goes on the harder it is. The player also needs to accept their character will eventually die
Communication with you, during each session the player will want to do things, you need to work out a way to communicate this to you without giving the game away.
You are reliant on the player maintaining the pretense the entire time you want to tell the story.
By making the player the BBEG you are either taking your agency away (what if the player decides to “go rogue” he doesn’t want to take that amulet and raise the evil god, he wants to just slaughter the villiage and make himself emperor), or you are railroading one player forcing them to make decisions based on what you want the story to be.
Never make the whole plot hinge on one character. What if that character dies, or the player quits or moves away? Then you’re stuck with no bad guy.
Now, you could make it an NPC they all know, a trusted figure from session 1 or 2, even. It’s not as much of a twist, but its a lot easier to give plot armor to an NPC.
God am I going to be the first person to reference Coville in a thread....it had to happen at some point.
so he talked in a video he did (don’t remember which) about playing in a superhero campaign where his character turned out to be the BBEG - basically he had a backstory as a robotic version of the original hero who had replaced them thinking they were dead and tried to hide it from the group - and then the original hero turned up.
so upto the point he turned up he didn’t know or play like he was a villain - he just played. Then at the point we’re the reveal happened the DM switched the character sheets. The robotic version became the villain controlled by the DM and Matt the player became the human version.
you could try something like that - that way your player isn’t in on it and still gets to be part of the story.
RotFM has the concept of secrets that you start with - maybe give all your players a secret that could potentially mean any one of them could potentially be a villain and don’t decide which it will be - play a few seasons first.
I think at that level, you're asking that player to go beyond being a mere player. You're effectively asking them to co-DM the campaign. And that's fine, as long as they understand what's going on. You'll both be in on the secret. You'll both have to communicate in-game without the others getting suspicious. And most importantly, you'll both need to debrief and plan in between sessions to keep the plan going in the right direction.
It is possible. But you're asking that player to accept a great deal of responsibility and trust, and you're taking an enormous risk with the rest of the party. As Scarloc pointed out, in the long run this will either be the greatest thing that you've ever pulled off, and the players will marvel at your genius for years to come - or you're going to p*ss them off so much that they will likely leave your table forever.
I applaud the idea, and I think it's worth a shot. Just be sure your co-DM understands the risks and the responsibilities in advance.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
Plot armor becomes pretty cheesy and pretty obvious pretty fast.
If the character knows They're actually the party's enemy. They should be making regular deception rolls. and sooner or later, they'll roll below someone's passive insight.
The whole thing will take a lot of fudging to really pull off, and at the end, the players may feel a bit cheated. Maybe they won't, you certainly know your players better than I do. Good luck, though.
A variant you can use: "One of you is a traitor. None of you know who it is. Not even the traitor...". Then the actual traitor is determined later depending on events (the board game Betrayal at House on the Hill gave me the concept).
It was #82 Collaborating with a Player and I think it is extremely relevant to this topic. Any advice I could give here would basically just be my regurgitation of what Matt has to say about it.
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
It's difficult to think of anything that has not been said already. I hate the idea. Even if everything goes exactly as planned, everyone has a great time, and so much fun was had that everyone is eager for the next game, it's still a loss. The players can never trust anything again. They are always going to be wondering what you're going to do to screw them over next. Even if you're a player next time, they can't trust you.
<Insert clever signature here>
I disagree with this, I have run campaigns like this and been part of them as a player (many different systems) in fact our cyberpunk game my best mate in real life, it turned out his character was a corporation spy sent to track me, he had been messing up with all our plans as well, had left enough small clues that we could have spotted it. Thanks to the brutality of combat in Cyberpunk, and the fact he was a weak net runner, I ended up strapping a pack of C4 to his body and throwing him down a lift shaft mid combat (he loved that cinematic moment). Are we now looking around wondering if anyone can be trusted, yes, is that part of the mindset of Cyberpunk, of course in fact all roleplay systems should have an element of tension and doubt about them, what are this persons motivations really, why are they going after this thing, at the end of the day over a 2 year (real time) campaign you have probably only spent about 10 or so months adventuring together, unless you have artificially added in time jumps, that is no way that is long enough to truly know someone.
If your players wont enjoy it don't do it, you know them, I know at my table the main point of contention would be why one particular player got to play it out.
I did once run a campaign, short lived 6-7 months only, where every player apart from one was lawful evil and I told every player to keep it a secret, I also gave every player a secret goal to achieve most of which where in opposition to each other, an attempt to recreate the joy of my fav ever roleplay system, paranoia, in DnD, it worked brilliantly. Turns out you can have loads of fun in DnD backstabbing, stealing and plotting against each other.
The problem here is that it makes one player's character dramatically more important than everyone else. The other players might hate that. It's risky. I personally wouldn't chance it. But it CAN lead to something cool, if all the stars align.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.