One of my players really wants to be an Imperial spy, and I was hoping someone could give advice. It just seems that this idea really isn't sanctioned under the Age of Rebellion rules as Duty is to literally serve the Rebellion.

The duty mechanic is easy. The spy should have a cover of some kind, give then the corresponding duty of the cover. So if they are a mechanic, they get "support" or something.

As far as actually playing the campaign... Plan plan plan plan. The more you know about how their treason is supposed to unfold, the better. If you have nearly every adventure spelled out, you can better adjust on the fly to make sure he's where he needs to be at any given time.

Also don't "use" the spy's Intel too fast. Remember, Intel is a careful balance between action, and keeping your source safe (so he can continue to feed Intel, not so much out of any concern about his safety). Let the rest of the players succeed regularly, only have the really important missions go horribly wrong.

Make sure the other players at the table are aware that they could be betrayed to the Empire. This type of RPG scenario opens up the possibility of very hurt feelings if other players are not aware this might be the direction of the game.

The tone would also benefit greatly if it were a little dark, and the PCs were in a position to see a lot of covert action, betrayals, defections, and the like long before one of their own is potentially discovered to be a traitor.

Should the spy actually go as far as to kill imperials? Or should that be up to them. And does this mean that the Spy could end up trapping them all. Should I hold separate sessions or at least talk with the spy to learn what he is doing behind the scenes?

you could have the player run with a combined Duty, 1/2 to the Rebels, 1/2 to the Empire. It should be something that he can use to plant false or misleading intel, sabotage or Intel gathering. this way he can make it look like he is working against the Empire, but secretly planting false info

This way you can give him information before or after a session that he can bring up in game when he is doing his actions, example:

Player: "Im slicing this terminal to identify when the next imp shipment will arrive" its a successes

GM: "you find that in 2 days there will be another shipment of medical supplies going through the system, the usual small escort will be with it"

In actual fact there will now be a much larger force hidden inside the transport ship, or a homing beacon planted to help the spy give up the rebel base location.

I would make it so that direct confrontation with the other PC's would be bad for the spy, so that its avoided at all cost, he is not trying to stop them, just use them to get better intel on the Rebel Alliance.

Any of Counter-Intelligence, Intelligence, Internal Security, Political Support, Sabotage and Support could do what he needs. its going to take some forward planing, but planing you should be doing anyway to make duty a bigger part of the campaign. i would suggest coming up with a list of "events" that you can bring into encounters to feed the player information relative to the Duty. in the same way you should have a list of tech handy that a PC looking for tech can find in the right circumstances. information on future shipments, possible threats, political influences, troop movements, this all hinges on the ideas you have for the story

use email/pm out of session to see what ideas the spy player has.

Make sure the other players at the table are aware that they could be betrayed to the Empire. This type of RPG scenario opens up the possibility of very hurt feelings if other players are not aware this might be the direction of the game.

The tone would also benefit greatly if it were a little dark, and the PCs were in a position to see a lot of covert action, betrayals, defections, and the like long before one of their own is potentially discovered to be a traitor.

Oh my gods, this! Make sure the rest of the players are OK with a traitor in their midsts! You're playing a game to have fun and this kind of thing can cause others to not have fun when they find out. Make sure everyone is on the same page or hurt feelings will ensue.

-EF

I'd suggest using Obligation for the traitor. When his handlers call upon him it puts stress on him (reduction of Strain Threshold), and when he doesn't give them what they want, the Obligation goes up.

Should the spy actually go as far as to kill imperials? Or should that be up to them. And does this mean that the Spy could end up trapping them all. Should I hold separate sessions or at least talk with the spy to learn what he is doing behind the scenes?

Your Spy wouldn't actually have to kill Imperials.. the Spy could simply say that he/she does not believe in killing and will fire stun shots every chance he/she gets even if it is more difficult to do so.

IMO The Empire would have no problem with its spies killing grunts or low level officers in the course of their missions.

Should the spy actually go as far as to kill imperials? Or should that be up to them. And does this mean that the Spy could end up trapping them all. Should I hold separate sessions or at least talk with the spy to learn what he is doing behind the scenes?

In more informal combat (say the spy gets cornered) you can have him run combat normally. Remember that removing a character from play due to exceeding their WT doesn't mean they are dead. So the spy can wound an "enemy" and have him just play dead until the rebels have left.

Also for reference, in WWII the Americans cracked a Japanese code, and darn near let the Japanese take midway out of fear the Japanese would see a defensive as an indicator the code had been cracked, and change the code. So letting a few die to protect a good source will be nothing for the Empire.

I wouldn't hold separate sessions, but I could talk to him offline. Just to make sure he's tracking, knows any special plans, codewords, ext. His first few adventures his orders should be to be a good rebel and build his cover. Don't tip your hand too soon, the sudden but inevitable betrayal should be a surprise.

Has the player mentioned their intent in front of the other players of do they appear to be trying to run this behind the other players backs. As mentioned above by JRRP and Eldritchfire, I would make sure that everyone knew what they had in mind and make sure that they were ok with it. For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

Has the player mentioned their intent in front of the other players of do they appear to be trying to run this behind the other players backs. As mentioned above by JRRP and Eldritchfire, I would make sure that everyone knew what they had in mind and make sure that they were ok with it. For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

The player shouldn't have to confess to being the spy in front of everyone in advance, that defeats the purpose. And you don't need to be an amazing super player to pull off a spy, just one that understands he's a spy.

You do have to be an attentive GM though, and I wouldn't even attempt to sandbox this game. If you're planning a sandbox, forget the spy, it's just too complicated. Regular players running willy nilly is tough enough, a spy, even worse.

Now, if you're going to run a planned campaign, yeah, you're in good shapes, as long as you properly prepare and factor in the character.

Get with the spy offline before each adventure. Go over real quick where things are, and give him his "secret" spy mission briefing for that adventure. As a planned campaign you'll be able to work his mission objectives into the greater campaign and allow his missions to function in the plot properly. That way when the sudden but inevitable betrayal occurs, it all comes together, the players remember all the little details, and everything is so perfect you look like a rockstar GM.

"Oooohh man, so when Steve took the code cylinder in Adventure 3 that was so he could switch it with one he had that had the virus on it!" "Oh man, and that Imperial agent he killed in Adventure 6 really was trying to defect! HE probably knew Steve was a spy!"

Has the player mentioned their intent in front of the other players of do they appear to be trying to run this behind the other players backs. As mentioned above by JRRP and Eldritchfire, I would make sure that everyone knew what they had in mind and make sure that they were ok with it. For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

The player shouldn't have to confess to being the spy in front of everyone in advance, that defeats the purpose. And you don't need to be an amazing super player to pull off a spy, just one that understands he's a spy.

You do have to be an attentive GM though, and I wouldn't even attempt to sandbox this game. If you're planning a sandbox, forget the spy, it's just too complicated. Regular players running willy nilly is tough enough, a spy, even worse.

Now, if you're going to run a planned campaign, yeah, you're in good shapes, as long as you properly prepare and factor in the character.

…

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The players should know what kind of game they're playing. Just because the characters don't know one of them is a spy, in my opinion and experience, the game goes a lot smoother if all players know what's going on.

If the other players are in on the 'big secret' they can play along, too! With everyone onboard you can build to the big reveal! The players are more the audience, knowing what's going on while yelling at the characters to not do X while knowing full well they will.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

-EF

Has the player mentioned their intent in front of the other players of do they appear to be trying to run this behind the other players backs. As mentioned above by JRRP and Eldritchfire, I would make sure that everyone knew what they had in mind and make sure that they were ok with it. For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

The player shouldn't have to confess to being the spy in front of everyone in advance, that defeats the purpose. And you don't need to be an amazing super player to pull off a spy, just one that understands he's a spy.

You do have to be an attentive GM though, and I wouldn't even attempt to sandbox this game. If you're planning a sandbox, forget the spy, it's just too complicated. Regular players running willy nilly is tough enough, a spy, even worse.

Now, if you're going to run a planned campaign, yeah, you're in good shapes, as long as you properly prepare and factor in the character.

…

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The players should know what kind of game they're playing. Just because the characters don't know one of them is a spy, in my opinion and experience, the game goes a lot smoother if all players know what's going on.

If the other players are in on the 'big secret' they can play along, too! With everyone onboard you can build to the big reveal! The players are more the audience, knowing what's going on while yelling at the characters to not do X while knowing full well they will.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

-EF

Would you tell the players if one of their recurring NPC allies was a spy (prior to an in-game reveal)? If not, then why does it matter if a player other than the GM is directing the spy?

I can see both sides of the "the guy playing the Imperial spy should inform the other players."

I've been in a campaign (Sage Edition, Legacy Era) where one of the PCs had pretty much intended to sell out the Alliance Remnant (who we were working for) to the Sith Empire from pretty early on. Not because he was an Imperial, but more as a means to advance his own personal agenda (was an aspiring crime lord and figured getting in good with the folks running the galaxy would be beneficial to his long term plans). None of the players knew this until the betrayal took place, and while there were some hurt feelings at being back-stabbed, overall we were able to get over it (with the exception of one player that's still upset, though a large part of that is due to her character having been nearly killed in the process), mostly because it was really well orchestrated on his part, and that his next character was as die-hard loyal to the PCs and the cause as one could get.

I think it ultimately depends on what sort of players you have in your group. I've got a really solid group of role-players that are able to keep player knowledge and character knowledge as two separate things (not always easy to do) and that you know won't take the inevitable betrayal personally... then keep them in the dark about the Imperial spy. Just make it clear to the player of the spy that he doesn't have carte blanche to completely screw the PCs over, and in general should be working towards helping accomplish their various goals. Frankly, until a group gets to Contribution Rank 3 or higher, the Empire's generally not going to care what that particular group of Rebels is doing for the most part, and Imperial Intell may very well be willing to consider the spy's efforts to be worth a series of "acceptable losses" if it means that the spy can provide continued information to their handlers.

But if you even suspect the other players would take it personally, then let them know ahead of time about the one guy playing an Imperial undercover spy. And if you think that even with fore-knowledge the other players aren't going to take it well, then I'd suggest nixing the idea of having the Imperial spy in the first place.

Has the player mentioned their intent in front of the other players of do they appear to be trying to run this behind the other players backs. As mentioned above by JRRP and Eldritchfire, I would make sure that everyone knew what they had in mind and make sure that they were ok with it. For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

The player shouldn't have to confess to being the spy in front of everyone in advance, that defeats the purpose. And you don't need to be an amazing super player to pull off a spy, just one that understands he's a spy.

You do have to be an attentive GM though, and I wouldn't even attempt to sandbox this game. If you're planning a sandbox, forget the spy, it's just too complicated. Regular players running willy nilly is tough enough, a spy, even worse.

Now, if you're going to run a planned campaign, yeah, you're in good shapes, as long as you properly prepare and factor in the character.

…

I'm going to have to disagree with this. The players should know what kind of game they're playing. Just because the characters don't know one of them is a spy, in my opinion and experience, the game goes a lot smoother if all players know what's going on.

If the other players are in on the 'big secret' they can play along, too! With everyone onboard you can build to the big reveal! The players are more the audience, knowing what's going on while yelling at the characters to not do X while knowing full well they will.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

-EF

Would you tell the players if one of their recurring NPC allies was a spy (prior to an in-game reveal)? If not, then why does it matter if a player other than the GM is directing the spy?

I do, actually. At my table, everything is in the open. My groups and I play to find out what happens. We know the good guys win and the bad guys lose, but at what cost? All my players know each character's motivation, so they can play it up.

Any traitor in their midst is well-known, because the question isn't "will they find out?" but "when will they find out, and what happens in the meantime?" This makes it easy on me as GM, since everyone is on the same page, but also so other players can suggest what a "traitor" character might do, and play up the fact that their characters are oblivious and trusting.

-EF

I think I will say a spy may be playing, but not reveal the identity of the spy until the spy wanted to make a big reveal, or is caught. The arguments are both convincing and I will just have to try to see what happens.

Honestly, what you suggest might be a great idea. It's how a lot of board games with traitor mechanics work. You know going in that there's a likelihood or outright for-sure that there is a traitor or two in the mix. If you tell the players that you may have planted a spy/traitor in their midst, and it could be a major NPC they work with, or maybe even a player character, the dynamic of the game will have the players a lot more paranoid about their missions and secrets. It'll ratchet up the tension, which could make for some great roleplaying. You could even use that announcement of a possible NPC traitor to set up a fall guy for your real traitor. The reveal will be priceless when they discover that they killed the wrong guy!

For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

That way when the sudden but inevitable betrayal occurs, it all comes together, the players remember all the little details, and everything is so perfect you look like a rockstar GM.

"Oooohh man, so when Steve took the code cylinder in Adventure 3 that was so he could switch it with one he had that had the virus on it!" "Oh man, and that Imperial agent he killed in Adventure 6 really was trying to defect! HE probably knew Steve was a spy!"

That is fair enough, your game your rules , but I have seen many a game ruined by the one person who is playing 'against the group'. I have also seen the reaction when it becomes obvious, which tends to be not so much the big reveal (due to the spy character doing something too overt) but more toward the negative as the other players just get frustrated by the (spy) player ruining the game. If your group tend toward being more positive then great.

I had a player in a Firefly game who kept pushing the game away from the type of game which has told them I intended it to be, and when the group were preparing to deliver something to a less than savory character he tried (through notes) to buy and plant explosives in the shuttle the other players were going to use. Unsurprisingly the other players were less than impressed when it came to light, even when his stated reason was as a threat to force said bad guy to play fair with the group.

I think that the important thing is to be very sure of your groups probable reaction, and if this is the players common play type then think very carefully before allowing it. Also, only allow it so long as you are confident in your ability to ref it properly.

For the most part though, unless I knew that the player in question was an incredible player and could carry this off without destroying the game, I would not allow it. It has far too much potential to destroy the game.

I'm gonna disagree with this a bit.

That way when the sudden but inevitable betrayal occurs, it all comes together, the players remember all the little details, and everything is so perfect you look like a rockstar GM.

"Oooohh man, so when Steve took the code cylinder in Adventure 3 that was so he could switch it with one he had that had the virus on it!" "Oh man, and that Imperial agent he killed in Adventure 6 really was trying to defect! HE probably knew Steve was a spy!"

That is fair enough, your game your rules , but I have seen many a game ruined by the one person who is playing 'against the group'. I have also seen the reaction when it becomes obvious, which tends to be not so much the big reveal (due to the spy character doing something too overt) but more toward the negative as the other players just get frustrated by the (spy) player ruining the game. If your group tend toward being more positive then great.

I had a player in a Firefly game who kept pushing the game away from the type of game which has told them I intended it to be, and when the group were preparing to deliver something to a less than savory character he tried (through notes) to buy and plant explosives in the shuttle the other players were going to use. Unsurprisingly the other players were less than impressed when it came to light, even when his stated reason was as a threat to force said bad guy to play fair with the group.

I think that the important thing is to be very sure of your groups probable reaction, and if this is the players common play type then think very carefully before allowing it. Also, only allow it so long as you are confident in your ability to ref it properly.

I'd say that in order to run a game with a traitor smoothly, and avoid this kind of stuff happening, you should set ground rules for the traitor. Namely, they aren't allowed to directly oppose the players. No assassination attempts and no direct sabotage of the players plans or actions. Instead, his opposed agenda should manifest itself by making missions more difficult for the players. "Wow, there's a whole lot more imps here than our intel would have suggested, and I thought our intel was good!" as opposed to "I sabotage the engines so that the imperial cruiser catches us, and it looks like a mechanical malfunction instead."

You shouldn't allow your spy to take direct action against the players mid-session. Sure he can try to lead them astray with words, or try to discourage them from doing something verbally, but that's it. Instead, his influence should come from indirect actions he takes in between sessions.

I would run a mini session over email or in person where you give him a few different ways he can try to make the rebel's lives difficult or collect intel to send to his handlers, or sneak out to get specific instructions from his handlers about how to proceed (that's where you can also have some influence on how much impact his actions have). Have him roll skill checks to succeed, failure means he was unsuccessful (but not found out either), success means a successful action, threat will accumulate across missions and you'll give the PCs some clues, whereas advantage goes towards setting up a fall guy, and the difficulty should be set based on how much of a setback it'll give players on their next mission.

But most importantly, have a talk with this player and make sure that he understands that his goals should not be to get the party killed, captured, or harmed in any way, and that he's there to increase the narrative tension and provide a really good twist later on. It's not about him winning, but about telling a good story. Maybe his character even has a change of heart during the reveal and decides to help the players escape a trap.

On the triumph and despair blog, there's a description of a campaign where all the players were actively working against each other with seperate agendas and defectors and all that. You might find some of his systems useful. I think it's under "Crush the Rebellion" on his website. Link here: https://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/category/crush-the-rebellion/

The rebellions biggest secret is the location of their hidden base, the empire wouldn't have expended so much effort to find yavin or hoth if it was easy to get a spy close.

If I was going to run a game with a spy I would make the team New to the rebellion and not yet trusted with that location. The spys mission would be to find the base by becoming a trusted member of the rebellion, this should prevent the spy from screwing the party over mid session as its in their interest to succeed.

I'd also make the spy deep cover, with only a handful of people knowing he exists, so he can't call upon any imperial resources. If he needs help from his handler he needs to let his handler know of his location first, otherwise the imperial forces will treat him like any other member of the rebellion.

I'd also make him an unwilling spy, maybe he was on his way to join the rebellion when the imperials caught him and now they are holding his family hostage to force him to spy. Give him some motivation to help the party fight the rebellion while he is spying, and limit his spying to the passing of information.

I'd also consider making each player have half duty to the rebels and half the duty remain secret, decided between the Gm and player in private. Everyone should be aware that the other players have their own motivations, it's up to the players if they discuss them in game.

Personally I'd recommend against it. I wouldn't allow it in my game unless it was VERY clear the player intended to do a kind of storyline where he started out as an Imperial spy but eventually came around and became one of the good guys.

This kind of thing happened on Buffy and Angel a lot--you had characters like Spike or Anya or Cordelia who were either evil or at least antagonistic to the party, but they became forced to work with the group and eventually became honest-to-goodness heroes.

If the player in question actually wanted to follow through on betraying the party to the Empire or something, I'd nix that from the start. Not in my campaign, at least.

Personally I'd recommend against it. I wouldn't allow it in my game unless it was VERY clear the player intended to do a kind of storyline where he started out as an Imperial spy but eventually came around and became one of the good guys.

...

If the player in question actually wanted to follow through on betraying the party to the Empire or something, I'd nix that from the start. Not in my campaign, at least.

What I would consider as much as this player is the other players' wishes and ideas. How would they feel about being screwed over? After all, everybody should enjoy the game and one guy getting so much attention (even if it only becomes clear later on) is something I wouldn't be comfortable with.

After all, everybody should enjoy the game and one guy getting so much attention (even if it only becomes clear later on) is something I wouldn't be comfortable with.

If it can happen with a Force Sensitive that starts out as a nobody but ends up being the center of the campaign, why can't an Imperial spy have the same chance?

I ran one game, it wasn't AoR, with a traitor and it was easily my players' most favorite game that we've ever done. Although, it was a one shot game so if you're running a campaign focused around the same characters I could totally see why a traitor might not be such a good idea since everyone would get attached to their characters and things like that.

As far as actually playing with the traitor is concerned, one of the things I do that my players really like is that whenever the party splits up I'll have the players split up, too. So I'll go through what one group does and then after a certain point, I'll shoo them off and tell them to bring in another group. So if you had a spy, they could totally use times like that to slip away from their "allies" and spill the beans to their higherups or wreak havoc.