The traitor problem
Traitor Stock photos by Vecteezy
Written by Tony Martin from Sydney Megagames, this article explores some of the problems — as he sees them — regarding traitor roles in megagames.
The purpose of this piece is to promote discussion of a problem I perceive in Megagames that include "Traitor" style roles. Is this truly a problem? And if so, what might be done to mitigate it.
Last year I had the pleasure of playing Den of Wolves, John Mizon's Battlestar Galactica inspired megagame. Later that year I was a moderator for So Say We All, another Battlestar Galactica themed game by Sydney megagame designers Justin Delaney and James Archer.
Anyone familiar with the Battlestar Galactica TV series won't be surprised to learn that both games feature "undercover agent" player roles. The "Traitor" label is emotional and not exactly accurate depending on your point of view, "Saboteur" might be more accurate, but Traitor is a snappy and emotional title so I'll run with it.
Battlestar Galactica inspired games are far from the first megagames to feature undercover agents. Spys, double agents, sleeper agents, doppelgängers and undercover police are all terrific sources of drama in genre fiction, and so have made their way into many megagames. My first experience of Watch the Skies featured a secret faction of apparent-humans, working against the interests of the human race.
What many of these roles have in common is that they are often trying to obstruct or sabotage the main goals of most of the other players in the megagame. It is this aspect of the Traitor that I want to focus on in this article.
Traitor roles are at their most dramatic when they are trying to commit active acts of sabotage, like planting a bomb or stealing secret plans or vital resources. At these moments the stakes are high for both factions involved. This also proves true in the megagames I have played. Sabotage attempts are a key dramatic moment in a megagame, whether they succeed or fail, whether the Traitor is unmasked in the process, or gets away clean.
But any Traitor in a megagame quickly discovers they have another way to prevent their enemies from achieving their goals. Obstruction. Obstruction can take many forms: deliberating slow-rolling an important task. Spreading disinformation. Preventing an important agreement, law, or peace-treaty from being passed. Filibustering. Throwing grit into the gears of bureaucracy and logistics. All under the guise of a well-meaning patriot to the cause.
You might argue that a Traitor behaving as described is using clever political tactics. Realistic even. Surely the whole point of political simulations is to allow players to spontaneously use tactics like these to their advantage?
My contention is not that obstruction is irrational or unrealistic. Merely that it is not fun for the majority of the players involved in the game.
To explain why, first we need to discuss the "fog of confusion" that hangs over every megagame. Megagames are in many ways games about time management. With so many players, there is simply not enough time to talk to everyone or to stay informed on everything that is happening. A lot of the strategy of a megagame is deciding how to spend your time effectively.
The large player count creates political "weather patterns" independent of the actions of individuals and teams involved. The players and moderators cannot control, or even understand, these weather patterns in real-time. At the start of the day, the Game Designer sets the political stakes and then unleashes the hounds.
The result is exciting, but also unpredictable. In some games you become an insider in a compelling narrative. Other games you find yourself battered about by the uncaring maelstrom of political chaos.
I’m convinced this unpredictability is an unavoidable feature of Megagames. The Game Designer cannot guarantee a satisfying narrative for each player. Any attempt to control the narrative robs the event of its spontaneity.
This is something megagames have in common with spectator sports. A sporting event is not an authored narrative. So there is no guarantee of a satisfying drama. But that same freedom from authorship is what makes sporting events, and megagames, feel so real and high-stakes. A veteran megagamer should try to accept this philosophically. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
Although the Game Designer cannot control the political chaos of their game, design decisions will impact how chaotic the game feels to play. An unsuccessful design can leave the majority of players feeling confused and helpless. A successful design allows most players to feel some sense of agency despite the chaotic situation.
One of the most satisfying moments in a megagame is when players battle through the confusion, conflicting objectives and time pressure to forge an agreement or pursue a course of action that moves the game forward.
So one of the goals of the Game Designer is to set up political problems that are challenging but not impossible. Factions are assigned competing or even mutually exclusive goals. This setup provides drama and challenge.
But while factions might have competing goals, some cooperation is necessary. No faction can achieve their objectives alone, and so must cultivate allies and engage in compromise. A player who obstructs too often and too blatantly can find themselves isolated and without allies to help them pursue their own agenda. Political expediency prevents the situation from descending into naked obstruction and gridlock.
Megagame politics is fun when each party needs something from other parties. This delicate balance is destroyed when one of the factions involved has no motivation to compromise. When your only goal is to prevent all progress, there is nothing to discourage a strategy of pure obstruction, chaos and disinformation (a situation dreadfully familiar in modern politics circa 2020).
A player with a Traitor role may come into the game with plans to commit daring acts of sabotage. But quickly they discover that obstruction and disinformation are easier, more effective, and carry less risk of being caught.
The Fog of Confusion described earlier makes it challenging for players to reach an agreement and compromise, even in a cooperative game. Adding characters to the game whose goals motivate untethered obstruction can apply the brakes to the entire political machine, leaving many players feeling frustrated and helpless.
Theoretically, a Traitor engaged in obstruction and disinformation faces the danger that they will be caught and unmasked. It is up to the other players in the game to recognise these behaviours and identify the Traitors. Or at a minimum, expose the obstructive behaviour and combat it. This is all part of the game.
The problem is that megagames are extremely compressed simulations of political situations. In the Fog of Confusion, it is not unusual for players to lose sight of even what their own teammates are doing unless they all make a conscious effort to maintain communication within the team.
In a smaller scale board game or role-playing game, it is more obvious when a player engages in repeated obstruction and disinformation. But in a game with 30+ players and a pressing time limit, it is not unusual or even difficult for a Traitor to ride a wave of chaos from one crisis to the next without being held accountable (again shades of modern politics). Even if the Traitor is eventually exposed, the damage is already done if most players have spent the game feeling like all their efforts are overshadowed by confusion and inertia.
So it turns out my issue is not really with Traitor roles, but rather with obstruction. And specifically, player goals that reward obstruction with little motivation for cooperation or compromise.
In my experience when Traitor engages in more active, moustache-twirling acts of sabotage, such as planting a bomb or stealing, these crimes create excitement and drive both the story of the game forward. The stakes are high for both the saboteur and the target. Even if the sabotage is successful and the saboteur gets away clean, it creates an intriguing mystery for players to pursue.
But these acts are by their nature high-risk for the Traitor. It naturally feels safer to engage in obstruction and disinformation, at least until later in the game. Unintentionally the game design is set up so that a Traitor who makes the game more fun is penalised (with greater risk). While a Traitor who makes the game less fun (through obstruction) is rewarded.
Traitors with a sense for the dramatic may even realise the problem partway through the game. They may eventually choose to give up on their safe-and-effective obstruction tactics and instead decide to go out in a blaze of glory, engaging in escalating acts of sabotage until they are eventually unmasked.
Is the issue described here a real problem or have I misdiagnosed the cause? Confusion, disagreement and inertia can beset any megagame. The causes are complex and difficult to isolate. I may be mistaking the root cause or allocating disproportionate blame to the Traitor style roles.
If this is a real problem, can it be minimised through game design, or is this just part of the package when you include Traitors roles in your game?
Can we be even more ambitious? There are obvious parallels with modern politics. Obstruction and misinformation are on the rise, while democratic systems designed to operate through dealmaking and compromise are struggling. Can megagames teach us something about how these forces function and interact?
Even if you dismiss my theory about Traitor roles in megagames, I am still interested to hear your thoughts on the delicate balance between challenge and inertia/confusion in a megagame, and how a game designer can influence this balance.
Disclaimer
I don’t want this to come across as a hit job on Den of Wolves. As I mentioned earlier, DoW is hardly the first example of this type of role in megagames. And I had already formulated this opinion before I played John Mizon’s excellent game. But like Watch The Skies before it, the popularity of DoW provides a useful common reference point for me to discuss my theory with a wider audience.
What do you think? Are traitors a worthwhile role in a megagame or do they indeed spoil it for others? We’d love to hear your thoughts on our Facebook group, so why not pop in and have a chat?
If you have a blog post in you about anything megagame related that’s waiting to burst out, let us know as there is a very good chance we’ll publish it!