Classified Information in Play

[Ashtagon]

If it were just a cafeteria menu that got labelled too high, probably just gloss over it. If it were something actually important, then as soon as his controllers could reasonably recognise that it was released into the wild, they might start an operation to try and identify the mole, such as releasing "trap" secrets, and watching to see who releases these trap secrets. And as soon as they can reasonably pinpoint the mole to a specific person, expect consequences. Perhaps their controller decides to regard him as an expendable agent. Perhaps their controllers decide he needs to be silenced with prejudice. Perhaps his identity is "revealed" to an enemy organisation as a means of baiting them into accidentally exposing their spies in a triple bluff.

Or perhaps that enemy agent was a honeytrap designed to entrap the PC into revealing ever-more sensitive secrets. At some point, the PC either reveals more secrets, calls on their organisation for assistance and a confessional, or finds themselves with enemies on both sides.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ashtagon

If it were just a cafeteria menu that got labelled too high, probably just gloss over it. If it were something actually important, then as soon as his controllers could reasonably recognise that it was released into the wild, they might start an operation to try and identify the mole, such as releasing "trap" secrets, and watching to see who releases these trap secrets. And as soon as they can reasonably pinpoint the mole to a specific person, expect consequences. Perhaps their controller decides to regard him as an expendable agent. Perhaps their controllers decide he needs to be silenced with prejudice. Perhaps his identity is "revealed" to an enemy organisation as a means of baiting them into accidentally exposing their spies in a triple bluff.

Or perhaps that enemy agent was a honeytrap designed to entrap the PC into revealing ever-more sensitive secrets. At some point, the PC either reveals more secrets, calls on their organisation for assistance and a confessional, or finds themselves with enemies on both sides.

None of that seems relevant. The PC seems leaky and not a mole. Their organization doesn't need an elaborate tradecraft approach to identify the leak because he leaked directly to a law enforcement officer. The honey trap wasn't an enemy agent, she was the law.

[Nosforontu]

You could also have the undercover agent the PC spilled the information too, actually fall hard for the PC, and not give the information over to their superiors. Then the NPC could confess everything to the player and warn them of how close they came to going to jail.

To drive the consequences home a bit more if needed you can have the npcs superiors come down hard as hard on the NPC as you need to in order to drive home the point that Top Secret information is not something to play with.

[trechriron]

What would be fun?

Maybe have the character admonished, censored, fired and arrested? Then have them come at the campaign from a different angle?

Ask them straight up what THEY would like to do;

"Hey, Frank - You are approached by your boss, the girl you spilled your secrets to, and several FBI agents. You are arrested for conspiracy and are awaiting trial in prison. Since my campaign isn't about one character's trial (or prison experience), I wanted to see what you wanted to do? Maybe play a new character? Stat up and promote one of the NPCs to continue with the rest of group?"

I think it gets the point across while still letting the player know you're happy to keep playing with them. You are focused on the continuation of the game and their involvement in it. If they protest, ask them "where did you envision this going?" That protest will be a strong indication you two are not on the same page.

Maybe they would like a "do-over" because they didn't believe your game was so "realistic" or they don't have your knowledge of the agencies/laws involved that you do.

In my experience, it's folly to make assumptions about "common sense" or "reality". You can't expect everyone you play with to have your knowledge, experience or perceptions. It's best to determine where they are coming from and then work together towards a mutually beneficial solution. I also recommend your out-of-game approach is less punitive and more collaborative.

"Seek first to Understand, Then to be Understood" - Stephen Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

[Dalin]

Originally Posted by Brandy

What I would do, off the top of my head, is something like have the CIA agent at some future date use the incident as leverage over the PC. They would then have to decide whether to help the agent do some sketchy thing to come clean to their superiors and try and set the agent up or something like that.

That sets up a situation with a dilemma that's powered by player choice, not just where they are at the whim of powerful outside figures like the courts.

This. Or something like it.

Assuming the player had somewhat good intentions and wasn't trying to intentionally tank the campaign, then I'd try to come up with a consequence that keeps the game on track but adds complications. Or maybe the character receives a demotion / stern warning and loses some privs. Something where the player gets the message that this was a close call.

If the player doesn't seem to get it, then its time for an OOC discussion of gaming style, genre expectations, etc.

[Flyndaran]

I think the best option probably depends on the other players. Do they want realistic consequences for treasonous actions? If, so, then tell the player that, and that they're ruining the game for the others.
If not, then there may be a disconnect between GM and players' game needs.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

What do you do as the GM? Do you have the campaign about the PC trying desperately to avoid prison? Or do you gloss over the potential threat to national security?

Well, if it's a James Bond game, I gloss over the threat because that's par for the course. In a more realistic game, neither one.

The first thing I'd do is make sure that the player is aware that the character's actions will have severely bad consequences if discovered. Player knowledge and character knowledge are not always the same thing (I had a player whose character concept was the a shady mafia-type; I did at one point have to remind her to not confess to felonies to the nice friendly police officer).

If the player still goes through with it, well, there will be consequences, but they won't be the focus of the campaign, the immediate issues will be dealt with in no more than a session or two. Realistic consequences can actually vary quite a bit, just because you can spend years in jail doesn't mean you will. I'd be tempted by a reaction roll, something like:

• Very Good or Excellent: Warning.
• Good: Suspension/Change of Duties (lose access to classified materials while it lasts).
• Fair: Loss of security clearance, demotion.
• Neutral: Loss of security clearance, lose job.
• Poor: Arrest and Prosecution; character can get out on bail.
• Bad or worse: Arrest and Prosecution, bail denied.

[dcarson]

Do they have any Advantages like Ally or Charisma and high social skills that could justify their boss bailing them out. Or can the boss bail them out so they have a hold on the PC.

The agency that caught them could use them as a mole. Everyone knows that the real enemy for a agency is those other agencies that are taking budget money that you want.

They could be publicly fired/sent to jail for an excuse to go undercover.

[jason taylor]

Retire the idiot then role up a new character. Possibly save him to be brought back as an NPC looking for revenge.

[starslayer]

The whole point of 'blue on blue honeypots' is to identify potential threats and correct them before they become issues.

If you just fire that person all you are doing is introducing another unknown.

So long as the perpetrator did not go out of their way to sell information, but just buckled under pressure/coercion then that is a correctable offense.

That does not mean you should go easy on the PC.

They should:
loose their TS clearance (and any advantages that come with it; they can buy it back later, but it will cost them CP that they don't get back). If having TS clearance is required for the campaign then they just loose some CP.
Be forced to undergo mandatory gender awareness training,
Mandatory security awareness training
Be forced to deliver lectures on gender awareness and security awareness
Be charged (money)
potentially loose rank.
Potentially be forced to take some form of libido suppression until such time as they have demonstrated adequate capability to resist coercion

This should translate to the the character constantly suffering from lack of sleep, not having any spending money for personal expenses, and if the libido suppression is being used cancelling out any levels of lecherousness and giving the character killjoy instead.