Secret Hitler: Board Game Madness

Learn to become the dictator your parents always knew you could be by taking on Secret Hitler! Learn the lore, some new strategies to help your gameplay, and the new Liberal strategy known as "The Circle", which holds a 100% win rate!
Donate to the Patreon to help out the channel! Every buck will get me closer to making content full time: / kamsandwich
OR become a member to support me and get KZbin perks:
/ @kamsandwich
Subscribe for more goober garbage, and let me know if you enjoy the longer form content!
Ending Track: Everybody Votes Channel - Wii Menu

[@surprisedchar2458]

The Circle: “We used the fascism to defeat the fascism.”

[@somerandofilipino6957]

Bruh that's literally what FDR did during WW2, in a sense.

[@Skaevs]

I wouldn't call organizing against fascism fascism, but whatever you say.

[@ollikoskiniemi6221]

​@@Skaevssome people call just organizing itself and using any kind of force (including enforcement of laws or even morals) fascism.

[@somerandofilipino6957]

Stalinism = Red fascism Do I really have to explain this?

[@ferklk]

​@@Skaevs you are right, using draconian laws that subsume every actor into a mechanized state has nothing to do with fascism...

[@45oz123]

“The circle” is exactly the reason my friends play a rule called “double power” where if you were just in a position of power, or will be in a position of power the next round, you can not be chosen as chancellor. destroying the un-fun demeanor of “The circle”

[@kamsandwich]

Good idea to keep the game fun!

[@xolotltolox7626]

Isn't the first part already part of the rules? That if you were president or chancellor in the previous round, you can't be elected chancellor

[@dominicespinosa9154]

The added is or will be in a position of power

[@klader12]

@@xolotltolox7626Yeah I think so too

[@DuskoftheTwilight]

@@xolotltolox7626 So per the rules, whoever was just Chancellor and whoever was just President cannot be chosen as the next Chancellor, however the Presidency will always cycle clockwise. The Circle strategy takes advantage of this by having the players agree to always give the Chancellor position to the person who will *next* be President, This house rule prevents you from doing that by making it so that three people are not allowed to be chancellor instead of two: The players who were President and Chancellor in the previous round, and the player who will next be president per the clockwise order. (in a 5 player game this means there will only be one player eligible to be Chancellor for each round, but there will still be a gap between them being Chancellor and them being President. If you're playing with more than 5 players there's still actual decision making to be done)

[@OzzyThunderMan]

My favourite play in this game, as I was a Liberal, I got the ability to see someones card, I picked the most panicked person in the group. He was a Fasict and I said he was a Lib, The reflief I saw in his eye told me he was hitler, and two others in the group started to panic. I ended up giving Hitler the Fasict policy that I would use to shoot him... The group called me a sweaty gamer XD

[@willamyte]

Reminds me of American intervention

[@eisgnom7383]

@@willamyte How does that remind you of american intervention?

[@dragonic4239]

@@eisgnom7383Guns

[@kirktwm79]

If you had enough fascist policies to have access to bullets, wouldn't have electing Hitler chancellor automatically lost you the game? How were you able to "give Hitler the fascist policy" to shoot him?

[@PvblivsAelivs]

This doesn't seem to fit the rules as I read them. In order to give him the Fascist policy, you have to make him chancellor. And for it to be a bullet, there have to be three others on the board. As soon as he is elected chancellor, he declares victory.

[@DNGNDriver]

You haven't played a game of SH until you've played a game where everyone has a NERF Pistol in their offhand!

[@rzekaskanalizowana9725]

There is a fan expansion that adds other parties that you can play like the communists or monarchists and I had a really fun game while playing with the communist. The communists have their own policy tracker with unique effects which you can use to detect fascists and even hitler if you play your cards right. They also win alongside liberals if hitler is killed. During this game I was a fascist and the one communist in my group figured out exactly who the fascist and hitler were. We (the fascists) were however able to convince the libs that they can win without the communists easily by killing the communist and reaching the end of their policy tracker. They then executed the communist and accidentally chose a fascist as president, who then killed another liberal. Because there were an equal ammount of fascists and non-fascists the game stalled until the Election Tracker reached the end and the final fascist policy was revealed and enacted.

[@Materialist39]

Funnily enough, this is pretty similar to what actually happened in Germany from 1919 to 1933!

[@YetAnotherInv]

what the fuck this isn't even secret hitler this is just a historical reenactment

[@xolotltolox7626]

​@@Materialist39except the liberals wouldn't have won if the commies did

[@antarath517]

I actually kinda like the idea of a communist win condition that is mutually exclusive to liberal wincon. That makes the game line up with history, where liberals often sought to suppress communists, which helped the fascists claim power.

[@michaeledwards6683]

love this idea

[@tailnowag8753]

Used to play this in the school lunch room. One buddy knew all the statistics and stuff and could track it in his head, but another guy could just read anyone and everyone. Like he knew who the culprit was from play 3 or 4. He really liked playing the liberal side so he could do that, but that also meant that he could play a pretty mean facist... up till the point one is able to eliminate a player cause either he said who it actually was or you knew he was it when you eliminated the player

[@kamsandwich]

I got all my stats from my actuarial science major, he says theres about a 5% chance for drawing 3 all fascists in a row. We kinda take his stats at face value since he's smart

[@troyshrauger3576]

Just saw this. In first deck its less than 0.25%. You might be thinking in reshuffle when its 10 red and 2 blues.

[@starhalv2427]

Here's a liberal tactic I came up with: - Promise to randomly choose which card to play if you're elected chancelor - As a chancelor, do one of the following: a) If you received two cards of the same type, say they were both the same so there's no point choosing and play one of them. If they were fascist, observe whether the president claimed you're fascist and lied or apologetically said they only had fascist cards. b) If you received different cards, say they're both the same and there's no point choosing, then play the liberal card. If the president accuses you that you promised to play a random card, ask them why they care.

[@theshadowking3198]

But if you promised to chose a random card how would you be able to say their the same if you never saw them

[@starhalv2427]

@@theshadowking3198 You never saw them?

[@alexc6203]

@@starhalv2427you get handed the cards face down. So if doing it randomly you shuffle them after they were handed to you, and flip the one on top. If you turn them over to look at them the other players will know it wasn’t random, as you didn’t shuffle without seeing them like you could have

[@starhalv2427]

@@alexc6203 You never actually do it randomly. You always look at these cards and claim there'd be no point in choosing randomly. Is it really so hard to understand? Am I that bad at explaining things?

[@maxiawesomekid899]

Don’t take that out of context

[@donotdew]

"So you wanna be hitler." how did you know

[@gonzoengineering4894]

This game has problems, but the moment you're the last liberal at the table and the untouched fascists look at you like you turned into a cartoon roast turkey while explaining why cannibalism is bad? Bonechilling

[@viclenny3872]

this game actually seems genius and is a great metaphor for organizing irl

[@joshuawadsworth6417]

As long as you don't become the thing you swore to destroy.

[@volumist]

I remember when main liberal in Weimar Republic said: there's hitler among us and then hitler said it's hitlering time and hitlered whole weimar republic

[@adriangil8682]

Just a small correction, when voting, even the prospect chancellor and president vote!

[@Ultamate8superme]

I almost commented before you finished talking about the circle strategy lol. Halfway through I was thinking, "This sounds very boring." Plus the fact it had to be made before the game started meant if you wanted an easy win and got fascist, congratulations, you screwed yourself over.

[@marksimmons5872]

I once joined a secret hitler game on TTS that was using the circle and I got blackballed because I reintroduced doubt to the game (I announced that a card play I had made was done randomly).

[@SquishyTonk]

I played this with a group of friends and in all three of the games, I was accused of being Hitler... Every time I was a liberal... I fear the implications this has on my personality

[@FrizzlenillCAN]

Potential counter strategies still available while playing under a Circle environment: You can still freely claim anything you like about the cards you give or receive, and the hidden information involved means that it's two players' word against each other. You can actually do this symmetrically so that (with a skilled lying performance) there is no distinction between the two players claiming the other as a liar. You do this by, as President, handing the Chancellor no choice, and when they claim that they had none, disputing that claim. On its own, that's seemingly a pretty amateurish move. However, keep in mind that you can do the reverse from the Chancellor position - receiving a choice from a liberal, but claiming you had none. Obviously if both president and chancellor share a team, you can freely use this strategy or not as desired based on the amount of distrust you want to create, and if the three cards are all the same there's obviously little room to make claims. But importantly, when the chancellor claims to have not had a choice, and the president then disputes and argues the reverse, you have no way (from game mechanics themselves) to know who's lying. Given this strategy, the fascist team can skew the policy rounds even more towards fascist policies than the default 2:1 card distribution would produce, while varying up whether they do or don't apply the strategy unpredictably to add further camouflage. Most importantly though, the fascists retain their biggest advantage: team knowledge. They know where the fascists and Hitler are in the circle of players, and therefore know exactly how many policies until Hitler is chancellor. Because they have a much stronger ability to sculpt which policies are implemented when (since the only times they can't deceivingly get a fascist policy card through, is when only liberals have both policy roles and/or when the chancellor is handed two liberal policies, which is a low chance due to the card ratio). The fascists know which rounds one of them will be in each role, and can somewhat control who's in power when different presidential and chancellor powers are activated (including delaying or accelerating the assassination power, almost completely eliminating the risk of eliminating Hitler), and even making sure that their win condition is set up before Hitler is automatically handed the chancellorship. While The Circle gives liberals an advantage by constraining the types of deceptive game actions available to each player, it also creates a chokehold on information that makes the built-in informational edge given to the fascist team even more impactful. Especially if the liberals are aware of this counter-strategy, there's reasons a liberal would 'break pattern' (prevent fascist policy accumulation) just as much as there are reasons a fascist would (avoiding the loss condition). The Circle obviously makes the game more DIFFICULT socially for the fascists, but with enough intentional unpredictability it may be possible for fascists to force a win MORE often under the Circle than the liberals can (denied as they are, of the ability to NOT elect a suspicious player - if you make it 50/50 odds on who's suspicious in a conventional game, the liberals can just elect neither, but under The Circle, that option goes away).

[@beyondobscure]

isn't this just among us on steroids

[@bluesides8323]

Among Us but the imposter is Hitler

[@piotyrholbion]

No

[@score38]

There's actually a LOT of versions of this game. Werewolf is probably one of the earliest versions of this. Town of Salem is also similar.

[@ChungusTheLarge]

No, it's like Among Us on meth

[@honeycomblord9384]

​@@score38Blood On The Clocktower and Mafia are some other noteworthy social deduction games

[@boium.]

16:17 in the rules it states that after the power is used, the game reverts back to normal. So this means the chosen person gets presidentcy twice, but cannot choose the person next to him as a chancellor anymore, thus destroing the cirles power.

[@boium.]

So as an example, Let's say that there are 10 players, and (a,b) denoted that a is the president and b is chancellor You go (1,2), (2,3), (3,4)... At some point, let's say (6,7) the power to pick the next president is obtained. Player 6 chooses a as president. Player a can be anyone. Player a then has to choose b. Player b cannot be 6 or 7, as they previously were part of a functioning government. After the turn, presidency goes to player 7, as they were the player after 6. Player 7 cannot choose player a or b. You see that the strategy doesn't work anymore since you want a=7 and b=8. But the turn after. Player 7 is not allowed to choose player 8 again.

[@boium.]

Also, what does work is the following strategy. After the power to pick a president is obtained. Just vote no. The choice of president doesn't even matter then. The game reverts back to the original next player's turn (in the example it's player 7), and they can then still pick the next player as chancellor, since he wasn't part of a previously working government. Even if he was chosen as president or chancellor in the previous round, since that round failed.

[@80memes]

We decided to play this at my school’s games club, we spent 2 attempts trying to start a game and messing it up immediately and having to restart, and then by the time we started a successful game we ran out of time and had to leave

[@user-xf6hg2pt5s]

Hi there! Secret Hitler fanatic here (play in real life and competitively online) just a couple things I wanted to point out (for simplicity, let a blue card = B, red card = R, hitler = h, Hitler Zone (after three fas policies) = hz; we will assign numbers to each player): 1. Games can only really be played with an odd number of players (any even numbered game would require two liberals executed for the numbers to be equal, this gives the liberals too high winrate) [a 7 players games provides the closest winrate to 50/50 so lets use that as our example and provide each player a number from 1 to 7; 1 being the first president] 2. Lets break down the "Circle" meta: the first deck has seventeen cards, fiveteen of which will be showed the first give govs that will play are 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 and 5-6 (assuming hz isnt reached) The issue with this meta is that there will be five presidents touching the deck Lets look at some probabilities: p(4B) in first five govs) = 10% (approx) p(5B) = 50% (approx) p(6B) = 40% (approx) using the "Circle", deck info will be limited by the large range of touchers and so less info is provided to the libs. Another issue with this meta is what if a conflict arises Ex. 1-2 RRB RR conflict; you dont want to ja 2-3 now since 1/2 has a confirmed fas Another issue is if the board reaches hz Ex. 1-2 RRR RR, 2-3 RRR RR (2 investigates 3 lib), 3-4 RRB RR conflict The problem now is that 3 has to make a special election and all of 5, 6, 7 havent touched the deck, thus 3 has no deck information to minimize their Special Election 3. The optimal Meta is called "1526" the first gov is 1-5 regardless of whether 1-5 is blue or red, the second gov is 2-6 if 1-5 was blue, the table can now nein to 5-1 (since 5 reaches on the fail tracker) if 5-1 blues, 6-2 can play and 1-5 etc... keeping the board paired and limiting the touchers to the deck if 1-5 is red, 3-7 will play after 2-6; this allows for the table to have deck info on almost every player, unfortunately seat 4 will be a bit afk The other reason why this meta is strong is because it prevents a "TD Bloc" A TD bloc is when three people in a row are in conflicts and so in order to get past the conflicting players you must Topdeck a card, which is very likely to be R. when pairing players up that can reach on the tracker, a TD bloc is prevented and thus provides the most info at the worst cost. 4. One more recommendation is when the third fascist policy is played and it becomes time for the Special election, everyone should cast a vote on who they want. Anyone in conflicts shouldnt get a vote and the people around them should discuss. Lets provide an example of a game I played: 1-5 RRR RR (red) 2-6 RRB RB (blue) 3-7 RBB BB (blue) 6-2 RRR RR (red) (6 invs 2 fascist) (62 conf) 7-3 RRB RR (red) (73 conflict) in this position, the first deck is a 4B deck (10% chance of naturally occuring) since 2367 are in conflicts 1, 4 and 5 should be discussing who gets the Special Election even though 7 has the theoretical power to hand it to whoever theyd like 1 should then make a Special Election in 4/5 (since 1 is the RRR president they are less likely to receive the Special Election) Seat 7 as a liberal would then follow 1s Special Election since 14 or 15 cannot be two fascists if 7 is fascist and throws the special election, you can just Topdeck once to 4/5 - who can pick 3 as the chancellor and the fascists will lose The reason why the table should discuss and vote for Special Election is that the next president is the one receiving a gun on Fas policy, if the SE'd president is a fascist, they can shoot a liberal and openly claim the fascist line to Hitler since its 3v3. No more govs can pass and the game enters a Topdecking phase, where both sides are forced to Topdeck out. Naturally fascist winrate on TD out is around 80% + depending on the context of the game [very good winrate for fascists] There is lots more theory about the game but I dont think you want to spend any more time reading this Yt comment (if you somehow read through and understood every single geeky point in this message lmao). But yea let me know if any of this is confusing in any way and enjoy playing Secret Hitler whether competitively or not!

[@kamsandwich]

I had no idea this game had a competitive scene! Yeah my little Circle probably isn't going to be meta viable anytime soon. Most of the data I have comes from my friend who plays (he's an actuarial scientist), so he's really good about putting together probabilities. I bet he'll be really interested when I show him all this game theory! Once the meta changes and the Circle becomes top tier, let me know. That'll be my chance to enter the competitive scene.

[@user-xf6hg2pt5s]

Believe it or not in 2017 when Comp was first starting, the first attempt at a meta was called the "Train Meta" (very similar to the "Circle") It went 1-2 2-3 3-4 etc... until hz was reached then the meta broke down The reason why the meta changed was because a new strategy called "Cucu" was invented. The cucu strategy is whereby the investigated player picks the investigator as chancellor, almost forcing the chancellor to play a blue Ill show 1 quick example then be gone lmao: 1-5 RRR RR (red) 2-6 RRR RR (red) (2 investigates 6 liberal) 3-7 RBB BB (blue) 6 will then pick 2 for 6-2, if 2 conflicts 6, 2 is an outed fascist since 2 investigated 6 liberal, thus enticing 2 to blue 6-2 when its RRB

[@kamsandwich]

Darn, I missed my chance then. Crazy how the competitive scene evolves

[@terreausore2435]

Classic OnlineSH player autism

[@ThePenguinMan]

YOURE A SECRET WHO FANATIC?

[@migclar-sy5vz]

He read liberal once last video and immediately knew his next video

[@iamthinking2252_]

3:38 the fact that 66% of cards are fascist policies is a big implication that often doesn’t get explained - because knowing that, it becomes much more likely to actually get served 3 fascist policies. Making accusing someone of being a fash, different than before

[@Barakon]

One of my personal pet peeves is using reptiles & amphibians to depict villains because of the bias people have against them. Nobody starts saying a bear fits as a villain because all bears are evil & disgusting, but a boomer would think so about a snake or a toad…maybe not a gecko or some other kind of lizard if they’re Jewish…but you get my point. Don’t make a villain a snake because snake is synonymous with serpent, but rather because they can slither away from unfavorable situations, hide in small crannies, & gets all pumped up & furious when they get defensive. Y’a know, like how the real animal can & does? (A spooked noodle is in an S curve & is a hissy noodle.)

[@joeym5243]

What I've found out is that every time my friend group thinks we have figured out a meta, someone breaks it so most of the advice in this video is probably useless

[@ezciter]

Makes sense, the best strategy is to be unpredictable and make plays your opponents won't suspect. But the advice in the video is generally good advice for looking less suspicious.

[@connordarvall8482]

11:38 had a friend do this almost accidentally, with some nudging by pretending the orange policy I made him enact was his choice to sow discontent. When my friends gave me an only orange policy to enact, I naturally used my exectutive power to kill off the shmuck and my gambit paid off. As the defacto hero of the table, I was a natural choice to elect as chancellor.

[@terreausore2435]

Playing this game with "power players" who know THE META is one of the worst experience you can have. Dumbs down the game to a mathematical problem.

[@Vantastic789]

"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game" - Soren Johnson, developer/designer on the Civilization series.

[@camillaquelladegliaggettiv4303]

​@@Vantastic789 Genuinely part of why I love playing single player games unoptimally

[@joeym5243]

If you have people who can lie convincingly then the game is not just a math problem, I've played with a math doctorate candidate and it is still very fun, definitely lots of strategy left. If you can't lie convincingly then this isn't the game for you

[@smincesmeat316]

Every time I played this the group would default to the circle system, only without executing the previous president rule (I didn’t know about the strategy before now), but very quickly the trust in that system would be undermined by both camps. All it would take is a few red policies and a couple ‘I had no choice’s for the table to completely withdraw support for the circle system in only a couple of turns. And if anyone tried going back to the system, someone would probably say it’s just a cover story to get Hitler elected. Can guarantee that if the president gave the order to execute the chancellor in one of my games, they would be instantly put under the microscope and executed the very next turn. It would be chaos and paranoia, which is exactly what you want in this game

[@kamsandwich]

Oh definitely, abandoning the circle is definitely the more fun option for everyone involved. I put our focus on blind trust no matter how bad it got, and for some reason it always worked out in liberal favor. It got so bad that our rule now is if I mention the circle it means I'm a fascist (I like making a throwaway comment when I am one to see if people notice)

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

This looks like I'd have fun watching other people play it, but that I would be absolutely terrible at actually playing it myself.

[@nienke7713]

H being elected as chancellor at any point after the 3rd F policy is played wins the game for the F's, not just right after

[@ToxicAtom]

So wait, how does The Circle not just always get the Hitler player the win? Wouldn't that player just get elected chancellor inevitably, winning the game for them instantly?

[@Ultrox007]

statistically improbable and anomalous.

[@Archevox]

APPOINTED*******************

[@nienke7713]

The "pick the president" power says that it goes to that person, and then afterwards it goes to the person who was next in clockwise order from the one who picked the president; if you pick the next in line, they get two terms of presidency in a row. But you can simply agree to all vote ahainst it once, and then agree tonit the second time (or vice versa) to negate this

[@mylesh7987]

I've played this game dozens of times and although "the circle" approach would work in your group it absolutely would not work with mine lol. According to luck of the draw as well fascists, if placed in the right order could easily disrupt the sanctity of the circle. Sure shoot the guy behind you might work if it's two fascists in a row, otherwise you're one away from a fascist liberal split which if given power, the fascists will absolutely take advantage of. If hitler is given chancellor after three fascist policies are enacted just by blind luck then the game is over as well. The strategy may work in your group but I think there is a lot of luck involved in that.

[@mylesh7987]

Fascists simply don't have to sow discord if they can play it straight and pull out every liberal policy they see because of the 66/33 rate of the deck.

[@kamsandwich]

It's all luck, you just gotta trust the circle and hope it works out. For whatever reason trusting the circle has worked everytime its been tried

[@tipoima]

So the whole idea of the circle is...to convince everyone that an obviously bad strategy is actually good and hope they just keep going for it? NGL, you ain't cooking with that one. Giving someone government twice in a row is just naturally suspicious.

[@justanotherhumanperson9424]

ofc, in any social deduction game, you can always go for the pikmin 4 gambit to throw out all strategy and win through blunt comedic force

[@TheSirCrown]

The circle can also be double edged... as juat do ti bad luck you could be forced to make hitler chancler and lose Its bigest draw back is its luck dependent based on seatinf and card draw... and 2 facests can discard 2 libral cards with facests card placed... Aka it leads to the most success to liberal but removes the fun as you lose do to luck and remove all the fun

[@Ultrox007]

if playing a game well removes the fun, then it's a poorly designed game.

[@SemiEdge]

Great video! My group came up with 'the circle-light', essentially. And it always falls apart as soon as the 3rd fascist policy is implemented, as then it makes more sense to pick as the chancellor someone who you already trust (even if that trust is tenuous at best) over the next person clockwise. Is there any special strategy you use in 'the circle' to deal with that, or do you just rely on luck to avoid you insta-losing?

[@kamsandwich]

We go straight on the luck path, more of a "trust the circle" approach. It hasn't failed us once yet!

[@metaparalysis3441]

I managed to play the game so poorly, I won as hitler by being the only person anyone could trust to be a liberal.

[@the98themperoroftheholybri33]

This should be made for online play, playing this over a discord voice chat could be fun

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

The worst part about this game is how the fascists are portrayed as cartoonishly evil lizards instead of actual people.

[@Buffaloguy1991]

love this game so much. idk why i like secret roll games so much given my social disablity (autist) blood on the clocktower looks like so much fun

[@fritzophrenia3146]

Something something social interaction is easier when you know someone belongs to a distinct group, with clearly defined goals and motivation

[@madlogger25]

But in the circle it is guaranteed for hitler to be elected sometime

[@loslingos1232]

Me watching a video on a random board game I have never even heard of or will ever play at 2:30 in the morning:

[@nuclearfish6512]

Ah yes, Mafia (the party game) with politics.

[@Nachiebree]

If you're going to use the circle strategy you might as well just go play candy land instead, because it basically removes all agency from all players.

[@lucianoarebalo41]

I wish I had 7 friends to play this with

[@rexiudecem280]

This channel is great!

[@kamsandwich]

Thank you!

[@alexwilliams8365]

The Circle has one flaw. In a 7 player set up, if a Fascists cam shoot a liberal behind him, that can stack the deck in their favor. In fact, even if they have to break the circle, they now can force Anarchy. Since there are more Fascists cards in the game and Anarchy is just playing the first card on the top of the deck, this gives the Fascists team decent odds. The circle can be broken.

[@zombeyfreak7162]

11:50 literally the Röhmputsch

[@McBehrer]

2 problems with the circle. First, once you get 3 Fascist policies, you are guaranteed to lose eventually, as eventually Hitler WILL be nominated, and if the Meta is that anyone who dissents is suspicious, they will probably be voted in Second, and probably more importantly, it's boring as hell, and takes away a huge part of the fun of the game. Also, who plays Secret Hitler nowadays anyway? If you want a really good social deduction game, you should check out Blood on the Clocktower

[@Ultrox007]

Statistically improbable given how the circle and execution forces work.

[@jaywebster624]

completely unrelated but this game was remade on roblox and called dictator (all of the stuff is the exact same it’s just remade to be more kid friendly)

[@Dragonite43]

This is such a great game. I remember when TotalBiscuit played this game with his friends.

[@sahilhossain8204]

Lore of Secret Hitler: Board Game Madness Momentum 100

[@bondrewdthebondad9079]

the circle seems like a rudimentary version of the 1527 meta of the secrethitler website, love the game but it 100% has some flaws that lead to it being relatively easy to at least partially solve optimal moves.

[@oracle372]

Surely it would be possible to break the circle even if it is initially implemented? A fascist president investigates a liberal, accuses them of being a fascist, and uses that as an excuse to break the circular formation, or a fascist investigates a fascist and confirms they’re a liberal and uses that as an excuse to break the circular formation. Granted this wouldn’t work if literally all the liberals are fully united in this strategy, but in a regular game setting if one person just suggested doing this at the start I don’t think it would be immune to being broken

[@terreausore2435]

Nope. The meta is the meta, and it is atrociously effective.

[@oracle372]

@@terreausore2435 If everybody follows through. I mean psychologically. People aren't emotionless rational drones

[@Ultrox007]

Anyone who breaks the circle outs themselves a fascist and thus is skipped over for the rest of the game. Even if a liberal player positives a fascist, they must follow the process as it weighs odds in their favor.

[@Ultrox007]

@@oracle372 The meta promises a liberal victory - anyone looking to break it is either outing themselves a a fascist, or are betraying their own team with their own stupidity and must be ejected from the friend group after the self-sabotage.

[@endzor]

if only there was an option to pay president 2 million marks..

[@erikpetermans]

Thing is. My friends and I cannot take things serious especially me. So I ended up using reverse psychology. I’d get overly happy when fascist things were passed when I was liberal however I’d do the same when I was a fascist. Or I’d do the opposite reaction.

[@Ultrox007]

Then don't game, just go to a bar and socialize.

[@erikpetermans]

@@Ultrox007 What?? Why would I go to a bar if I wan't to play a game?? It's not because we play this game "wrong" we don't need to play it at all...

[@Ultrox007]

@@erikpetermans I feel you misunderstood my point. The point of playing games is to win, if you're playing around with no goal then you're not gaming you're just socializing and using the game as the proxy or medium for the socializing. My point was if you don't want to play a game with the point of winning, then gaming doesn't sound like your idea of fun, and perhaps you should find something that better meshes with your goals. i.e. "if you just want to hang out and chat - just do that instead?"

[@erikpetermans]

@@Ultrox007 so you’re saying if I’m losing at a game I should stop playing? Because winning is the point of the game? Makes no sense. I also never said that winning wasn’t a goal. I just said that we play this game in an unusual way in order to achieve a win, whilst also having a laugh. “If you don’t play a game with the point of winning, then gaming doesn’t sound like your idea of fun etc.” That’s your opinion and ur just putting words in my mouth. Again. The end goal is still winning. But also confusing everyone. Also if I instead should just socialise instead of playing this game is impossible, every multiplayer game is a form of socialising. Otherwise it shouldn’t be multiplayer… Your point is just “no you’re playing the game “wrong” so you shouldn’t play it.” Last time I checked if I achieve a win in an unusual way it still counts as a win. And in fact. I understood it point very clearly. Because there is nothing different between the first and last comment

[@Ultrox007]

@@erikpetermans We agree the point of the game is to win. My point is there's an optimal way to do this. Your point is "but it's more fun to sandbag myself" I don't care if playing with a handicap is enjoyable to you, I care that you recognize it is a self-inflicted handicap.

[@RonaldDump_real]

If you ever want to play this with randoms or if you have no friends there’s a game on roblox called dictator that follows the same principle, but the game are about 3 minutes on average so womp womp

[@Janua7ies]

So this is what inspired "Dictator". A Roblox game with a familiar theme from this board game.

[@ChangeNameEdits]

Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing

[@jaywebster624]

yea

[@jagtaf]

2 seconds in the video, you did great

[@jaydenhunter7990]

I really want you to review Secret Hitler XL with anarchists, communists, monarchists, and emergency powers

[@dominikrni]

damn that sounds... pretty complicated to say the least and fun

[@kazikmajster5650]

Man, that game is so cool! And it makes you better at life, lying and/or confidence is often necessary! But the Circle is not infalliable. If it just goes around like that, there will be a huge chance Hitler eventually becomes chancellor and has to be voted in. Also, if a Fascist becomes president, gets BRR and passes RR to the Liberal next to him, then lies that they gave them BR and kills them, what then! The Circle allows for very little suspicion to be thrown on anyone, and that is not good! The Liberals want to have suspicion, they want to have clues as to who the Fascists may be!

[@aydenlokey3641]

Although, I think the circle falls apart in the scenario where Hitler is directly after the fascist.

[@Murillable]

5:43 Just like real life!

[@dominikrni]

ew

[@pihlajafox]

Couldn't the facist still fin in the circle tactic if there are 3 facist cards on the table and next cansler has to be Hitler

[@toasty2263]

does anyone else think a group who wants to play The Circle is laaame... why would you ever want to eliminate the main gameplay from the game. Just.... why?

[@Ultrox007]

Because the goal of a game is to win, and if the game is solved then there's no reason for liberal players NOT to follow the meta. You're literally asking "why can't we just be idiots who handicap ourselves because it's more fun to play in a sub-optimal way for me personally?" Like, just admit the game is poorly designed and play something better like Shadow Hunters or The Resistance.

[@dominikrni]

​@@Ultrox007yeah but surely playing with a meta every time and winning all the time, especially in a friend group, gets boring, right? Playing normally makes it fair and fun for everyone.

[@kingawsume]

We, as players, do it all the time. Restoration loop in Skyrim, playing with cheat mods, only using blueprinted designs in Factorio, playing stun strategies in TCGs (or playing Dragoon Turbo when it was the best Verte target), using the same strategy over and over and over again because It Just Works (TM). We, as humans, are biologically hardwired to search for more effective ways to use less effort, and if we find a strategy that sucks to play, but works more often, we will use it.

[@dominikrni]

@@kingawsume 500 million seconds of paralysis goes hard

[@Ultrox007]

@@dominikrni I'd argue meta is just a term for most optimal startegy - when I play games with friends, we all play to win, we all want to best eachother, we all give our best to get our best, we love the challenge. If doing that leads to one side always winning, then we write the game off as poorly designed and play something else. This was my point. That secret hortler is a poorly designed game, and that "just turn your brain off, play badly, and have fun with it" is a terrible defense. Everyone should demand better of the games they buy.

[@nienke7713]

Everyone votes, including the presidential candidate and chancellorial candidate

[@LuigiClark2258]

I played this in my APWH class today

[@Jerry_F]

Funnily enough roblox has an adaptation of this game called "Dictator"

[@lagunslime9692]

12:45 * lightning strike *

[@plaguefellow1499]

Hey wouldnt the circle cause a random chance of Hitler auto winning via becoming chancellor

[@Falkriim]

Very strong opening lol

[@blitzsturm5614]

If your friend always Mains Germany in WOT, WT, COH, MEN OF WAR and, ROAD TO VALOR you can easily tell they are Liberals

[@maxiawesomekid899]

Hören Sie auf, unter uns zu posten!

[@therealfriday13th]

...that Circle sounds like cheating.

[@Radman1889]

I far from hate this game. I just hate the people who play it. There are tryhards out there that have their own little 'metas' on how you're supposed to play, and if you don't, you're toxic. It's kind of pathetic how much gatekeegatekeeping there is on this one. Try not to play with others who have played before if you hate shouting matches

[@cutemutadedbearwithtwoheads]

Ive tried ordering it in the internet thing is im german so I didnt receive it because of an specific person in our history

[@FallNightt]

5:41 this sounds so bad without context 😂

[@4rumani]

3:35 You could have just said two thirds and one third...

[@Fredfredbug4]

I love the meta narrative that if you follow the process everything turns out ok. If you distrust the system that’s how the fascists win.

[@hozic9929]

This reminds me of bang ngl

[@jimcooke6257]

Babe wake up! Kamsandwich just uploaded!

[@SoulSukkur]

what is the point of this comment

[@jimcooke6257]

@@SoulSukkur what’s the point of your existence?

[@SoulSukkur]

@@jimcooke6257 to inquire, to learn. what is the point of that comment

[@kamsandwich]

I enjoyed it

[@brothernotsmartius1244]

in truth this is a deep guide to manipulation

[@Ultrox007]

I could never get into this game, like tic-tac-toe I see it as a solved game, I'm also very good at reading tells. As a result, the only way to lose is it everyone else at the table is an idiot. Which considering the kinds of people who play this game (or CAH) is very high...

[@Spikedog777]

Ironic they made hitler the reptile

[@4rumani]

0:52 Among

[@ferklk]

If i was in a group that implemented the circle, i would start playing as a fascist, even if i got a lib card. Fuck minmaxing the fun out of games.

[@maxiawesomekid899]

Nah mafia games in the 1930s were wild 💀💀💀

[@PickleJello]

Doesn't The Circle still have a chance of making Hitler chancellor?

[@d.brianburnsii1011]

1) the fascist assassination trick doesnt work, because if hitler is elected when you can assassinate, then the game is over. 2) the circle strat looks like it wpuld win, but takes away all the fun of the game.

[@EdgeRatedR007]

It was fun watching Total Biscuit play this with his friends. RIP

[@crazy_wwww]

so like hitler among us?

[@theshadowking3198]

The circle is such a boring strat how would you fix it

[@olivercharles2930]

Out of context, these comments are hilarious

[@sirzezin4950]

L🤮beral

[@4tbf616]

it's funny, because a liberal from the 30s would probably have even more conservative opinions than you, but too ignorant to realize that "liberal" is not one homogenous group of people who all share the exact same opinions.

[@coolsceegaming6178]

Jesus fuckimg Christ there is a Roblox version of this game

[@miniaturejayhawk8702]

Or just be openly fascist no matter what team you are on. Thats at least how I do it.

[@thatoneleaf9895]

The Circle is just metagaming and provided no fun... just a game of "Haha! Silly little fascist cant do anything!" 😞 edit: Okay commented literally 15 seconds too early 😂

[@ChangeNameEdits]

Fash

[@Sawta]

13:26 Oh weird. Who would gave guessed that meta gaming prior to the game even beginning would give a 100% chance of "winning" the game. All that was required was to make up rules that implicitly break how the game is intended to work.

[@logica19]

There is a game on Roblox that is literally just like this. It called Dictator or something.

[@kamsandwich]

Alright I'm gonna mark down Roblox Secret Hitler as my "what I've learned" for the day

[@gatorguard5931]

Seems like a fun game, though I think it's worth noting that the supposed 'alternate history' appeal of the game (i.e. liberals defeating Hitler) is muddied by the actual history: despite the liberal Hindenburg winning the 1932 presidential election, he still appointed Hitler as Chancellor, allowing Hitler to resume the presidency when Hindenburg died the year after.

[@WilliamStoneContentZone]

Hindenburg was not a liberal

[@lendbrains]

​@@WilliamStoneContentZone he was personally more of a strongman yeah, but the DVP and SPD were his main backer parties: which were both liberal

[@WilliamStoneContentZone]

@@lendbrains in 1932 the SDP only backed him to prevent the election of Hitler as president and in 1925 the SDP backed Wilhelm Marx

[@SeppelSquirrel]

You break the circle because you're a Fascist, I break the circle because I hate the game.