“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”
@@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)
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
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
This is the only way we play. But instead of everyone having one. It just sits ominously on the table next to the board. The amount of times we’ve had people pleading for their life at gun point while the President paces back and forth in front of the table… best addition to the game bar none.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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).
I must be misunderstanding The Circle strategy. It seems like metagaming specifically in order to break the game? Like, at that point why even play the game? Why not just shorten it down to 'deal party cards; reveal party cards; Fascists lose'? Plus, it feels like there is at least one point when he is explaining the strategy where lying would still destabilize things. Plus, wouldn't its success be dependant on how people are sitting? If enough fascist policies are implemented before his turn arrives, wouldn't Hitler automatically win?
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
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).
-Circle strat is in place, Libs seem locked in to win. -First three Chancellors get three Fascist policies in a row (or at least say they did). -Next in line for Chancellor is Secret Hitler. Welp.
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.
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.
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
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
@@Bobzonthejob It's just mask-off time. Even once it's down to an even split, the fascists basically win. Fascists expose themselves, and openly say they will not pass through any candidacy that isn't for a fascist. They need a majority of yes for a candidacy to pass (50% is not majority), if the candidacy does not pass 3 times in a row, you just flip the top card. Since almost all the cards are fascist, it's basically just as good as a fascist being elected anyway. The danger of course a sitting president being a liberal when it fails, and being able to kill a fascist - bringing it back to the liberal advantage.
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.
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.
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.
One weakness of the circle is if 1 or 2 libreals gets a triple Fasist Draw and both Fasists are part of a 2 Facist Draw before it becomes Hitlers Turn,
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.
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.
The fact that the Circle is so successful is not a coincidence. It’s basically what would have been necessary to stop Hitler from gaining the chancellorship: for everyone to the Nazis’ left to unite against their threat instead of falling to infighting over specific goals and underestimating his threat or thinking he could be controlled, as it would be implemented via game mechanics.
It seems like a real "given the opportunity players will optimize the fun out of a game" moment when its discovered that the best way to win a game about lying and manipulation is to just automate all the decision making out of the process.
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
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?
@@suitcaseofsmarts There's a lot of math and permutations to this that I'd like to not bombard you with, and forgive the censors for youtube. Put simply: the FPs (fascist_players) need 3 policies first, and each time they get a new one there's an execution. Under normal circumstances for an 8 player game there's ~13% odds each turn that either side will instantly win, with either hortler getting nominated or executed when the base policy draws have a 50/50 shot at being implemented. However, Since LPs only need 5 policies to FPs 6, and with executions weighting odds against FPs by running on logic instead of trust, the odds will tip into the LPs favor, effectively making the moment hotler can win by election a "game over in 3 turns". If he was the president though, there's a 50/50 odds he'll just get executed (7% chance) for an immediate game over as the next president executes him should they pass another FP policy. If LP passes, or he wasn't seated there during the turn, then we continue play, with 8 players and only 3 turns left, then only 37% odds he'll even get reached, and this assumes we don't draw or turn lucky and end in 2 (25% to reach) - and this all assumes you even reach this magical situation in the first place. Running circle simulations, 6 and 8 player games have LPs win ~97% of the time, while 7 player games win 83%, and 5 player games win 76% (generally people want bigger groups for these kinds of games, so it likely begrudges normie players that smaller player groups more often favor the traitors - even if the odds are still weighted heavily against them. People remember losses more easily than wins.)
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
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.
First time I played this with a couple guys we had a bucket of vodka and club soda so I was hammered and had no idea how to play the game. Mind games had no effect on me, political intrigue and social engineering fell flat at my feet. I was an arbiter of chaos, flinging wrenches into carefully constructed plans like a chimpanzee with fistfuls of faeces.
6:02 "I'm going to tell you how to better operate as a fascist." is not a sentence I ever expected to be interested in still listening to someone after saying.
That video hit close to home. I introduced this game at a family event where we had 7 players. My brother-in-law protested too much so I figured he must be a Nazi. Unfortunately the rest of the party bought his story and I ended up dead because I was quite and just watching people. It's a very fun game and WAY better that a game like Monopoly where it goes on for hours and hours.
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.
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.
best way betrayal thing.. as prestigan give card to chancellor then discard one and lay fasicm card on there and blame to prestigan for gave two card fasicm
One time, i was stuck for a month for summer practice in my university in a group of unknown people. I thought this month would be hell as we were not allowed to use any devices and the amount of knowledge we were tought was equal to literal zero. And the group was in in was really suspicious of each other. But i came down with the idea of printing this game on A4 (thanks to authors of this game, they share pdf on their site in case the game is not sold in your country). And man, SH helped us to break the ice and have a really good time for this month. Remembering the time we've been playing the game makes those moments some kind of heartwarming😅 100% my favorite board game and really underrated compared to Mafia
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?
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.
This game was re-implemented as Hollywood 1947 by Facade Games. In that game, you had Patriots versus Communists, and each of them played cards into the film you were intending to make, and the "rising star" could play both ends from the middle. It is a very fine party game that gets everyone looking sus and guilty even if they are on the same side.
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!
I had a ton of fun playing Secret Hitler in college... until my friend group defaulted to just freezing me out of the game every time because of a handful of tricky wins I pulled off in a row (and because I was getting my psych degree people assumed I was better than I was). I love hidden role games, but it always felt bad to get punished in future games for playing well in previous games. Same thing also happened to me with the Battlestar Galatica Boardgame and idk how to keep this from happening on repeat playthroughs of hidden role games within the same group
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
FFS, the reverse is true - who plays Blood on the Clocktower nowdays? It's not available right now, you need to ship it (if you even can get them to ship the game to your country, like to Bosnia, Argentina or Russia - places that probably would be hard to ship to) and it costs a bunch (Secret Hitler is Print and Play, enough said). It IS cool that it goes into the role-playing aspect more. But it ain't better than SH. Be it more available, though...
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
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.
@@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.
Something you said while explaining the circle strategy seems to me to imply you might have been misinterpreting the rules surrounding the "picks the next president" effect. Following the presidency of the person chosen, the turn order returns to normal - so if you pick the next person in turn order to be President, they will have the Presidency twice in a row. Also, the circle strategy is vulnerable to accidentally electing Hitler as chancellor.
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
I played this a lot while at boarding School with many people of various experience with the game. I got the reputation around the school as the person who’s always fascist because I loved playing fascist and was quite good at it. My advantage was that I look just as suspicious regardless of my role that I always get mentioned which means I still have the power to influence regardless of suspicion. The problem was that whenever I played liberal, the fascist used this to always frame me and usually get me killed first.
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)
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
I once played this game wrongly and sincerely thinking I was the Secret Fürer (I thought Facist meant I was Hitlr) this ended up confusing everyone, especially the actual Hitler.
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
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 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.
When playing One night werewolf it was fun lying and bluffing with friends and having fun but when we play Secret H!tle sht hits the fan lol one couple almost started an argument and some personal grudges start surfacing hahaha... nein/10 will play again XD
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.
Everyone closes their eyes. A predetermined person says "Hitler put you thumb up and other fascists open your eyes". Then after a bit say they say "Hitler put down your thumb and everyone open your eyes"
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.
I remember watching TotalBiscuit playing this game once a week. Absolute joy. Until they discovered meta strats and how their friends act. At that point it became stale and predictable.
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.
@@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?"
@@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
@@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.
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.)
If the game didn't blatantly dehumanize one specific political group (national socialists), it wouldn't get published. I also agree that the correct artistic decision should have been to make ALL the characters be different types of animals. Then, if you are a liberal, you could interpret it as everyone being unique, but not dehumanizing anyone specifically for their appearance. Or, as a fascist, you could interpret it as, well, not being dehumanized.
“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”
Good idea to keep the game fun!
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
The added is or will be in a position of power
@@xolotltolox7626Yeah I think so too
@@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)
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
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
Just saw this. In first deck its less than 0.25%. You might be thinking in reshuffle when its 10 red and 2 blues.
Because there aren't that many cards you can count them based on what people claim and determine how many times people lied
Ah an anarchist with a brain
@@kamsandwich I'm getting 12% for the first draw.
The Circle: “We used the fascism to defeat the fascism.”
Bruh that's literally what FDR did during WW2, in a sense.
I wouldn't call organizing against fascism fascism, but whatever you say.
@@Skaevssome people call just organizing itself and using any kind of force (including enforcement of laws or even morals) fascism.
Stalinism = Red fascism
Do I really have to explain this?
@@Skaevs you are right, using draconian laws that subsume every actor into a mechanized state has nothing to do with fascism...
You haven't played a game of SH until you've played a game where everyone has a NERF Pistol in their offhand!
Yo that sounds fun
@@dragonprincess2925Yes, yes it does.
Airsoft to spice it up, ouch
This is the only way we play. But instead of everyone having one. It just sits ominously on the table next to the board. The amount of times we’ve had people pleading for their life at gun point while the President paces back and forth in front of the table… best addition to the game bar none.
Hitler on April 30th, 1945:
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
100 rock pikmin + Otachi charge
based altrive enthusiast
*pikmin 5
What does Pikmin 4 have to do with?
@@nintendoboy3605 it's a meme about TH-camr Altrive. Whenever he played among us, his username was Pikmin 4. Now it's pikmin 5
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
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
Reminds me of American intervention
@@willamyte How does that remind you of american intervention?
@@eisgnom7383Guns
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?
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.
"So you wanna be hitler." how did you know
Hey baby girl
Just a small correction, when voting, even the prospect chancellor and president vote!
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
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.
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).
I must be misunderstanding The Circle strategy. It seems like metagaming specifically in order to break the game? Like, at that point why even play the game? Why not just shorten it down to 'deal party cards; reveal party cards; Fascists lose'? Plus, it feels like there is at least one point when he is explaining the strategy where lying would still destabilize things. Plus, wouldn't its success be dependant on how people are sitting? If enough fascist policies are implemented before his turn arrives, wouldn't Hitler automatically win?
@@marksimmons5872They blacklabelled you for playing the gane right xD
It removes two of the abilities of the fascists entirely. So it feels like deliberate sabotage
this game actually seems genius and is a great metaphor for organizing irl
As long as you don't become the thing you swore to destroy.
How do you mean? Did Hitler pretend to be a liberal to get into power?
@@joshuawadsworth6417 Liberals organizing the Weimar Diddy Republic be like...
@@dansmith1661 Replace one problem with another
He read liberal once last video and immediately knew his next video
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
skill issue
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).
cool
-Circle strat is in place, Libs seem locked in to win.
-First three Chancellors get three Fascist policies in a row (or at least say they did).
-Next in line for Chancellor is Secret Hitler.
Welp.
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.
Funnily enough, this is pretty similar to what actually happened in Germany from 1919 to 1933!
what the fuck this isn't even secret hitler this is just a historical reenactment
@@Materialist39except the liberals wouldn't have won if the commies did
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.
love this idea
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
Been there, we were playing Mafia, I was accused all the time and everyone jumped onboard instantly, I was never Mafia and Mafia always won.
What are your thoughts on art?
@@realdragon[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]
It means you’re fun and have a memorable personality. The real sadness is if no one interacts with you at all.
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
Likewise, that feeling when you're playing the fascist side and you have taken the majority is amazing.
@@Bobzonthejob It's just mask-off time. Even once it's down to an even split, the fascists basically win. Fascists expose themselves, and openly say they will not pass through any candidacy that isn't for a fascist. They need a majority of yes for a candidacy to pass (50% is not majority), if the candidacy does not pass 3 times in a row, you just flip the top card. Since almost all the cards are fascist, it's basically just as good as a fascist being elected anyway. The danger of course a sitting president being a liberal when it fails, and being able to kill a fascist - bringing it back to the liberal advantage.
What if you had the majority while being the last lib
I really want you to review Secret Hitler XL with anarchists, communists, monarchists, and emergency powers
damn that sounds... pretty complicated to say the least
and fun
And more realistic @@dominikrni
What do emergency powers do, though?
@@dominikrni
Allow the Chancellor to rule by decree and without regard to the constitution
Communists get a similar board like the fascists. Anarchists win if a certain amount of turns go without a chancellor
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.
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.
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.
One weakness of the circle is if 1 or 2 libreals gets a triple Fasist Draw and both Fasists are part of a 2 Facist Draw before it becomes Hitlers Turn,
isn't this just among us on steroids
Among Us but the imposter is Hitler
No
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.
No, it's like Among Us on meth
@@score38Blood On The Clocktower and Mafia are some other noteworthy social deduction games
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.
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.
isnt the circle strategy vulnerable to giving the funny man chancellor and automatically ending the game, or am i missing something?
The fact that the Circle is so successful is not a coincidence. It’s basically what would have been necessary to stop Hitler from gaining the chancellorship: for everyone to the Nazis’ left to unite against their threat instead of falling to infighting over specific goals and underestimating his threat or thinking he could be controlled, as it would be implemented via game mechanics.
Hello holy beauty
Wtf
Her account is older than me by like 4 years
It seems like a real "given the opportunity players will optimize the fun out of a game" moment when its discovered that the best way to win a game about lying and manipulation is to just automate all the decision making out of the process.
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
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?
statistically improbable and anomalous.
APPOINTED*******************
@@Ultrox007 how so?
@@suitcaseofsmarts There's a lot of math and permutations to this that I'd like to not bombard you with, and forgive the censors for youtube.
Put simply: the FPs (fascist_players) need 3 policies first, and each time they get a new one there's an execution. Under normal circumstances for an 8 player game there's ~13% odds each turn that either side will instantly win, with either hortler getting nominated or executed when the base policy draws have a 50/50 shot at being implemented. However, Since LPs only need 5 policies to FPs 6, and with executions weighting odds against FPs by running on logic instead of trust, the odds will tip into the LPs favor, effectively making the moment hotler can win by election a "game over in 3 turns".
If he was the president though, there's a 50/50 odds he'll just get executed (7% chance) for an immediate game over as the next president executes him should they pass another FP policy.
If LP passes, or he wasn't seated there during the turn, then we continue play, with 8 players and only 3 turns left, then only 37% odds he'll even get reached, and this assumes we don't draw or turn lucky and end in 2 (25% to reach) - and this all assumes you even reach this magical situation in the first place.
Running circle simulations, 6 and 8 player games have LPs win ~97% of the time, while 7 player games win 83%, and 5 player games win 76% (generally people want bigger groups for these kinds of games, so it likely begrudges normie players that smaller player groups more often favor the traitors - even if the odds are still weighted heavily against them. People remember losses more easily than wins.)
No, because Hitler being chancellor is only a fascist win if three fascist policies have already been enacted.
This looks like I'd have fun watching other people play it, but that I would be absolutely terrible at actually playing it myself.
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
0:55 How you play "Scary Hitler"... 😅
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
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.
First time I played this with a couple guys we had a bucket of vodka and club soda so I was hammered and had no idea how to play the game. Mind games had no effect on me, political intrigue and social engineering fell flat at my feet. I was an arbiter of chaos, flinging wrenches into carefully constructed plans like a chimpanzee with fistfuls of faeces.
Be subtle in your accusations.
Me with the sped up chorus of "Heut ist mein Tag" at the ready.
The circle is the definition of party pooper
6:02 "I'm going to tell you how to better operate as a fascist." is not a sentence I ever expected to be interested in still listening to someone after saying.
That video hit close to home. I introduced this game at a family event where we had 7 players. My brother-in-law protested too much so I figured he must be a Nazi. Unfortunately the rest of the party bought his story and I ended up dead because I was quite and just watching people. It's a very fun game and WAY better that a game like Monopoly where it goes on for hours and hours.
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.
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.
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
The circle strategy just sounds an awful lot like autocracy.
this is an gigaversion of "the resistance" board game
That's not fair, Cobra Commander was never a lizard person, he was a snake
Snakes are just noodley lizards
best way betrayal thing.. as prestigan give card to chancellor then discard one and lay fasicm card on there and blame to prestigan for gave two card fasicm
I played this once and somehow wound up as the secret hitler tried to play some mind games but then i had to dip
“I’m not Hitler!!”
Definitely not Hitler
Got to make a move to a town that's reich for me
One time, i was stuck for a month for summer practice in my university in a group of unknown people. I thought this month would be hell as we were not allowed to use any devices and the amount of knowledge we were tought was equal to literal zero. And the group was in in was really suspicious of each other. But i came down with the idea of printing this game on A4 (thanks to authors of this game, they share pdf on their site in case the game is not sold in your country). And man, SH helped us to break the ice and have a really good time for this month. Remembering the time we've been playing the game makes those moments some kind of heartwarming😅 100% my favorite board game and really underrated compared to Mafia
You enroll in an art school.
You find this board game in the student lounge.
Wut do?
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?
We go straight on the luck path, more of a "trust the circle" approach. It hasn't failed us once yet!
I managed to play the game so poorly, I won as hitler by being the only person anyone could trust to be a liberal.
@@metaparalysis3441 im sorry what
Ah yes, Mafia (the party game) with politics.
This should be made for online play, playing this over a discord voice chat could be fun
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.
Instructions unclear: became a fascist dictator of a third world country. I don't even own the game
This game was re-implemented as Hollywood 1947 by Facade Games. In that game, you had Patriots versus Communists, and each of them played cards into the film you were intending to make, and the "rising star" could play both ends from the middle. It is a very fine party game that gets everyone looking sus and guilty even if they are on the same side.
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!
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
Something something social interaction is easier when you know someone belongs to a distinct group, with clearly defined goals and motivation
I had a ton of fun playing Secret Hitler in college... until my friend group defaulted to just freezing me out of the game every time because of a handful of tricky wins I pulled off in a row (and because I was getting my psych degree people assumed I was better than I was). I love hidden role games, but it always felt bad to get punished in future games for playing well in previous games. Same thing also happened to me with the Battlestar Galatica Boardgame and idk how to keep this from happening on repeat playthroughs of hidden role games within the same group
11:50 literally the Röhmputsch
5:41 this sounds so bad without context 😂
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
Statistically improbable given how the circle and execution forces work.
FFS, the reverse is true - who plays Blood on the Clocktower nowdays? It's not available right now, you need to ship it (if you even can get them to ship the game to your country, like to Bosnia, Argentina or Russia - places that probably would be hard to ship to) and it costs a bunch (Secret Hitler is Print and Play, enough said). It IS cool that it goes into the role-playing aspect more. But it ain't better than SH. Be it more available, though...
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
If everybody follows through. I mean psychologically. People aren't emotionless rational drones
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.
@@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.
11:59 Socthe Night Of Long Knives stratagem.
I wouldn’t be able to hold back a German accent and stick a mustache on lmfao
Something you said while explaining the circle strategy seems to me to imply you might have been misinterpreting the rules surrounding the "picks the next president" effect. Following the presidency of the person chosen, the turn order returns to normal - so if you pick the next person in turn order to be President, they will have the Presidency twice in a row.
Also, the circle strategy is vulnerable to accidentally electing Hitler as chancellor.
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
if playing a game well removes the fun, then it's a poorly designed game.
in my secret hitler there is just a rule that the president cant elect the player next to them, totally destroying that strategy.
I played this a lot while at boarding School with many people of various experience with the game. I got the reputation around the school as the person who’s always fascist because I loved playing fascist and was quite good at it. My advantage was that I look just as suspicious regardless of my role that I always get mentioned which means I still have the power to influence regardless of suspicion. The problem was that whenever I played liberal, the fascist used this to always frame me and usually get me killed first.
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)
The circle : ''Everything will be alright '' *elects Hitler as chancellor because of bad luck * ''Oops''
So this is what inspired "Dictator".
A Roblox game with a familiar theme from this board game.
Yeah I was thinking the exact same thing
yea
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
i think 100% win guaranteed win situations are stinky and boring
I once played this game wrongly and sincerely thinking I was the Secret Fürer (I thought Facist meant I was Hitlr) this ended up confusing everyone, especially the actual Hitler.
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.
THERE’S A GAME ABOUT THE WEIMAR REPUBLIK??? YEAAAASSSS
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?
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.
@@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.
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.
@@kingawsume 500 million seconds of paralysis goes hard
@@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.
When playing One night werewolf it was fun lying and bluffing with friends and having fun but when we play Secret H!tle sht hits the fan lol one couple almost started an argument and some personal grudges start surfacing hahaha... nein/10 will play again XD
Me, an intellectual: Apathetically, partakes in the game regardless of the side. Enjoys the arguments that unfold.
This is the first video I've ever watched that has given me strategies on how to be an effective fascist
12:45 * lightning strike *
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
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.
if only there was an option to pay president 2 million marks..
"Is knowing your odds"
*THROWS CARDS*
Hey wouldnt the circle cause a random chance of Hitler auto winning via becoming chancellor
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:
Me reading comment on a random board game I have heard of when I see annoying political pfp 😔
3:35 You could have just said two thirds and one third...
All I got to say is the intro was amazing
I am offended! Hitler was not a lizard!
Hitler was a confirmed scalie, he always gooned before taking his drugs
Maybe I missed it in the video but how do the fascist know who each other and Hitler are?
Everyone closes their eyes. A predetermined person says "Hitler put you thumb up and other fascists open your eyes". Then after a bit say they say "Hitler put down your thumb and everyone open your eyes"
Who would've thought that cheating in a board game gives you an advantage
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.
But in the circle it is guaranteed for hitler to be elected sometime
This is such a great game. I remember when TotalBiscuit played this game with his friends.
I remember watching TotalBiscuit playing this game once a week. Absolute joy. Until they discovered meta strats and how their friends act. At that point it became stale and predictable.
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.
Then don't game, just go to a bar and socialize.
@@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...
@@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?"
@@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
@@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.
halfway through and i dont know how you get killed
Fun fact there’s a Roblox game that is almost an exact copy of this. It’s called “dictator”.
I wish I had 7 friends to play this with
Although, I think the circle falls apart in the scenario where Hitler is directly after the fascist.
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.)
If the game didn't blatantly dehumanize one specific political group (national socialists), it wouldn't get published. I also agree that the correct artistic decision should have been to make ALL the characters be different types of animals. Then, if you are a liberal, you could interpret it as everyone being unique, but not dehumanizing anyone specifically for their appearance. Or, as a fascist, you could interpret it as, well, not being dehumanized.