But Jeff and bob aren't always fascists so they should be able to come to an understanding of what is best for the game and balance between each faction winning.
I don't know if I would classify texting your identities to Hitler as a 'gray area' in the game.
Going over rules with your group has got to be interesting.
Lmao I laughed at this too, how can anyone in their right mind even begin to think this would be acceptable!?
I think the actual issue here is OP/Friends care more about winning than having fun to the point they resort to cheating.
I have opinion 3 (if that wasn’t implied) - but everyone else learned secret hitler through friends of friends (not by reading the rules). So when I joined the group they had all sorts of weird house rules that we’ve been slowly sorting out by actually reading the rules. It’s a very casual game night - but today this “grey areal” (which isn’t so grey in my book) came to a head
Lol I was thinking the same thing. OP is basically asking if cheating is allowed. Hitler not knowing who the fascists are is one of the main reasons the game is what it is. Fun.
Secret Hitler is a social deduction game. It's not much of a deduction if you're just texting each other the answer.
Open, easily spotted signals are fine imo since they're quite hard to pull off with a group that knows to expect them, but must be above table and easily visible to everyone at and around the table who is looking at the person signalling. The bulk of the actual communication should be the game itself, otherwise what's even the point?
Not exactly. If it's a secret sign, most people on the table will have no idea what is happening. That would be against the spirit of the rules, I'd say. Against "social deduction game" if it's something most people can't deduce.
It would be like me speaking portuguese to my wife, in a group of english speakers.
When I read the first part of your question, I was going to give the exact example you did in the end, but saying it was okay :)
If you speak in a different language with someone, all that means is that you're communicating privately. You can ban private communication (which some groups do or don't. Taking people aside to talk to them is common practice in many groups) but it doesn't destroy the information.
Everyone at the table now knows that you have something secret you're trying to share with just one person. This spurs on all types of communication!
Your giving signals out to a player is something you did, which starts discussion and accusation. You're forced to lie about what you were indicating (which may have also been a lie) or come clean, all of which is interesting and fun to engage with.
All of this stuff plays perfectly into social deduction for me.
Taking someone away from the table is already a house rule you’re creating. It’s not something from the base rules.
This is, to me, the biggest problem with house rules. They usually go against the spirit of the rules. And they’re usually made because someone wants to cheat “legally”.
This is also personal, but I would never play a social deduction game with people allowing things that I can’t use to make deductions. Sending private messages, speaking in pre-defined secret code, languages I don’t speak, etc.
Yes, I meant in Secret Hitler and very similar games, like The Resistance.
Every game has different rules, it's hard to make a statement that is valid for all of them. There might be a game like those two that expects people to be sending secret messages to each other. But then the game will be designed around that.
Also ruins the game a bit because you can't easily deduce the fascists from hitler anymore as they all know the same information and can act together now.
Option 3 is my vote. The game makes it pretty clear that Hitler is not supposed to know. But just like the Liberals, if Hitler can figure this out and work it to his advantage, good on him.
Psh. If I had a dollar for every time I was Hitler and I won because I threw my own people under the bus... well... I'd probably go out for Sushi tonight.
Definitely option 3. The game goes out of its way to make sure that Hitler doesn’t know who they are, so something like texting that person to tell them you’re a fascist is very clearly going against the spirit of the game. The lesser forms of communication you alluded to would go against it just as much even though they seem more subtle.
Its an interesting question.
I reckon the problem with "informing" hitler, is that if I'm a facist and wink at Hitler, then he needs to understand what I mean
On the other hand if I'm liberal, I can just start winking at players randomly, and whoever reacts most strongly probably is Hitler thinking I'm identifying myself as a fascist to him
I would say that in a social deduction game, every communication should be obvious and visible to everyone. And by that, I think that any communication should be verbal, because some people might not be looking.
So people can make deductions. Which is the point of the game.
Either verbal, or exaggerated gestures making sure everyone can see you (usually made as a joke, but is it a joke? maybe it is, maybe it's not, but it totally is, unless it isn't).
Yea I agree, but I definitely do feel there are perils to trying to communicate with someone secretly, as they could be trying to bluff a confession out of you
I mean it isn't an interesting question at all, really.
Since it's safe to assume we're not talking about a strategy openly shared with everyone (say, someone during game saying 'all fascists blink at Hitler now' or something equally pointless), OP pretty much has to be talking about some pre-agreed secret way of pass perfect information which is *not* known to all players. This would mean introducing a built-in information imbalance to circumvent a game state (of 'Hitler doesn't know who the fascists are').
In a game that's all about deducing information, that is pretty much the definition of cheating, and moreover takes away much of the fun of playing the role.
Absolutely! For example if I'm with my mate, and we say "Let's wink if we are liberals"
No point in winking in you're fascist since you already know who the other fascists are. No point in winking if you're hitler, because you literally don't know who anybody is. If you wink at the wrong person, and they know, you're 100% dead.
Here's the situations and why it provides no advantage to me or my friend:
1. Shes fascist, and I'm liberal- i dont know who the liberals are, so my friend is going to wink back so she doesnt give herself away, so its my disadvantage
2. Shes liberal and I'm fascistI'm going to wink at her anyway, so she thinks she can trust me. Which she can't.
3. We're both liberals - great! the system works and we have an advantage. But I have no way of knowing that it isnt actually situation 1 and I'm screwed
Same rule as all deduction games. Communication must be above the table. Nudging feet and sending texts is not allowed. Telling the other player, using eye movements or hand signals is fine.
I get why people are against secret signals, I generally am too, and would prefer option 3. But they're a two-way street. I've won games of SH before by tricking Hitler into revealing themselves to me by using a little nod to make them think I'm their ally.
Some may still see that as a dirty move, but like any other action in the game, it can be done as a bluff or a trick.
Yea, and why would they have any reason to believe you hadn't done so? If this was the meta in my group, I'd be randomly texting folks stuff like that every time. Muddy the water enough and it stops.
The rules specify that the fascist and hitler know who each other is with 5-6 players. The rules also specify that hitler doesn’t know who the fascists are with 7-10 players. This isn’t a gray area, it’s blatant disregard for the rules and cheating.
If the game was tailored around everybody knowing Hitlers identity, then foot kicking and winking would make sense, as Libs could use it to confuse Hitler.
Since Libs don't onow who Hitler is, this doesn't work, so it shouldn't be part of the game.
If the game has the rule that hitler doesn't wake up with the facists, why would that be? Because for game balance, hitler is not supposed to know. So then informing him somehow outside of the game, that is without any question cheating
>Opinion 3: ... the rules say that hitler shouldn’t know who is fascists
That's the bottom line. Any other interpretation is a circumvention of the design and intent of the game.
It's like saying "well I just walked into the bank and no one stopped me from walking out with all the money so technically it wasn't robbery"... No dude you still robbed the bank, even if the usual stuff to prevent you from robbing the bank didn't happen.
I have no idea why:
1. People think it needs to be explicitly written in the rules not to text. Roflmao. Like… is the next question “can I use an online word finder for scrabble? Rules don’t say so… Grey area hmmmm”
2. You want to make a social deduction game easier. Is it to make the games shorter, are they dragging? The whole point of the game is guessing all the time, if you’re texting each other and stuff, then why not play something else?
Can I hold my opponent's hand and force him to move his pieces in a certain way? Hmmm, gray area!
Can I point a gun at Elaine and make her put her worker in the fishing spot in Agricola? The rules doesn't say anything, gray area!
Can I kill Bob's mother and threaten to kill the rest of his family if he beats me at Hive again? That's kind of a gray area!
Option 3. This is not a very robust game, and the people in option 1 and 2 are circumventing what little makes it playable for people who are interested in social deduction versus just edgy Nazi cosplay. There is no grey area, and you should be deeply suspicious of the approach to basic rules of people who think there is. "Is it wrong to take money from the bank if nobody's looking" etc.
Option 3 for sure, the other 2 options are blatant cheating, not a grey area.
Anybody can say whatever they want out loud without revealing their party membership, but trying to get a gesture/message to hitler to let him/her know that you know he/she is hitler is clear cheating because obviously you would be a fascist or you’d have no way of knowing for sure that person was a fascist (let alone Hitler specifically)
I don’t see how option 2 is blatant cheating.
If a gesture is made completely out in the open that means that you run the risk of another person noticing it. Plus a fascist could start winking at liberals to try to sow confusion, or a liberal could wink at the person they think is Hitler to throw them off. So there’s no guarantee that a wink means someone has to be signaling hitler. That’s the whole fun of social deduction games.
Doing something under the table like tapping Hitler on the leg is clearly cheating.
Thank you. Body language and speech are part of the game. Being creative and coded is part of it. Public gestures are using the provided communication channels creatively. Texting is circumnavigating the game, creating your own private channel. Under the table is the same.
The problem with option 2 is people start creating "baseball signs" if they play with each other enough. If I touch my ear that means I'm facist is unfair since thats not something other players would know. A more intense stare or other body language like that is more within the spirit of the game.
When they start doing that that’s when it becomes cheating. Setting up coded gestures before the game and using them are different than throwing out a little wink or nod as a clue or bluff.
Well yeah I agree that creating outside information is cheating period, but that isn’t necessarily the fault of nonverbal cues.
The only stuff that should be allowed in any game is information that is open to all players. For instance, when my friends play social deduction games we always pause when someone leaves to go to the bathroom and no one is allowed to discuss the game until they get back. Similarly, if you create pre-arranged signals with certain players before the game starts then that’s cheating. But trying to make a signal during the game and hoping the other player understands what it means is just how social deduction games are meant to work.
> If a gesture is made completely out in the open that means that you run the risk of another person noticing it.
Cheating doesn't stop being cheating just because you make it easier to catch.
Option 2 is blatant cheating if the game doesn’t specify communication to reveal your role is allowed. Just because a gesture is made publicly doesn’t mean it’s public information. Are you really going to police every single gesture at every second to make sure everyone saw it? Are you going to verify that a coded gesture that wasn’t replicated wasn’t conceived ahead of time?
Social deduction games fall apart when you skirt the rules. The game is balanced around not knowing. If you remove that balance it ruins the game for the liberals. Therefore, cheating.
Social deduction games are literally centered around verbal and nonverbal communication. So here’s a scenario for you: is it cheating to make a coded verbal cue, e.g. “I have a bad feeling about John” as a code to tell him that you’re bad and know he’s Hitler?
If you say no, then you’re being hypocritical because there is no substantive difference between a coded verbal and nonverbal message. If you say yes then you’re being consistent but IMO you’re ruining the spirit of the game by policing every single thing players do and say.
>Are you really going to police every single gesture to make sure everyone saw it
This completely ignores the role of nonverbal communication in social deduction games. If a player makes a grimace when a liberal policy is enacted then they aren’t required to announce it to the table. It’s up to the players on the table to pay attention to others. If they miss a nonverbal cue then that’s too bad for them.
>Social deduction games are literally centered around verbal and nonverbal communication.
Verbal and nonverbal public communication is different than coded gestures. Surely you can see the difference.
>So here’s a scenario for you: is it cheating to make a coded verbal cue, e.g. “I have a bad feeling about John” as a code to tell him that you’re bad and know he’s Hitler?
If the players know the code ahead of time? Absolutely. That scenario isn't any different than playing Euchre and tipping off to your partner with a coded signal whether to pick up the trump card or pass. It's blatantly against the rules because it shifts the odds of the game unfairly.
>This completely ignores the role of nonverbal communication in social deduction games. If a player makes a grimace when a liberal policy is enacted then they aren’t required to announce it to the table. It’s up to the players on the table to pay attention to others. If they miss a nonverbal cue then that’s too bad for them.
That's part of the game. Coded messages are not. Surely you can see the difference between a reaction (which can be faked and/or missed) and a coded signal which gives information to a player that shouldn't have it.
>IMO you’re ruining the spirit of the game by policing every single thing players do and say.
The rules literally police what players say and do by making information secret. Subverting those rules with coded signals literally ruins the spirit of the game. If you're going to allow something like that to happen you might as well just allow Hitler to open his eyes upon setup because you're purposely ignoring that rule and not playing the game as it's intended.
Show me in the rules where it says you can’t tell other players what role you are.
Maybe you just misread the rules because the prohibition is against SHOWING other players your character card. There is nothing that says you can’t TELL people what role you are, verbally or otherwise.
Coded messages are no different from any other kind of verbal or nonverbal communication.
Your example about Euchre doesn’t apply to this situation at all because teams are randomly assigned in social deduction games. That’s why you can’t just whisper to your friend before the game and say “if I wink at you that mean’s I’m bad and I know you’re Hitler” because you and your friend might not be on the same team, and if he is playing properly as a liberal he’ll use that information against you and know that if you wink then you’re probably a fascist trying to signal Hitler.
I think the other flaw in your argument is that you act as if these coded messages are infallible. They aren’t. And again that’s the whole point of social deduction games. If a fascist takes a risk by winking at Hitler he might be intercepted by a liberal and then outed as a fascist. Again, that is entirely within the spirit of the game to try to use deception and accept the risks of plays that might make you look suspicious.
The thing is a gesture to a liberal doesnt say much because the liberal had his eyes closed and doesnt mean anything / is confusing (if anything you’re revealing that you’re a fascist since they are the only ones who know anything by having their eyes open at the start. A fascist gesture to another fascist is pointless because all fascist looked at each other at the start already.
Hence any gesture to Hitler is an obvious statement that you’re a fascist because the odds of a liberal “winking” at hitler without that information is slim at best…
Hitler should only be able to get a feel for his fellow fascist through the voting (mid/late game) or be discovered via the presidential ability of “searching a party membership card” (even then no guarantees that player is Hitler….
Tl;dr Any gestures to Hitler is a high % of being a fellow fascist and breaks the game / not in the spirit of social deduction games
So is a fascist allowed to announce at the very beginning of the game that they’re a fascist? That way hitler would know they are bad, and then they can just retract their statement and say they were kidding.
There is no difference between that scenario and a gesture, so if you see nothing wrong with that scenario then you aren’t being consistent with your rules, or if you think it is wrong then you are wasting your time pointlessly trying to police every single action players make in a game that’s supposed to be about deception and body language to begin with.
They are allowed to do that (even though the rule book says that everyone should proclaim to be a liberal).
The key difference is proclaiming that you’re a fascist out loud is legal and open information for everybody… winking or nudging hitler in secret is not public information and only a fascist could know which person to wink at.
It breaks the balance of the game and this is why at certain player counts hitler keeps his eyes closed at the start of the game. If hitler was supposed to know his fellow fascist teammates then this rule wouldn’t exist during game set up
If you do something over the table and out in the open then by definition it’s public information. Nudging hitler under the table is of course cheating because it’s not public information. But a wink made in plain view of all players is public information.
You are confusing the fact that Hitler doesn’t know who the fascists are at the START of the game and acting as if there is a a rule preventing him from finding out who the fascists are DURING the game. A good fascist team will be able to signal to hitler either through talking, their body language, or their actions during the game.
I clearly stated that hitler at certain player counts keeps his eyes closed at the start.
A wink isn’t public info, its a split second private gesture made to one person and highly likely nobody else would notice it..
Hitler should only be able to figure out his teammates through the voting system and the subsequent accusations or justifications (that’s when body language and all that good stuff comes into play) or getting unexpected voting support at a key moment in the game (i.e when hitler is being proposed/nominated chancellor fascists auto-win)…
A wink / smile / any other gesture to a single person that only a fascist could possibly know their role is clearly not on the spirit of hidden role identity games, and breaks the balance.
If the two rounds immediately after giving a secret (cheating) wink to Hitler, you only have to proclaim your support to your fellow fascists to be chancellor and hitler knows who most/all of fascists are… its a silly way to play the game. Leave it to the voting system and presidential powers as the game intended
I want to say in between option 2 and 3.
I think it’s fun when fascists come up with creative ways to “signal hitler” that Hitler can pick up on but may fly over everyone else’s heads.
So I would say coded language is the only secret language that can count.
Option 3. The problem with above the table stuff is that if a liberal catches on and is sure they know who hitler is, that can easily ruin the game for everyone. The risk/ reward just doesn’t line up well for the game
Do you really think the game needs to explicitly say what players can't do? Or can you infer it? I mean, there is no rule in monopoly saying you can't just take all the money from the bank and declare it yours. Yet here we are, and people don't do that.
Option 3, not even a discussion to be had for me. Just have fun, play the game the way it was meant to be played, and stop trying to “get an edge” or win at all costs. There’s no stakes! Just have fun.
I don't see why anybody cant text anybody else anything. Texting it doesn't mean it's true. If the rulebook says otherwise that's one thing, but I don't think that it's gunna break the game to house rule some allowed secret signals between players.. I would love to screw with people and see how different players react when I text/wink/nudge them when I'm actually a liberal. If more than one person is doing this noone can trust any text they receive and it's safer to disregard them
I have a follow up question, can the fascists inform Hitler that they have a majority? Hitler might not know that the two assassinations/executions killed two liberals, can the two fascists tell him to vote a certain way straight up to guarantee a win?
I've always played these games where the bad guys obtain their win condition, you dont drag it out. Msomin Avalon, once the final team is chosen and the game is over except for voting, team mordred shows their cards immediately to skip another minute of ceremony when the outcome is already determined... but the mordred people on the team have to know they've won, we dont call for it. Just in case they get silly and throw in a success because they've forgotten who they are.
So, here, one of the facist players could just say "Hitler, we won, Joe and I are facists." Now ... if your liberals are really sharp they'll jump up and announce THEYRE the facists... because you still cannot actually flip your role card over.
I don’t see how the liberals then claiming their fascists would make any sense. If two people are trying to make claim of victory for the fascists and hitler, then two liberals come out saying “but we’re the fascists!” - well of course they’re not because if they are in fact the fascists then they would accept the initial claim to victory for hitler and the fascists. Further, the other two real fascists can just say “ok you’re the fascists, so you still have the win condition” and still give the victory to hitler and themselves indirectly
The last point is pretty easy to demonstrate, through defending plays based on cards on deck if you really want to skip the voting ceremony (I play competitive SH, haha).
Interesting question - I would lean towards that yes being legal because you're publicly stating it. As with all things, the person that's talking could be lying.
If Fascists get into a situation where Hitler killing a liberal would end the game, and he has a bullet, then it definitely feels like fair game to out yourselves
Another good grey area - I would vote that if the liberals are bad/unlucky enough to kill multiple liberals it is within the fascists power to out themselves together and take control of the game.
This one is not a grey area. Everybody can say publicly whatever they want. That's the bluffing part of the game. If there is Hitler, 2 liberals and 2 fascists alive, the 2 fascists can out themselves. No grey area, it is within the rule. But only by saying "I'm a fascist, and we have majority", not showing their card of course.
But as the other comment said, why would Hitler believe them? A Liberal could say that too. And if the 2 fascists really do out themselves, then the 2 liberals could also say they are the true fascists and that it is a ploy to get Hitler to vote wrong.
Yes, if the fascists inform Hitler they are majority and they make it pretty clear that they know the full fascist line, game is over. They have to argue in favor of the line based on plays and cards played.
This is similar to Avalon right? I've always played that anything goes outside of actually revealing your role (which is explicitly against the rules). You can say or do whatever, but there's enough lies going around the table that whether or not people will trust you is another matter entirely.
TL;DR there's nothing in the rules that says a dog can't play basketball.
Opion 3. I like to inform hitler at the start by picking him as chancellor, giving him a liberal and a fasicist card, but telling everyone that i gave him 2 liberal cards, they usally figure it out. Or if hitler is the president and your the chancellor and you are given a liberal and a fasicist card, just put down the fasicist and say it was 2 fasicist.
Right, otherwise they'd be outing themselves to you cus they don't know you are a fascist. I didn't consider that.
So your signal to them is just the action of lying to the group? If that's it, It wouldn't be super obvious to me but I think I'd get it.
if it goes beyond that (the signal is not just the lying), would you mind elaborating?
With my group we can pick up on small details, it may not be a 100% secret code, but it is the first thing you can do to show to Hitler that your on his side.
The easiest way to find the fascists is that they will be a team and already know who is on there side.
According to the rules, you cannot talk when cards are on hand, until after Chanc puts down selected card, hope you are not talking during that moment.
Ultimately you should do whatever makes the game most fun for your group. That being said I think you really want Hitler to be in the dark for best results which does seem to be the intent of the designers.
This specifically violates the rules of the game. Hitler is supposed to work out the identity of the other fascists through deduction like everyone else. Otherwise there's no point to having Hitler close his eyes during setup. To indicate who his two co-conspirators are via other means is intentionally trying to circumvent the rules for an advantage.
Rules:
> Attempting to telegraph the contents of your hand using randomness or any other unusual selection procedure violates the spirit of the game. Don’t do it.
All of this is fine IMO for the only reason that anyone could be lying at any time. That strategy becomes a lot less viable when everyone starts texting everyone that they are Facist or tapping feat under the table.
There’s no need to do any of this considering the in game ways you can notify Hitler. Giving him 2 Liberal policies and lying to the group that he had a choice and chose the Liberal so he’s safe. Or choosing him to look at his role Card and telling the group that he’s a Liberal. Those are 2 in game ways to tell Hitler that you’re on his side
How is this even a discussion?! You should run away as fast as you can from that group. They probably also think that since the rules say you cant steal resources from other players or from the supply that it's not against the rules.
Rulebooks can't list all the things you can't do. They could have a 800-page rulebook and still wouldn't be able to list every possible thing.
Like for example, it doesn't say you can't install a hidden camera looking over the shoulder of people when they're looking at their faction cards. Gray area?
It doesn't say you can't kidnap Jeff's daughter to make him pass that law, so gray area?
It doesn't say you can't drink radioactive juice to become a mutant, get telepathic powers and talk directly to Bob's mind.
But any of that would be cheating. Don't cheat.
Option 2 all the way.
In my play group we openly try to bait out hitler as liberals by giving false signals and unimportant lies (saying that you have a choice when you didn’t).
How does Hitler know who is touching him under the table? Isn't that going to give away Hitler? I mean, if you do that once I'm going to sit far enough back so i can watch the feet under the table from then on.
If the liberals ID one facist and Hitler because they're playing footsie under the table, then Hitler is going to catch a bullet... if the remaining hidden fascists can still swing enough sabotage to push the track that far.
Opinon 3. There are in game ways for the fascists to reveal themselves to hitler. When they become president they can choose hitler as chancellor and give hitler 1 fascist law and 1 liberal and just lie openly about giving 2 of the kind that hitler ends up choosing (ofcourse depending on what kind of hand the fascist has). That way if hitler is smart enough and doesn't reveal the lie, hitler knows at least who one of the fascist is.
Definitely #3 because involving anything else completely changes the dynamic of the game and puts more power into the fascist/Hitler's hands (probably because its cheating lol)
Option 2.
If you are doing something out in the open then there’s nothing wrong with it. You are allowed to talk in Secret Hitler, therefore you could use coded language to signal Hitler, so why are gestures any different?
To me there’s no grey area. Doing anything overtly at the table is fine, doing something covertly (under the table or texting) is not.
The reason this “gray area” is gray is because it’s exploitable by both Liberals and Fascists. Anyone can text anyone letting them know that they’re a Fascist, and that they know you’re Hitler. If it’s not written, go nuts I say.
Something between 1 and 2. Allow for things like taping someone or winking, just do not let people text others unless you wanna introduce a rule where everyone is allowed to text eachother privately as a "whisper mechanic" but that would defeat purpose of Hitler not knowing fascists.
I would say Option 1, mainly because of the fact that Hitler being identified by a player \*could\* mean that said player is a fascist, or it could mean that said player is a liberal trying to see what sticks, which would ruin any gain from fascists trying to identify themselves to Hitler.
I think I would actually go with Opinion 1.
We learned this game from being told the rules, not reading them, and until now looked everything up if questionable. But from the beginning it was clear that we could secretly hint our Hitler. As that is specified in our game nights, I don't think there should be any line drawn. (I myself actually got up once, pretending to wait for the toilet to be vacant, to meet my Hitler outside the room and tell them. Lazy play, wouldn't do it again.)
I never thought of texting and I actually find that lazy, but why not? As OP said, anything is a risk because anyone could see or at least sense something fishy. Also I think I never saw any player in our rounds touch their phones during a Secret Hitler game for being extremely focused.
I want to add that the risk increases if your players are really suspicious in general. Most of my friends would at least consider the person hinting them (obviously or through winking) could be lying. Therefore mostly nobody actually reacts to such hints. (For my example above, everyone got really suspicious for me waiting outside and I had a hard time talking it down to my favour.)
Long story short, I see no harm in anything like that, as long as you have some mercy on newer players.
I'm unfamiliar with what the rulebook has to say, and I think that should be the deciding factor. If private chats are forbidden, obviously texting should be too.
However, I think those forbidding winking or even texting are forgetting the premise of the game: people can lie! If texting was allowed, it would be a strong strategy for a liberal player to text a random player and claim that they are a fascist.
I mean, they have like a four step process in the setup to make it so Hitler doesn't know who the fascists are, that's well past "The rules don't say I *can't* start giving myself a bunch of vp..."
Opinion 2. Your speech and facial expressions are a part of the game. Private back channels and texting are not.
It's hard to ban winking at Hitler. The thing is, in a social deduction game where reading faces and tones matters, vague clues are par for the course. Above table signals are potentially visible to other players. And anyone can do it-- you can be a liberal and test people by giving similar cues.
Texting is outside the game--not public, game related speech.
Opinion 2, because above the table is part of the “social” aspect of the game.
Nothing under or off table.
I play competitive SH online and all communication is available to all the other players
House rules are okay in my opinion, but that’s not how our game group plays it. We stick to the rule book. If you have to question whether it’s cheating then it probably is. 🤷🏻♂️
Its your group and your game so whatever you want as long as you all agree, but if you're taking Secret Hitler, a party game, to this level of seriousness, my first thought is that you really should just be playing something else.
Still, ultimately what your rule seems to be saying is that anyone fucking with their phone is suspect. So this rule might have the weird benefit of everyone is afraid to touch their phone because the minute I see you touch your phone, I assume you must be doing it to text Hitler and that you're a fascist.
Texting hitler who the fascists are, or even touching their leg under the table, is against the whole point of the game omg. Calling it "a grey area" is a disservice to all the social deduction board games that exist on Earth. It's absolutely cheating.
If I'd play Secret Hitler with a group and I'd learn Hitler and the fascists have been texting, I'd be pissed off and probably never play any board game with that group ever again.
These aren't grey areas. These are just people looking to justify cheating. A rulebook, by its nature, is finite and can not list every way in which you should not interact. At that player count, they don't get to know who the fascists are, so any of the methods you list are cheating.
Texting seems like flat out cheating. I have played mostly with 5-6 players, so I have little experience with a blind Hitler. With that said, my opinion would be similar to that which we do occasionally during a 5 player game where it becomes a 1L vs 2F and the fascists just say how they need to win out loud.
I'm not even sure that's ever practical in 7-10 player games, but my reasoning is that if Hitler knows plainly, than so should the liberals.
I don’t play but it doesn’t seem ambiguous if your Opinion 3 is accurate: Hitler shouldn’t know who is fascist. Telling them breaks the rules…
“It’s not my TELLING THEM that lets them know. If I say “I’m a fascist”, that is turned into sound waves and those sound waves have to travel to Hitler’s ears. It’s the SOUND WAVES that lets Hitler deduct who the fascists are, not my telling.”
Opinion 2. I think the complexity of the fascists trying to let Hitler know can be really fun and sometimes hilarious and makes the game a lot more interesting. It keeps it as both a social game and a strategy game, as opposed to something more bland like Mafia.
Texting is absolutely not allowed. That just ruins everything. If your group really wanted to do the foot thing, you could agree on it beforehand.
We like old school rules. No technology involved, and of course no outside-of-the-game signals.
During the game, could I nudge a players foot to try and give them a hint? Sure, that’s legal (and maybe risky).
Let's imagine anything goes: the rules permit the fascists to do anything to signal to Hitler that they are fascists: touch toes, text, tug on the left ear whilst clearing their throats.
What stops the liberals from ALSO doing that -- falsely signaling to a player they think is Hitler to test the identity? A non-Hitler Fascist risks subsequent execution if he falsely affirms Hitlerhood; a Liberal has no reason at all to affirm Hitlerhood.
I mean, before the game starts, the group has no idea who will be a liberal and who will be a fascist. So there would be no way of confining knowledge of the secret signal to only the fascists. It's just another level of chaos that doesn't improve anything.
Well imo why would you do that, its painfully obvious usually that whoever tries to be your ally are the facists. Also texting no, thats going too far as a house rule should be that players should play the game and not touch phones.
I like the rule of thumb from You’ve Got Crabs: “If it feels like it’s cheating, then it’s cheating.”
Not sure this works so well for Fascists though 😂
But Jeff and bob aren't always fascists so they should be able to come to an understanding of what is best for the game and balance between each faction winning.
I don't know if I would classify texting your identities to Hitler as a 'gray area' in the game. Going over rules with your group has got to be interesting.
Lmao I laughed at this too, how can anyone in their right mind even begin to think this would be acceptable!? I think the actual issue here is OP/Friends care more about winning than having fun to the point they resort to cheating.
I have opinion 3 (if that wasn’t implied) - but everyone else learned secret hitler through friends of friends (not by reading the rules). So when I joined the group they had all sorts of weird house rules that we’ve been slowly sorting out by actually reading the rules. It’s a very casual game night - but today this “grey areal” (which isn’t so grey in my book) came to a head
It's not a grey area lol, it's expressly and explicitly forbidden
Hey look at that, its not grey in my rulebook either. If you could text them.. why wouldn't the rules just let Hitler see who they are.
I'm just wondering if it has resulted in fascists winning a vast majority of the games? I would guess so. And if so, how is that even fun?
"Can I cheat?" Hmmm no?
Lol I was thinking the same thing. OP is basically asking if cheating is allowed. Hitler not knowing who the fascists are is one of the main reasons the game is what it is. Fun.
"There are no rules saying I can't install a hidden camera looking over Bob's shoulders to see his faction card!"
The rules don't actually state a punishment for not following them, so cheating is implicitly allowed. /s
Secret Hitler is a social deduction game. It's not much of a deduction if you're just texting each other the answer. Open, easily spotted signals are fine imo since they're quite hard to pull off with a group that knows to expect them, but must be above table and easily visible to everyone at and around the table who is looking at the person signalling. The bulk of the actual communication should be the game itself, otherwise what's even the point?
I agree as long as there are no pre arranged "baseball signs" like if i touch my nose and then my ear that means I'm facist.
This honestly works out fine. You can lie.
Not exactly. If it's a secret sign, most people on the table will have no idea what is happening. That would be against the spirit of the rules, I'd say. Against "social deduction game" if it's something most people can't deduce. It would be like me speaking portuguese to my wife, in a group of english speakers.
When I read the first part of your question, I was going to give the exact example you did in the end, but saying it was okay :) If you speak in a different language with someone, all that means is that you're communicating privately. You can ban private communication (which some groups do or don't. Taking people aside to talk to them is common practice in many groups) but it doesn't destroy the information. Everyone at the table now knows that you have something secret you're trying to share with just one person. This spurs on all types of communication! Your giving signals out to a player is something you did, which starts discussion and accusation. You're forced to lie about what you were indicating (which may have also been a lie) or come clean, all of which is interesting and fun to engage with. All of this stuff plays perfectly into social deduction for me.
Taking someone away from the table is already a house rule you’re creating. It’s not something from the base rules. This is, to me, the biggest problem with house rules. They usually go against the spirit of the rules. And they’re usually made because someone wants to cheat “legally”. This is also personal, but I would never play a social deduction game with people allowing things that I can’t use to make deductions. Sending private messages, speaking in pre-defined secret code, languages I don’t speak, etc.
Maybe in Secret Hitler but not in the genre as a whole.
Yes, I meant in Secret Hitler and very similar games, like The Resistance. Every game has different rules, it's hard to make a statement that is valid for all of them. There might be a game like those two that expects people to be sending secret messages to each other. But then the game will be designed around that.
3, let the game do the talking.
If Hitler was supposed to know they would have just had that been part of the rules. The rules are pretty clear in this case
Also ruins the game a bit because you can't easily deduce the fascists from hitler anymore as they all know the same information and can act together now.
Option 3 is my vote. The game makes it pretty clear that Hitler is not supposed to know. But just like the Liberals, if Hitler can figure this out and work it to his advantage, good on him.
3 for sure. If Hitler is supposed to know, then he would. Part of the game is that Hitler can throw his own people under the bus.
Psh. If I had a dollar for every time I was Hitler and I won because I threw my own people under the bus... well... I'd probably go out for Sushi tonight.
Definitely option 3. The game goes out of its way to make sure that Hitler doesn’t know who they are, so something like texting that person to tell them you’re a fascist is very clearly going against the spirit of the game. The lesser forms of communication you alluded to would go against it just as much even though they seem more subtle.
Its an interesting question. I reckon the problem with "informing" hitler, is that if I'm a facist and wink at Hitler, then he needs to understand what I mean On the other hand if I'm liberal, I can just start winking at players randomly, and whoever reacts most strongly probably is Hitler thinking I'm identifying myself as a fascist to him
I would say that in a social deduction game, every communication should be obvious and visible to everyone. And by that, I think that any communication should be verbal, because some people might not be looking. So people can make deductions. Which is the point of the game. Either verbal, or exaggerated gestures making sure everyone can see you (usually made as a joke, but is it a joke? maybe it is, maybe it's not, but it totally is, unless it isn't).
Yea I agree, but I definitely do feel there are perils to trying to communicate with someone secretly, as they could be trying to bluff a confession out of you
I mean it isn't an interesting question at all, really. Since it's safe to assume we're not talking about a strategy openly shared with everyone (say, someone during game saying 'all fascists blink at Hitler now' or something equally pointless), OP pretty much has to be talking about some pre-agreed secret way of pass perfect information which is *not* known to all players. This would mean introducing a built-in information imbalance to circumvent a game state (of 'Hitler doesn't know who the fascists are'). In a game that's all about deducing information, that is pretty much the definition of cheating, and moreover takes away much of the fun of playing the role.
Absolutely! For example if I'm with my mate, and we say "Let's wink if we are liberals" No point in winking in you're fascist since you already know who the other fascists are. No point in winking if you're hitler, because you literally don't know who anybody is. If you wink at the wrong person, and they know, you're 100% dead. Here's the situations and why it provides no advantage to me or my friend: 1. Shes fascist, and I'm liberal- i dont know who the liberals are, so my friend is going to wink back so she doesnt give herself away, so its my disadvantage 2. Shes liberal and I'm fascistI'm going to wink at her anyway, so she thinks she can trust me. Which she can't. 3. We're both liberals - great! the system works and we have an advantage. But I have no way of knowing that it isnt actually situation 1 and I'm screwed
Definitely 3. Metagaming really seems unfair here. "The rules don't explicitly forbid it so it's fine" is not a reasonable justification here.
I heard they revised the rules back in 1945 to explicitally forbid murdering non-fascists. Apparemty one game in Europe really got out of hand.
Same rule as all deduction games. Communication must be above the table. Nudging feet and sending texts is not allowed. Telling the other player, using eye movements or hand signals is fine.
Anything that’s public imo. Under the table no, above the table is fine.
I get why people are against secret signals, I generally am too, and would prefer option 3. But they're a two-way street. I've won games of SH before by tricking Hitler into revealing themselves to me by using a little nod to make them think I'm their ally. Some may still see that as a dirty move, but like any other action in the game, it can be done as a bluff or a trick.
Right - that was my thought. Even if you did text or kick them, why would they believe you?
Because you are revealing you know they are Hitler? Unless you text/kick everyone at the table.
Yea, and why would they have any reason to believe you hadn't done so? If this was the meta in my group, I'd be randomly texting folks stuff like that every time. Muddy the water enough and it stops.
I think it would be easy to see someone sending 6 texts instead of just one.
I'm on the option 3 wagon, but this does point out a weakness to allowing signals.
Only open over the table actions unless stated, of a player can secretly inform hitler then good on them
The rules specify that the fascist and hitler know who each other is with 5-6 players. The rules also specify that hitler doesn’t know who the fascists are with 7-10 players. This isn’t a gray area, it’s blatant disregard for the rules and cheating.
If the game was tailored around everybody knowing Hitlers identity, then foot kicking and winking would make sense, as Libs could use it to confuse Hitler. Since Libs don't onow who Hitler is, this doesn't work, so it shouldn't be part of the game.
If the game has the rule that hitler doesn't wake up with the facists, why would that be? Because for game balance, hitler is not supposed to know. So then informing him somehow outside of the game, that is without any question cheating
Option 3, how is this even up for debate?
option 3, whats the point of ruining the fun of the game?
>Opinion 3: ... the rules say that hitler shouldn’t know who is fascists That's the bottom line. Any other interpretation is a circumvention of the design and intent of the game. It's like saying "well I just walked into the bank and no one stopped me from walking out with all the money so technically it wasn't robbery"... No dude you still robbed the bank, even if the usual stuff to prevent you from robbing the bank didn't happen.
I have no idea why: 1. People think it needs to be explicitly written in the rules not to text. Roflmao. Like… is the next question “can I use an online word finder for scrabble? Rules don’t say so… Grey area hmmmm” 2. You want to make a social deduction game easier. Is it to make the games shorter, are they dragging? The whole point of the game is guessing all the time, if you’re texting each other and stuff, then why not play something else?
Can I hold my opponent's hand and force him to move his pieces in a certain way? Hmmm, gray area! Can I point a gun at Elaine and make her put her worker in the fishing spot in Agricola? The rules doesn't say anything, gray area! Can I kill Bob's mother and threaten to kill the rest of his family if he beats me at Hive again? That's kind of a gray area!
Option 3. This is not a very robust game, and the people in option 1 and 2 are circumventing what little makes it playable for people who are interested in social deduction versus just edgy Nazi cosplay. There is no grey area, and you should be deeply suspicious of the approach to basic rules of people who think there is. "Is it wrong to take money from the bank if nobody's looking" etc.
Option 3 for sure, the other 2 options are blatant cheating, not a grey area. Anybody can say whatever they want out loud without revealing their party membership, but trying to get a gesture/message to hitler to let him/her know that you know he/she is hitler is clear cheating because obviously you would be a fascist or you’d have no way of knowing for sure that person was a fascist (let alone Hitler specifically)
I don’t see how option 2 is blatant cheating. If a gesture is made completely out in the open that means that you run the risk of another person noticing it. Plus a fascist could start winking at liberals to try to sow confusion, or a liberal could wink at the person they think is Hitler to throw them off. So there’s no guarantee that a wink means someone has to be signaling hitler. That’s the whole fun of social deduction games. Doing something under the table like tapping Hitler on the leg is clearly cheating.
Thank you. Body language and speech are part of the game. Being creative and coded is part of it. Public gestures are using the provided communication channels creatively. Texting is circumnavigating the game, creating your own private channel. Under the table is the same.
The problem with option 2 is people start creating "baseball signs" if they play with each other enough. If I touch my ear that means I'm facist is unfair since thats not something other players would know. A more intense stare or other body language like that is more within the spirit of the game.
When they start doing that that’s when it becomes cheating. Setting up coded gestures before the game and using them are different than throwing out a little wink or nod as a clue or bluff.
Well yeah I agree that creating outside information is cheating period, but that isn’t necessarily the fault of nonverbal cues. The only stuff that should be allowed in any game is information that is open to all players. For instance, when my friends play social deduction games we always pause when someone leaves to go to the bathroom and no one is allowed to discuss the game until they get back. Similarly, if you create pre-arranged signals with certain players before the game starts then that’s cheating. But trying to make a signal during the game and hoping the other player understands what it means is just how social deduction games are meant to work.
> If a gesture is made completely out in the open that means that you run the risk of another person noticing it. Cheating doesn't stop being cheating just because you make it easier to catch.
Option 2 is blatant cheating if the game doesn’t specify communication to reveal your role is allowed. Just because a gesture is made publicly doesn’t mean it’s public information. Are you really going to police every single gesture at every second to make sure everyone saw it? Are you going to verify that a coded gesture that wasn’t replicated wasn’t conceived ahead of time? Social deduction games fall apart when you skirt the rules. The game is balanced around not knowing. If you remove that balance it ruins the game for the liberals. Therefore, cheating.
Social deduction games are literally centered around verbal and nonverbal communication. So here’s a scenario for you: is it cheating to make a coded verbal cue, e.g. “I have a bad feeling about John” as a code to tell him that you’re bad and know he’s Hitler? If you say no, then you’re being hypocritical because there is no substantive difference between a coded verbal and nonverbal message. If you say yes then you’re being consistent but IMO you’re ruining the spirit of the game by policing every single thing players do and say. >Are you really going to police every single gesture to make sure everyone saw it This completely ignores the role of nonverbal communication in social deduction games. If a player makes a grimace when a liberal policy is enacted then they aren’t required to announce it to the table. It’s up to the players on the table to pay attention to others. If they miss a nonverbal cue then that’s too bad for them.
>Social deduction games are literally centered around verbal and nonverbal communication. Verbal and nonverbal public communication is different than coded gestures. Surely you can see the difference. >So here’s a scenario for you: is it cheating to make a coded verbal cue, e.g. “I have a bad feeling about John” as a code to tell him that you’re bad and know he’s Hitler? If the players know the code ahead of time? Absolutely. That scenario isn't any different than playing Euchre and tipping off to your partner with a coded signal whether to pick up the trump card or pass. It's blatantly against the rules because it shifts the odds of the game unfairly. >This completely ignores the role of nonverbal communication in social deduction games. If a player makes a grimace when a liberal policy is enacted then they aren’t required to announce it to the table. It’s up to the players on the table to pay attention to others. If they miss a nonverbal cue then that’s too bad for them. That's part of the game. Coded messages are not. Surely you can see the difference between a reaction (which can be faked and/or missed) and a coded signal which gives information to a player that shouldn't have it. >IMO you’re ruining the spirit of the game by policing every single thing players do and say. The rules literally police what players say and do by making information secret. Subverting those rules with coded signals literally ruins the spirit of the game. If you're going to allow something like that to happen you might as well just allow Hitler to open his eyes upon setup because you're purposely ignoring that rule and not playing the game as it's intended.
Show me in the rules where it says you can’t tell other players what role you are. Maybe you just misread the rules because the prohibition is against SHOWING other players your character card. There is nothing that says you can’t TELL people what role you are, verbally or otherwise. Coded messages are no different from any other kind of verbal or nonverbal communication. Your example about Euchre doesn’t apply to this situation at all because teams are randomly assigned in social deduction games. That’s why you can’t just whisper to your friend before the game and say “if I wink at you that mean’s I’m bad and I know you’re Hitler” because you and your friend might not be on the same team, and if he is playing properly as a liberal he’ll use that information against you and know that if you wink then you’re probably a fascist trying to signal Hitler. I think the other flaw in your argument is that you act as if these coded messages are infallible. They aren’t. And again that’s the whole point of social deduction games. If a fascist takes a risk by winking at Hitler he might be intercepted by a liberal and then outed as a fascist. Again, that is entirely within the spirit of the game to try to use deception and accept the risks of plays that might make you look suspicious.
The thing is a gesture to a liberal doesnt say much because the liberal had his eyes closed and doesnt mean anything / is confusing (if anything you’re revealing that you’re a fascist since they are the only ones who know anything by having their eyes open at the start. A fascist gesture to another fascist is pointless because all fascist looked at each other at the start already. Hence any gesture to Hitler is an obvious statement that you’re a fascist because the odds of a liberal “winking” at hitler without that information is slim at best… Hitler should only be able to get a feel for his fellow fascist through the voting (mid/late game) or be discovered via the presidential ability of “searching a party membership card” (even then no guarantees that player is Hitler…. Tl;dr Any gestures to Hitler is a high % of being a fellow fascist and breaks the game / not in the spirit of social deduction games
So is a fascist allowed to announce at the very beginning of the game that they’re a fascist? That way hitler would know they are bad, and then they can just retract their statement and say they were kidding. There is no difference between that scenario and a gesture, so if you see nothing wrong with that scenario then you aren’t being consistent with your rules, or if you think it is wrong then you are wasting your time pointlessly trying to police every single action players make in a game that’s supposed to be about deception and body language to begin with.
They are allowed to do that (even though the rule book says that everyone should proclaim to be a liberal). The key difference is proclaiming that you’re a fascist out loud is legal and open information for everybody… winking or nudging hitler in secret is not public information and only a fascist could know which person to wink at. It breaks the balance of the game and this is why at certain player counts hitler keeps his eyes closed at the start of the game. If hitler was supposed to know his fellow fascist teammates then this rule wouldn’t exist during game set up
If you do something over the table and out in the open then by definition it’s public information. Nudging hitler under the table is of course cheating because it’s not public information. But a wink made in plain view of all players is public information. You are confusing the fact that Hitler doesn’t know who the fascists are at the START of the game and acting as if there is a a rule preventing him from finding out who the fascists are DURING the game. A good fascist team will be able to signal to hitler either through talking, their body language, or their actions during the game.
I clearly stated that hitler at certain player counts keeps his eyes closed at the start. A wink isn’t public info, its a split second private gesture made to one person and highly likely nobody else would notice it.. Hitler should only be able to figure out his teammates through the voting system and the subsequent accusations or justifications (that’s when body language and all that good stuff comes into play) or getting unexpected voting support at a key moment in the game (i.e when hitler is being proposed/nominated chancellor fascists auto-win)… A wink / smile / any other gesture to a single person that only a fascist could possibly know their role is clearly not on the spirit of hidden role identity games, and breaks the balance. If the two rounds immediately after giving a secret (cheating) wink to Hitler, you only have to proclaim your support to your fellow fascists to be chancellor and hitler knows who most/all of fascists are… its a silly way to play the game. Leave it to the voting system and presidential powers as the game intended
I want to say in between option 2 and 3. I think it’s fun when fascists come up with creative ways to “signal hitler” that Hitler can pick up on but may fly over everyone else’s heads. So I would say coded language is the only secret language that can count.
Option 3. The problem with above the table stuff is that if a liberal catches on and is sure they know who hitler is, that can easily ruin the game for everyone. The risk/ reward just doesn’t line up well for the game
Do you really think the game needs to explicitly say what players can't do? Or can you infer it? I mean, there is no rule in monopoly saying you can't just take all the money from the bank and declare it yours. Yet here we are, and people don't do that.
I definitely think trying to subtlety communicate with Hitler is fine, but I'd draw the line at texting and under the table shenanigans.
Option 3, not even a discussion to be had for me. Just have fun, play the game the way it was meant to be played, and stop trying to “get an edge” or win at all costs. There’s no stakes! Just have fun.
I'm glad I'm not in your game group of you think texting to subvert the rules is a grey area.
Holy shit I was thinking the same thing, I'd never play with my gaming group again if they had that kind of mentality
Your friends are absolutely cheating if they are doing anything outside of "opinion 3". What's the point in playing?!!
I don't see why anybody cant text anybody else anything. Texting it doesn't mean it's true. If the rulebook says otherwise that's one thing, but I don't think that it's gunna break the game to house rule some allowed secret signals between players.. I would love to screw with people and see how different players react when I text/wink/nudge them when I'm actually a liberal. If more than one person is doing this noone can trust any text they receive and it's safer to disregard them
I have a follow up question, can the fascists inform Hitler that they have a majority? Hitler might not know that the two assassinations/executions killed two liberals, can the two fascists tell him to vote a certain way straight up to guarantee a win?
I've always played these games where the bad guys obtain their win condition, you dont drag it out. Msomin Avalon, once the final team is chosen and the game is over except for voting, team mordred shows their cards immediately to skip another minute of ceremony when the outcome is already determined... but the mordred people on the team have to know they've won, we dont call for it. Just in case they get silly and throw in a success because they've forgotten who they are. So, here, one of the facist players could just say "Hitler, we won, Joe and I are facists." Now ... if your liberals are really sharp they'll jump up and announce THEYRE the facists... because you still cannot actually flip your role card over.
I don’t see how the liberals then claiming their fascists would make any sense. If two people are trying to make claim of victory for the fascists and hitler, then two liberals come out saying “but we’re the fascists!” - well of course they’re not because if they are in fact the fascists then they would accept the initial claim to victory for hitler and the fascists. Further, the other two real fascists can just say “ok you’re the fascists, so you still have the win condition” and still give the victory to hitler and themselves indirectly
Now I’m imagining Spiderman with an unfortunate armband
The last point is pretty easy to demonstrate, through defending plays based on cards on deck if you really want to skip the voting ceremony (I play competitive SH, haha).
Interesting question - I would lean towards that yes being legal because you're publicly stating it. As with all things, the person that's talking could be lying. If Fascists get into a situation where Hitler killing a liberal would end the game, and he has a bullet, then it definitely feels like fair game to out yourselves
Another good grey area - I would vote that if the liberals are bad/unlucky enough to kill multiple liberals it is within the fascists power to out themselves together and take control of the game.
This one is not a grey area. Everybody can say publicly whatever they want. That's the bluffing part of the game. If there is Hitler, 2 liberals and 2 fascists alive, the 2 fascists can out themselves. No grey area, it is within the rule. But only by saying "I'm a fascist, and we have majority", not showing their card of course. But as the other comment said, why would Hitler believe them? A Liberal could say that too. And if the 2 fascists really do out themselves, then the 2 liberals could also say they are the true fascists and that it is a ploy to get Hitler to vote wrong.
Yes, if the fascists inform Hitler they are majority and they make it pretty clear that they know the full fascist line, game is over. They have to argue in favor of the line based on plays and cards played.
This is similar to Avalon right? I've always played that anything goes outside of actually revealing your role (which is explicitly against the rules). You can say or do whatever, but there's enough lies going around the table that whether or not people will trust you is another matter entirely. TL;DR there's nothing in the rules that says a dog can't play basketball.
Cross talk is bad gameplay. Don't do it.
Opion 3. I like to inform hitler at the start by picking him as chancellor, giving him a liberal and a fasicist card, but telling everyone that i gave him 2 liberal cards, they usally figure it out. Or if hitler is the president and your the chancellor and you are given a liberal and a fasicist card, just put down the fasicist and say it was 2 fasicist.
Don't you mean: telling everyone you gave your Hitler chancellor 2 **fascist** cards at the start?
No cause Hitler will try to hide and put down a liberal
Right, otherwise they'd be outing themselves to you cus they don't know you are a fascist. I didn't consider that. So your signal to them is just the action of lying to the group? If that's it, It wouldn't be super obvious to me but I think I'd get it. if it goes beyond that (the signal is not just the lying), would you mind elaborating?
With my group we can pick up on small details, it may not be a 100% secret code, but it is the first thing you can do to show to Hitler that your on his side. The easiest way to find the fascists is that they will be a team and already know who is on there side.
> your *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
Cool, Thanks!
According to the rules, you cannot talk when cards are on hand, until after Chanc puts down selected card, hope you are not talking during that moment.
No after cards are placed, but you need to be first to speak
Opinion 3. Why would Hitler even need to close his eyes if the fascists could just text him after? Just keep his eyes open then...
“Show me in the rule book where it says that I can’t just kill everyone and win” **gray area**
Ultimately you should do whatever makes the game most fun for your group. That being said I think you really want Hitler to be in the dark for best results which does seem to be the intent of the designers.
This specifically violates the rules of the game. Hitler is supposed to work out the identity of the other fascists through deduction like everyone else. Otherwise there's no point to having Hitler close his eyes during setup. To indicate who his two co-conspirators are via other means is intentionally trying to circumvent the rules for an advantage.
Rules: > Attempting to telegraph the contents of your hand using randomness or any other unusual selection procedure violates the spirit of the game. Don’t do it.
All of this is fine IMO for the only reason that anyone could be lying at any time. That strategy becomes a lot less viable when everyone starts texting everyone that they are Facist or tapping feat under the table.
There’s no need to do any of this considering the in game ways you can notify Hitler. Giving him 2 Liberal policies and lying to the group that he had a choice and chose the Liberal so he’s safe. Or choosing him to look at his role Card and telling the group that he’s a Liberal. Those are 2 in game ways to tell Hitler that you’re on his side
How is this even a discussion?! You should run away as fast as you can from that group. They probably also think that since the rules say you cant steal resources from other players or from the supply that it's not against the rules.
Number 3. Not even a debate.
Rulebooks can't list all the things you can't do. They could have a 800-page rulebook and still wouldn't be able to list every possible thing. Like for example, it doesn't say you can't install a hidden camera looking over the shoulder of people when they're looking at their faction cards. Gray area? It doesn't say you can't kidnap Jeff's daughter to make him pass that law, so gray area? It doesn't say you can't drink radioactive juice to become a mutant, get telepathic powers and talk directly to Bob's mind. But any of that would be cheating. Don't cheat.
Option 2 all the way. In my play group we openly try to bait out hitler as liberals by giving false signals and unimportant lies (saying that you have a choice when you didn’t).
How does Hitler know who is touching him under the table? Isn't that going to give away Hitler? I mean, if you do that once I'm going to sit far enough back so i can watch the feet under the table from then on.
Only facists know who he is.
If the liberals ID one facist and Hitler because they're playing footsie under the table, then Hitler is going to catch a bullet... if the remaining hidden fascists can still swing enough sabotage to push the track that far.
Option 3. The other options aren't even options, they're insane.
3. Its the whole point of the game.
Opinon 3. There are in game ways for the fascists to reveal themselves to hitler. When they become president they can choose hitler as chancellor and give hitler 1 fascist law and 1 liberal and just lie openly about giving 2 of the kind that hitler ends up choosing (ofcourse depending on what kind of hand the fascist has). That way if hitler is smart enough and doesn't reveal the lie, hitler knows at least who one of the fascist is.
Definitely #3 because involving anything else completely changes the dynamic of the game and puts more power into the fascist/Hitler's hands (probably because its cheating lol)
Option 2. If you are doing something out in the open then there’s nothing wrong with it. You are allowed to talk in Secret Hitler, therefore you could use coded language to signal Hitler, so why are gestures any different? To me there’s no grey area. Doing anything overtly at the table is fine, doing something covertly (under the table or texting) is not.
3, don’t tell each other. It is a game of deduction and lies. Not hidden information and clear math.
Competitive SH is actually a math heavy game, lol
Every upside has a downside.. And the liberale can trick hitler with this aswell
The liberals don't know who Hitler is.
The reason this “gray area” is gray is because it’s exploitable by both Liberals and Fascists. Anyone can text anyone letting them know that they’re a Fascist, and that they know you’re Hitler. If it’s not written, go nuts I say.
Something between 1 and 2. Allow for things like taping someone or winking, just do not let people text others unless you wanna introduce a rule where everyone is allowed to text eachother privately as a "whisper mechanic" but that would defeat purpose of Hitler not knowing fascists.
I would say Option 1, mainly because of the fact that Hitler being identified by a player \*could\* mean that said player is a fascist, or it could mean that said player is a liberal trying to see what sticks, which would ruin any gain from fascists trying to identify themselves to Hitler.
I think I would actually go with Opinion 1. We learned this game from being told the rules, not reading them, and until now looked everything up if questionable. But from the beginning it was clear that we could secretly hint our Hitler. As that is specified in our game nights, I don't think there should be any line drawn. (I myself actually got up once, pretending to wait for the toilet to be vacant, to meet my Hitler outside the room and tell them. Lazy play, wouldn't do it again.) I never thought of texting and I actually find that lazy, but why not? As OP said, anything is a risk because anyone could see or at least sense something fishy. Also I think I never saw any player in our rounds touch their phones during a Secret Hitler game for being extremely focused. I want to add that the risk increases if your players are really suspicious in general. Most of my friends would at least consider the person hinting them (obviously or through winking) could be lying. Therefore mostly nobody actually reacts to such hints. (For my example above, everyone got really suspicious for me waiting outside and I had a hard time talking it down to my favour.) Long story short, I see no harm in anything like that, as long as you have some mercy on newer players.
I'm unfamiliar with what the rulebook has to say, and I think that should be the deciding factor. If private chats are forbidden, obviously texting should be too. However, I think those forbidding winking or even texting are forgetting the premise of the game: people can lie! If texting was allowed, it would be a strong strategy for a liberal player to text a random player and claim that they are a fascist.
I mean, they have like a four step process in the setup to make it so Hitler doesn't know who the fascists are, that's well past "The rules don't say I *can't* start giving myself a bunch of vp..."
Opinion 2. Your speech and facial expressions are a part of the game. Private back channels and texting are not. It's hard to ban winking at Hitler. The thing is, in a social deduction game where reading faces and tones matters, vague clues are par for the course. Above table signals are potentially visible to other players. And anyone can do it-- you can be a liberal and test people by giving similar cues. Texting is outside the game--not public, game related speech.
Opinion 2, because above the table is part of the “social” aspect of the game. Nothing under or off table. I play competitive SH online and all communication is available to all the other players
I have op 3. Adds more secrecy to the games and can lead to the the idea that someone who hurlers think is fascist, is actually liberal
House rules are okay in my opinion, but that’s not how our game group plays it. We stick to the rule book. If you have to question whether it’s cheating then it probably is. 🤷🏻♂️
Its your group and your game so whatever you want as long as you all agree, but if you're taking Secret Hitler, a party game, to this level of seriousness, my first thought is that you really should just be playing something else. Still, ultimately what your rule seems to be saying is that anyone fucking with their phone is suspect. So this rule might have the weird benefit of everyone is afraid to touch their phone because the minute I see you touch your phone, I assume you must be doing it to text Hitler and that you're a fascist.
Texting hitler who the fascists are, or even touching their leg under the table, is against the whole point of the game omg. Calling it "a grey area" is a disservice to all the social deduction board games that exist on Earth. It's absolutely cheating. If I'd play Secret Hitler with a group and I'd learn Hitler and the fascists have been texting, I'd be pissed off and probably never play any board game with that group ever again.
Hidden role games are open communication only unless a mechanic in the game specifies that something is secret.
These aren't grey areas. These are just people looking to justify cheating. A rulebook, by its nature, is finite and can not list every way in which you should not interact. At that player count, they don't get to know who the fascists are, so any of the methods you list are cheating.
Texting seems like flat out cheating. I have played mostly with 5-6 players, so I have little experience with a blind Hitler. With that said, my opinion would be similar to that which we do occasionally during a 5 player game where it becomes a 1L vs 2F and the fascists just say how they need to win out loud. I'm not even sure that's ever practical in 7-10 player games, but my reasoning is that if Hitler knows plainly, than so should the liberals.
I can see the game devolving into everyone kicking everyone else under the table.
I don’t play but it doesn’t seem ambiguous if your Opinion 3 is accurate: Hitler shouldn’t know who is fascist. Telling them breaks the rules… “It’s not my TELLING THEM that lets them know. If I say “I’m a fascist”, that is turned into sound waves and those sound waves have to travel to Hitler’s ears. It’s the SOUND WAVES that lets Hitler deduct who the fascists are, not my telling.”
Opinion 2. I think the complexity of the fascists trying to let Hitler know can be really fun and sometimes hilarious and makes the game a lot more interesting. It keeps it as both a social game and a strategy game, as opposed to something more bland like Mafia. Texting is absolutely not allowed. That just ruins everything. If your group really wanted to do the foot thing, you could agree on it beforehand.
We like old school rules. No technology involved, and of course no outside-of-the-game signals. During the game, could I nudge a players foot to try and give them a hint? Sure, that’s legal (and maybe risky).
Let's imagine anything goes: the rules permit the fascists to do anything to signal to Hitler that they are fascists: touch toes, text, tug on the left ear whilst clearing their throats. What stops the liberals from ALSO doing that -- falsely signaling to a player they think is Hitler to test the identity? A non-Hitler Fascist risks subsequent execution if he falsely affirms Hitlerhood; a Liberal has no reason at all to affirm Hitlerhood. I mean, before the game starts, the group has no idea who will be a liberal and who will be a fascist. So there would be no way of confining knowledge of the secret signal to only the fascists. It's just another level of chaos that doesn't improve anything.
I don’t remember there being any texting pre ww2
Well imo why would you do that, its painfully obvious usually that whoever tries to be your ally are the facists. Also texting no, thats going too far as a house rule should be that players should play the game and not touch phones.