Note: You can view the graphic version of this critical play here!
Secret Hitler emphasizes social deduction through its mechanics by requiring players to deduce others’ intentions based on their actions, voting decisions, policy enactments, and discussions. The game incorporates elements of trust, betrayal, and strategy, engaging players in a psychological tug-of-war that allows players to endure political maneuvering and either strengthen or degrade their trust dynamics.
Secret Hitler is a 2016 social deduction game created by Goat, Wolf, and Cabbage. The game is best suited for groups of 5 to 10 people, primarily young adults or adolescents, and consists of both a physical version and an online version. For the purpose of this critical play, I intend to draw my analysis from the physical game, though the images used throughout will be from the online version.
The core of Secret Hitler revolves around players assuming the roles of either Liberals or Fascists, with one Fascist secretly assuming the role of Hitler. The Liberals aim to pass five liberal policies or assassinate Hitler, while the Fascists work to enact six fascist policies or elect Hitler as Chancellor after three fascist policies have been passed. This setup creates a fertile ground for deception and deduction, compelling players to scrutinize each other’s actions and statements to discern their true allegiances. The stakes and tensions are further heightened by the anonymity of it all as players are given discrete tan envelopes to denote their roles as they enter the magic circle created by the game.
The legislative session is a critical mechanic where a President and a Chancellor, elected by the players, choose a policy to enact from a random draw. The President provides the Chancellor with two of the three policies from the random draw, who then must discard one and play the other. This process is pivotal for social deduction; it provides tangible evidence of a player’s intentions based on the policies they promote. However, the random draw introduces an element of uncertainty and plausible deniability, allowing Fascists to feign alignment with Liberal goals, a tension heightened by the small number of liberal policy cards (6) compared to fascist policy cards (11). This ambiguity is a clever design choice, as it mirrors real-world political tactics where intentions are often obfuscated by rhetoric or circumstance.
Furthermore, the stakes of the game are heightened each time a new policy is enacted, particular in favor of the fascist regime. However, these policy enactments only add increasing layers of complexity and introduce additional paths to failure or victory. For example, during my first round playing, in which I served as a liberal, we were able to enact 3 or 4 liberal policies before we began to consistently enact fascist legislation due to the imbalance in the deck. However, I was serving as president when the 4th fascist policy was put into play, during which I was able to assassinate an individual of my choosing. The individual I choose ended up being Hitler, resulting in an immediate victory when it seemed as if the opportunity was not previously in sight.
Moreover, the election process adds another layer of strategy and deduction. Players vote on the proposed government of President and Chancellor, allowing them to express suspicion or support openly. This voting record throughout the duration of the game, coupled with the outcomes of legislative sessions, forms a complex web of social cues that players must interpret to identify their allies and enemies. Players are able to reflect on who different Presidents are choosing to be their Chancellor, which can be used to uncover alliances and reveal varying perceptions of who to trust. For example, in our second round of playing, a known fascist was serving as President and elected another player as Chancellor, an interaction that allowed us to identify the player as the Secret Hitler. This mechanic encourages active participation and discussion, which are crucial for social cohesion in group settings.
However, the game is not without its faults. While Secret Hilter is meant to foster engagement and interaction, it can cause analysis paralysis as players begin to overthink their decisions, which can detract from the ‘fun’-nature of the game. Furthermore, once a player is removed from the game, they are removed from the magic circle and are unable to continue interacting with other players, which can contribute to feelings of isolation or a negative experience. From a more comparative standpoint, Secret Hitler differentiates itself from other games in its genre, such as Avalon or Among Us, by incorporating specific historical and political themes that enrich the game’s narrative and strategic depth. Avalon, in which players take on the roles of Arthurian legends, places a much heavier emphasis on the roles attributed to each character, which can add a layer of complexity to the social deduction present in the game. However, the emphasis on the titles and abilities attributed to characters like Merlin or Mordred stands in contrast to the relative anonymity of the characters in Secret Hitler beyond their party affiliation, which is more reflective of conflict in the real world and forces players to be more critical of potential political maneuvering. Furthermore, while Among Us employs a more casual, sci-fi setting to frame its social deduction mechanics, Secret Hitler uses the charged backdrop of pre-World War II political intrigue to heighten the stakes and immerse players in a more nuanced and tense experience that is more reflective of the fragile nature of democracy.
Overall, in Secret Hitler, the use of secret roles and the unpredictable flow of policy enactments create endless opportunities for strategic interaction, forcing players to navigate a landscape in which actions and words are equally as valuable. A constant tension between liberals and fascists striving for their goals creates an ecosystem where communication is a double-edged sword, where words can both build trust or deliver paranoia. Furthermore, the simplicity of smaller tasks balances the complex strategies needs, as factors of timing, influence, and foresight can be overcome by an unfortunate choice of policy tiles. This balance allows players of varying skill levels to contribute in meaningful ways, whether they are masterminds orchestrating an agenda or innocents attempting to gain the trust of fellow players. The game’s formality, coupled with its intrinsic chaos, ushers in an intricate release of emotions in moments of betrayal and victory. In these moments, players are bonded in a shared experience, but are continuously left to wonder how the overall outcome may have changed based on their miniscule actions or those of the players around them.
