LogFAQs > #932099536

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	another year of tabletop rankings and writeups
SeabassDebeste 12/26/19 10:50:05 PM #2:	133. Secret Hitler (2015) Category: Team vs Team Genres: Party, social deduction, hidden roles Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3 Game length: 25-45 minutes Experience: 12+ plays from 6-10 players; many different groups; 2015-2018 Previous ranks: 50/100 (2016), 80/80 (2018) Summary - Bad guys (fascists) know who each other are; good guys do not know who one another are. Each round, everyone together elects a president and a chancellor. The goal for good guys (the majority) is to elect tickets without fascists on them. Fascists want to get on tickets or, even better, get Hitler elected. After a certain number of elections, a victor is decided by how many times the fascists got onto tickets. Experience - I haven't actually had that many bad experiences with Secret HItler and in fact have had some positive memories. I first heard about this game since it's very similar to one of my favorites, and since the rules were available, I mocked it up by hand and played with my group. We largely played social deduction/hidden roles games back then for high player counts. Design - This is where I really dislike Secret Hitler. It's very clearly based off a far superior game, to the point where almost all of its good mechanics - the hidden roles, the team selection, the election process - are all taken from that game, which it does not acknowledge. The changes SH makes are all for the worse, though - "edgy" fascism, randomness in a policy deck, increased electoral cycles. These are all designed to increase the game's mass-market/Cards Against Humanity-ish appeal, and none of it works for me. It frustrates me that you'd take a near-perfect game and then just adulterate the experience. Now I can understand the principle behind that - my main gaming group now is small and dislikes social deduction games in general, and they find SH to be bearable because it is more adulterated - but it's massively distasteful to me. Future - No interest in playing it again. Given the superior alternative, it's likely that in my main groups it will come up very infrequently again, but it's not impossible due to the interest of variety. But suffice it to say, this game is not my thing. --- yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness <cite>SeabassDebeste posted [p:932099536] in another ye... [t:78284791]...</cite> <quote>133. Secret Hitler (2015) Category: Team vs Team Genres: Party, social deduction, hidden roles Rules complexity (0 to 7): 3 Game length: 25-45 minutes Experience: 12+ plays from 6-10 players; many different groups; 2015-2018 Previous ranks: 50/100 (2016), 80/80 (2018) Summary - Bad guys (fascists) know who each other are; good guys do not know who one another are. Each round, everyone together elects a president and a chancellor. The goal for good guys (the majority) is to elect tickets without fascists on them. Fascists want to get on tickets or, even better, get Hitler elected. After a certain number of elections, a victor is decided by how many times the fascists got onto tickets. Experience - I haven't actually had that many bad experiences with Secret HItler and in fact have had some positive memories. I first heard about this game since it's very similar to one of my favorites, and since the rules were available, I mocked it up by hand and played with my group. We largely played social deduction/hidden roles games back then for high player counts. Design - This is where I really dislike Secret Hitler. It's very clearly based off a far superior game, to the point where almost all of its good mechanics - the hidden roles, the team selection, the election process - are all taken from that game, which it does not acknowledge. The changes SH makes are all for the worse, though - "edgy" fascism, randomness in a policy deck, increased electoral cycles. These are all designed to increase the game's mass-market/Cards Against Humanity-ish appeal, and none of it works for me. It frustrates me that you'd take a near-perfect game and then just adulterate the experience. Now I can understand the principle behind that - my main gaming group now is small and dislikes social deduction games in general, and they find SH to be bearable because it is more adulterated - but it's massively distasteful to me. Future - No interest in playing it again. Given the superior alternative, it's likely that in my main groups it will come up very infrequently again, but it's not impossible due to the interest of variety. But suffice it to say, this game is not my thing. --- yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they inhale its fickleness</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1