Secret Hitler is a unique take on the social deduction game format which has taken many forms throughout the years. Specifically, players are randomly assigned into a group of fascists and liberals, with one of the fascists being Hitler himself. If Hitler is elected chancellor, fascists win, and if Hitler is killed, liberals win. Furthermore, each team can win by passing a certain amount of policies in line with their party membership. By observing each player’s behavior, alongside the kinds of policies they pass, deductions are made and each player tries to reach their party’s win conditions.
While a very basic simple social deduction game at its heart, Secret Hitler has a few aspects that set it apart from other such games and make it a true fan favorite. The first of these aspects is simply the somewhat absurd theme of the game. Hitler is of course a very taboo topic and many people become uncomfortable at the very mention of him in conversation. Thus, basing a game around Hitler utilizes this discomfort and turns it into humor and a plethora of memorable moments. Absurd scenarios occur in the discussion surrounding this game, moments that could never possibly occur in any other naturally occurring conversation. This theme sets the game apart and truly makes it entertaining in a way beyond most other social deduction games. Even in a conversation primarily regarding Secret Hitler as a puzzle game, it is necessary to consider its theme, since the corresponding absurdity codes the experience of the players very deeply.
In terms of the investigational aspect of Secret Hitler, the game is largely focused on the passing of different policies. The role of president is rotated between all players and the role of chancellor is elected each turn. Three policies at random are given to the president, who passes two to the chancellor, from which the chancellor selects one to pass. The remaining players can only see the single policy that is passed, not the initial three policies or the two given to the chancellor. So, many deductions need to be made to figure out who has allegiances to which party. This deduction in Secret Hitler has complete fair play throughout the gameplay. Any information that is passed along to the players, whether it be the actual type of policy passed, or simply the body language of the player passing the policy is given equally and intentionally.
In regards to equality — the information about policy passing and body language is naturally available to everyone; everyone gets a chance to observe, and the amount of information that is able to be deduced from observations is entirely skill-based. People with better social intelligence and knowledge of the group will have greater information regarding who is likely lying. However, this seemingly unequal information actually comes from a place of equality, since skill dictates information, not some other arbitrary metric that would infringe upon fair play. This equality makes sure that all players are dealt the same general conditions of gameplay, and no one is playing from a position of inherent power that falls outside of the natural dynamics of gameplay.
The next point of discussion is the intentionality of the information given to players — of course, the policies selected are shown to the players intentionally. These are pieces of information specifically designed by the game to be released explicitly, and they serve a very clear purpose: to provide clear information about the likelihood of someone belonging to a party. Due to random variables, a person’s party membership can’t be known just by what policies they pass, but since the likelihood of each combination of tiles is known to everyone, everyone is given some incomplete information very intentionally. More importantly, the social information that is exchanged is exchanged with a purpose. Every player has control over their behavior, and so if they choose to act a certain way, whether that increases suspicion or not, that behavior is intentional. Even if a player acts suspiciously without meaning to, that is also intentional information, since this is information about suspicion that the game designers intended to be communicated. All in all, the information moving between the game and its players is handled intentionally, and every piece of information communicated is done so at the will of the player or the game design.
Together, the intentionality and equality of the information moving across the game table ensures fair play in the context of Secret Hitler as an investigative game. The equality of the game makes it impossible for players to have inherent advantages that are not purely skill-based, and this creates fair play. There is not information being kept from a player, and this is very important to fair play as per the class definition we are using. Furthermore, intentionality prevents red herrings or information that is intentionally misleading. These sorts of red herrings are a breach of fair play as we defined it, and the fact that all information comes from a place of meaning, whether it be from the player or the game designers, ensures that no information is pointless. If information is misleading, it is because a player intends to mislead, and at this point, the information is no longer breaching fair play, and instead allowing skilled play.
Having discussed the mechanics of Secret Hitler as a social deduction game, the theme of Secret Hitler as an absurd driver of humor, and the fair play of Screte Hitler as a byproduct of its equality and intentionality of information, we are left with one final question: is the game successful as a social deduction which both succeeds as a game in its class and as a standalone unique product which differentiates itself? I would argue yes, Secret Hitler is a vastly successful game. Not only does Secret Hitler stay true to its genre through a fair system of deducing information, but it also does so with a unique policy-passing system that feeds players just enough information that they are working with more than just the behaviors of their peers, but not so much that the game is no longer primarily social deduction. Furthermore, it differentiates itself through its unique mechanics, and more importantly its theme, which creates moments of humor and absurdity in the context of an otherwise stressful and strategically complex social deduction game.
Intermittent Mechanism 