$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 100.83

6,380 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
40.2% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Secret Hitler» Forums » Variants

Subject: Variant: Three member parliament rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
. .
msg tools
In this variant, a third plaque is added called the Speaker, who is chosen by the Chancellor. President chooses Chancellor and Chancellor chooses Speaker. Election then happens as normal.

A policy enactment is as follows: The President draws 4 policies, discards 1 and then gives three to the Chanceller. The Chanceller then discards 1 and hands 2 policies to the Speaker, who then enacts one.

In addition, the Speaker role is not restricted as the President and Chancellor are for nomination the following round, ie. the same player could be Speaker a number of times in a row.

This would probably be best at 9-10 players, but may work at 8.

Another possible addition to this variant would be expanding the policy deck by 5 or 6 extra policy cards to allow for the extra policy draw each round. I would suggest something like 1-2 liberal policies and 4 fascist policies. In addition to this, the fascist win condition could also be extended to require 7 policies for victory.

What do you guys think about this? One thing I can see is it makes it much more likely for a fascist to be involved in a government.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tiago Soares
Ireland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't really see the actual benefit of this variant.

I do agree that it makes more likely for a fascist to be involved in government but the policy ration (11 F to 6 L) makes it very likely for a fascist policy to be enacted even without a fascist in the government.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
. .
msg tools
PEdorido wrote:
the policy ration (11 F to 6 L) makes it very likely for a fascist policy to be enacted


Yes, which is why I suggested (unclearly, I admit) that the policy deck be expanded to include 23 policies made up of 15-16 fascist policies and 7-8 liberals.

And regarding what benefit this has over vanilla, I see the biggest benefit is the chain of blame it creates between three players, which in turn adds more interesting opportunities for fascist plays.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tiago Soares
Ireland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
dalleck wrote:

Yes, which is why I suggested (unclearly, I admit) that the policy deck be expanded to include 23 policies made up of 15-16 fascist policies and 7-8 liberals.

And regarding what benefit this has over vanilla, I see the biggest benefit is the chain of blame it creates between three players, which in turn adds more interesting opportunities for fascist plays.


I didn't get this part, sorry!

I like the chain of blame although it'll bring more chaos to the table though... but isn't SH a game of chaos?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Viking
United States
Washington DC
Dist of Columbia
flag msg tools
I play WIFOM with empty glasses
badge
Viking's Law: Anything that can go wrong, *SHOULD*
mbmbmbmbmb
This variant really doesn't make a longer chain of blame. It makes a fascist more likely to be involved, but when there's a point of contention, there's still only two people who the fascist could be.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
. .
msg tools
VikingJ wrote:
This variant really doesn't make a longer chain of blame. It makes a fascist more likely to be involved, but when there's a point of contention, there's still only two people who the fascist could be.


While it is generally true a conflict only occurs between two players, there are situations which may arise in this variant which would allow for the three players to be possibly brought into question. Here is an example to illustrate this point:

Example 1.
Players A, B & C are elected into President, Chancellor and Speaker roles respectively. Players A & C are fascists. Player A draws 2 liberal policies and 2 fascist policies, discarding a liberal and passing the cards to B, who discards a fascist policy and passes the liberal policy to C, who discards it and lays a fascist onto the board, claiming no choice. Player B (correctly) says C was given a choice. Player A now has a choice of whether to claim a liberal was indeed passed to player B or whether he claims he drew all fascists and player B is making the whole thing up. If player A chooses the latter choice then this brings all three players into question. Players must now decide whether players A & C are both lying, if B is the liar, or some other possibility.

-----
Example 2.
Let us now look at the same scenario, but with players A & C being liberals and B being the only fascist. Player B indeed does discard the liberal policy, but when answering can choose to conflict either player C or player A throwing them under the bus. If he claims he passed a choice, then player C is in a conflict, on the other hand if he claims he received only fascist policies now player A is in a conflict.

This last example best shows how a fascist player is given more opportunities to implicate other players in this variant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.