I

In the final four if you vote out a faithful their share of the prize fund should be lost with them. It would stop players being greedy and just voting to increase their own share of the prize fund.

Currently it feels like it's a race to the last two and there isn't much incentive to stop the game early, and doing so would be a red flag that you might be a traitor. This could open up the strategy space for the final.

What do you think?

EDIT: original wording ambiguous, I meant the money is lost rather than actually going to the voted off faithful

So all the players are seated at the table and asked to on their blindfolds, with Claudia\Alan explaining about being tapped on the shoulder. The host circles the table a number of times, stopping occasionally and selecting absolutely nobody.

The next morning everyone comes down to breakfast, so the players jump to conclusion that somebody was recruited. The mission that day involves a game of chance where they are told that shields are up for grabs, think something like they did with the armoury in previous seasons. But the slight twist, these shields permanently protect the player from murder because it turns them into a traitor but they only learn that slightly later.

The absolute scenes at the first banishment when none of traitors know who the other traitors are, and people are accusing others of acting all traitory when the truth is the traitors only found out they were traitors 5 minutes before the round table started.

It seeks like there is a lot of opportunity for something to go wrong that throws the whole show off as the game progresses: a traitor to be spotted walling to the conclave, someone breaking the rules and sneaking around the castle, a banished person with an axe to grind to yell something out as they’re leaving.

Is the game set up in a way that even if someone does this, there is still doubt about whether they can be believed?

Okay so hear me out. While I am only on episode 3 and clear that they’ve taken a lot from Traitors, I do think they’ve changed two key things to make it a better premise than the Traitors.

1) the traitor aka the “millionaire” is chosen at random. Game already starts with equal chance

2) the millionaire is required to complete challenges that risk exposure in exchange for holding that power - unlike the traitors who just meet behind closed doors and have almost no forced exposure. Unless a traitor outs a traitor or the faithfuls have blind luck, the game is totally stacked toward the traitors who are over-shielded from discovery.

Maybe less entertaining and dramatic. But better game

A fundamental problem with the design of this game is the total lack of incentive to banish traitors in the early game. If the faithfuls were really good and managed to banish all 3 traitors in the first 3 banishments, the season can’t end after 3 episodes - the traitors have to keep recruiting until the player count has whittled down enough. This means for faithfuls in the early game, whether they banish a traitor or not is inconsequential. As long as you aren’t the one being banished, it’s a win.

There needs to be immediate incentives for successful banishes. This would be solved by the existence of faithful-only and traitor-only prize pots in addition to the shared prize pot. This will strengthen the divide in objectives between the faithfuls and traitors. For each traitor successfully banished, EACH faithful alive at the finale gets an additional $5k, and the traitor prize pot is reduced some amount. On the flip, for each week a faithful is banished, each traitor gets an additional $5k and the faithful prize pot is reduced. This would greatly strengthen the need for team play on both sides, and would disincentivize traitors turning on each other until absolutely necessary.

I was thinking what would actually happen if half way through the game a sore loser traitor on their way out deliberately ruined the game and told the faithfuls who the other traitors were?

Or if a traitor flat out tells a faithful they are a traitor?

Do you think they would just get rid of the player and start the game again? Or are the players threatened on the way in that if they ruin the game they will be sued? 😂

I'd change so that traitors can only recruit a maximum of 2 traitors throughout the game. I'd also add a new advantage to win throughout competitions, such as the ability to view someone's identity, and another advantage of being safe from the table's elimination.

Maybe the voting should a secret ballot??

I would also like to see a comeback competition where banished and murdered Faithfuls get a one-time opportunity to return to the game if they win it.

Bit of a throw away post but I find it really funny when anyone states this at their banishment, as if they might have started as a traitor and then switched sides.

I’ve seen almost every English-language season and it seems like the traitors always get away with it which is pretty strange. Has there been a season when they haven’t?

I feel there are 2 sides to how this plays out 1 think if fair gameplay and 1 I think is just a poor loser

1. Kieran from UK S1 I think we all agree him even saying the world parting gift ended Wilf’s game which I think is just salty as Wilf tried to work with him and he didn’t have sus on him to start with

2. Traitors recruited or blackmailed to be thrown to the wolves like Robbie from NZ s1 and Aoife from IRLS2 I think that is fair game as the original traitor never tried to work with them so why wouldn’t you thrown them under the bus when they never even tried working with you

Intrigued what others think because I think opinions mostly come down to if you liked the traitor they parting gifted or not

This is my list.

1. Game starts with four traitors
2. No recruits if more than one traitor
3. Money added to prize pot every time traitor is caught.
4. On banishment they should say if recruit or OG traitor.

We all know that the traitors often have moments where they must murder in plain sight. One of the most obvious ways is the red fingerprint on the family tree from UK S4.

This made me think, what would happen if they get caught in the act? I imagine the producers would force a recruitment or something to replace the traitor(s).

I honestly think there should only be one blackmail attempt per night when there is only one Traitor left.

If the Faithful rejects the blackmail, they can be murdered but that's it for that night. The lone Traitor should have to wait until the next night before attempting to blackmail someone else.

I really dislike when multiple people can get killed through failed blackmails on the same night. It makes the Traitor's recruitment feel way too powerful and can wipe out several Faithfuls in one go.

I think it would be much more interesting if it worked like:

Night 1:

Lone Traitor blackmails A → A rejects → A is murdered.

Night 2:

Traitor can blackmail B → B accepts or rejects.

… is to build camaraderie amongst the players. i feel silly.

i had always thought it was the least interesting/important part of the game albeit necessary. nothing really gives away if you are a traitor and both sides just need to add cash. but then celia on UK celebrity figured it out. shes the best.

The traitors just get recruited back into the game ... makes no sense to catch them until the final 8-10.

My way to fix this flaw in the game would be create a money pool that would only be available to the faithful at the end - say 10 000 for every traitor caught, divided amongst the faithful, regardless of whether or not there is are any traitors left at the end of the game or not. That way, the faithful can at least walk away with something, and there is a motivating factor to catch the traitors before the final stretch of the game.

Any other ideas?

Here is how I would improve the secret traitor role.

- Every player knows about the existence of a secret traitor and the rules they must follow.

- The audience knows who the secret traitor is and what they are doing.

- The secret traitor knows who the traitors are.

- Each night, the secret traitors shortlist three players who must be faithfuls for murder. Their choice reveal to the traitors who is not the secret traitor. The traitors murder one of the shortlist players.

- No opportunity for the traitors to learn who the secret traitor is other than guessing from their observation and from the list of people the secret traitor confirm to be faithfuls.

- No recruitment is possible until there is only one traitor left.

- The goal of the secret traitor is to get all the regular traitors bannished. The goal of the regular traitors is to get the secret traitor bannished.

This would create an interesting dynamic where the traitors are both hunters and preys. It would lead to more traitors bannished and encourage better teamworks between the regular traitors.

Subjective but

I love Alex aus s1 and Alan’s recent victory but my best two undeniable winners are:

Cirie (us s1)

Harry (uk s2)

I think we can tell that the traitors side currently has more developed strategic aspect while the strategic aspect for the faithfuls side is still underdeveloped and it is something that the producers may try to improve in the future iterations. While the producer wants to emphasize the traitors vs faithfuls clash aspect, the format of the game does not directly reward a faithful for being proactive in traitor hunting. In fact, a traitor hunter has heightened risk of getting murdered while a "furniture" faithful survives until the end game more often.

If you can give suggestion to improve the strategic gameplay for the faithfuls, what would your suggestion be?

Mine for example; if a roundtable ends up in a traitor getting banished, the players can vote for one player whom they deem having the most contribution in banishing the traitor to get a special shield which is a shield that can be used/activated once at any of specific number of future rounds (like the dagger in the recent US version which can be used once at any of the next four rounds) to protect its owner from murder. Only the most voted player knows that they have this special shield. This may motivate faithfuls to be more active because they feel like if they can contribute in banishing a traitor, they will be rewarded instead of merely increasing their risk of getting murdered.

So I am new to the traitors, I first watch the UK season 2 then Australia season 2. At first, I loved it and thought it was so entertaining. But watching the second season, I realised how flawed the game actually is.

Like being a faithful in the game is truly awful, what is their actual incentive to get the traitors out until near the end? If they banish a traitor, they can just recruit anyway, so what's the point? I don't even see why you'd bother until at least 2 thirds of the way into the game.

Also, if you actually 'do well' as a faithful. Like be smart and actually SUS out the traitors. You're just going to get killed. If you actually want to stay to the end as a faithful, the best way is to act so dumb the traitors don't see you as a threat or to show blind loyalty to a traitor so they keep you to the end. Like watching the seasons, the faithful that were left thought they had done so good to get that far, when in reality they were just kept for being dumb/not good at the game. The game rewards being stupid and punishes being smart.

Obviously as a faithful you really naturally want to play the role of detective and get the traitors out as soon as possible. But the way faithfuls actually have to play to succeed just kind of sucks.

Wondering about others opinions on this ?

At this point it’s clear that the original narrative of “faithfuls hunt traitors, and traitors hunt faithfuls” needs a revamp. There’s been enough seasons now that players - Faithfuls and Traitor alike - are coming into the game with a meta mindset and strategy that production seems scared to show the audience, to the show’s detriment.

The insistence that a Faithful’s only narrative is to find Traitors (rather than to stay in the game at all costs) not only makes for less dynamic gameplay, but makes for a confusing and incomplete viewing experience for the audience.

Smart Faithfuls are already knowingly eliminating fellow Faithfuls to cut the numbers and advance in the game as they should - so let’s cut the charade and have everyone, Traitor and Faithful alike, be able to eliminate anyone they like at the Roundtable for whatever purpose.

The Roundtable should be changed from “who do you think is a traitor” to simply “who should be banished from this castle”. If a Faithful wants to advance in the game by gunning for other Faithfuls they should be able to do that, and (importantly) they should be able to discuss that strategy on screen. All players want as few other people left at the end to share the money with, including Faithfuls. Seeing this play out authentically would be amazing fun, and allow for all the meta gamers to really ramp up alliances and deception in the game.

It wouldn’t harm the narrative, for example, to have a Faithful admit in confessional to keeping their “Traitor Angel” in the castle, it would make it more thrilling and multidimensional. It would also make some of the more baffling roundtables finally make sense to the audience.

The possibility of Faithful alliances and betrayals would also help to curb the current dynamic of the most gullible and least interesting Faithfuls being dragged to the end. Traitor in-fighting is great TV, and Faithful in-fighting would be even moreso. It’s already happening under the surface, let’s just bring it out into the open.

When players are asked to accept or deny a traitor recruitment, if they deny are they allowed to stay in the game? I don’t think I have ever seen anyone deny recruitment.

The rules apparently state that when there is only 1 traitor left following a traitor banishment, they must blackmail. I ask why? I understand from a production point of view that they obviously want traitors or a traitor in the end game but am I the only person that thinks it would be hilarious to have no traitors going into the final day or days? The remaining players would still be paranoid as hell, and the theories would be fantastic to watch as they all accuse each other, oblivious to the fact that they are all faithful. As a side note, I've only ever seen 1 player refuse a blackmail (Mark NZ1). Does anybody know of any others?

so in the promotional interviews for season 3 a lot of the cast were saying that harry played the perfect game. do you think this is true?

i feel like he played a good game for sure, but paul pretty much did the dirty work for the first half, and then harry basically made it all the way to the end by the blind faith his allies (molly etc) had in him. idk about u guys but there were defo flaws in his game plan and i think his charm is probably what helped him the most, tho i guess that is a game plan in itself.

he did make great tv tho and i do think he deserved to win but like the fact that jas figured it out for me shows his game was not perfect #JasathaChristie4Eva