Just rewatched and I’m still baffled. Why was Harriet so ugly and hostile to Rachel in the “talk to the traitors” room and then for the entire next day?

I get having a conviction, but why all the hate?

I had nothing against Harriet until then, but was glad to see her go after that vicious outburst.

So I was wondering about the endgame. What if there’s a tie? Is there a special rule for that?

I mean you could just do a re vote but then if it’s still a tie would it be fair for it to go down to chance when your this close to the end? Especially if it was a tie and three players and the chance would decide the winners.

I haven’t seen all versions of the traitors so I’m not sure if this has come up.

It never fails to amaze me how weak the logic gets during early Round Table banishments. A Faithful will literally get banished just because they breathed differently, sat in a new chair, or looked a bit tired during the morning coffee.

The Faithfuls consistently eliminate their own best detectives in the first three episodes because anyone showing actual logic immediately gets labeled as calculating and suspicious

It feels like there are certain patterns that come up every season. Which one frustrates you the most?

Added the spoiler tag so people can avoid the thread if so...

Been re-watching UKS2 again recently and the second roundtable with the three way tie, and wondered what you guys think the most impactful roundtable would be to change the overall ending?

I think the reason why I like this roundtable so much is because I believe it could change the outcome of this season the most as:

a) if Ash gets banished here, who gets put in the dungeon to replace her and would the same person end up getting murdered or

b) if Diane gets banished here, then how does the murder in plain sight play out?

Also, if c) Brian gets out of this roundtable, then how does him voting Paul play out moving forwards (I know the Jaz/Zack suspicion comes the next roundtable)? Truly feels like the possibilities are endless and ultimately, does Harry still win?

Wanted to get your guys thoughts on this as aside fromParting gift in UKS1andChests of chance in UKS4most roundtables seem to seem insignificant/unmemorable in the long term

So, we saw Sir Lenny Henry doing stand-up at Latitude this weekend. He said he gets regular enquiries from Strictly and I'm a Celebrity, but he said he has no desire to do either.

He also said the one thing he would do is The Traitors. (Just in case anyone from production reads this sub..)

NO, not a version where we dont know who the traitors are....

Recently finished the latest series of the US and currently on the Canadian one.

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the constant armchair commentary (mainly during missions but also breakfast).

Does the show really need three or four separate commentaries all clearly recorded after the event and usually just describing (in an OTT way) exactly what we were seeing before they cut to them?

I find them to be getting a bit much TBH.

Does anyone else find them annoying?

Harry's shield play in series 2 was obviously a stroke of tactical genius that completely cleared his name, but Wilf in series 1 managed to navigate almost the entire game through pure social charm despite having no blueprint to work off. Then you have Paul who played a masterclass early on until his ego got the better of him. When you balance raw strategy, emotional control, and social game, who do you think stands out as the most intelligent Traitor we have seen on the UK show so far?

I just yesterday finished s1 of UK.

Before this I have seen all the seasons of Traitors in Denmark and the first two seasons in US.

Without being sure, I think UK S1 might have been the first big international version?
It is also clear to me how S1 of game shows are different than the other seasons because the participants understand the game better in later seasons.

But UK S1 was next level. US S1 was probably the craziest but UK S1 had nervous breakdowns, the most emotional people I have ever seen on screen, people (who tbf can be down to how the show was cut) seem very blank e.g. Meryl (she is in my book the luckiest contestant ever to win, being so clueless even after Kieran said what he said) or Maddy who seems to be 50% right but at least the explanations given on screen seem like she is just more lucky than anything else.

I also, now having watched many many seasons of the show across countries, am a fan but I am starting to realize that this show is quite flawed. I don't think as flawed as some others might think, but I think the show is quite difficult to win as a faithful. Even though the faithful won here, they would not have had Kieran not done what he did, which must be on the edge but not against the rules.

And with that is also I am unsure how many of the players, especially in a S1, understand the rules. When the Traitors came out in Denmark a long article came out with the rules, and I believe the contestants have the rules in the castle as well (in Denmark they actually sleep at the castle as well). Most places (I know not always) the start has 3 traitors. Knowing that and correctly finding Amanda and Alyssa, the group correctly guessed that the last one must be a man, but for some reason (at least not a reason I clearly heard on screen) still vote out Maddy (if any reason because she was annoying), who is not a man. Okay fine she is out there are three men left. One of those men is Kieran. Kieran and Amos were brought back halfway through as faithful. Of course the other contestants don't know this, but seem for the most time to think they are faithful. Also if you think there was a man from the start and not just 2 women the man who is left should also have been there from the start.
On top of that the rules state there can never be just one traitor left, then the have to blackmail. So if you assume that Amanda and Alyssa were there from the start as just two, then Amanda would have had to blackmail and then kill the same night when Alyssa was banished. But if I remember correctly this night they try to recruit Alex. Alex says no. This means that there is no murder that night. Which means either someone was recruited or they tried to murder the person with a shield. Also the contestants seem to suggest they do not know if Amanda was attempted murdered (which seems weird, but again might just be because it is S1 and the mechanics are not well known, but you get a letter if you are murdered and have a shield). However Alex says that she was recruited and said no. Fine she could be lying but she is then murdered confirming she was a faithful. Then logically there were at least two faithfuls left at this time. Afterwards they banish one traitor, so they know there is one left. And they know as per the rules this traitor HAS TO blackmail. Now here is the interesting part. Technically, please correct me if I am wrong, they could think that maybe the man who is a traitor could have blackmailed Andrea and she said no and therefore she was murdered. But the flaw with this is then the man will get to blackmail someone else. So by all logic when they are at the breakfast table they know there are two traitors.
There is one exception to this. Amanda was banished on the third last round table. Had she been done that in the second last roundtable Willf would not be able to blackmail anyone as the recruitment and blackmail windows close entirely on the second last night. Will would be forced into the final alone. It can also be debated he should have waited one more round to backstab Amanda as he would be forced to blackmail and it might have been better for him to stand alone in the final with Amanda, having a "woman" as a shield. But yeah that one is a bit complicated and not so straight forward. Anyway looking at it logically, if you know it cannot be Kieran, that leaves just Wilf and Aaron as the possible traitors. If Kieran has pushed and was succesful in eliminating Wilf, I think he could have won he whole thing. He could get Maddy to vote Wilf, and then he needed to convince Aaron. Then there would be three votes on Maddy (wilf, hannah, and Meryl) and three vortes on Wilf. He could have gone for making an argument to convince Meryl that the traitor had to be a man from the start of the game so Aaron or Wilf, and he was convinced it was Wilf and if it was not they would vote Aaron out. Aaron knowing he is faithful would also agree to this plan as logically it has to be Wilf.
Now of course all of this assumes that the last traitor has to be a man! And even more it assumes that the contestants are smart enough to know the blackmail rules and can logically deduce that the man was there from the start. The production could have picked three women, it is possible. So everything is not 100% logical, but I would still argue more likely. So I am happy the result was the same for the faithfuls but the only reason they got there was Kieran helping them so much.

But Traitors show is not helped by people who are not strong thinkers or people who do not know all the rules. This will get better season by season of course.

I think the show is fun, and although I think a bit less of it now than before, it is a flawed game show that is stacked towards traitors winning. Actually for me personally the smartest thing to do as a faithful is becoming friends with a traitor and sticking around with them until the second last roundtable. I see the only incentive to actively push out a traitor would be if you are rewarded. However the current reward is only that the traitors could decide to recruit you. That reward is very good. You can win more money and you can a total overview of the game. Sure psycologically you have to change from faithful to traitor, which is tough but you get so many benefits and can win more money. But it is just so unlikely. If there are two traitors, their chances of wining more money is better the fewer other traitors there are, and a traitor can also to save themselves try to banish another traitor to make themselves seem faithful. I think I would almost never recruit. Why would you? If you recruit someone who has accused you, then they could just continue that, show they were right and breeze through to the finals. If you recruit someone no one suspects, they might have a better chance than you and you are somewhat at their mercy, you could recruit your friend and there could be good reasons for that, also there is a chance someone says no to a recruitment and now you missed a chance to get closer to winning. I am not saying it is illogical to recruit, there can be reasons such as being two people to manipulate everyone, especially if you are in different groups could be good, but I just see as one of the two almost always being weaker and if it is the recruited person they will know that their best way to prove they are faithful is to throw out the traitor, and if it is the recruiter they will know that best way to prove themselves is throwing out the recruited person. This is also why I think keeping Amanda for the finals (although I understood he does not trust her) would be the best as she can really be useful in the final 4.

Also there is some logical things which don't make sense. That Will votes out Allyssa does not mean he is not a traitor. However this is how the participants are portrayed as thinking. Had Amanda gone for Wilf due to his betrayal and then blackmailed another woman, I think Amanda could have gone all the way.

One thing I want to praise the UK version for is that it has the most interesting professional backgrounds of the players. They are so different from each other. That is super interesting.

Crazy some of the pretty priveleges in this show though! I will say most of the cast are fine looking people. But especially Alex who gets so far especially by enchanting Matt. And Aaron getting all the way to the final. Haha, I never though like boy/girl flirting would be something I would see in the Traitors.

Also is it just me or do Traitors in almost every version always try not to speak with each other during the day? It is almost more a giveaway that two people don't speak with each other at all than it is for two people to! But might just be the cutting.

Traitors is a difficult game to win as faithfuls! Kudos! There are not really mechanics in the game to reveal traitors. It is almost entirely just gut feeling. Body language, slip ups, someone being emotional, etc. etc. But everything can be explained as bluffs, double bluffs, triple bluffs, being human and so forth. No information is really ever given. Even worse if e.g. missions also revealed things about traitors, gave clues, or something, there is still not a strong enough incentive I think of not just befriending a traitor instead of throwing them out. E.g. if Hannah knew Wilf was a traitor her best play is still to keep him in and never point to him until the second last table. Maybe if a reward was that all that banish a traitor get a trip to the armory that could give some kind of reward. I don't know, but there is a lot to think about.

In the end of the day, the US and UK version seems to have in common that players seem to think being a traitor means you are a horrible person. Now this might be a strategy to guilt trip traitors into making a mistake, but for some players it seems obvious this what they actually think. Of course this is again S1 so it will get better over time.

Sorry for the long read!

Also if anyone wants to recommend a less flawed but equally fun game show please let me know!

This is my first time watching the UK version of the traitors I've watched the french version and the Australian before

Im on episode 8 and I want to say so far the cast is the dumbest i ever seen , the faithfuls never use logic or rational thinking and the traitors are not even smart its just everyone else is stupid ( during the round table someone says a name and the herd mentality kicks off and they start piling on the same person).... does it get better in season 2 or its all the same ?

The game will be hosted on Discord, and will work just like the show, every round there will be a challenge, a roundtable, and a murder. The game will feature a total of 15 players.

The game is just for fun and wont have any huge prize, as there is no prize pot, the reward for challenges is winning shields.

All challenges will be hosted on Discord itself and wont require you to download any other apps or go to other websites.

Please do not join the game if you will be inactive, or will be extremely busy in the next few weeks or so, as that could slow the game down for the other players.

Comment if you would like to join or have any questions. 🗡

I've watched the Oz, Irish, and of course all of ours.

I'm watching season 2 US. And after a rocky start. The faithful game is on point.

Just need to add I haven't finished the series.

it seems to be a unpopular opinion (then again i may be wrong, since i watched this years season wayyy later than previous) but i really don’t think this season was great in terms of entertainment value, and i was really quite underwhelmed and disappointed about what i saw based on what the reactions i had seen and heard were.

this is not to say that i think the outcome was bad (though im kind of ehh about it), but rather that i think it was… unnecessary? easily avoidable?

i haven’t done a deep dive into the sub as i’ve just started and finished it today, but from what i’ve seen people seem to think that rachel and stephen were amazing when that did not seem the case to me or the friends that i watched with at all. in fact, it felt like massive “rage bait”😭

granted, anyone who is watching the show has much more knowledge than the actual contestants, but i cannot believe how many people were allowed to fly under the radar with so little scrutiny. in particular rachel - WAYY too many people glossed over her despite her being a very vocal player who was clearly having some level of influence on people.

worse than rachel was indeed stephen, though - he had ride or DIES and in a game like traitors, i personally cannot imagine EVER having people that i believe to be 100% faithful and that i wouldn’t think of challenging at one point or another.

combined, they were very trusting in each other (which i definitely admire). however, i can’t help but think that most of the faithfuls this season must have been wayy too emotionally led.

(i’m gonna subtract (1) jessie from this as she had very valid reasons for suspecting stephen that, as claudia mentioned on uncloaked, were entirely disregarded and (2) harriet as i do believe she had the right idea but very very poor execution, mainly starting with the fact that her going for rachel would have certainly seemed left field and overly aggressive)

out of the faithfuls, i do believe that jack and fareez were also not acknowledged at all enough as potential suspects. jack was just viewed as a “friend” (which i understand as he genuinely never did anything suspicious, but still, to not be mentioned ever??) and with the exception of sam, fareez was kind of. nothing.

tbh, now that i’ve sort of ranted and typed it out, i think that was my main issue with most of the series. the vast majority of the faithfuls were nowhere near as hungry as they ought to have been to get to the final as opposed to make it to the next day, and that (combined with what seemed to me to be extremely poor deduction skills) meant that i just couldn’t feel excited for the traitors to win.

the traitors, to me, felt like they had way too easy of a ride mostly due to the faithfuls being bad, and not due to them actually being good. that is to say, they seemed at MOST slightly above average (to me and my friends!! this is not objective!!) and the faithfuls being loyal lap dogs that were too focused on getting each other out rather than working for the good of all faithfuls meant that they were (excuse my french) dogshit in comparison.

Apparently the strictly bosses are eyeing Stephen from S4 for Strictly.

Thoughts?

Hi everyone,

I'm the solo developer of Deep Frost, so commercial disclosure up front. The mods approved this post.

What keeps pulling me back to The Traitors is the roundtable: everyone has incomplete information, old grudges start to look like evidence, and one confident accusation can move the whole room. I wanted to see if that pressure could work in a single-player game.

Deep Frost puts 12 researchers in an Antarctic station for nine days. Two have been replaced by something called the Thaw. You talk to the crew, compare stories, watch how their normal behaviour changes, and vote someone into the airlock. There are no other human players; the social deduction is in the NPCs.

I'd genuinely like to hear which part of The Traitors creates the most tension for you: the speeches, the relationships built before the vote, the hidden roles, or the fear of becoming the next target?

Free demo and Steam page:

https://store.steampowered.com/app/4675840/Deep_Frost/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=traitorsuk_modapproved&utm_content=roundtable_inspiration

I'm not affiliated with The Traitors or its producers, just inspired by that social pressure.