Cards Against Humanity
For my second critical play, I played and analyzed Cards Against Humanity, a group judging game developed by the team of Max Temkin, Daniel Dranove, Eli Halpern, Ben Hantoot, Josh Dillion, David Pinsof, and David Munk. This group card game (as well as online version) requires a minimum of 4 players, but best is played in a group of 6-8 (but with an unlimited upper limit), with a target audience of 17+ for the traditional version. The funny, raunchy, and offensive content of some of the cards does target high school students and older.
Cards Against Humanity is a player vs. player dynamic game style, with each player attempting to submit the most funny answer to the prompt card that is judged by a given player each round. The judges change each round and the personalized comedic element of the game challenges players to provide not only the most funny answer, but one that is relevant comedically for the judge. For example, selecting a very crass answer for one judge may not serve a player well for another! Through various game elements, Cards Against Humanity establishes an expert combination of Fellowship and Challenge, as explored throughout this article.
Formal Elements:
- The requirement of 4 players allows for 1 judge and at least 3 options. In a case of there being 3 players, a judge would constantly be selecting in binary (either one person or the other), which creates an awkward dynamic because one person is always the loser. I played in a group of 7, which allows for a ⅙ chance of winning in every round. This makes the challenge of winning extremely worthwhile because it is so hard. However, at the same time, it is a small enough pool where everyone finished the game with at least 4 wins! That balance of challenge and realistic potential for reward works extremely well.
- The structure of 6-8 players allows the concept of fellowship to evolve very quickly throughout the game. Not only am I learning about each judge’s sense of humor by who they pick, but crowd reactions/laughter and other’s answers help me gain a sense of what each individual player finds funny. This emerging dynamic from the mechanic of having a judge and open-dialogue throughout each round allows for increased fellowship. As I played, I quickly realized which people would enjoy specific types of humorous answers. That sense of fellowship may disappear in a crowd larger than 10, for example.
- Further, the anonymous nature of submitting answers works really well to increase player engagement. Submitting answers that are meant to be funny is an incredibly personal experience and there is a lot of fear of rejection if nobody finds your card funny. Therefore, by having it be anonymous, you can almost “dissociate” from your card if it doesn’t do well, and only need to engage with your card if you win! This helps to remove the fear implicit of being rejected each round. This leads to more expression!
- The passive nature of the game also promotes submission!
Why does this game work? How could it be improved?
- Compared to Apples to Apples, for example, Cards Against Humanity works well because of the raunchiness of the answers. Through outlandish prompts and ridiculous potential answers, the players can engage in more expression. They can lean into parts of their sense of humor that work really well.
- Why Cards Against Humanity may be more “fun” than Apples to Apples is how the raunchiness of the answers leads to more personalized comedic experience for all. Apples to Apples, conversely, is a little more “dry”. A way to play up this element of expression could be to allow group players to add cards of their choice before each game. By adding in group-specific cards, it may allow for more inside jokes/personalized comedic experience and make the whole experience more fun.
- Unlike similar games, like We Are Never Really Strangers, the social elements fundamental to the game do place an upper limit on how much fellowship can occur within the game. By having an anonymous card, there is low-risk for being vulnerable or attempting to take a risk with your card. However, unlike We Are Never Really Strangers, where the fellowship progresses with each passing round, Cards Against Humanity does not become increasingly intimate. Instead, it stays in a humorous, emotionally distant place. While playing, one friend made numerous jokes about Toni Morrison, but I didn’t leave the game feeling any closer to my friends.
