For this critical play, I decided to look at Cards Against Humanity. I hadn’t played the game in a long time and have played it very few times ever. For some reason, it’s one game that evokes the ‘nah, I don’t wanna play that’ reaction from me. However, I’ve found the same is not true for many of my friends, so I decided to give it another shot in this context.
Cards Against Humanity is a physical card game targeted at young adults and above. The game has a theme (norm established through cards) of mature content and politically incorrect humor. The game is meant for people who enjoy dark, satirical, and sometimes offensive humor – it markets itself as “a party game for horrible people”. The game is played with 4 or more players (typically 6 to 8), who take turns playing a black question card and submitting white answer cards.
In each round, one player, the “Card Czar”, picks a black card, and the others submit white cards face-down. The black card will be a prompt with a word(s) missing so the other players can submit white cards (single words or short phrases) to make the sentence whole. The Card Czar reads the combinations aloud and chooses their favorite; the player who submitted the winning white card earns a point. In this way, the game creates this dynamic of rotating pandering, and bemoaning the Card Czar’s choices. More specifically, the reward system is focused on the anticipation of the Card Czar’s preferences, NOT on the popular vote of a particular combination.
As such, the majority of the group is disappointed with the Card Czar’s choice more often than not. There are exceptions when players submitting white cards do so deliberately knowing it’s a bad combination. However, for the most part, each individual always thinks their combination is best due to cognitive biases. This is interesting as, on paper, this seems like it would create a bitter dynamic. Instead though, over the course of the game, the players actually become more enthusiastic about getting repeat attempts at appealing to an individual’s taste.
Everyone’s favorite moment though is when they get to be the Card Czar. This keeps the pace of gameplay up and prevents the rounds from being too long, as someone is always about to be the Card Czar and they want to get through the round so it’s their turn. This meshes with the game’s type of fun and why it’s compelling: due to its satirical humor, the often unexpected combinations of phrases that result from the gameplay, the opportunity to have control of the judging as Card Czar, and bonding among players.
While players don’t need to be extremely vulnerable in Cards Against Humanity, the game does involve sharing one’s sense of humor and (potentially) crossing boundaries, which might make some players uncomfortable. I was playing with close friends so it was not the case for us, but it’s easy to see how this might happen. Because of this, if you’re playing with people you’re not intimately familiar with, it is important to establish norms beforehand to avoid potential issues.
The game works well as it encourages creativity and allows players to explore their sense of humor in a (typically) non-judgmental setting. It could be argued that the game could be improved/modified by offering more diverse and inclusive card options, as well as by offering a family-friendly version for younger players or those who prefer less offensive humor. As much as I already don’t play this game often, I would not play this modified version more. I do believe the appeal lies in the uncharacteristically brash content of the cards and the comedic situations they provide.
Part of this is because modifications in this way effectively already exist in other games. For example, Apples to Apples is often compared to Cards Against Humanity. However, what really differentiates it is its adult humor and politically incorrect content, making it more suitable for mature audiences.
