Founded by Koreen Odiney, We’re Not Really Strangers is a card game that aims to foster deep and meaningful connections between people. Designed for 2-6 players age above 15, this game is intended for people–strangers or friends–who hope to connect deeper with others. There are specific card decks for different target groups, such as decks for couples or for families, but I played the original version with a close friend whom I’ve known since freshman year.
We’re Not Really Strangers separates the game into 3 levels: perception, connection, and reflection. In each level, players will take turn to draw card and ask each other questions. You move onto another level once 15 questions in that level are answered.
Central Argument
The mechanics of the game cleverly builds players’ trust and rapport with one another as the level increases, cultivating a safe environment for being vulnerable by satisfying our psychology of needs. In other words, the level of vulnerability required increases at every level. Compared to some other getting to know you games, We’re Not Really Strangers differentiates itself by engaging every player in each round and by introducing variability of cards (i.e. wild cards) that encourages more interaction between players.
Analysis
The aesthetics of the game arises predominantly from fellowship, where players feel a sense of connection by showing vulnerability in their responses to the deep questions. By looking at the intimacy curve, we see that the players’ intimacy level increases as the level of the game increases. This connection begins even before level 1. To decide who draws the first card, players have to stare straight into each other’s eyes and whoever blinks first will be the first player. The direct eye contact forces players to make physical connections through eye contact prior to connecting emotionally by answering questions, helping them open up if they don’t know each other well. For close friends, this action typically results in burst of laughter (like I did in the first 3 seconds), satisfying our sensual psychological need of play through laughter.
As players begin answering questions, the game constantly satisfies our psychological needs in achievement, information, and sensual. Whenever it’s a player’s turn to speak, that’s the moment when the need of exhibition (seek attention) being satisfied. The mechanics of the game ingeniously satisfies all players’ need in this domain by directing attention to the player asking questions then attention to others answering the question. Compared to other games like Connect, where the same player draws card and answers question, this game gives every player some attention in every round. For instance, when I drew the card “What do you think I’d splurge on?,” I feel an undivided attention from my friend as she thought deeply about my interests and tendency of spending. When given such attention, the designer leverage the relatedness aspect of self-determination theory as a form of motivation for player to continue the game, as we long to form deeper connection with others. In game like Connect, only the player who draws the card is given attention, resulting in situations like other players being disengaged.
Players’ psychological need of information is satisfied in different ways depending on their role. For the player asking questions, they’re fulfilling the need of cognizance and understanding by seeking knowledge and understanding about how others perceive themselves. When answering questions, players fulfill the need of exposition by demonstrating their knowledge about the other person. For instance, I was shocked that my friend answered “stationary or tea set” when I asked the question “What would be the perfect gift for me,” (pictured below) something that I would genuinely love but didn’t think of at the moment. Finally, through the wild card mechanism, the game encourages players to interact with each other beyond emotional connections and satisfy the psychological need of sensual. For instance, the card “Draw a portrait of each other to the best of your ability. Then exchange” engages both players to draw, introducing some variety of action then just conversation. The exchange of drawing typically introduces some laughter if one is bad at drawing (i.e. me), serving as a low-risk activity to demonstrate vulnesrabitliy at something the player isn’t good at.
Through these repeated interactions and conversations, users would eventually move up their level in the intimacy curve, naturally feeling more comfortable by sharing more about deeper questions. Since the questions are open-ended, players also have the flexibility to decide how vulnerable they would like to be. Of course, it requires reciprocation in the level of vulnerability for players to foster friendship according to the law of friendship formation. Additionally, if this game weren’t separate into 3 levels, players might not be able to build trust and share authentic information due to premature disclosure, killing friendship leveling.
Conclusion
If I were to make some improvement, I would add a rule for two players to both write down their answers and compare afterwards. I think this would add another layer to the aesthetics of fellowship and satisfy the need of achievement when the players guess correctly. Nonetheless, through satisfaction of multiple psychological needs via conversation and interactions, We’re Not Really Strangers effectively fosters a sense of deep connection between players. I realize there’s so much more I could learn about my close friend through this game.
