For this week’s critical play, I chose the party game Cards Against Humanity. The game was created by Max Temkin and Ben Hanootwith and targets medium to large groups of young adults.
In Cards Against Humanity, each player takes turns acting as the judge who selects a black card containing a fill-in-the-blank statement or question. The other players respond by choosing the funniest, most inappropriate, or most fitting white card from their hand, which they submit anonymously. The judge then reads all responses aloud and selects the one they find best matches the prompt or their personal taste.
The core mechanics of judging in Cards Against Humanity include anonymity, selection, and humor, which facilitate an extremely fun gameplay experience. These mechanics foster an interesting dynamic because players have to navigate the balance of humor and offensiveness. The judging process reveals personal boundaries and senses of humor, influences group dynamics by highlighting differing values and tolerance levels, and sets the tone of humor for the group.
While playing this game, a few dynamics revealed themselves. This game uses humor as a tool for social interaction, allowing players to essentially push personal comfort zones in a controlled environment. The role of the judge also rotates, giving each player a chance to influence the game’s outcome based on their personal humor criteria, which adds a layer of strategy in selecting cards that appeal to specific judges.
The social dynamics in Cards Against Humanity can also affect relationships within the group. The nature of the prompts and the chosen responses can lead to moments of tension or discomfort if players’ limits are tested too far. During our gameplay, it became evident which judges liked the more inappropriate cards and which ones felt uncomfortable by them. However, these moments also ultimately led to laughter and a deeper understanding of each other’s personalities and boundaries. The game’s replay value is high due to the vast variety of card combinations and the changing dynamics with different groups or over repeated play with the same group.
One potential area for critique in Cards Against Humanity is the reliance on how funny the cards are. A lot of them can be seen as childish or “stupid,” which creates an interesting dynamic among groups who deem themselves essentially “too cool” to play such a game. Despite this, the game has an undoubtable value for adult gatherings by providing a framework where traditional social filters can be temporarily suspended.
A few other notable takeaways from our gameplay was how more obviously inappropriate cards were seen as less funny. It was more interesting when a “random” or loosely-related card was played. It’s almost as if it was too simple or uninteresting to simply play the most outrageous card. This affects group dynamics because it creates this air of judgment towards people who find the obvious cards funnier. It seems immature or juvenile, despite that being the game’s purpose.
In conclusion, Cards Against Humanity leverages its judging mechanic to create a game environment that is about understanding your friends and adjusting to group dynamics. It stands apart in its ability to facilitate a unique form of social interaction that can strengthen bonds while encouraging players to be silly, however it also requires careful consideration of the group’s composition and dynamics.
Here is a highlight of the game:
