In the realm of party games, few titles have achieved the level of cultural ubiquity and notoriety as Cards Against Humanity. Created in 2011 by a group of friends from Chicago, this unique card game challenges players to navigate the treacherous waters of dark comedy and offensive humor…
During my high school years, I had the incredible opportunity to visit the Cards Against Humanity offices and participate in the card-making brainstorming process. It was a surreal experience, witnessing firsthand the creative minds behind this cultural phenomenon… It quickly became apparent that the driving force behind Cards Against Humanity was not just the pursuit of offensive humor but, more importantly, the cultivation of unbridled fun.
Just this past weekend, I experienced another memorable Cards Against Humanity session with a group of close friends. We gathered at the Oval, laptop fans whirring as we engaged in a virtual playthrough. The judging mechanic once again proved its capacity to elicit raucous laughter and delightfully unhinged humor. On multiple occasions, I found myself teetering on the edge of playing a response card that would undoubtedly be considered non-PC by most standards. However, the trust and camaraderie within our group allowed us to push boundaries while maintaining a spirit of playful irreverence. The “NO. YOU. DID NOT SAY THAT” and “HOLY F#&!@” mixed with laughed filled the summery air as cards slammed down on the picnic blanket. These close calls reinforced the notion that Cards Against Humanity thrives in environments where participants feel comfortable embracing their most mischievous impulses.
The judging mechanic in Cards Against Humanity is not merely a means of scoring points; it is a catalyst for social interaction and group dynamics. As players strive to cater their card submissions to the perceived preferences of the current judge, they engage in a subtle game of psychological profiling and humor tailoring. Alliances and rivalries may emerge as players strategize to secure the judge’s favor or undermine their opponents’ efforts.
Moreover, the act of judging itself can be a source of contention and debate. The subjectivity of humor often leads to heated discussions and playful accusations of bias or lack of taste. This dynamic fuels the game’s social aspect, fostering an environment of friendly competition and banter that strengthens the bonds between players.
From a game design perspective, the judging mechanic in Cards Against Humanity is a masterful stroke of brilliance. It not only ensures that every player remains engaged throughout the game but also facilitates a seamless blend of various types of fun, as outlined by Marc LeBlanc’s taxonomies. The narrative aspect is satisfied through the construction of humorous stories or scenarios, while the expression component is met by allowing players to showcase their creative and unconventional approaches to card submissions. Ultimately, the competitive element is woven through the judging process, as players vie for the coveted Awesome Points.
One potential critique of the judging mechanic lies in its capacity to breed conflicts and hurt feelings. As players invest their creative efforts into their card submissions, the rejection of their humor by the judge can be perceived as a personal slight. To mitigate this, the designers could implement a mechanism that enforces a rotation of judges, preventing any single player from holding the position of arbiter for an extended period. As a player, who regularly played Cards Against Humanity during Covid, my friends and I memorized a good chunk of the deck. As a result, our play frequency of the game significantly dropped. To mitigate this, the designers could introduce more add-on cards (or mods or internet versions) to allow players to continue playing while maintaining that element of general surprise during games.
In the world of Cards Against Humanity, the judging mechanic serves as the beating heart that propels the game forward. It fosters social interaction, cultivates a spirit of friendly competition, and challenges players to navigate the treacherous terrain of offensive humor. While not without its flaws, the judging system exemplifies the core ethos of the game – to push boundaries, foster laughter, and ultimately, celebrate the unadulterated joy of play. As my personal experience at the Cards Against Humanity offices demonstrated, the true genius of this game lies not in its potential for shock value but in its ability to bring people together in an atmosphere of unbridled fun.
