This week, I played Quiplash 3, one of several games packaged together in the Jackbox Party Pack 7. Developed by Jackbox Games and designed for groups of 3-8 players, this party game creates a sense of fellowship and expression for groups of friends and family of any age (if you play with the family-friendly settings). I played this game in person with a group of four other friends. We hosted the game on my computer and each player used their phone to respond to prompts.
There are three rounds of Quiplash 3. In each round, players respond to different prompts. For each prompt, the responses of the two players who received that prompt are pitted against each other. Then, the players who didn’t receive that prompt vote for the funnier response.
Central Argument:
Judging is used in two ways. First, players must judge what the group will find funny to craft their response, which reinforces the entire group’s closeness. Second, the group judges the responses of pairs of players, reorganizing individual relationships between group members.
Analysis
Individuals judging what the group will find funny reinforces group closeness.
A major game mechanic involves two players competing against each other to come up with the funniest responses. Since players want to win each round by getting the most votes, players adjust their humor to what they judge that people in the group will find funny. This can include using inside jokes, referencing shared experiences, and even directly naming people in the group (this happened many times when I played, as shown below).
A dynamic that emerges from this adjustment in humor is that players may come up with similar responses. This reinforces the entire group’s closeness because it reaffirms that players are similar to one another. Moreover, by thinking of inside jokes and shared experiences, the player builds a sense of connection with the group.
Players aren’t just limited to previous shared experiences. Sometimes, when a response receives positive attention, it may be used later as a callback by the original author or another player. The callback can reuse and build upon the original response, creating a new shared experience for the group.
In the examples above of the writing phase, the individual judges the group, making the group grow closer. Later in the voting phase, the group judges the individual, which creates different group dynamics.
The group judging the responses of pairs of players reorganizes individual relationships.
When only two players are pitted against each other, there is a clearly defined “winner” and “loser”. In games like Cards Against Humanity, where there are typically more than two players responding to the same prompt, losers can justify their loss as a numbers game. However, if only two players compete against each other, the final verdict is inherently more personal.
When players vote, they explicitly convey which response they found funnier. Implicitly, they reveal whose humor they liked more, especially if they tend to vote (or not vote) for the same player over time. Responses are anonymous during voting, after which, the authors are revealed. Therefore, players are more honest when they vote, since they are unbiased by who wrote the response. This creates new dynamics between individuals in the group since it reveals who players find funny, and not who they feel closer to or who they think they should find funny.
Conclusion
Quiplash 3 is a great game for existing friend groups. Currently, it doesn’t support open lobbies because the game is not fun to play with strangers online. Therefore, one suggestion to improve Quiplash 3 is to add mechanics to make it fun for strangers. To do this, Jackbox Games could add a quiz at the beginning of the game where players rank how funny they think certain responses are. Then, they can be placed in a room with strangers who have similar responses/styles of humor.
Overall, I really enjoyed Quiplash 3 and I know my friends so well and I’m so funny. Here’s proof.
