Trumped Up Cards is a satirical card game developed by Reid Hoffman. The game mainly functions the same as Cards Against Humanity, but is themed around making fun of Trump and his American politics. For this analysis, I played a few rounds of Trumped Up Cards, getting to both judge and be judged. The satirical political elements of the game interfere with the judging mechanic by causing players to be excluded or unfairly impacted, which results in a more adversarial group dynamic
Due to the political and satirical elements, Trumped Up Cards has a more difficult time establishing boundaries and a magic circle for the game to exist in. Politics are a sticky subject for many people and something they would prefer not to think about or discuss during a game. Within a game’s magic circle people are usually free to not fear being judged or criticized for their actions or opinions expressed during the game, but I don’t believe that is as effective when the game centers around judging political views. People are acutely aware of political views and opinions and those have a greater than average chance of coming out in this game as compared to a game like Cards Against Humanity. This leads to a bit of an awkwardness within the game that results in a more guarded and closeted dynamic among the group, which directly harms the fun of fellowship that would otherwise arise from a game like this. I felt this even as a left-leaning, liberal individual which is the target audience for this game. Perhaps this is a personal opinion and others are very comfortable with expressing and being judged for their political views, but I believe most people would find at least some awkwardness in the created group dynamic. The fact that my play group unanimously decided to stop playing after just a few rounds also reflects this. I can see how for closer groups of friends where everyone’s political views are known and are comfortable being discussed, the dynamic would not be as negatively impacted and the game more fun.
The game introduces a new mechanic as well in the form of Trump Cards (pictured above), which can be played at various points in the game. These Trump Cards alter the rules and procedures of the game in favor of the player who plays them. However, many Trump Cards, such as “Play the woman card!” and “Eliminate liberal bias!” simply just stop someone else from playing or contributing during a round. While I do not believe stopping someone else from playing for a turn is inherently bad, the fact that many of the Trump Cards result in this can lead to a compounding effect. Certain players may not even get the chance to get their answers judged when this happens. This is further compounded by an additional rule in the game that allows for the rules to be broken at any time if a majority of players agree. This is basically just codifying house rules, but putting it in the rulebook makes everyone explicitly aware they can do this. This can result in what I believe is an unintentional outcome from the game designers: a group dynamic where people end up ganging up on and ruining someone else’s experience. For example, when I played those few rounds, one of the players proposed to give everyone two blue cards (basically two points) except the judge. Since the majority of players agreed, this went through and the player judging that round was automatically put at a disadvantage. Then, in the next round, the Trump Card “Eliminate liberal bias” was played, and the same player was forced to sit out a round. Due to the procedures of the game and the Trump Cards, this is not an uncommon scenario or outcome.
Overall, the core judging mechanic of this game is the exact same as a game like Cards Against Humanity, though some judging players may be more inclined to roleplay as former President Trump due to the game’s theming. However, the procedures and boundaries surrounding the core judging game are fundamentally altered by the political themes of the game and the addition of Trump Cards, which allow players to be ganged up against and unfairly excluded. This leads to a more adversarial and hostile group dynamic as opposed to one that brings out the fun of fellowship and lets everyone laugh together. It is likely that instead one or two players get laughed at as they constantly get the short end of the stick due to these mechanics.
