For this critical play, I chose the game Cards Against Humanity, co-created by Josh Dillon, Daniel Dranove, Eli Halpern, Ben Hantoot, David Munk, David Pinsof, Max Temkin, and Eliot Weinstein. Cards Against Humanity is a 3-20 player card game with a target audience of 17+, lasting 30-90 minutes. The target audience is typically a group of friends, as gameplay is most exciting when the players know each other well but can generally be played by partygoers, people who enjoy controversial humor, etc.
Argument: In Cards Against Humanity, judging is implemented on a rotating basis in which each player takes turns choosing the “best” answer card put down by other players in response to a question/statement card; the subjectivity involved in choosing the “best” card and the reveal in who put down which card can contribute to altering of group bonds and lead to newfound knowledge of other players.
The subjectivity of judging in the game can result in confirmation or denial of a player’s sense of belonging in a friend group. When played with friends, players can try to anticipate which card the judge will find funny or most clever, based on how familiar they are with the other’s personality. If players put down cards that provoke a positive response from the judge (e.g. amusement or laughter) this could potentially deepen friendships by revealing mutual understanding and awareness of each other. For example, when I was playing, I knew that one of my friends enjoyed reading Harry Potter fanfiction. When it was their turn to be the judge I put down “Harry Potter erotica”, and even though my card wasn’t chosen they still commented on it (“Ahh I love whoever put this card down”), which made me feel validated and made them feel appreciated and valued, knowing that I remembered that small detail. Some Cards Against Humanity players also intentionally choose the most random and nonsensical answer. Knowing this trait about someone else could confirm your knowledge of them and contribute to more successful gameplay. For someone whose cards are consistently chosen, this can feel validating and confirms their internal sense of pride and belonging. Conversely, if a player’s card is repeatedly not chosen or if no other players react to their carda, there’s potential for exclusion, suggesting that their humor doesn’t align with the group’s or that they are perhaps not as close with the group as they thought. The potential for strengthening relationships with other players in the game leads to the dynamic of a player perhaps not putting the answer that they think best fits the scenario but rather what they think the other player will choose in an effort to show how closely they know the other person.
Although not a defined rule in the game, it is common for players to reveal which card they chose after the judge makes their selection; this reveal process can lead to surprising revelations about fellow players and serves as an outlet for expression. The “discovery” element of fun is high in Cards Against Humanity, especially when played by people who don’t know each other well or who have surface level perceptions of someone’s personalities, as especially controversial, vulgar, or disturbing card choices can cause others to reevaluate their perception of others’ identities and overwrite their prior impressions. For example, if the group assumes that a female player is modest and reserved but the card she puts down is particularly obscene or purposefully provoking, this contributes to collective surprise and delight at this new personality discovery (although sometimes the cards you draw don’t leave much room for “playing it safe”). I played with a group of people that was mostly friends but contained a couple people who we were not very close with. The statement card was “When I am a billionaire, I shall erect a 50-foot statue to commemorate ____”. One of the new players put down “Radical Islamic terrorism”. Assuming the player had other card options, choosing to put this card down specifically revealed that they were willing to not “play it safe”, indicating that they can take risks in order to try to win. The moments leading up to the selection of the winner and the revealing of identities also leaves room for amusing commentary and justification of one’s choices that serves as an outlet for creative expression. For example, when I play with my friends it is common for us to express what we think of each other’s cards as they are read aloud (e.g. “Oooh that was a good card”, “Omg who put that card down?”, “That’s fucked up 😔). Although there is only one “judge” per round, in reality, every player makes their opinion known regardless, and although cards are read randomly without identities known, I’ve noticed that after the selection, people immediately wish to share which card was theirs, justifying their choice or criticizing the judge’s decision. People take pride in coming up with clever combinations and verbally sharing which card was theirs offers an opportunity to express their identity and way of thinking.
