The game I will write about is Cards Against Humanity. The target audience is people ages seventeen or older. The creators are Josh Dillon, Daniel Dranove, Eli Halpern, Ben Hantoot, David Munk, David Pinsof, Max Temkin, and Eliot Weinstein. The platform of the game is physical playing cards.
One example of how playing Cards Against Humanity highlighted aspects of my own communication style is that when playing Cards Against Humanity, I spend a lot of time thinking about which card to pair with the card in play because I value direct communication, so being able to be decisive about my choice is important to me. However, I also try not to use too much time in picking a card, trying not to be the last person to pick their card, because I don’t want to hold the group up. This shows that I am aware of how I am perceived in social settings and that I don’t want to cause others to be held up because of me. The mechanics of Cards Against Humanity brought out this behavior in that it is built into the game that the players are supposed to all pick their card at the same time, so the last person to decide on their card determines the length of time that is allocated for people to decide on their cards because everyone has to decide on their cards in order for the game to continue.
In a similar vein, playing Cards Against Humanity showed me that I can balance myself between taking a supportive role and leadership role in a group. As such, when I am the “moderator”, I found myself being comfortable with reading out the card for the group, and when I am one of the “players”, I found myself comfortable with listening to the moderator for cues of when to start deciding on a particular card.
I also noticed that I’m not the kind of person to celebrate loudly when my card wins. Even though Cards Against Humanity is a good example of “Hard Fun” (Nicole Larazzo’s 4 Keys to Fun), and I definitely do feel triumphant when my card is picked, I also don’t feel the need to engage in an outsize example of celebration when I feel that sense of winning, because I don’t want to make it about me – it’s more about having fun as a group.
This image shows the structure of the game, showing how there are two types of cards: cards that need to be fulfilled and cards that fulfill other cards.
In response to the ethics question, I believe game designers and players are both responsible for being supportive and kind. This is because game designers have a lot of power in making sure the game is ethical, and part of being ethical is making sure the game does not cause unnecessary harm. However, there is also a point where it’s not the game designer’s fault necessarily that someone’s feelings get hurt, because a large factor in the game playing experience is the people that one plays the game with. Thus, players are inherently responsible for each other because by playing the game they have entered into community with one another. Players use their free will to play the game, so they should play the game knowing there is a chance that their feelings could be hurt, but it would be the other players’ responsibility if that player’s feelings were hurt because someone acted with intention to hurt and malice. If there was no intention to hurt, then that responsibility lies more with the actual design of the game itself.
