I played the game Cards Against Humanity an adult card-based party game by Josh Dillong & co. for this Critical Play. The game gives everyone the chance to place a card in a prompt which they think would win over the judge’s vote. When playing, I realized that I don’t really just think about what is funny to me, but I mainly think about what is funny to the person who is judging. If I know the person well or decently well, then I tend to have an easier time picking a card they might think is funny. If I don’t know the person that well, I try to play a card that could generally be funny. Otherwise, I try to pick a card that I think they might find funny based on previous rounds of the game. The game allowing one person to be the judge is what makes this game a lot more challening to me cause I am feel like I am thinking for them instead of me or the rest of the people. There are times when I picked cards that I thought everyone or most people would find funny, which I hoped would influence the judge’s decision. I feel like I am thinking for everyone else when I play this game and this time was no different. I also felt the need to laugh when I the judge would pull out my card so that could get people laughing at my card as well. However, I realized that I had to do this in a discrete manner just so people wouldn’t realize that this was my card. I felt like this game was not only about knowing others well but also about strategy and knowing how to make your cards stand out amongst others. I also felt embarrassed when people did not find my card funny and would vote it out or make comments about it. I had to learn how to make a poker face when things like this happened, which is hard because I am a very expressive person. When it came around to me being the judge I realized that I would pay extra attention when certain people would laugh too much at a card or would start laughing as soon as I read a card out. I realized that they were trying to boost their card and that made me not want to pick their card. However, sometimes when I did not know what to pick I would let the audience guide me and help me pick a card that could be funny to not only me but everyone else. If I felt a certain affinity to a card, I would for sure pick it, but sometimes when debating between two cards I had to let the audience help me pick. Although, if I could tell who put down a certain card and I knew that they hadn’t won a lot, I would try to pick their card as the winner to help them out. It feels kind of sad when you don’t win any rounds and people around you keep winning.
This brings me to the point of who is responsible if someone’s feelings are hurt? Honestly, I don’t think anyone is responsible for this in this game, however, it is nice to give everyone at least one win. I think it depends on the person who is the judge, but personally, I like to give people chances to win who haven’t had chances before. I think this game could run a loser bracket to see who could win among the tossed out cards, so there isn’t such a sense of sadness when your card doesn’t get picked. However, I don’t think this is something that the game designers have to worry about, but something that the players themselves can do to improve their own playing experience. The game has certain fundamentals, if people want to make a “softer” version of the game that should be up to them. Making a different game for everyone is almost impossible from a design perspective. If someone knows they are very sensitive to not winning, I also think they should not be playing a game which is known for being very judgemental and a little harsh. I think one should gauge what type of game it is before jumping into it. I personally don’t like sad movies, so I don’t go out of my way to watch anything that is sad.
