Critical Play:
I chose to play Cards Against Humanity, a card game created by Max Temkin, Josh Dillon, and six other Highland Park High School alumni. It is a mature game meant to be played among friends in which players have to complete a prompt by placing down one of the cards in their hand, often resulting in funny, raunchy, or sometimes dark combinations. The goal is to outmatch other players and come up with a card combination that the judge will deem funniest.
The central mechanic in the game is choosing a response card from your hand to fill in the blank(s) on the prompt card. The simplicity of this mechanic gave the designers a lot of freedom in coming up with text for the cards. Given that the game is meant for mature audiences, the cards often have sexual or violent themes, as opposed to Apples To Apples, which is essentially the same game but with kid-friendly text. As a result of the mature nature of the game, some groups of players may take offense to certain card combinations, while others might not. I realized during my game yesterday that I am mindful of this and respond differently according to the group that I am playing with. Everyone in the group yesterday were friends of mine, so I was willing to cross lines that I may not have crossed otherwise. The others in the group felt the same way. For example, one of my friends made this combination:
As the judge for this round, I selected this combination because I thought it was the funniest and most cohesive. Since this combination would usually be considered taboo, I would only choose this combination when playing with friends that I am close with.
Another important game mechanic is that the judge changes with each round. When playing judging games with a single judge, I try to stay cognizant of the judge’s personality and tastes. I realized yesterday that in addition to playing cards differently between groups, I also play cards differently within a group according to the judge. For example, one of my friends in the group tends to find raunchy jokes quite funny, so I played cards to cater toward his sense of humor. Another friend within the group is a big fan of Lebron James, and I happened to have the perfect setup. I’m sure you can guess which card I played during this round:
I appreciate the rotating judge mechanic because I find it important in these types of judging games to humor my friends when I can.
Overall, I believe that the mechanics of Cards Against Humanity are quite effective in creating a fun experience among a group of friends. However, I believe that when this game is played between strangers or with people whose boundaries are very different from your own, it can be hard to enjoy the game in the same way, as boundaries become a bigger factor. Additionally, setting is important. Even though I was playing with friends, the lack of a lively environment took away from the game’s excitement. So, when playing Cards Against Humanity, it is important to me that I play with friends, play according to their personalities and boundaries, and play in a lively setting.
Ethics:
In judging games, I believe that the responsibility of preventing hurt feelings falls primarily on the individual but also requires mindfulness from the group as a whole. Take Cards Against Humanity for example. The game is intended to make players abandon morals and embrace the taboo. Naturally, playing the game will force players to encounter offensive card combinations, and this is something that they should be aware of before deciding to play. Ideally, though, when themes that may be uncomfortable to someone do surface, other players should change their play style to ensure that the game is fun and welcoming for everyone.
Hurt feelings may also arise when a player’s answers are not chosen or are chosen infrequently. In this case, I believe that it is up to the individual player to manage these feelings or avoid playing the game if these feelings become problematic. In judging games, answers are often anonymous to the judge(s), so the fault lies with the player if their answer is not picked. It is difficult to give their answers more appreciation without deanonymizing the player. Additionally, judging games are inherently competitive, so it cannot always be the case that a player’s answers are popular.
