Cards Against Humanity is an iconic party judging game that encourages players to fill in blanks with cards from their hands to make the funniest combination. When I play this game, I try to tune into the minds of the people around me and think about what I know that they find funny. As someone who doesn’t find it very easy to join conversations, especially with people I don’t know, the structured and anonymous procedure makes it easy for me to feel comfortable in a new group. Without party games, I generally find myself on the edge of a conversation circle, never really having the chance to get a funny remark in, let alone steer the conversation in a particular direction. In my experience, having played this game with both strangers and close friends, this game highlights how structure, such as turn-taking, helps me take up space and be more comfortable while doing so.
This game facilitates conversation because it’s very symmetrical and turn based. Each person gets a chance to judge, each person gets a chance to submit a card. The rounds are relatively simple, so they don’t take very long, but they don’t have a timer, which allows space for people to laugh at the joke or chat while they’re waiting for someone else to finish submitting an answer. By limiting answers to a set of options (cards), it prevents players from experiencing option paralysis, which prevents rounds from dragging out. This is especially effective in environments where players are drunk or under the influence and are thinking slowly.
The choice to have fixed options, instead of being open-ended, like Quiplash, limits the kinds of responses people can give. On the positive side, this prevents jokes from becoming too insensitive, which may make certain players uncomfortable. On the other hand, this may limit the enjoyment of people who don’t mind insensitive jokes, or it may exclude people who find the fixed options already too insensitive. Overall, it limits the breadth of the target audience, but it also ensures a shared expectation going into the game, so that no one who has played before is unpleasantly surprised.
Cards Against Humanity uses non-time based rounds, and a humorous judging premise to promote fellowship, expression, and submission. As discussed, the non-time based rounds encourage laughter and discussion. The variety of cards provided and the freedom to choose what you think is funniest allows for each player’s personality to shine through. Lastly, the game doesn’t take itself very seriously and provides a break from the potentially tiring task of navigating unstructured social situations.
Where this game breaks down most is in the limited number of cards players get. Every time I play, someone always says “all my cards are bad”, or something similar. Even the wikihow for how to play suggests allowing players to swap out cards they dislike (https://www.wikihow.com/Play-Cards-Against-Humanity). When players are stuck with cards they find unfunny, it can limit their ability to express themselves. One way I like to play is, once per round, players can discard all their cards and draw a new set of cards. This ensures that there’s still a limited number of options per turn, but players rarely get two hands in a row that they dislike.
Sometimes, losing repeatedly in a judging game can feel upsetting, or even exclusionary. From a design perspective, game designers should design their game so that “losing” doesn’t hurt someone’s feelings. However, I believe players are personally responsible for not putting themselves in situations where they may feel hurt. For example, if I know going to the gym with a friend who’s much stronger than me causes me to feel bad about myself, I should avoid that situation, rather than expecting my friend to do less than his best. When playing with a good group of friends, your friends should notice if you’re feeling upset and suggest a break, but ultimately it’s up to the player to avoid putting themselves in that situation.
