THE GAME OF TRUTH vs CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY
I’ve decided to compare The Game of Truth (our game) with Cards Against Humanity (CAH). I have a Cards Against Humanity deck so I got some friends together over the weekend and we played.
The Game of Truth, at its core, is also a party game. But instead of just aiming for laughs, it is more designed to help you learn about your friends by learning what they think about you. It’s kind of like a mix of truth-or-dare, Among Us, and We’re Not Really Strangers. There’s real social deduction, but also vulnerability.
To start the comparison, in CAH, one person reads a weird or edgy prompt (“Why am I sticky?”), and everyone else throws in one of their prewritten cards to complete the sentence. The judge picks the funniest or most outrageous one, and whoever submitted it gets a point. It’s super fun, definitely not politically correct, and very easy and simple to play.
In our game, things are a bit more layered. One player reads a prompt, but instead of picking from a deck, everyone writes their own answer to a personal question, like “What would be my last meal?” The answers get shuffled, read aloud, and the reader has to pick their favorite as well as guess who wrote it. There’s also an option to go “all in” and try to match everyone to their answers, which can either get you a big reward or leave you with nothing. Bluffing and pretending to be someone else is a big part of the fun.
So what’s similar?
Both games emphasize:
- Surprise: You never know what kind of answers you’re going to hear.
- Anonymity: In both games, you submit answers without people knowing who wrote what.
- Subjectivity: The judge/guesser picks the “best” answer, but what that means can totally change depending on the group (and mostly who the judge is at the moment).
They’re both social games that really thrive when you’re playing with the right crowd.
But here’s why they’re super different:
- Tone: CAH is all about humor. The darker, weirder, and less PC, the better. It’s meant to be outrageous and not taken too seriously. Our game leans more into personal stuff. It can definitely be funny, but it’s also about self-expression, bluffing, and getting to know people in a deeper way.
- Creativity: In CAH, you’re picking from a limited hand of cards. Despite the wide variety of cards, you’re kind of locked into the jokes the game provides. In our game, you’re writing every answer from scratch, allowing for a lot more creative freedom and personality.
- Interaction: CAH is super quick. You throw in a card, the judge picks one, and that’s it. In our game, once the favorite answer is picked, players actually argue over who wrote it. Bluffers try to convince the guesser it was them. It turns into a mini mind game every round full of judgement and deception.
- Scoring: CAH has a simple “1 point per win” setup. The Game of Truth has a more strategic system. Both the guesser and the correct writer get points, but bluffers can steal points too. There is real strategy involved, such as if the guesser tries to go all-in and gets everyone right, leading to a big payoff. If not, they get nothing. It’s high risk, high reward.
Final Reflections
Playing Cards Against Humanity again reminded me why it’s so fun. It’s easy to pick up, makes people laugh, and doesn’t require much thinking. But it also made me more excited about what we’re building with The Game of Truth. It offers a different kind of fun, one that’s more about connection, strategy, and storytelling.
Where CAH is all about escaping reality and being ridiculous, The Game of Truth is about leaning in and getting closer to your friends, even if they might be faking it. That balance of truth, lies, and personality is what makes our game stand out.
