I played Cards Against Humanity with friends from my cohort last week after dinner. We are already pretty close to each other, and we often cook together and have had potlucks before the game. This is a 17+ adult game created by a group of eight Highland Park High School alumni. Each player submits a phrase from their answer cards for a given sentence, and one person takes turns being the judge for each round. This game is popular, and I think most people enjoyed it, but my experience was somewhat different from what others felt. Since the game consists of presenting socially provocative humor, it felt more uncomfortable than fun. It revealed my cultural background, language barrier, and personal values.
One thing to note from this experience is that humor is not only about language proficiency in this social game. I don’t have difficulty using English, but understanding this game requires something more than that. Most sentences are implicitly based on specific cultural contexts. In the end, I felt more like an outsider trying to interpret the humor rather than having fun. Even when I understood the context, my answers often seemed too aggressive or inappropriate for me to submit. I grew up in a conservative cultural background, so I’m not familiar with expressing provocative or sexual humor in public settings. I hesitated between choosing what felt right to me and choosing something the judge would like. Gradually, I found myself taking on more of an observer role.
Cards Against Humanity sits on the border of humor that crosses social taboos. The shock value from each player’s choice is a key part of the fun. However, this feature can also make the game feel exclusive to some players. Especially in a judging-based game, its essence lies in selection and exclusion. If one player’s answer is chosen, the others are rejected. This mechanic creates an asymmetric power structure, where one player controls validation while others compete for approval.
Feeling left out is a common issue in many party games. An ethical question arises here: some players may find it difficult to fully participate in the game. Since the game relies heavily on the judge’s decision, certain players may be chosen repeatedly and experience the “magic circle,” while others don’t. I don’t think the responsibility falls on just one side. The game designers create the system that encourages this kind of interaction, but players also shape the experience through how they respond to others. Designers could think more carefully about how judging mechanics might make some players feel excluded, while players could try to be more aware of others’ comfort levels. At the same time, it’s important for players to recognize their own boundaries and have skills to decide whether a specific game is something they feel comfortable participating in.
Cards Against Humanity definitely made me reflect on the universality of humor. It has deeper meaning beyond just fun, such as understanding cultural context or sharing social analogies. As the rounds continue, the game mechanics tend to reinforce hierarchy, with some players repeatedly winning or being appreciated. It connects people, but at the same time, it can exclude others. Cards Against Humanity highlighted differences in how I perceive discomfort compared to others. I learned that social games don’t only create interaction but also reveal invisible social boundaries. This experience made me question whether games that rely heavily on shared cultural knowledge can ever be truly inclusive. It also made me reflect on how game designers might balance humor and accessibility to create more universally engaging social experiences. perceive discomfort compared to others.
