Building off this idea, I wonder what kind of mechanic could be added to CAH to allow for expression of “that’s actually fucked up” within the game, thereby encouraging a bit of discussion and understanding, rather than purely laughing.
Ideally it wouldn’t be saying “that’s not funny”, because the reason everyone is playing is to have a good time, and there’s a big disincentive to spoiling the mood. You don’t necessarily want to punish someone for offending or being offended, because then people will just withdraw. You just want to playfully point it out so that there’s not the ambiguity of some people laughing at a racist joke because it’s insane that some people believe stuff like that, and other people laughing because “it’s so true”. Maybe like nominating particular plays for the “Michael Richards” award, or something, I dunno.
You can read my reply to what you originally wrote then deleted, it got posted anyway below. You’ve left enough straw man assumptions about me personally in your current argument it still pretty much applies.
Ohh… burn. Which is more privileged, the guy reading the site where said argument is taking place, or the guy who helps run it and feels the need to go on the attack?
I think that’s misrepresenting their argument. The “us” referred to here is board gamers:
So, if you were thinking about buying Cards Against Humanity, perhaps you should think again, because your money is an encouragement, your purchase is a statement and your playing is a representation. Personally, I am not remotely okay with Cards Against Humanity representing us. I hope a lot of other people aren’t, either. I hope they say so, too.
We’re currently in the middle of a renaissance in the comparatively small field of board games. Production values and thought-provoking mechanics are at an all-time high. Even the field of “terribly simple, introduce to newbs” games is incredibly well represented.
But if you’re sitting in a pub playing Cards Against Humanity and a bunch of non-gamers overhear you, it’s not a very strong outreach impression for the industry. And the SU&SD guys a really big on expanding the reach of board games into the “non-gamer” community.
I am someone who likes to play CaH with friends and family. Could you try sticking to why you don’t like the game and not insulting and belittling people who find the game entertaining? I can understand why you don’t like the game, it’s meant to be offensive and absurd. So maybe it’s not the pinnacle of comedy but everyone should be aloud a guilty pleasure. If it makes some many people happy and doesn’t hurt anyone else then why does it need a “takedown”?
If that’s the aspect of CAH that you enjoy, I’d encourage you to try Skulls and Roses if you haven’t already. It takes the concept of poker-style bluffing and removes pretty much every random element. The meta-game is fairly epic.
Oh man. You weren’t kidding when you said that the folks at Shut Up & Sit Down anticipated and refuted pretty much all of the defenses of CAH. It’s actually kind of funny how many people are rehashing the same weak points in this comment section. I’m guessing they didn’t click through as was suggested.
Probably the defense that seems weakest to me is that we (as a species) need some sort of outlet for all of our racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. This argument assumes that such problems are always going to be a fact of life (so why fight it?), and that laughing over such prejudices with friends doesn’t reinforce those feelings at all. This is usually coupled with the “no one is actually being hurt” mentality, which itself completely ignores that repeating and enjoying such humor at the expense of marginalized folks serves to normalize that behavior in our minds.
It is kind of the base function of being a comedian. I know guys who use frikin metronomes and stop watches to figure out their timing. And there’ a ceaseless amount of dickering about whats funny, why its funny, how its funny, what funny is anyway etc every time I hang out with any of the comedians or comedy writers I know. Right down the level of individual letter sounds, rigid structures for jokes along with rules of thumb for how to violate them to best effect and a shit ton more.
“I fundamentally don’t think that Cards Against Humanity is a funny game.” Well, that’s the gist of it right there. Humor is extremely subjective – a smart writer can come up with a ton of justifications as to why something that doesn’t amuse them is “bad,” but ultimately the giveaway is “I just don’t think this is funny.”
My mother-in-law died of cancer this past year, and I brought Cards Against Humanity to a week we spent together, she and her son (my husband) and her two daughters, one of whom is a conservative Christian from the middle of Texas. It was the last time they were all together.
We played CaH with the rule that if you pulled a card that you found to be just too much, you could put it back and redraw. Gwen never used that option, though her daughters did a couple of times (obviously, cancer jokes were right out.) The ability to laugh our asses off while being utterly inappropriate, of my 72-year-old mother-in-law cracking jokes about semen and boy scouts while forgetting about her pancreatic cancer for an hour, is a memory I’ll always cherish.
There are a lot of things I don’t find funny, like body-function humor and Adam Sandler movies and that “git 'er done” guy. But a lot of other people do, and laughter is healthy. It’s good. It beats the hell out of crying. Just let people enjoy the things they enjoy and stop using your personal taste to decide what’s okay for other people, for god’s sake.
That’s their entire life work. Some things come out fully formed, but rarely, and not without a lot of independent thought at many points in their lives. They don’t just channel the “font of comedy”, there’s so very much critical analysis involved behind the curtains.
My friends and I play with this rule, as many of us have panic disorders/PTSD/disabilities, are victims of assault, etc. The one time we didn’t articulate the rule to the new player, he played a card that we take out when I play, and I flipped the hell out on him.
Then I guess I wasn’t talking about you? You’re allowed to do whatever you want. If you’re not interested in examining the ways in which our beliefs are reflected in our humor and games, that’s your business. That doesn’t make the folks who care about such things any less interested in doing so.
I think it had much more to do with the design of the game (Apples to Apples being obnoxious and kiddie, CAH being minimal and attractive), the viral stories surrounding the devs, and the early success story for kickstarter. The marketing engine is very organic and the game concept was known to be popular at parties. Focusing on a twenty-something crowd and technology was a great decision as a business, and they maintained that controversial edge for a long time.
