You’re right.
Two cards enough?
How about Daniel Tosh, then?
1 Like
No one is disputing that it is Apples to Apples with “edgy” options. We’re just saying that if your games keep turning into “Oh look at me and how “edgy” I am by playing racist/sexist cards all the time” then it says more about the group of players and not the game.
This is not curing cancer, its just some fun once everyone has had a few drinks and Setters of Catan or other “real” games becomes unfeasible.
7 Likes
Whatever happened to the BoingBoing / Max Temkin collaboration mentioned here?
I mean, do whatever you feel like. That’s kind of what we’re arguing here. Lots of humor is based around free association, and the game is basically a free association engine that the players get to steer a bit, with some vulgar stuff. If that’s not your thing, I’m not going to weep bitter tears over it. But I don’t see much value in demeaning the game or the people that play it just because the authors don’t happen to like it.
4 Likes
But there’s conflict in this here post.
I suppose you certainly can play it without the offensive content, but then what are you defending?
Which surely makes your love of the “BATMAN!!” card kind of beside the point? Not that I don’t get where you’re coming from, but it actually sounds like all the people on the board that love the game love it despite the offensive content - so why is it even there?
Could it be that you play it differently to most people? I can’t help but imagine most people buy it for the offensive content.
Which is also fine! But it’s not fair to pretend it’s incidentally offensive (only if you want it to be) - any more than claiming Playboy doesn’t have to be a nudy mag because you can just read the articles.
1 Like
Because sometimes very puerile things are funny especially if those things are a big surprise. There are people in this discussion lording how they grew out of those jokes over the rest of the crowd, but I don’t envy them.
6 Likes
Well you’ve put me in a difficult position because I agree with everything you just wrote.
My point was that people keep claiming that it’s only an offensive game if you pay attention to all the offensive content in it. Which is kinda silly.
1 Like
As I say, the first few times you play the game, seeing “midgets shitting into a bucket”, “dick fingers”, or “a bleached asshole” as an answer can be hilarious for its unexpected shock value alone. It’s a hook to pull people in. But those things are really only funny/shocking once. It’s when you start cracking up friends with cards about frozen lunches, bees, Ryan Gosling on a white horse, etc. that things get interesting (in a different way). The trick is learning how to play on your friends’ quirks, learning how to turn phrases around, or be clever with a card that just says “BATMAN!!” on it.
9 Likes
Wasn’t CAH the darling of Boing Boing when it first came out? Now that the frat boys are playing it, it’s no longer cool, edgy, or fun?
I’ve played it a few times. One time I recall not being able to read the cards aloud because I couldn’t stop laughing over some combinations that were not offensive, just beyond absurd. Other times it’s been “meh”. It got old very quick, which I guess goes to the fact that it is a one trick pony. But I think the hate coming its way from this particular article is more about finding a way to shame it away, because it has gone mainstream and that is not cool. And the mainstream can’t be trusted to walk that fine line of humor/offense. Also it’s a gamer site, of course they have many more complex games they enjoy. Of course they got bored of CAH very quickly.
What I find more interesting is the meta-story here in the stereotype image of the “hipster geek”. Since it became “cool” to be a geek, those who readily put on any persona-of-the-moment have adopted the geek chic. The old school gamer geeks are enraged at this and have to point the finger at these other pseudo-geeks who aren’t “real”.
I don’t think you’d be seeing this review on SU&SD if it had remained an obscure, guilty pleasure.
Also, some people in the thread are pushing the idea that if you played GTA once or twice just to beat up a hooker you are actually a bad person who is barely keeping your actual hate filled, abusive personality in check. They are full of shit. That desire to dip into the world of utter taboo without actually doing it, or hurting an actual person, is (however disturbing) completely normal. Might as well tell people you have never masturbated. 99% would be lying. Are there people who have never masturbated or even wanted to? Yes, but to claim that is ANYWHERE near the norm is a lie. Not that there is something wrong with someone who has no desire to masturbate, but that person needs to learn that the other 99% are driven to it by hormones, a very deep and complex control system. For all of our claims of intelligence, we are not nearly far enough from our eat-or-be-eaten bacterial ancestors to be truly free of that.
6 Likes
Yeah, BB’s gone Full Tumblr lately.
4 Likes
Well when it’s practically the dude’s entire career, that’s different 
Like I said earlier, the game definitely flirts with a line, which is kind of the point. The ‘Shoot the Gays’ game posted before is clearly way, way, way over that line. It offers no commentary, satire, or thoughtfulness, it’s just pure, vicious hate. CAH can absolutely be that, although it’s not entirely that. Personally, I think it’s actually a fairly small facet. But something that lacks that capability completely would be sterile - even Apples to Apples can be hurtful - I was once in a game where a Chinese student was judging ‘Wicked’ and got ‘China’ as a card. But the chance for something like that happening doesn’t mean we have to toss out the whole game. And even though CAH invites taboo, I still think it does so in a way that has much more potential than just ‘Shoot the Gays.’
4 Likes
Was it? Citation would be great.
I’ve never played and I’ve never been drawn to it. I’ll stick to Fluxx and Munchkin for my massively overexpanded yet always playable gaming card needs.
2 Likes
Ahah!
But I will point out that this post is about Cards Against Humanity, not Max, and that not everyone at Boing Boing is obliged to share the same opinions of things. Cory, I believe, is a big CaH fan.
We all have to do what Falcor wants, though.
7 Likes
But the game is about ignoring the majority of the content the majority of the time so as to best cater to the current audience in the current context. If you’re offending people you’re playing with, you’re not playing the game right. The key is identifying the context where such offensive cards will not actually be offensive.
2 Likes
I’ll take a look. As I recall (which is not perfect of course) BB is where I first heard of CAH. And I am almost positive that I’ve seen expansion packs touted on it. It was framed as a question because I was not sure.
1 Like
6 Likes
Apologists. I am always leery of apologists who always speak from a place of privilege.
3 Likes
Popular things get scrutinized more, just the way it is. People who know more about table games and play the more obscure ones will be the first ones to hit the bad parts of a game that gained popularity recently, and the more people in the pool the more that hate it for it’s very concept.
I am on the first group, though I never thought dirty-ing up Apples to Apples was necessary to generate humor. As a media to generate discussion, I would rather play any other competitive game involving a little speaking to each other like Sheriff of Nottingham or King of Tokyo. It’s still easy to teach, improves with drinking, and a funny story during these games is going to be more memorable than some combination of words in CAH.
1 Like
I agree that CAH sets you up to make sexist/racist/otherwise offensive jokes, and that that is not incidental but a deliberate choice of the game designers. I disagree that the game relieves the players of all responsibility for those jokes.
Winning a round in CAH is all about assessing the sense of humor of whatever player is judging. When you play CAH, you pick up very quickly which players think offensive cards are funny simply by virtue of being offensive (and will therefore hand out points for lazy or nonsensical white cards simply because they manage to be horribly racist) and which players are going to make you work a little harder and submit answers that actually match the black card played. I have definitely walked away from CAH games going “Wow, so-and-so really likes Holocaust jokes. Like, a lot. To a disturbing degree”.
(As for the reviewers other points about game mechanics or the game just not being “fun”: no sympathy at all. Not liking game mechanics or not finding a game fun or thinking there are better games out there is a good reason not to play a game. It’s not a good reason to ask others not to play the game).
6 Likes
