Procedural rhetoric is a fascinating branch of rhetoric that
encompasses “the practice of using processes persuasively,” (Bogost 28) and is
a subset of the field that we had not even considered previous to reading
Bogost’s Procedural Rhetoric. He goes on to explain that “its
arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through
the authorship of rules of behavior.” What does this mean, precisely? One way
this persuasiveness is put into action is through games, such asCards
Against Humanity, a purposely distasteful card game intended for a partying
audience. The game successfully fosters an environment where offensiveness is
not only acceptable but rewarded. Terribly caustic and inappropriate phrases
and jokes presented during the game would be immediately balked at and rejected
outside of play. Under the premise of a fun party atmosphere where such
behavior is unpunished, however, players’ moral standards quickly dissipate.
Whether it was the intention or not, the game reveals to players how “horrible”
they are and have the potential to be, given the right circumstances. Moral
code is not so steadfast.
If the name isn’t enough to convince you of the blunt
purpose of the game, look at what it says on the box of the game before it is
even opened up: “A game for horrible people.” In fact, the creators’ website
includes single worded reviews such as “horrible” and “bad”. One word says it
all as they advertise these reviews to build the reputation of the game, adding
to the “horrible” environment as people play. The creators also exploit the bad
reputation further by allowing others to contribute more “bad ideas”. Though
arguably the game’s main purpose, like all games, is to entertain, it also
creates an atmosphere that brings out the dark side in everyone. It's main genius
is using humor to do so.
The object of the game is to collect the most black
“statement” cards. Players must learn to choose white “response” cards that
appeal to the judge. The judge chooses the white card they like the best or
find the most amusing, and the corresponding player obtains the black card for
that round. This creates an interesting psychological twist as players attempt
to appeal to each other’s darker psyches, regardless, perhaps, of their own
moral background or standards.
One of the most persuasive procedures of the game is that
the longer you play, the more desensitized you become. There really is no end
in sight unless players have the miraculous patience to go through all 90 black
cards and 460 white cards in one sitting. In a way, it’s like one of those
amazing road trips where you get to know everyone on a more personal level. The
longer that you're in the car with your friends and the more fast food that is
eaten on the way, the smellier everyone gets. It may start out smelling awful
but the longer everyone is on the ride together, the more desensitized everyone
gets to the bad smell until finally you leave the car, realizing just how clean
the air is outside. In Cards Against Humanity, innocent
‘moral’ people will squirm at some of the cards used like “Masturbation” and
“Nipple blades.” However, the longer the game is played the less ‘evil’
things seem. Soon the true purpose of the game alights in the eyes of all
players, desperate to be the winning card. And since ‘everyone is doing it’
there’s no longer a sense of judging that usually holds people back from
bringing out their worst sides.
On a similar note, the game does not hold back when it comes
to response cards. For example, not every player will approve of the card
“Pac-man uncontrollably guzzling cum,” but it is included in the game anyway.
When “Kids with ass cancer” is an option, “Tasteful sideboob” seems perfectly
mild. This lack of un-offensive card options lowers the player’s inhibitions
and helps the creators’ accomplish their goal.
Another intriguing aspect to the game that undoubtedly
contributes to the player’s propensity to behave offensively, is the relative
anonymity involved. This is especially true when larger groups of people play,
which is common given that it is marketed as a party game. When players add
their own despicable answers to the mix for the judge to choose, unless their
card is selected, no one knows they put it down. This concept adds an element
of risk and excitement to the game as well. People are more likely to lay down
wildly distasteful and hilarious cards because the risk for repercussions (i.e.
being “caught”) are lower.
In what many would consider a
politically correct society, this game has no place. Perhaps that is what has
made the game so successful. It is a stress release, or rather, a tool that
facilitates the release of the offensive and overly sexual in a way that can be
laughed at but also invites discussion. This was almost certainly part of what
the creators’ hoped to accomplish with the game. As Bogost’s states, “each unit
operation in procedural representation is a claim about how part of the system
it represents does, should, or could function,” (Bogost 36). For all the
reasons cited above, it is clear that the game has successfully utilized
procedural rhetoric to help players have fun, invite discussion, and
demonstrate that (in the right environment) anyone can be a “horrible” person.
