It can be fun, but its a very bad game to play with strangers. You need to have some semblance of knowledge about the people playing. Last time I played, the only rounds I won were the ones picked by my husband. I had high confidence that I would win those too.
It can also be amusing to play with non-Americans:
“Darth Vader? What’s a Darth Vader?”
You hit the nail right on the head. All the serious commentary about this joke of a game is unbelievable.
I wouldn’t have picked Sinatra as charming, either, and I’m 50. How old is the OP?
We have those rules, too! And one of them for us is, no lie, “pirates” always wins. So of course, my reaction to the OP was, “Well, duh.”
I love this game precisely because there are no real rules, you make everything up from sheer whim, you can try strategizing but it often gets you nowhere, the word of the judge is law for arbitrary reasons, and you can get into fights if you try hard enough. The best kind of game to play with family!
The only thing that would make it suck is if we were playing with rule-sticklers and general sticks in the mud. Those people should go play Risk or something. 
As you can probably glean from my username, I find this to be the stupidest, worst way to design a game. It’s the exact opposite of what makes games fun in the first place.
You guys go ahead and play your stupid game. I’ll be over here at the bar, thinking less of you.
Apples to Apples is great fun. Even the times that go against you tragically lead to fun moments and stories.
A few of mine:
I lost, playing the noun “Fuzz” for the adjective “Fuzzy”.
It was my turn to judge, and I flipped up “Deadly”. In my hand, I was holding “Vampires”, “Mudslides”, “Heroshima: 1945”, and “Wildfires” :smack:
It’ll be mutual. The difference is we’ll be having fun :).
One rule variant that works pretty well with the right group is the Defense version: you have 30 seconds to explain why your card is the best, and the judge votes basedon the defense more than on the card. I once won by calling China melodramatic by dismissing everyone else’s point of view in 25 seconds and pointing out taht only one country in the world fit the card so well that there was a whole school of melodrama named for it.
I’m sure the creators of Apples to Apples feel really bad about their rejection of game design rules. As we can see, it really bit them in the ass.
I would have picked “pond scum” or “frostbite” as more charming than “Frank Sinatra”. Pirates? No competition at all.
I think the best games are where there’s a mix of judges who like funny or straight answers. But I hate judges where funny means “picking the card that is the exact opposite.”
My biggest problem with “Apples to Apples” is when a judge has no discernible system. They act as though they are a random number generator. Where is the fun in playing like that? You can’t try to be funny, and you can’t try to be literal.
I’m a “funny” judge myself, because hey, games are supposed to be fun, right? But I’m not going to pick something that’s a non-sequitur just for funsies. It has to at least make some sort of sense given the adjective.
I wouldn’t, either. But if I played the Sinatra card on my mother-in-law, she’d not only pick me as the winner, she’d stuff the card down her bra. She pays $X a month for Sirius radio just so she can listen to 24-hour Sinatra. It’s all about who the judge is.
Since lots of people do, in fact, have fun with Apples to Apples, clearly your understanding of game design is somewhat flawed.
Oh. When I have played it the judge is the judge for the entire game. So, you are styling your answers for him or her. And that is pretty fun.
But, it sounds like another way to play involves having a different judge each round. I like that! If I play again I will have to suggest that style of play.
It’s a fun game. And, it is nice because there aren’t many blockades to playing with others. All ages and walks of life can play together and have a good time.
Out of curiosity how much arguing lobbying for the cards go on in the games you dopers play? With one group of friends there was no lobbying and the judge would basically make his choice in silence. In other games, I’ve played 2/3 of the time would be spent after the play with each player trying to argue in favor of their card.
I’ll have to try the double green variation. The variation we play is to have each player play one card, plus one card at random from the deck. We keep track of the deck’s score and sometimes it has won the game.
I’ve also developed a two person variation that I play with my wife that’s rather fun.
The end result is still fun, so I have no idea what your point is.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to be condescending. There’s nothing precluding someone from enjoying both challenging games like chess AND more free-form games like Apples to Apples.
Chess, a game that depends on complex strategies (and which can only be played by two people at a time) is ill-suited for social “party” gaming, which is where Apples to Apples shines. You play A to A as an icebreaker and to have a few laughs, not to demonstrate your mental skill; it’s about as competitive as any other game of chance when it comes right down to it, and the real fun is not in the destination (winning), but in the ride.
It seems like if you allow lobbying you’re encouraging the judge to make his decision based on who he wants to get the points and not on how well the other players read his mind.
When we play the judge is expected to make a humorous production out of revealing his choice. First he works his way through the cards he rejected, explaining why, then with a grand flourish reveals his rationale for his ultimate choice. This encourages players to have a reason (even if its an insane reason) for picking what they pick and gives everyone else useful information about strategies for future rounds.
With the group I play with, there’s a little bit of lobbying after each “judgment”, but it’s basically token lobbying. No one really gets worked up over it too much (although I did get a little upset once when I put down a “Beatles” card and a young relative of mine said something snide about them 
). Sometimes if we’re really on a roll and having fun we’ll increase the number of cards needed to win.
EDIT: oh, I should also mention that the way we play, all the submitted cards are totally anonymous until the “winner” is chosen. THEN the occasional person might gripe, but usually we just move on to the next judge.
The judgment method that I like best is when the judge displays all the submitted cards before deciding. Seeing what people choose for each adjective is the funniest part IMO.
Like I said with me it varies from group to group.
In the lobbying group there isn’t much competitiveness in terms of who wins the final game so the judge will generally be uninfluenced by the current scores. Its just fun to argue in support of the fact that mold is indeed more delicious than monkeys, after-all it’s found on cheese.
With the second group, when I said silence I meant among the other players. The judge will reveal the cards one at a time and ponder his decision aloud, but there is little if any comment from the other players. It’s still usually pretty obvious who gave which card, as our poker faces are somewhat lacking.
Overall I think I prefer the second way, since I like to play a little more competitively.
Another tradition we have is that at the end of the game each player has to make a sentence describing himself using the adjectives he won.