Safety Tools: A Discussion

[Easy e]

Greetings all,

A common feature I have seen in many news games, is a blurb about generating trauma with your players during the course of the game, and how to deal with it. They often have some discussion about a number of safety tools to help avoid this in your group.

In this thread, I wanted to talk about the following topics:

1. How you handle the discussion around safety tools
2. How you introduce safety tools at your table
3. Safety tools that have worked well for you and your groups

I appreciate your participation in this important topic.

[Vahnavoi]

1. whether I discuss them at all depends on whether an activity needs them, which for most tabletop games is a "no". More on this below.

2. in the same go as I explain game rules and set-up, so within first five or so minutes of a session, before play starts. If I'm at a convention, convention-wide safety guidelines are already printed in a convention brochure and available to players throughout the event.

3. The primary tool, used for any situation where a player needs to have a word out of (game) turn, is raising a hand, and if that is not enough for the game master to pay attention, also loudly calling "game master!" or "referee!". Then the player says whatever is that they need to. Players aren't forced to play, so if a player needs to, they can just say "I need to go", etc., and then go. The secondary tool is for the game master (that is, me) to keep their antenna out and then either figuratively or literally (again, see below) blow a whistle to stop possible conflict or problem situation. A game master has the right to expel any problem player from a game. Additionally, conventions of course have security, so if there's a serious problem, a game master can call security on a problem player - or, in case of a problem game master, player can call security on them.

Now back to 1. Why does a game need specific safety tools? One, there obviously needs to be some risk. Two, there has to be an obstacle to normal communication. Any contact martial art, live-action roleplaying with stage fighting included, makes for a good contrast point. Is there risk? Yes, obviously, someone can get hit in the face (etc.) and get injured. Is there obstacle for normal communication? Also yes, participants might get too out of breath to communicate normally, or there might be ambiguity due to them getting in character. So, the first (and often only) safety tool, is an unambiguous signal for players to stop doing whatever it is they are doing. Usually, this is just somebody loudly yelling "STOP!", but when that it is not sufficient, it can be tapping out (including tapping a table), blowing a literal whistle, or some specific phrase (traffic lights being popular, with "RED LIGHT" meaning "STOP!", "YELLOW LIGHT!" meaning "Slow down!" and "GREEN LIGHT" meaning "I'm good, let's go").

In tabletop roleplaying, people are typically about as physically safe as can be and by default situated so that they can clearly communicate with one another. The only obstacle for normal communication is possible confusion between in-character and out-of-character dialogue. Nope, sorry, emotional trauma and hurt feelings do not rank up there with risks of physical injury. If, for whatever reason, a player knows they might have trouble with what is (effectively) a freeform conversation around a table, they need to tell their game master and other players so necessary extra steps can be taken, or just stay out of that game. Not doing so is equivalent to showing up in martial arts practice with a broken ankle (or other such handicap) and not telling your sparring partner. Don't do it.

However, as you might gather from my contrasting examples, tabletop games aren't the only roleplaying games I play. Once people get off their butts and start moving around and doing stuff, risks get bigger and more varied. Physical games, depending on scope, require security guards, electricians, medical personnel, fire safety supervisors, psychological advisors (for solving harassment cases etc.), food hygiene supervisors, etc.. I could talk your ear off regarding any of those subtopics, but I won't, since it would be overkill for tabletop context.

As final word, I do not consider content warnings to be safety tools, but they obviously play their part in informing a player about what game they should opt into or out of. The thing there is that there's existing standards for them (such as PEGI), and has been for decades now. Anyways, the problem on that front is that a lot of hobbyists are, for some reason, clueless about those standards, and so end up reinventing the wheel purposelessly. I recall a heated discussion about "trigger warnings", which are just (pointlessly) specific content warnings. (Actual triggers are personal and unpredictable, and covered by the above clause of needing to tell your game master and fellow players.) On this front, the most important content warning, and the one many of my games operate under, is "adults only", which in actuality means "anything goes". Anybody signing up to such a game is responsible for keeping their wits about regardless of what content there is in a game.

[Silly Name]

In my personal experience, safety tools have been mostly useful when playing with acquitances or people I don't really know (whether at a convention or joining a new group). When I play with lifelong friends, we know each other pretty well and also are able to confront each other without the need of a specific safety tools.

Broaching the topic also immediately tells players that the GM may plan to steer the game towards some darker corners, which is an important discussion to have even if you don't plan on using safety tools. If a GM plans to include large amounts of gore, sexual violence, or other sensitive topics, it should be communicated clearly before the game starts.
For example, I don't want to play in any game where the topic of children dying violently is brought to the forefront in any way - general ackowledgement that children die during cataclysms and wars is ok, but the moment someone is describing the murder of a child I want to leave the room.

The thing is, people aren't all that good at knowing their reactions beforehand. A player may think "yeah, I can handle the fact rape is a thing within the setting and we may encounter it in some ways", but then be deeply unsettled by the descriptions and scenarios found after that. Safety Tools come in handy in these situations, with the addendum that they are useful if the player doesn't feel comfortable actually discussing the issue or confronting the GM or another player. They just, for example, hold up an X Card and everyone drops the topic quickly, goes on with the game, and try to avoid that in the future. If it's a campaign, the group can discuss afterwards what exactly crosses the line.

So there's also that benefit to using safety tools: they avoid discussions and debates at the table, so that the game can continue without friction.

So, to answers your questions:

1 & 2. When running games at Cons I know may be uncomfortable for some players (so not my silly D&D 5e one-shot where the adventurers have to rescue a baby dragon from a wicked evil princess), I start the session by handing each players an X Card and telling that if I or another player says or does something that they feel crosses a line they don't want crossed, they just have to hold it up and we'll move on. I also stress that this is a safety tool to avoid deeply disturbing or uncomfortable topics, or personal triggers - its purpose is not to say "I don't like this", it's to say "this thing makes me want to get up and leave the table"; it's not meant to be used to silence other players if an in-game discussion arises, nor to completely shut down the game: I will tone down descriptions as much as I can, but if the plot of the session involves a gruesome murder, you signed up for it (because it was clearly communicated beforehand) and we can't completely skip that detail.

3. X Cards have generally worked well for me, even if I must say I have rarely seen them used overall, mostly because I don't run that many sessions with possibly upsetting themes and when I do I do my best to ensure the players are mature and capable of handling it, and have given explicit consent to those themes before we start. I find that safe words don't work as well - they may get lost in the background noise of the con, and the fact the player has to speak up instead of just holding up the card may act as a psychological barrier to actually using them.

[Eldan]

In my personal experience, safety tools have been mostly useful when playing with acquitances or people I don't really know (whether at a convention or joining a new group). When I play with lifelong friends, we know each other pretty well and also are able to confront each other without the need of a specific safety tools.


This. I have exactly 7 friends who play RPGs, and when one of us runs a campaign, we recruit four players out of the seven possible candidates and we've been doing that for 15 years. I know exactly that kind of campaigns they all like, who of them is comfortable or not with for example sexual subjects or violence, and what they don't like talking about.

I don't know if I'd even feel comfortable playing an RPG with someone else at this point. The idea of playing with someone I haven't known for years and years, where I've cooked for them and slept at their houses after twelve hour boardgame marathons and helped them move and went to their weddings is just weird. I can barely imagine it.

[Satinavian]

Personal experience :

- Situations where safety tools might be useful are far too rare to bother with them. I have never actually seen one used, even when available

- Having a proper session 0 however is vastly more effective at avoiding problems safety tools might be useful for. And i have often seen potential issues about themes and tone revealed and adressed there.

- Even without a safety tool it is not actually hard to stop a game when someone feels uncomfortable. The added utility of using a tool for it and have it formalized seems pretty negligible.

[Jakinbandw]

I prefer the term 'accessibility tools' as for me, it's not about making making game safe, but rather keeping it enjoyable and accessible.

Recently in the game I'm designing, I had to ask for an accessibility option to be able to keep enjoying it (in this case, I find a jolt between knowing I've succeeded and getting excited, only to find out I've failed to be much more frustrating than most others, so to keep the game fun, the gm shares any hidden immunities for foes with me. This is an issue that only happens with simultaneous turn orders, so it hadnt come up before when playing traditional games like dnd).

That said, I've done some work for my system formalizing a group disagreement resolution system, as I've seen ethical disagreements in my system create long term anger between players. To the point where one of my players insisted they didn't want to ever play with another player again.

Games are meant to be fun, and making them accessible to all people is a goal I stand behind. When a kid is bad at chess, we don't stop them from playing, we give them a handicap so we can both enjoy the game together. I love RPGs and want to let as many people enjoy them as possible.

[Mastikator]

Personal experience :

- Situations where safety tools might be useful are far too rare to bother with them. I have never actually seen one used, even when available

- Having a proper session 0 however is vastly more effective at avoiding problems safety tools might be useful for. And i have often seen potential issues about themes and tone revealed and adressed there.

- Even without a safety tool it is not actually hard to stop a game when someone feels uncomfortable. The added utility of using a tool for it and have it formalized seems pretty negligible.

This is my experience as well.

However I'll add that it's worth having a second or even third session 0 for long running campaigns, especially if the group acquires a new player. Or when they want to change the tone/theme of the campaign.

[OldTrees1]

Risk Assessment:
A general use of a safety tool in RPGs is to take situations where someone is too overwhelmed / uncomfortable to escape the situation that is causing them to be overwhelmed / uncomfortable and lower the barrier for them to escape.

There are many things that can cause someone to be too overwhelmed / uncomfortable. This can range from phobia, to just uncomfortable subjects when they don't feel comfortable speaking up about it to the group. (Since I feel more comfortable talking about phobia's I don't have, I will lean on them more my examples)


Likelihood:
There is a chance someone in the group has arachnophobia. There is a chance a spider encounter might cross the critical threshold of them becoming too overwhelmed. A throwaway spider encounter is less likely to cross that line than a visceral description of a spider encounter, or a spider ambushing the party by landing on them, or a horror campaign's version of a spider encounter.

There is a greater chance someone in the group is uncomfortable with often taboo topics about more general traumas. (As you can kind of see by me being vague here.)


Severity:
Once the person is too overwhelmed / uncomfortable, it can get worse from there. An arachnophobe's reaction to a visceral spider encounter is going to be less severe than their reaction to a visceral horror campaign's version of a spider encounter.


Additionally some cases lend to more severe reactions (phobias or familiar traumas) while other cases lend to a higher initial barrier to escape (like topics I am less comfortable talking to a forum about).
For a lot of topics the baseline campaign with friends will have a low likelihood of needing a safety tool (with a even lower likelihood for the more severe cases). You can probably get away with the implicit permission to speak up that comes from being friends that care about each other having fun.



My experiences:
When I GM'd for strangers/acquaintances, I recognized they would be less comfortable speaking up and thus played it safer with what I ran.

When I GM'd for friends but was running a horror campaign (ran Curse of Strahd), I felt it best to be more explicit. Since it is a horror campaign I started session 0 by explicitly reminding the group that at any time they are overwhelmed/uncomfortable they can speak up and I will pause the game and adjust. It was important for me to indicate the players had a no-debate veto power. For most of my modified CoS I thought that was enough. However there is one behavior of Strahd towards a particular NPC that I was less comfortable with. I planned to make it less overt / more implicit / more background. However since it could make me uncomfortable, I treated it has a higher likelihood of making the other players uncomfortable. I mentioned it in session 0, how I was planning on mitigating the discomfort, and again explicitly informed them of their veto power.

In the current campaign I am playing a Mind Flayer and there are topics that come with that territory. During session 0 I asked the other players (and GM) if that character would be a problem. After receiving permission I explicitly told them that if they become uncomfortable, speak up and I will adjust. (again with the veto power).

Later we played a horror RPG called "The Zone". Since it was built for horror with an emphasis on misfortune and demise happening to the characters, it had the more extensive safety tools like a non vocal safeword to further lower the barrier of using that veto power.

In my experience I have not had anyone speak up or invoke the veto. My plan was to have more safety than needed rather than less than needed. Even just the presence of an unused veto can extend people's ability to avoid needing that veto.



Conclusion:
Safety Tools are more powerful versions of lowering the barrier of speaking up that cover cases when the implicit or explicit permission to speak up is no longer sufficient.

Removing the concern of ruining the others' enjoyment by speaking up. (Explicit permission from the other players for you to veto if you need to)
Removing the concern of being challenged for daring to speak up. (No debate veto)
Removing the concern of needing to dwell on it further with explaining as a prerequisite for escape. (No questions veto)
Removing the need to speak. (Nonverbal veto)
Removing the need to be identified. (Anonymous veto)


The high the risk of needing a safety tool in your campaign, the more of these aspects should be in the safety tool you use. If you estimate using a safety tool is a good idea for your campaign (above and beyond your session 0), I suggest a default of a nonverbal no debate veto that the group grants each player explicit permission to use if needed. Have an object (like a card?) in the middle (or one per person) and if someone uses that object then that enacts the veto on what is currently happening. Then pause and adjust. I recommend that as a starting point despite not implementing it (unless prepackaged in The Zone) because it is very easy to implement that bundle if you are going to use a specific Safety Tool beyond your session 0.

[Vahnavoi]

In contrast to Eldan, I'm primarily a convention game master - I run horror and black comedy games to people I don't know from any other context. I find people overestimate need for safety tools because they underestimate power of self-selection: if I advertize my game as a horror show, then the people who show up most likely are the kind who like that stuff and can handle it, and in general people who go out and socialize tend to be well-adjusted.

As far as phobias go, I've had to deal with that once in ten years and hundreds of players: one arachnophobe got spooked by a random spider encounter and, before I could react, solved the situation by themselves by closing their eyes and putting hands on their ears. Five minutes later, when the encounter was over, they rejoined play and the game continued as if nothing had happened. No serious schism over game content I've been part of has been about or caused by phobias, and I think there is a clear reason for that: phobias are by definition irrational, and people who have them are usually self-aware of this. They acknowledge the problem lies with them and don't expect random people to accommodate them without them telling what's up.

[Pauly]

In my personal experience, safety tools have been mostly useful when playing with acquitances or people I don't really know (whether at a convention or joining a new group). When I play with lifelong friends, we know each other pretty well and also are able to confront each other without the need of a specific safety tools.
.

This.

There are players I know who go into ‘safety tool’ areas, but I refuse to play with them. Normally they’re the player who IRL is CHA -5 and is playing the CHA 20 bard collecting a harem. To be fair they’re usually playing VtM not D&D.
Usually if I end up at a table with one of these troglodytes someone at the table calls them out and tell them straight up, “dude that’s messed up” and if they don’t get the hint, then escalation happens until either they reform their playing habits or they leave the table.

I’ve played in some fairly serious film noir inspired campaigns with heavy themes. The screen fades to black when discussion hits on those areas with no graphic descriptions. The groups I play with neither need nor want details of the bad things that went down.

[Xervous]

As a friend group/guild group GM the only way I could see myself using safety tools is if I ended up with a player I really cared about who needed them, and was also likely to be exposed to the topics in the course of play. If safety tools are non negotiable with a prospective player, I’m just going to pass over them for better prospects.

As a player I’d be super wary of any group that advertised the usage of safety tools. I’ve seen a strong overlap in occurrence of other group details that I dislike, making it a less favorable gamble of my spare time compared to other known quantities.

[TaiLiu]

Safety tools!


They're like carrying around emergency cash or a multitool—you probably won't use them, but they takes up relatively little room and are nice to have.


The circumstances when you'd use them are relatively narrow. A player or GM needs to be able to recognize that (i) this situation is making them seriously uncomfortable and that (ii) this is the right time to use the safety tool. They must then (iii) overcome whatever emotional block they have to using it and invoke it.


There's a kind of inherent hesitance to using it. If everyone's having fun and you're not, are you really gonna tell everyone to stop? If the GM put so much work into this scene, do you really feel comfortable telling them to abandon it? Will your friends dislike you for using it?


To overcome that, I've seen people attach mechanical benefits for using them. No idea if that works or not.


Having a session zero discussion on what everyone wants and doesn't want out of the game can make safety tools mostly vestigial. But people forget.


As a player, I've never used them.


There's only been two situations where they may've been useful for me. In the first one, I lacked the emotional awareness to tell them to stop. In the other, I just mentioned it at the end of the session and tried dissociating during it.


Safety tools won't solve the basic (but difficult) social problem of playing with people who you don't jive with for whatever reason.

[Vahnavoi]

As a commentary on above post:

b) safety isn't, and isn't meant to, be "fun". In any serious context, safety always comes before "fun", full stop. This said, simply not having fun is not a matter of safety at all; it may be a sufficient reason to leave a game, but it isn't a sufficient reason to use safety tools. It's best to forget everything about "fun" when discussing safety. For contrast, when a martial artist taps out, they do it in reaction to physical pain, exhaustion etc., and the kind of psychological problems that safety tools are meant to prevent all have such a physical side too. Nobody's doing calculus about "fun" in such a situation.

d) attaching mechanical benefits to using safety tools borders on being counter to their purpose. Again using martial arts as contrast point, a martial artists taps out because they are in pain, and by surrendering they make the pain stop - that is the incentive, that is the reward. The idea under discussion would be equivalent to scoring points for tapping out, which changes the entire purpose, because pain is seldom, but appeal of winning is ever-present. It takes something that is meant to be a safety tool and turns it into a gaming tactic. This is not hypothetical. We have decades' worth of examples from football (soccer, for US citizens out there) and other sports, where warped gameplay such as this is common enough to warrant its own terminology. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_(association_football)) In conclusion: don't do this. It doesn't work.

[kyoryu]

I feel like you could probably make a scoring system for whether or not you need safety tools, where you'd give yourself points for various things (lack of knowledge of the group, type of content being run, etc.) to gauge how helpful they'd be.

If you're running a game with your buddies you've known for twenty years, smacking orcs and goblins like you've done for twenty years, you probably don't need them.

If you're playing a game with completely random players, and it's a game with dark themes (define dark as you wish), with elements that are known common triggers? Yeah, might be a good idea.

[Ionathus]

If you play with close friends who you understand well, you probably won't ever need them. But there's no harm in establishing a clear and enforced "STOP Button" anyway, because when you're having a bad time surrounded by people who are having a good time, it can be hard to form a coherent request to stop. Feeling overwhelmed, feeling guilty that you're "ruining everyone's fun," being embarrassed about it, etc. Make it as easy as possible to stop and get off the train.

But for any long-running campaign, a Session 0 (with periodical checkins every 3-6 months) is 99% of the battle. There are millions of Session 0 examples out there, but for the relevant parts to this discussion: mine include asking "On a scale of 1-10, how much XYZ are you comfortable with" for about a dozen different topics (violence, roleplay, dark tone, moral quandaries, political intrigue, combat complexity, character peril, permadeath, pvp, etc). I then tell the players my content restrictions as a DM (e.g. no sexual violence, no explicit torture, no gender discrimination) and ask them if there's anything else off-limits or not a favorite for them.

I also make it very clear that they can message me privately about anything, at any time, either to tell me to back off or remove it from the game completely.

The most important thing you can do as a DM for close friends is to keep those communication channels open and make sure they are giving you feedback on what they need. Because no matter how much I fine-tune based on their session 0 answers, I always have a player who realizes how they truly feel about a topic mid-experience. You might say you're okay with violent combat, but then that first kill gets described and it doesn't feel good. I had one friend who's a strong improv actor run into a mental block when it came to mind control. They had to pull me aside and basically say "hey, please don't make me roleplay being charmed/influenced again, it felt gross and weird in a way I can't explain. If you have to charm my character please just take over roleplaying them for me until the charm is broken." And that was that.

(I can't speak to convention play or play with acquaintances, though I instantly see the appeal of making the "X-card" or safety button very explicit in those cases. Up to and including a literal bell, card, buzzer button, etc.)

TL;DR - Session 0 is far, far more important as your first "player comfort" priority if you're running a consistent group of people you already trust. But roleplay can get weird even with close, trusted friends (sometimes especially with close, trusted friends!) so you should still make it as easy as possible to leave an overwhelming situation.

And I'll echo what someone else said upthread: "safety buttons", no matter their form, should make absolutely no consideration for immersion, atmosphere, or "ruining the fun." If someone is panicking, overwhelmed, scared, or reliving trauma in the roleplay I'm running, then I won't be having fun as the GM until they feel comfortable again. Everything else is secondary.

[Vahnavoi]

I feel like you could probably make a scoring system for whether or not you need safety tools, where you'd give yourself points for various things (lack of knowledge of the group, type of content being run, etc.) to gauge how helpful they'd be.

That's a risk assessment matrix (https://www.google.com/search?q=risk+assessment+matrix&rlz=1C1EXJR_enFI908FI908&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLls-GgPj-AhWCyIsKHRjXA5QQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1280&bih=577&dpr=1.5). Nothing wrong with those, there are standard template for larger projects. A typical tabletop game is just so small that it's not worth the effort. For example, in a convention, it's not worth it for an individual game master to worry about this. It's more realistically a task for someone in the event organization, such as a program manager.

[TaiLiu]

As a commentary on above post:

b) safety isn't, and isn't meant to, be "fun". In any serious context, safety always comes before "fun", full stop. This said, simply not having fun is not a matter of safety at all; it may be a sufficient reason to leave a game, but it isn't a sufficient reason to use safety tools. It's best to forget everything about "fun" when discussing safety. For contrast, when a martial artist taps out, they do it in reaction to physical pain, exhaustion etc., and the kind of psychological problems that safety tools are meant to prevent all have such a physical side too. Nobody's doing calculus about "fun" in such a situation.

If you're referring to (c) when you mention (b): I think you may be underestimating the influence of social conformity and the relationships that exist outside the game.

Like, I think you're making a prescriptive point that I agree with. Of course fun shouldn't be a consideration for safety.

But in social situations, I think people really do try to figure out whether or not it's right to use a safety tool. There's the conformity thing of no one else seems disturbed so maybe they'll be upset if you stop the scene. There's fear about having your playmates' views about you change. This is clearly an important roleplaying moment for your friend's character—do you really wanna disrupt that? And this isn't even getting into the physiological reactions that may make invoking the tool hard.

So I think that having safety tools means more than just having them and that's it. There needs to be an acknowledgement of these forces and a groupwide agreement to address them. This doesn't need to be a big deal, obviously. It can just be mentioning the stuff Ionathus does and getting consensus about that.



d) attaching mechanical benefits to using safety tools borders on being counter to their purpose. Again using martial arts as contrast point, a martial artists taps out because they are in pain, and by surrendering they make the pain stop - that is the incentive, that is the reward. The idea under discussion would be equivalent to scoring points for tapping out, which changes the entire purpose, because pain is seldom, but appeal of winning is ever-present. It takes something that is meant to be a safety tool and turns it into a gaming tactic. This is not hypothetical. We have decades' worth of examples from football (soccer, for US citizens out there) and other sports, where warped gameplay such as this is common enough to warrant its own terminology. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diving_(association_football)) In conclusion: don't do this. It doesn't work.
I dunno, actually. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think the football/soccer analogy works.

For example: there's a lot of social forces that are in play that aren't the case for a sports game. I'm not competing against anyone when I play a TTRPG. I want the best game possible for everyone. And I've definitely done things that are disadvantageous for my character just so someone else's character can get an important backstory-relevant moment, or just so my GM can pull off a big villainous reveal, or just so someone else can have the cool magic item that fits their character a little better.

That's not to say that you're wrong, but I think we need more empirical evidence before we can conclude anything about the utility of attaching mechanical benefits to safety tools.



And I'll echo what someone else said upthread: "safety buttons", no matter their form, should make absolutely no consideration for immersion, atmosphere, or "ruining the fun." If someone is panicking, overwhelmed, scared, or reliving trauma in the roleplay I'm running, then I won't be having fun as the GM until they feel comfortable again. Everything else is secondary.
For sure. I think that explicitly mentioning that as part of the safety tool stuff probably helps ensure everyone's comfortable using them when they need to.

[OldTrees1]

I dunno, actually. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think the football/soccer analogy works.

For example: there's a lot of social forces that are in play that aren't the case for a sports game. I'm not competing against anyone when I play a TTRPG. I want the best game possible for everyone. And I've definitely done things that are disadvantageous for my character just so someone else's character can get an important backstory-relevant moment, or just so my GM can pull off a big villainous reveal, or just so someone else can have the cool magic item that fits their character a little better.

That's not to say that you're wrong, but I think we need more empirical evidence before we can conclude anything about the utility of attaching mechanical benefits to safety tools.

Yeah, their analogy was a bit off, so I am ignoring it and addressing the relevant part of the concern they raised.

The primary goal of "speaking up" or of safety tools is to enable the player to invoke it when needed, and to have it resolve the situation.

There are 2 primary attributes needed:
1) The player needs to be able (despite social forces) to speak up / invoke the tool.
1a) A mechanical benefit attached to the safety tool does not normally improve the player's ability to invoke it. Rather it is the implied approval and normalization of using the safety tool that helps.
2) The invocation needs to be respected and acted upon
2b) If the other players are willing to respect the invocation without needing to trust the invocation's motivations, then everything is good. On the other hand humans are fallible and some allow distrust of the invocation to slow their respect and response to the invocation of the safety tool. (In sports: Prevalence of diving might affect the referee's response time. We hope it doesn't, but it might.)

Attaching a mechanical benefit to the invocation of a safety tool can help with #1 (via 1a) but hurt with #2 (in the case of 2b). If the situation merits using safety tools, attaching a mechanical benefit to those tools might help or might hurt. Be careful. There might be better ways to have the benefit without the drawback. For example, when introducing safety tools, explicitly emphasize the explicit permission to use them. The group hearing itself put safety above fun already gives you a similar benefit.

That said, in some cases the other players will fail safe, and immediately respect and respond to any invocation regardless of suspicions. Immediate response with no questioning is how I was taught to respond to an invocation of a safety tool, and I apply the discipline when extending the concept to RPGs.

[TaiLiu]

Yeah, their analogy was a bit off, so I am ignoring it and addressing the relevant part of the concern they raised.

The primary goal of "speaking up" or of safety tools is to enable the player to invoke it when needed, and to have it resolve the situation.

There are 2 primary attributes needed:
1) The player needs to be able (despite social forces) to speak up / invoke the tool.
1a) A mechanical benefit attached to the safety tool does not normally improve the player's ability to invoke it. Rather it is the implied approval and normalization of using the safety tool that helps.
2) The invocation needs to be respected and acted upon
2b) If the other players are willing to respect the invocation without needing to trust the invocation's motivations, then everything is good. On the other hand humans are fallible and some allow distrust of the invocation to slow their respect and response to the invocation of the safety tool. (In sports: Prevalence of diving might affect the referee's response time. We hope it doesn't, but it might.)

Attaching a mechanical benefit to the invocation of a safety tool can help with #1 (via 1a) but hurt with #2 (in the case of 2b). If the situation merits using safety tools, attaching a mechanical benefit to those tools might help or might hurt. Be careful. There might be better ways to have the benefit without the drawback. For example, when introducing safety tools, explicitly emphasize the explicit permission to use them. The group hearing itself put safety above fun already gives you a similar benefit.

That said, in some cases the other players will fail safe, and immediately respect and respond to any invocation regardless of suspicions. Immediate response with no questioning is how I was taught to respond to an invocation of a safety tool, and I apply the discipline when extending the concept to RPGs.
That's not a bad argument. I think I'd need empirical evidence to be swayed one way or the other. But you're right that there's a possible backlash that I didn't think about.

[Vahnavoi]

If you're referring to (c) when you mention (b): I think you may be underestimating the influence of social conformity and the relationships that exist outside the game.

Sorry for screwing up the ordering. I acknowledge social forces at play, what you say does happen; what I'm getting at is that part of those forces is people just having the wrong attitude and prioritizing wrong questions. The pressure to conform is created by considering the wrong thing.


And this isn't even getting into the physiological reactions that may make invoking the tool hard.

This goes back to my first post. As noted, one of the chief reasons to use a tool is to get over the obstacles to communication. A tool that doesn't address this by its nature, is useless. Of course, explaining how a tool is meant to be used is part and parcel with that; we're not in any disagreement over that.


I dunno, actually. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think the football/soccer analogy works.

For example: there's a lot of social forces that are in play that aren't the case for a sports game. I'm not competing against anyone when I play a TTRPG.

Tabletop gamers should stop repeating this falsehood. First of all, there are tabletop games meant to be competitive from the start. Second of all, people compete socially in every setting. Even in a nominally co-operative game, players are competing for attention to themselves and their ideas. Sibling rivalry is one of the more common, concrete examples. Player and character favoritism, likewise.

By giving a mechanical benefit for using a safety tool to stop a game, you are literally incentivizing playing a victim to get ahead in those respects. Don't do it.


I want the best game possible for everyone. And I've definitely done things that are disadvantageous for my character just so someone else's character can get an important backstory-relevant moment, or just so my GM can pull off a big villainous reveal, or just so someone else can have the cool magic item that fits their character a little better.

That's all fine and dandy. It's also irrelevant. The context of using a safety tool to stop a game is always that of one person's actions being detrimental to someone's well-being. By giving a game mechanical benefit to it, you extend this from genuine consideration of physical and mental health, to consideration of what you lose in the game if you don't invoke the tool. Maybe you don't consider yourself the sort of person who'd do this. What about everyone else?


That's not to say that you're wrong, but I think we need more empirical evidence before we can conclude anything about the utility of attaching mechanical benefits to safety tools.

Basic human psychology doesn't change from game to game. Empirical research from sports (references in the article) is perfectly applicable: deceptive behaviour increases as stakes of a game increase and when risk of getting punished are low. This is in line with everything else known of operant conditioning, human learning and anti-social behaviour.

If you give someone a no-fault no-questions asked way to stop a game, the risk of getting punished is zero. If you then give a game mechanical benefit for doing so, the likelihood of someone stopping the game just to get that benefit increases with the benefit given. Again, none of this is hypothetical. Game designers exploit the same basic psychology when making actual game mechanics. An X-card that gives you game benefits is just a fancy version of Uno Reverse card.

The kind of game where stakes are so low as to have no deceptive behaviour, are also prime candidates for game that need no safety tools to begin with.

[Ionathus]

My take on the "mechanical benefits for using safety tools" discussion:

I don't really think they would incentivize abuse of the tools. But I also don't think adding a benefit makes it easier to use, either.

I see any safety tool as a Point of Order: you pause the roleplay or combat, step completely outside of the space, and resolve/talk it out as real people sitting at a table. When the game finally resumes, you may retcon something or change course of the story, but outside of those factors the game resumes as if everything is the same. Giving one person an arbitrary bonus doesn't mesh with the idea that this is an out-of-character "strike that from the record" adjustment that the PCs never would have noticed.

Basically, I don't see value in "incentivizing" safety tool use because I see that incentive as a violation of the broader DMing maxim "don't try to fix out-of-character problems with in-character solutions."

[Beelzebub1111]

I typically game with friends, people I know well enough and trust to come to me if they have a problem with something in the game. We are all adults. I reserve safety tools for when I am gaming with people I don't know.

If I am running a horror game or game that deals with dark themes that's part of the pitch of what I want to run or play. If players have limits of things they don't want to have in game, I would like them to inform me as well as the other players at the table before we start.

A GM is not a babysitter (under most circumstances) and I feel like dumping responsibility solely on the GM to be responsible for everything that could possibly make anyone at the table uncomfortable and to be the sole neutral arbiter of disputes in conduct is a lot. The players also bear some responsibility to make their feelings known to everyone. I hate being the middleman and tell person X that they are making person Y uncomfortable with their description of their spider familiar or whatever. You owe it to your friend to tell them yourself, and if they don't respect that, then we'll arbitrate with all parties present to work out a solution.

[icefractal]

FWIW, I've seen a couple games with "mechanical benefit for using a safety tool", and they were both of the form "if anyone used a safety tool, everyone gets +1 XP" at the end of the session.

So no specific advantage to the one who used it, more like a deal-sweetener for the whole group. And not "stackable".

Not really sure I'm in favor of that form either, IDK I want to mix "emergency stop button" with "free cookie button" even if the benefit is evenly distributed. But TBF, I could see it taking some of the pressure off that way.

[Segev]

I... do not see "safety tools" as lowering the barrier to good-faith problem-raising. If you're genuinely upset and would be uncomfortable invoking a general "Hey, guys, this topic makes me really uncomfortable; can we move on to something else, please?" or other, similar messages, I suspect you'll be similarly hesitant - no matter the alleged permission given - to raise objection with any tool that might be there. After all, you're still interrupting the scene, possibly ruining others' fun, making a spectacle of yourself, exposing your emotional vulnerability, or whatever else. You may still fear judgment for objecting to whatever you're objecting to. And, no, it doesn't prevent questions; if nothing else, "To what are you objecting?" is a valid question, since the alternatives are to either guess, and continue with the game and hope you guessed right what to exclude going forward, or to stop the game entirely and not resume, because you don't know what in the game is bothering the person who raised the objection.

Whether your fear of judgment or ruining fun or "being that guy" or whathaveyou is valid or not is entirely irrelevant if you feel it and it is inhibiting you from speaking up.

I suspect the only thing that bringing all these tools into play really does is make it so that any malicious actors in the group feel more entitled to act maliciously, because now any recognition of a pattern (like, say - and this is a gross exaggeration I have never seen IRL, but it is a possible exploit - raising objection any time the bad actor's character is on the losing end of a fight, a social encounter, or whatnot, so that gameplay has to stop and the objectionable material that just happens to be whatever is inconveniencing the character has to be removed, no question) is "bullying" or otherwise unacceptable, since the emergency tools are used for safety and you're opposing their safety!

That said, if they make you more comfortable, have them. I just don't think stressing over them is worthwhile; their purpose is to reduce stress. If you're stressing over them, stop worrying about it. Communicate. That's the important thing. Invite participation and solicit opinions.

[OldTrees1]

I... do not see "safety tools" as lowering the barrier to good-faith problem-raising. If you're genuinely upset and would be uncomfortable invoking a general "Hey, guys, this topic makes me really uncomfortable; can we move on to something else, please?" or other, similar messages, I suspect you'll be similarly hesitant - no matter the alleged permission given - to raise objection with any tool that might be there. After all, you're still interrupting the scene, possibly ruining others' fun, making a spectacle of yourself, exposing your emotional vulnerability, or whatever else. You may still fear judgment for objecting to whatever you're objecting to. And, no, it doesn't prevent questions; if nothing else, "To what are you objecting?" is a valid question, since the alternatives are to either guess, and continue with the game and hope you guessed right what to exclude going forward, or to stop the game entirely and not resume, because you don't know what in the game is bothering the person who raised the objection.

Whether your fear of judgment or ruining fun or "being that guy" or whathaveyou is valid or not is entirely irrelevant if you feel it and it is inhibiting you from speaking up.


If you are overwhelmed and having trouble speaking, what if you could "speak up" without speaking?
If you are uncomfortable but worried (hopefully irrationally) about others judging you for your discomfort, what if you could anonymously "speak up"?
If the in depth reason you are uncomfortable is deeply personal, or you are otherwise uncomfortable explaining it in the moment beyond the surface level of "what", what if you could "speak up" without needing to defend yourself?

Enter the safety tools. Different ones remove/reduce each of these barriers. There are tools that remove the need to speak, use anonymity, or prevent questions gating exit from the situation.

Safety tools can lower the barrier. Although lowering does not necessarily equal removal.

As an extreme example, if someone has trauma relating to TOPIC and thus is uncomfortable encountering TOPIC in game, would they be more or less comfortable voicing their discomfort if they knew they would not need to reveal their past trauma and the group would respect the surface level without digging? That policy would make the player more comfortable, and is a safety tool.


That said, if they make you more comfortable, have them. I just don't think stressing over them is worthwhile; their purpose is to reduce stress. If you're stressing over them, stop worrying about it. Communicate. That's the important thing. Invite participation and solicit opinions.
Yup.

[Segev]

I just don't see how you can do it anonymously (except, I guess, in an online game where everyone is using an interface that supports anonymous activation of the tools). At an actual table, you're going to have to take an action to make the objection known, even if that action is nonverbally putting a card in the middle of the table.

My biggest issue with these "tools" is that they seem to do more to create tension than relieve it. Kind-of like how anti-bullying rules in schools since the very late '90s seem to do more to empower bullies by letting them paint their victims as "bullies" and turn the system against them than they do to actually stop bullying. Not to say that those who want these tools are bullies; it's just an analogy wrt how the system proposed/implemented is counterproductive to its stated aims.

But, like I said, if they do make you feel less stress, go ahead and have them. But do not stress over them. In the end, you're going to have to communicate, even with such tools. You're going to have to reveal what the source of the objection is, too. If your objection is to "spiders" being in the game and somebody has a scene with a drider hitting on a PC, and all that happens is an "objection" card gets raised, then everyone else has to guess what the issue is, and maybe all the romance scenes are removed from the game from then on out, but you still have the drider. Unless the objection is raised again, and people now have to guess what the problem is.

In the end, it's all about observing each other, listening to each other, and clearly communicating with each other. Sessions 0 can help, but there may well be surprises. And you'll just need to remember that you're all friends, and support each other.

[OldTrees1]

I just don't see how you can do it anonymously (except, I guess, in an online game where everyone is using an interface that supports anonymous activation of the tools). At an actual table, you're going to have to take an action to make the objection known, even if that action is nonverbally putting a card in the middle of the table.
You do see at least 1 way to do it. (the online game option)


My biggest issue with these "tools" is that they seem to do more to create tension than relieve it.
I don't see how. They are just modifications on speaking up and listening to someone speaking up. There was 0 tension created by the tools baked into "The Zone" when I played it. As you said "if they do make you feel less stress, go ahead and have them. But do not stress over them".


My biggest issue with these "tools" is that they seem to do more to create tension than relieve it. Kind-of like how anti-bullying rules in schools
That is an ill suited analogy. A better analogy is Safewords (used in sports and other things). Upstream you even see analogies to someone tapping out when the situation is no longer safe.


I think your biggest issue with these tools is visible from you saying ' "tools" ', focusing on boogeymen, and mentioning "In the end, you're going to have to communicate" when communication was never contested. Maybe trying to clarify will help? Safety tools are just means for lowering the barriers to speaking up. Their utility is helping exit those undesired circumstances (a circumstance where you wish someone had spoken up sooner) faster. Once you are out of that circumstance you can communicate how to avoid that circumstance without reentering that circumstance to do so.
1) They are tools, use when and only when applicable and useful.
2) Malicious actors can exploit speaking up. That is independent of safety tools. But you also don't need to play with malicious actors. (In fact, I advise against it)
3) Yes if someone has a phobia of spiders, they would want to communicate that the spider part of the drider was what caused the circumstance where we all wish they spoke up. It is easier for them to communicate that AFTER we stop describing the drider rather than requiring the explanation before permitting they get to safety. It also makes it easier if the playgroup accepts the message about the spider making the player uncomfortable rather than demanding to dig deeper than necessary into the "why" as a precondition for the change.


In the end, it's all about observing each other, listening to each other, and clearly communicating with each other. For some circumstances in some campaigns in some playgroups, these tools are applicable for that goal. Don't stress over it. Sessions 0 can help, but there may well be surprises. And you'll just need to remember to support each other.

[Zombimode]

That is an ill suited analogy. A better analogy is Safewords (used in sports and other things). Upstream you even see analogies to someone tapping out when the situation is no longer safe.

The Tapping Out analogy is just as bad if not even worse. Tapping out in a fighting match is a sign of concession. With that signal you end the fight with you being the loser. It has this singular purpose and meaning. The reasons for why you're tapping out do not matter. Once you give this signal it is unambiguously clear what happens next: stop the fight immediately with you being declared the loser. And it ends the activity. There is nothing after you tapping out that is relevant for you doing so. The reasons for you tapping out do not matter in the next round of the fight or the next match.

Thus tapping out in a fighting match is radically different from using a safety tool as described in the OP.

[Vahnavoi]

@Zombimode: you are wrong, for a very simple reason: tapping out is not limited to competitive matches. It is used for all drills and sparring, including those meant to continue immediately after the potentially injurious situation has been solved.

It's not an analogy; it's the same damned thing, to the point you can directly adapt it as stopping signal for a tabletop game. Tap a table twice or thrice in rapid succession, and the game stops until it's been resolved what put you in peril. Simple as.

[Zombimode]

@Zombimode: you are wrong, for a very simple reason: tapping out is not limited to competitive matches. It is used for all drills and sparring, including those meant to continue immediately after the potentially injurious situation has been solved.

It's not an analogy; it's the same damned thing, to the point you can directly adapt it as stopping signal for a tabletop game. Tap a table twice or thrice in rapid succession, and the game stops until it's been resolved what put you in peril. Simple as.

Even during sparring tapping out means "ok, you got me! good job, lets start again" - it notably does NOT include "but don't do that move again".
In tapping out the "why" is irrelevant - in stopping a rpg game the "why" is all that matters. Thus these two concept are NOT the same, not even close, and are poor analogies to each other.

[OldTrees1]

The Tapping Out analogy is just as bad if not even worse. Tapping out in a fighting match is a sign of concession. With that signal you end the fight with you being the loser. It has this singular purpose and meaning. The reasons for why you're tapping out do not matter. Once you give this signal it is unambiguously clear what happens next: stop the fight immediately with you being declared the loser. And it ends the activity. There is nothing after you tapping out that is relevant for you doing so. The reasons for you tapping out do not matter in the next round of the fight or the next match.

Thus tapping out in a fighting match is radically different from using a safety tool as described in the OP.


In tapping out the "why" is irrelevant - in stopping a rpg game the "why" is all that matters.

You are right that the same safe word tool, in a cooperative context (with the possibility of resuming the cooperative activity once the issue is resolved) would be a most analogous context. However the more analogous examples I know are either the RPG Safety Tools topic itself, or are examples that are not forum appropriate. Please forgive me for communicating within the constraints of the forum.

Speaking up and Safety Tools in RPGs also give an unambiguous signal of what happens next:
Immediately stop the activity and move OOC. Communicate what caused the issue. Address that issue. Then see if everyone would be okay resuming.

So you are right that the cooperative & resumable context does add these 2 relevant differences when compared to the sports example
1) The issue that caused the need for the invocation matters because the issue will be addressed in some manner.
2) The issue can usually be addressed in a way that permits the cooperative activity to continue (if everyone is okay resuming with those changes).

[Ionathus]

Safety tools are just means for lowering the barriers to speaking up. Their utility is helping exit those undesired circumstances (a circumstance where you wish someone had spoken up sooner) faster. Once you are out of that circumstance you can communicate how to avoid that circumstance without reentering that circumstance to do so.

(emphasis mine) Echoing this. Safety tools are just about hitting that first pause button. Communication will always still happen, in one form or another (even if you move on in the moment to get away from the upsetting thing and then do a bigger debrief after the session).


2) Malicious actors can exploit speaking up. That is independent of safety tools. But you also don't need to play with malicious actors. (In fact, I advise against it)
...
In the end, it's all about observing each other, listening to each other, and clearly communicating with each other. For some circumstances in some campaigns in some playgroups, these tools are applicable for that goal. Don't stress over it. Sessions 0 can help, but there may well be surprises. And you'll just need to remember to support each other.

This puts it perfectly. Of course these tools can be abused -- everything can be abused. But they're still valuable, even in situations where you trust your players and had a good Session 0. As I mentioned upthread, I thought I was in the clear for content in my campaign, but something minor (roleplaying mind control) inevitably came up that a player didn't expect to make them feel gross but did. That player wasn't that bothered, and was able to talk to me after the session and no harm was done. If they'd had a stronger reaction, and were less assertive as a person, that surprise could've made for a much worse session for them until we could debrief.

Not everyone is 100% articulate when they're stressed out. That's the value of making that Pause button as easy to reach as possible, to help them collect themselves and either have the conversation then, or postpone it for slightly later.

Every time Safety Tools or X-Cards come up on this forum, someone always suggests that implementing them will lead to some malicious actor strong-arming the group into following their fickle whims, and the entire group of adults who are (presumably) gathered to play a game based on teamwork and communication will be powerless against the magic of "PLEESTOP" (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/02/please-stop.html). This tyrant will Pause and Fast-Forward the campaign through whatever thing they don't want to do at the time, and nobody will ever discuss it after the fact, and no compromises will ever be reached, and nobody will ever try to communicate about any of this.

And I just don't see that happening at any table that isn't already inherently dysfunctional.

[Vahnavoi]

Even during sparring tapping out means "ok, you got me! good job, lets start again" - it notably does NOT include "but don't do that move again".
In tapping out the "why" is irrelevant - in stopping a rpg game the "why" is all that matters. Thus these two concept are NOT the same, not even close, and are poor analogies to each other.

The "why" very much matters and is the same damned thing with both tools: safety, protection of mental and physical health. "Don't do that again" is not by default part of ANY safety tool of this kind, it depends on analysis of why stopping was necessary.

Again, it's not an analogy. It's the same damned thing: unambiguous stopping signal. Same category as a referee blowing a whistle or "red light - green light" safeword system. Don't let other particulars of respective hobbies obscure that from you.

[icefractal]

Again, it's not an analogy. It's the same damned thing: unambiguous stopping signal. Same category as a referee blowing a whistle or "red light - green light" safeword system. Don't let other particulars of respective hobbies obscure that from you.I'm not sure that applies to all forms of safety tools. For the "X Card" - some implementations, at least - the point is that they just touch the card and then you move on without stopping the game (if possible) and without asking questions. The idea being that they may not want to talk about it right at the moment and would rather not have everyone's attention focused on them.

Of course, some situations are clearer than others, and it may be necessary to clarify which element was the problem. But "blowing a whistle" is very much "let's stop and focus on this" and (in at least the versions I've seen) some tools are much more "let's just move on from this and discuss later if necessary".

[Vahnavoi]

That implementation of the X-card is very specific, and bad, because it forces guesswork on part of other players. A more realistic application of the same has a player saying what is it that bothers them, which is the same as tapping out to stop a dangerous partner drill, then resuming once participants are back in position. Either way, it still is an unambiguous stopping signal, the entire point is to get some player to stop doing whatever is threatening another.

EDIT: to continue a bit more, tapping the table serves the function of X-card better than the card, because it can communicate the same signal with both sight and sound, and the gesture does not require any additional item to be recognized.

[kyoryu]

(emphasis mine) Echoing this. Safety tools are just about hitting that first pause button. Communication will always still happen, in one form or another (even if you move on in the moment to get away from the upsetting thing and then do a bigger debrief after the session).

100% this.


This puts it perfectly. Of course these tools can be abused -- everything can be abused.

Exactly. And when somebody is abusing stuff in a game, we talk about it, and resolve it one way or another. Sometimes that means realizing it's not a good table fit.


Not everyone is 100% articulate when they're stressed out. That's the value of making that Pause button as easy to reach as possible, to help them collect themselves and either have the conversation then, or postpone it for slightly later.

I mean, even if they don't want to talk about it, fine. But if they keep x-carding and not talking about it, at some point it's reasonable to say "look, we're not going to keep playing this game of avoiding things you don't like when we don't even know what they are." Somebody that's randomly triggered by random things and won't even tell you what they are? That's gonna be a hard fit for any table. Somebody that weaponizes these tools is just like anybody else abusing things. Either way, you just recognize it's a bad table fit and move on.

These tools aren't 100%, eternal power over what happens with the table, because the level of talking about things and realizing it's not a table fit still exists. I feel like there's a lot of Geek Social Fallacy stuff (namely - don't kick anyone out, ever) that's being presumed with people that have issues with these.


Every time Safety Tools or X-Cards come up on this forum, someone always suggests that implementing them will lead to some malicious actor strong-arming the group into following their fickle whims, and the entire group of adults who are (presumably) gathered to play a game based on teamwork and communication will be powerless against the magic of "PLEESTOP" (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/02/please-stop.html). This tyrant will Pause and Fast-Forward the campaign through whatever thing they don't want to do at the time, and nobody will ever discuss it after the fact, and no compromises will ever be reached, and nobody will ever try to communicate about any of this.

And I just don't see that happening at any table that isn't already inherently dysfunctional.

Right. Even if someone is doing that, you just talk to them and say "look. You can't keep doing this, especially if you don't tell us what up. I don't think this is the right table for you."

[gbaji]

As a player I’d be super wary of any group that advertised the usage of safety tools. I’ve seen a strong overlap in occurrence of other group details that I dislike, making it a less favorable gamble of my spare time compared to other known quantities.

Yeah. That's my experience as well. There are certainly some players with specific phobias/triggers, but they know what these are and honestly should maybe pull the GM aside ahead of time and talk about them. I've also rarely ever seen this actually be needed. So my experience is that if a table has these rules, there are one or more players at that table who are most likely abusing their triggers/phobias for some advantage in the game. Even if it's just "get the sympathy of the GM on my side" or something.

I'm sure some may disagree here, but to me, part of the whole point of playing a social game (like RPGS) is to learn how to socialize with other people. Part of that is learning how to manage topics that you personally may be uncomfortable with. These sorts of games help prepare people for the "real world", where you will absolutely find yourself in a group at some point where a topic turns to something you don't like, or disagree with, or have a phobia about.

As a GM I'd much rather approach these things as a way to help people learn to overcome their triggers/phobias than provide them as "safe space" where they can be assured they will never encounter them, and continue to avoid ever dealing with this (and thus have the same problem for the rest of their lives). That doesn't mean I'm playing psychiatrist or something here. I'm not going to intentionally turn my game into some kind of immersion therapy session either. But if something in the game happens to have elements that happen to make someone uncomfortable, I'd rather play that out in some way, rather than just stop the entire thing and avoid it entirely.

This does not at all preclude players coming up to me with issues of this kind. But if a player can't even verbalize what issues/triggers/whatever they have? A much as this may seem a bit hash, but maybe playing a game like this isn't for them. And no, that's not about any specific content. It's about a person being able to communicate their own likes and dislikes. Everyone else playing 20 questions to figure things out just isn't fair.


That is an ill suited analogy. A better analogy is Safewords (used in sports and other things). Upstream you even see analogies to someone tapping out when the situation is no longer safe.

A couple other posters touched on this. "tapping out" is not about encountering something you feel uncomfortable with. It's about realizing that you are unable to win, and conceeding to your opponent. It's overwhelmingly used to avoid physical harm in sports like wrestling. I suppose it could be used to avoid some phobia/trigger situation, but I'm struggling to find a case where it would and why you'd be participating in the sport in the first place if that was the case.

And "safewords"? I'll admit it's been a while since I coached or played sports, but that's not really a thing (maybe some fu-fu folks do something like this maybe). Again, one of the primary purposes of sports (especially for kids) is to get them used to group activities and comfortable with those environments. If a player is having an issue with the sport, team, or other players, they should come directly to the coach with their concerns. Having a safeword that just stops whatever is happening at the moment really damages the primary purpose of the sport activity in the first place. They are only needed for the specifc purpose of "I don't like something, but I don't want to just use my words and tell you". Um... No. Learn to express yourself. That's the point. Feel comfortable doing so. Hiding beyind safewords and X-cards and whatnot only allows these same problems to fester and become worse.

The biggest danger here is when the "safety tools" become a crutch and actually become just another part of the core issue at hand. The risk is that players who might maybe have one or two minor things that concern them, and would have worked that out just fine via normal social communication methods will now be enabled to just avoid them via the tools. Then, over time, they feel empowered to use them for other even less problematic things. Until we've got someone who feels like anything they don't like or agree with to the slightest degree they just avoid by using the safety tool. They may become more phobic and subject to triggers as a result of this methodology.

Maybe that's a nightmare/exagerated scenario, but I'd rather avoid even the chance of that. I'm not going to become part of the problem here. Anything that allows/encourages people to become *worse* over time, is the wrong tool to use IMO. I have no issues with discussing things with my players, but I really draw the line at "no questions asked" tools. IMO, the "asking questions" is the most important aspect of this. And no, that does not mean making a big scene in front of the entire table. But a private conversation with the player is absolutely needed in these situations. I, as the GM, am equally responsible for making the game enjoyable to all of the players, not just one. I have to balance all of their needs. So that does mean that I need to be able to assess the weight of any one players needs as well. And if that player can't or wont communicate that with me? That's going to be a problem because I have no real method to assess this now.

Again. Let me repeat that I have literally never run into a situation like this (where a player was so phobic that they just couldn't continue the game session). I think one time, one player came to me about a minor phobia. And it was one of those where it wasn't about the creature itself, but seeing it. So when we were fighting that kind of creature, we just used a different mini. Problem solved. And it didn't come up often anyway. Hah. Ok. The same player had another interesting OCD thing she did. But that was also something we all knew about, and managed (and she totally acknowledged it as well, so it was a subject of some conversation from time to time too).

I just find that people's fear of their fears is often more powerful than the fear itself. If that makes any sense. Hiding them in the dark often only makes things worse. Acknowledging them, even in small ways, taking baby steps, is often the best thing to do in these situations, and leads people to being able to manage them better over time. Giving them tools to avoid that? Really bad idea in the long run IMO.

[TaiLiu]

Sorry for screwing up the ordering. I acknowledge social forces at play, what you say does happen; what I'm getting at is that part of those forces is people just having the wrong attitude and prioritizing wrong questions. The pressure to conform is created by considering the wrong thing.
Yeah, I think that's mostly right. Ideally, you also wouldn't be playing with people who think that their fun is more important than your discomfort. Social conformity is a powerful force, though. I think it's reasonable to assume that it's in play for most OOC situations at most tables, even if we don't want it to.


This goes back to my first post. As noted, one of the chief reasons to use a tool is to get over the obstacles to communication. A tool that doesn't address this by its nature, is useless. Of course, explaining how a tool is meant to be used is part and parcel with that; we're not in any disagreement over that.
Right. We agree here.


Tabletop gamers should stop repeating this falsehood. First of all, there are tabletop games meant to be competitive from the start. Second of all, people compete socially in every setting. Even in a nominally co-operative game, players are competing for attention to themselves and their ideas. Sibling rivalry is one of the more common, concrete examples. Player and character favoritism, likewise.

By giving a mechanical benefit for using a safety tool to stop a game, you are literally incentivizing playing a victim to get ahead in those respects. Don't do it.
Sure. If a tabletop game is competitive, then what I said doesn't apply. (Aside: if you know of any systems made for competitive play, I'd love to learn about it. I haven't found any.)

I'm not sure people compete socially in every setting, though. I don't feel like my character is competing with any other character in my game. As mentioned, sometimes my character gives up advantages to better another character. It's possible we think of "compete" differently.


That's all fine and dandy. It's also irrelevant. The context of using a safety tool to stop a game is always that of one person's actions being detrimental to someone's well-being. By giving a game mechanical benefit to it, you extend this from genuine consideration of physical and mental health, to consideration of what you lose in the game if you don't invoke the tool. Maybe you don't consider yourself the sort of person who'd do this. What about everyone else?
Sure. If the mechanical benefits cause people to misuse the tool, then the tool shouldn't have mechanical benefits.


Basic human psychology doesn't change from game to game. Empirical research from sports (references in the article) is perfectly applicable: deceptive behaviour increases as stakes of a game increase and when risk of getting punished are low. This is in line with everything else known of operant conditioning, human learning and anti-social behaviour.

If you give someone a no-fault no-questions asked way to stop a game, the risk of getting punished is zero. If you then give a game mechanical benefit for doing so, the likelihood of someone stopping the game just to get that benefit increases with the benefit given. Again, none of this is hypothetical. Game designers exploit the same basic psychology when making actual game mechanics. An X-card that gives you game benefits is just a fancy version of Uno Reverse card.

The kind of game where stakes are so low as to have no deceptive behaviour, are also prime candidates for game that need no safety tools to begin with.
I think sports and TTRPGs are pretty different. The stakes are how much fun me and my friends are having. In contrast, in sports the stakes are the points: whether their team will win or lose. I'm guessing people don't tend to pretend to be hurt in casual football matches between friends.

Again: maybe you're right. Maybe adding mechanical benefits to safety tools will just make things worse. But it's not clear that this is something we can just figure out by arguing about it or using sports analogies. I think we need more data.


Basically, I don't see value in "incentivizing" safety tool use because I see that incentive as a violation of the broader DMing maxim "don't try to fix out-of-character problems with in-character solutions."
I think that's probably a good argument against adding mechanical benefits for safety tool use.

On the other hand, if there's empirical evidence that shows that incentivizing safety tool use improves games and makes everyone happier or whatever, I'd be willing to abandon the maxim. For things like safety, I'm inclined to put results first.

[Ionathus]

So my experience is that if a table has these rules, there are one or more players at that table who are most likely abusing their triggers/phobias for some advantage in the game. Even if it's just "get the sympathy of the GM on my side" or something.

To clarify: you're saying that you've seen tables that use these tools, and they are usually (or even always) abused when available?


I'm sure some may disagree here, but to me, part of the whole point of playing a social game (like RPGS) is to learn how to socialize with other people. Part of that is learning how to manage topics that you personally may be uncomfortable with. These sorts of games help prepare people for the "real world", where you will absolutely find yourself in a group at some point where a topic turns to something you don't like, or disagree with, or have a phobia about.

As a GM I'd much rather approach these things as a way to help people learn to overcome their triggers/phobias than provide them as "safe space" where they can be assured they will never encounter them, and continue to avoid ever dealing with this (and thus have the same problem for the rest of their lives). That doesn't mean I'm playing psychiatrist or something here. I'm not going to intentionally turn my game into some kind of immersion therapy session either. But if something in the game happens to have elements that happen to make someone uncomfortable, I'd rather play that out in some way, rather than just stop the entire thing and avoid it entirely.

This does not at all preclude players coming up to me with issues of this kind. But if a player can't even verbalize what issues/triggers/whatever they have? A much as this may seem a bit hash, but maybe playing a game like this isn't for them. And no, that's not about any specific content. It's about a person being able to communicate their own likes and dislikes.
<snip>
I just find that people's fear of their fears is often more powerful than the fear itself. If that makes any sense. Hiding them in the dark often only makes things worse. Acknowledging them, even in small ways, taking baby steps, is often the best thing to do in these situations, and leads people to being able to manage them better over time. Giving them tools to avoid that? Really bad idea in the long run IMO.

(emphasis mine)

You say you don't intend to play psychiatrist, but your language here strongly implies you see D&D as a time to "work on yourself," and you consider yourself qualified to facilitate that.

If my players need therapy or counseling, I 100% support them seeking it out. Our TTRPG table is not that place. I am not a licensed therapist, I'm not getting paid, we're all here to have fun. If we hit a nerve with somebody, I'm going to follow their lead on where to go and whether to back off or keep going. But I'm not going to encourage them to play through the discomfort, in an attempt to get them to "toughen up."

Speaking more broadly, I take issue with your characterization of "safe spaces." We all get plenty of real world experience already by virtue of, y'know, living in the real world. And a lot of that experience sucks. I play TTRPGs (and hang out with my friends in general) to unwind, to have fun, and to create a story that means something to us all. We decide what goes in that story. And the first and most important rule for that decision is that everyone has a good time.

My friends are not in charge of my mental health. I lean on their support in hard times, I appreciate them calling me out when I cross a line, I take their advice and use it to better myself, and I try my best to do the same for them. And if somebody in the group is having a bad time, I do my best to get us to a better spot even if it means pausing the party for a few minutes. I might encourage them to seek help further, at most. That is the extent of what we owe to each other (and what we can reasonably and healthily offer) as friends. Anything beyond that and they should be talking to someone with qualifications.


Everyone else playing 20 questions to figure things out just isn't fair.

Would love to see where you're getting this idea from. Almost everyone in this thread who's spoken in favor of "Pause Button" mechanics has stated multiple times that these tools are to be used alongside communication, and there should be consequences for their abuse. You will never get to "20 questions" unless, as I said upthread, the table is already dysfunctional in multiple other ways.


Again. Let me repeat that I have literally never run into a situation like this (where a player was so phobic that they just couldn't continue the game session).

I've never used a fire extinguisher – I think most people haven't. Even if I never touch it for 10 years, I still don't mind having it easily visible and accessible. EDIT: I just realized the metaphor is even more applicable actually, because fire extinguishers aren't useful in every situation and can even cause problems if you use the wrong type or use it at the wrong time. Having access to multiple tools for a variety of situations is helpful.

Edited to add: I want to state for the record that I appreciate your sentiment - wanting to help people be their best selves is a noble goal. I just don't see that as the role of friends...especially when it comes to trauma, mental or emotional hangups, or sensitive topics. None of us have the chops to actually talk our friends through their childhood trauma, their experience with sexual assault, or their grief over a friend's suicide, especially at a social gathering (and if you do have the training for that, I still don't think it should be done within the context of a friendship).

Support, understanding, and acceptance? Definitely. But trying to use TTRPGs to nudge friends into working on significant mental or emotional issues feels misguided or even dangerous. I've seen those situations before, where a friend tried to turn a social relationship into a source of actual therapy. The target of that relationship was neither prepared nor qualified, and it did not end well.


Ideally, you also wouldn't be playing with people who think that their fun is more important than your discomfort.

Here's my "in one sentence" summary of this thread. Very well said.


I think that's probably a good argument against adding mechanical benefits for safety tool use.

On the other hand, if there's empirical evidence that shows that incentivizing safety tool use improves games and makes everyone happier or whatever, I'd be willing to abandon the maxim. For things like safety, I'm inclined to put results first.

My gut tells me that conceptually linking the tool to the game, even with a positive association, would cause complications. Not least of which is the exact dynamic that's being debated here: if there's a mechanical benefit to pressing Pause, will I feel guilty or judged for doing so? Will the other players think I'm abusing it? If it makes a player second-guess themselves, I think that hurts player safety and comfort more than it would ever help.

I would also be interested in any data around this. Not sure how that could be collected.

[Segev]

I think the point is not so much that "the game is a place to work on yourself" as "anything you do is a chance to work on yourself." And, in gbaji's case, it seems to me that he isn't enforcing "working on yourself" so much as setting a minimum bar to play at his table: you must be willing to communicate at least enough to explain what is bothering you and work out with the DM how to handle it in the game, or his game isn't for you.

His game is neither therapy nor a "safe space." It does sound like, however, it is a game run by people who at least want to get along as friendly acquaintances, if not as friends, so real concerns and issues should be discussed and actual trauma should be avoided. However, "actual trauma" to the extent of not even being able to articulate what it is, no questions allowed, everyone has to just guess? Yeah.



Frankly, I've seen people say, "Well, if the safety tools are invoked, you just stop the problem thing and keep going with the game as if nothing happened." I have zero idea how this impossible combination of things is to happen. Let's say the trauma is provoked by pudding. Any pudding, any sort. The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the "no questions asked" safety tool. What, exactly, stops, and what continues on as if nothing happened, when nobody but the player who invoked the tool knows that it's the black pudding that's the problem? How do you "keep going as if nothing happened" when the dungeon is a sewer full of puddings and slimes? Especially if the dungeon was meant to take all session.

This is a situation that requires communication. If the pudding phobia is really that dramatic, it may well require that they stop for fifteen minutes and discuss what is a problem and how to handle it. Lay back on descriptions? The player sits out this session? The session is cancelled and the dungeon rewritten to have rats and --oh, another player is phobic of rodents? Hrm..... alligators and evil fiend-worshipping lizardfolk?

But it will take discussion to figure out how to proceed. Or if to proceed.

"No questions asked" just doesn't work.

[OldTrees1]

Frankly, I've seen people say, "Well, if the safety tools are invoked, you just stop the problem thing and keep going with the game as if nothing happened." I have zero idea how this impossible combination of things is to happen. Let's say the trauma is provoked by pudding. Any pudding, any sort. The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the "no questions asked" safety tool. What, exactly, stops, and what continues on as if nothing happened, when nobody but the player who invoked the tool knows that it's the black pudding that's the problem? How do you "keep going as if nothing happened" when the dungeon is a sewer full of puddings and slimes? Especially if the dungeon was meant to take all session.

This is a situation that requires communication. If the pudding phobia is really that dramatic, it may well require that they stop for fifteen minutes and discuss what is a problem and how to handle it. Lay back on descriptions? The player sits out this session? The session is cancelled and the dungeon rewritten to have rats and --oh, another player is phobic of rodents? Hrm..... alligators and evil fiend-worshipping lizardfolk?

But it will take discussion to figure out how to proceed. Or if to proceed.

"No questions asked" just doesn't work.

Okay, thank you for expressing you have "zero idea" and wish to understand it further. I can help with that. Also thank you for starting with an example I can use as a foundation.

1) The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the "no questions asked" safety tool.
2) The game is immediately paused. The conversation leaves the triggering situation. Once everyone is safe, then proceed to #3.
Notice this step happens without needing any questions. The priority is getting everyone to safety, not with interrogating someone while they are in a dangerous situation.
3) Now everyone is safe. The goal shifts from "get everyone to safety" to "avoid repeating the situation". This has 2 subgoals: find out how to avoid the situation, without repeating the situation.
Good example: The player mentions they have a problem with pudding and asks if the group can please avoid it. The group asks if that would be sufficient to cover it or if there is anything else to cover as well. The player says no, that should be sufficient to catch the issue in future. To be explicit this is good since the group communicates sufficient information with minimal repetition of the situation.
Bad example: Another player demands in depth information about the player's past trauma before entertaining the possibility of avoiding using pudding in the future. To be explicit this is bad because repeating the situation unnecessarily and repeatedly is not a good way to go about avoiding repeating the situation.
4) Danger was encountered, everyone got to safety, and you communicated enough to avoid the danger in the future. Okay back to the fun game!

The No Questions safety tool is like other safety tools, it is just to lower the barrier to press the pause button and get to safety. The alternative is:
1) The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the safety tool.
2) Someone might ask "Why?" or require the player justify themselves as a precondition to leaving the dangerous situation.

I would argue this is not an ideal to have the communication step while the player is still in the dangerous situation. However, depending on the risk involved, it might be a tolerable mistake. That is why "No Questions" is an optional, albeit recommended, feature of a safety tool. Communication will still happen, but it will not blockade the safety exit.

[gbaji]

To clarify: you're saying that you've seen tables that use these tools, and they are usually (or even always) abused when available?

These exact tools? No. Less powerful ones? Yes. I've seen many occasions where players will attempt to use metagame or out of game things to gain an advantage in game. I've seen players use whatever things are going on in their RL, to influence said GM in some way in game. And I've seen players use lists of "things I don't like" to steer social play in directions they prefer, sometimes in ways where it's quite apparent that this is less about them avoiding trauma as some need for some measure of control of the table. I once watched a player get into an argument about a party decision in a game, then turn to the GM and proclaim that he had a bad experience as a child with something that was loosly tied with the proposed plan he didn't like. Then insisted that the table must do what he wanted because of this. And it was abundantly obvious that this was not really about said previous bad experience, but that he really just wanted the table to do what he wanted and not what one of the other players was proposing. So yeah. I've seen a lot of players really abuse the concept of "I'm a victim, so do what I say". Which, unfortunately, is often how these sorts of things work out.

I can only imagine how much worse those things could be if you give those players a tool that makes it even easier to do so.

Again. I have no issue with someone coming to the GM ahead of time and outlying things they have issues with that may cause them problems. Done ahead of time, the GM can adjust the scenario, and even lean things in specific directions. Which can still be abused, but the player doesn't know the specifics of the scenario ahead of time, so has much less ability to take advantage. Allowing this to be done, on the fly, at the table? It will be abused.




You say you don't intend to play psychiatrist, but your language here strongly implies you see D&D as a time to "work on yourself," and you consider yourself qualified to facilitate that.

Quite the opposite. Having firm and fair rules for managing this ahead of time, vastly reduces the amount of time I have to spend as "table psychiatrist". I know this may seem counter intuitive, but it is true. Allowing players to drop a card or raise a hand to stop play whenever they feel like it means one of two things:

1. I'm playing at a table where no one's really going to bother with it and/or they raise these things ahead of time, so it's not needed in the first place.
2. I'm playing at a table where people will use the tool. And now I'm playing psychiatrist at the table. Or having to tap dance around issues that might create this.

The very existence of the tool increases the likelihood that it will be used. At my game tables, where I make it very clear that players can come and talk to me off table about anything they are unhappy about (which can be a lot of different things), I have literally never had a problem occur that required stopping the game to have a conversation about someone's triggers/phobias. Never. At tables where this sort of rule was not in place, or where the GM allowed players to interupt the game with personal issues? Didn't happen often, but often enough that I noticed it.


If my players need therapy or counseling, I 100% support them seeking it out. Our TTRPG table is not that place.

Exactly. What do you think is happening if you provide a rule for game stoppage during the session for such things? Either you are stopping and having a group conversation about playerX's issue with whatever was just happening (which becomes a group therapy session) *or* you allow it to go unquestioned and unmentioned. In which case, two things happen:

1. The other players (and often the GM) don't actually know what caused the stoppage, so can't avoid it in the future.
2. Players will use it to stop things that they don't like for game play reasons, precisely because it's a "no questions asked".


Again. If this is followed up with a conversation with the GM, that's a bit different. I'd still prefer that conversation happen ahead of time though. But here's the thing. I have on rare occasions had players come to me and say after a session that something that happend bothered them (again, like once or twice in like 40 years of GMing). Never has said player stated that the thing was so bad that they couldn't continue playing the session, however.

My concern is that by providing the tools, I'm creating the problem. It's not about me wanting to solve their problems, but not make them worse.


Speaking more broadly, I take issue with your characterization of "safe spaces." We all get plenty of real world experience already by virtue of, y'know, living in the real world. And a lot of that experience sucks. I play TTRPGs (and hang out with my friends in general) to unwind, to have fun, and to create a story that means something to us all. We decide what goes in that story. And the first and most important rule for that decision is that everyone has a good time.

Yes. Everybody. That's exactly my point. If a tool like this is ever used often enough to matter, then to the degree it's used, it's damaging the enjoyment of a number of players, while perhaps only adding to the enjoyment of one.

And yes, on a broader scale, I think that "safe spaces" do more harm over time than good. They can't possibly be "safe" for everyone, because not everyone has identical issues that they like/dislike. What one person may need to feel safe may be the exact thing that makes someone else feel unsafe. It's an absurd concept. They are less about keeping people safe as they are keeping people isolated.

And again. It's not my job (nor profession) to treat other people's issues. But I'm also not going to do something that (IMO at least) will only make those issue worse and more pronounced over time. My exerience is that people who seek out safe spaces, become more withdrawn over time, and less able to handle "normal" social encounters. They are literally learning to use their own (often quite minor) social issues as a shield to avoid a great amount of social interaction, which makes them less comfortable in social situations, and becomes a negative feedback loop. It's not good treatment. It's the opposite of good treatment. Again. I'm not trying to treat anyone here. Just trying to not do additional harm.

So no. I will never declare my tables a "safe space". I will also never push something on players that they don't like though. It's quite possible to do the latter without doing the former. I just find that formal rules and declarations are quite often counter productive.


Would love to see where you're getting this idea from. Almost everyone in this thread who's spoken in favor of "Pause Button" mechanics has stated multiple times that these tools are to be used alongside communication, and there should be consequences for their abuse. You will never get to "20 questions" unless, as I said upthread, the table is already dysfunctional in multiple other ways.

Except for serveral statement of said tools being "no questions asked". There was an entire conversation about the importance of not requiring people to explain why they were using the tool, so as to protect them from having to talk about their trigger/phobia. That was the part I was objecting to. If you have something so strong that you would need to use such a tool during play, you should know to come forward with this ahead of time. I don't need details, but a very basic "I have a phobia/trigger about <whatever>" is more than sufficient. And avoids the entire issue entirely.

The "20 questions" is that if I don't know ahead of time what may trigger someone, I'm playing that game every time I run a scenario. And only learning if I failed by someone throwing a card down and stopping play. But if we also have a "no questions asked at the table" rule, I can't actually know for sure what triggered this. So I have to either just stop the entire session and find out after the fact *or* just drop the entire encounter/scene (cause I still don't know what the card was for), and try to move on with the scenario and hope I don't run into the same issue again later in the same game session.

it just seems like a silly methodology to me. Something that can be completely avoided with even a modicrum of communication.


I've never used a fire extinguisher – I think most people haven't. Even if I never touch it for 10 years, I still don't mind having it easily visible and accessible. EDIT: I just realized the metaphor is even more applicable actually, because fire extinguishers aren't useful in every situation and can even cause problems if you use the wrong type or use it at the wrong time. Having access to multiple tools for a variety of situations is helpful.

Except that this isn't a fire extinguisher. It's an alarm that everyone must respond to and stop what they are doing. But you don't know if it's a fire alarm, or a ring camera alert, or a burgular alarm, or your car alarm, or the timer for the pizza. That's the problem. You don't know at the moment (by design of the tool) what exactly the alarm is warning you about, except that "something" that just happened set it off.


I want to state for the record that I appreciate your sentiment - wanting to help people be their best selves is a noble goal. I just don't see that as the role of friends...especially when it comes to trauma, mental or emotional hangups, or sensitive topics. None of us have the chops to actually talk our friends through their childhood trauma, their experience with sexual assault, or their grief over a friend's suicide, especially at a social gathering (and if you do have the training for that, I still don't think it should be done within the context of a friendship).

I do appreciate that you understand where I'm trying to come from here. And yeah, we may disagree on methodology, but that's ok.

I do also believe strongly that "talking things out" with friends/family is often the best form of therapy. Not something I want to do at table, but as an aside. Professional help is important for a lot of things. Usually sorting out how your own behaviors are affected by various things in your past. But actually talking about those things is often incredibly important too. Keeping them bottled up, even if you are also talking to a therapist, is not healthy. I have gone through some pretty serious trauma in my life, and I'm sure I drove my friends absolutely nuts, leaning on them. Going over and over with what happened. Crying on their shoulders, etc. It's not about those people having the professional skills to "treat" you. It's about getting it out. They don't have to do anything more than just listen.

Everyone is different, of course, but for me personally? I found that was the number one most important thing for my recovery. Again. It didn't matter what any of those people said in response. It was about allowing yourself to feel your feelings, and go through the process of grief and pain. And yeah, I'm self aware enough to understand that this is almost certainly why I view "safe spaces" as a questionable approach (certainly when the approach is just "tell people you don't like something, without explaining why, and they must stop"). It's the opposite. It's about feeling that you don't have to communicate these things to anyone, but they can feel sorry for you anyway. And that might feel good for a short while, but it will never help you heal. And it runs the extreme danger that your trauma becomes a shield to avoid any future contact ("I am a rock", right?).

Which leads to inwardness, which leads to depression, which leads to "bad things". All while feeling empowered to continue doing so to "feel safe". Nope. You have to let this stuff out, or it will poison you. Again. My opinion and experience. YMMV.

And again. Not something I'm doing at my table. But if we're broadly speaking about what does and doesn't work over time to help people deal with their social problems? Yeah. Talking works. Developing avoidance tools (which are what safe spaces and 'stop' cards are) is going in the opposite direction.



Support, understanding, and acceptance? Definitely. But trying to use TTRPGs to nudge friends into working on significant mental or emotional issues feels misguided or even dangerous. I've seen those situations before, where a friend tried to turn a social relationship into a source of actual therapy. The target of that relationship was neither prepared nor qualified, and it did not end well.

Again though, I'm not trying to turn this into a therapy session. I'm trying to do the opposite by preventing such uncomfotable events from occuring at the table in the first place. Again. I've never used these precise types of tools, but my expecation is that people will tend to use them in preference to coming to me ahead of time. Because that's literally why the tool exists. You honestly don't think that someone who has a phobia or trigger might not be tempted to just stay quiet about them, in the hopes that they never come up, and then flag something when it does? If that flag exists, they will do that. If it doesn't, they will come forward ahead of time. Because I've provided them with the best way to avoid the trigger/phobia. If I provide the flag for them to use, they'll use that instead.

And again, I'm trying to avoid that happening at my tables, not increase the likelihood of it happening.

[Ionathus]

I think the point is not so much that "the game is a place to work on yourself" as "anything you do is a chance to work on yourself." And, in gbaji's case, it seems to me that he isn't enforcing "working on yourself" so much as setting a minimum bar to play at his table: you must be willing to communicate at least enough to explain what is bothering you and work out with the DM how to handle it in the game, or his game isn't for you.

His game is neither therapy nor a "safe space." It does sound like, however, it is a game run by people who at least want to get along as friendly acquaintances, if not as friends, so real concerns and issues should be discussed and actual trauma should be avoided. However, "actual trauma" to the extent of not even being able to articulate what it is, no questions allowed, everyone has to just guess? Yeah.

Okay, I get what you mean now. For the most part I agree with this stance.


Frankly, I've seen people say, "Well, if the safety tools are invoked, you just stop the problem thing and keep going with the game as if nothing happened." I have zero idea how this impossible combination of things is to happen. Let's say the trauma is provoked by pudding. Any pudding, any sort. The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the "no questions asked" safety tool. What, exactly, stops, and what continues on as if nothing happened, when nobody but the player who invoked the tool knows that it's the black pudding that's the problem? How do you "keep going as if nothing happened" when the dungeon is a sewer full of puddings and slimes? Especially if the dungeon was meant to take all session.

This is a situation that requires communication. If the pudding phobia is really that dramatic, it may well require that they stop for fifteen minutes and discuss what is a problem and how to handle it. Lay back on descriptions? The player sits out this session? The session is cancelled and the dungeon rewritten to have rats and --oh, another player is phobic of rodents? Hrm..... alligators and evil fiend-worshipping lizardfolk?

But it will take discussion to figure out how to proceed. Or if to proceed.

"No questions asked" just doesn't work.

I still feel like the "guessing game" potential is overblown here. Maybe you've seen it in practice, but I can't really envision a scenario where there truly are literally "no questions asked." Do they mean that literally, or are they moreso saying "no probing questions asked"? Because if somebody's having a bad time, I certainly wouldn't want to "litigate" their trauma, so to speak. They're the authority on what's upsetting them. But you would definitely want them to establish some boundaries around that issue before you start playing again so you don't strike that nerve twice.

Just mocking up a conversation, something like this:
Player: "I know it's weird but I can't handle any oozes or slimes since I almost drowned in a pool of JELL-O in a high-school prank."
DM: "Okay, what can we do to make you feel comfortable here? Should I replace the enemies?"
Player: "No, I think we can still fight them. Just please don't describe anyone getting completely absorbed, or describe any suffocation sensations."
DM: "Alright, I'll tone down the descriptions for this fight. Give me a sign if any of it gets too much again."

I can't imagine a scenario where some version of that conversation doesn't happen before play starts up again. Maybe if a player was really surprised by something, and they're freaking out or even having a full-bore panic attack? Even then, my approach would be to call for a snack break so they can get calmed down, and if they can't calm down enough to discuss it, we either call it a night or they opt to sit out, no judgments.

A clear "pause button" can be helpful as an emergency, last-resort measure for sudden surprises, but if it's being used repeatedly then it's time to re-evaluate your session 0 responses, the group dynamic, and whether or not everyone is in the right headspace for the game.

To bring back my earlier metaphor: if I have to use the fire extinguisher every time I turn on my oven, it's a problem with the oven, not the fire extinguisher.

[Segev]

Okay, thank you for expressing you have "zero idea" and wish to understand it further. I can help with that. Also thank you for starting with an example I can use as a foundation.

1) The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the "no questions asked" safety tool.
2) The game is immediately paused. The conversation leaves the triggering situation. Once everyone is safe, then proceed to #3.
Notice this step happens without needing any questions. The priority is getting everyone to safety, not with interrogating someone while they are in a dangerous situation.
3) Now everyone is safe. The goal shifts from "get everyone to safety" to "avoid repeating the situation". This has 2 subgoals: find out how to avoid the situation, without repeating the situation.
Good example: The player mentions they have a problem with pudding and asks if the group can please avoid it.
Bad example: Another player demands in depth information about the player's past trauma before entertaining the possibility of avoiding using pudding in the future.
4) Danger was encountered, everyone got to safety, and you communicated enough to avoid the danger in the future. Okay back to the fun game!

The No Questions safety tool is like other safety tools, it is just to lower the barrier to press the pause button and get to safety. The alternative is:
1) The party is fighting a black pudding, and the moment the player in question realizes what it is, he invokes the safety tool.
2) Someone might ask "Why?" or require the player justify themselves as a precondition to leaving the dangerous situation.

I would argue this is not an ideal to have the communication step while the player is still in the dangerous situation. However, depending on the risk involved, it might be a tolerable mistake. That is why "No Questions" is an optional, albeit recommended, feature of a safety tool. Communication will still happen, but it will not blockade the safety exit.

Could you please define "get everyone to safety" and "everyone is safe?" This isn't meant as any sort of rhetorical question; I'm just not putting my guesses as to what it means so I don't bias your answer. Who is "Everyone?" What does "Safety" look like? (I will elaborate on the source of my confusion in light of your answer, if you like.)

[OldTrees1]

Could you please define "get everyone to safety" and "everyone is safe?" This isn't meant as any sort of rhetorical question; I'm just not putting my guesses as to what it means so I don't bias your answer. Who is "Everyone?" What does "Safety" look like? (I will elaborate on the source of my confusion in light of your answer, if you like.)

Lunch break is ending so I have to be brief:

Everyone is all the players (including GM)

Get to safety means stop being in a situation that is triggering those triggers. Moving to an OOC discussion is a good default (if there are visuals, it is probably wise to close those too). Depending on the reaction (really severe reactions) the player might need a bit to calm down before talking it out.

[gbaji]

I think the point is not so much that "the game is a place to work on yourself" as "anything you do is a chance to work on yourself." And, in gbaji's case, it seems to me that he isn't enforcing "working on yourself" so much as setting a minimum bar to play at his table: you must be willing to communicate at least enough to explain what is bothering you and work out with the DM how to handle it in the game, or his game isn't for you.

Yes. Exactly this (better than I said it even). I don't want to turn my table into therapy. If you have so many triggers/phobias, and are unwilling to communicate them to me ahead of time, it will turn "game time" into "therapy time" (or, I suppose, "trigger bumpercars"), because I can't possibly know what things to avoid if you don't tell me. I don't want that. The rest of the players don't want that. So yeah, that's my minimum bar.

This isn't just for the benefit of the other players either. It's also about avoiding uncomfortable situations for the one player themselves. If they are so unable to tell one person (the GM0) about these things, they are probably going to be 10x more uncomfortable with bringing it up with the table. Talking these things out with close friends is one thing, and sometime tables are a group of close friends. But more often than not, they are just acquaintances, or even just "people who signed up for the game". These are not the people you probably want to discuss your various issues with.

So I'm providing a method to allow those players to play my game comfortably. But if they can't even meet me halfway, I'm just going to nip the problem in the bud right now, and avoid a lot of difficulty for everyone. I'm more than willing to work with players to make their game experience as fun as possible, but yeah, they've got to put in some effort themselves too, or it just wont work.

[Easy e]

Thanks for the example Old Trees. That was very clear and helped me envision these tools in use and how to potentially explain/write about them better myself.

Appreciate that.

[Segev]

Lunch break is ending so I have to be brief:

Everyone is all the players (including GM)

Get to safety means stop being in a situation that is triggering those triggers. Moving to an OOC discussion is a good default (if there are visuals, it is probably wise to close those too). Depending on the reaction (really severe reactions) the player might need a bit to calm down before talking it out.

Alright. I think calling that "safety" is a bit overblown, but I can see where you're coming from. It is better than what I feared, which was, "The game moves on to the point where the PCs have won all encounters necessary to have a safe place to long rest" or something along those lines.


So, all of this is at least a usable procedure. Not one I like, but usable. My remaining issue is that it flat-out contradicts the "and then the game continues as if nothing has happened," since it blatantly calls for the game to come to a record-scratch-sound-effect halt, and yes, actual discussion of what the problem is.

Thanks for explaining the procedure! I do appreciate clearly understanding what people are getting at.

[Ionathus]

These exact tools? No. Less powerful ones? Yes. I've seen many occasions where players will attempt to use metagame or out of game things to gain an advantage in game. I've seen players use whatever things are going on in their RL, to influence said GM in some way in game. And I've seen players use lists of "things I don't like" to steer social play in directions they prefer, sometimes in ways where it's quite apparent that this is less about them avoiding trauma as some need for some measure of control of the table. I once watched a player get into an argument about a party decision in a game, then turn to the GM and proclaim that he had a bad experience as a child with something that was loosly tied with the proposed plan he didn't like. Then insisted that the table must do what he wanted because of this. And it was abundantly obvious that this was not really about said previous bad experience, but that he really just wanted the table to do what he wanted and not what one of the other players was proposing. So yeah. I've seen a lot of players really abuse the concept of "I'm a victim, so do what I say". Which, unfortunately, is often how these sorts of things work out.

I can only imagine how much worse those things could be if you give those players a tool that makes it even easier to do so.

Again. I have no issue with someone coming to the GM ahead of time and outlying things they have issues with that may cause them problems. Done ahead of time, the GM can adjust the scenario, and even lean things in specific directions. Which can still be abused, but the player doesn't know the specifics of the scenario ahead of time, so has much less ability to take advantage. Allowing this to be done, on the fly, at the table? It will be abused.

Thanks for this insight -- I've never had this experience so it's good to see more fully what you mean. That sounds frustrating and manipulative.


If a tool like this is ever used often enough to matter, then to the degree it's used, it's damaging the enjoyment of a number of players, while perhaps only adding to the enjoyment of one.

I don't think tools like this need to be used often to matter. Using them once, or even not using them at all, can still have the desired effect, because just knowing they're there can help you feel confident enough to engage in something that makes you uneasy. Like having a bucket of water next to your campfire, or having an ejector seat in your fighter jet.

I agree that if they're being used with any significant frequency, they're going to start to exacerbate problems. But I think those problems are already there (i.e. it's not the fire extinguisher, it's the oven)


And yes, on a broader scale, I think that "safe spaces" do more harm over time than good. They can't possibly be "safe" for everyone, because not everyone has identical issues that they like/dislike. What one person may need to feel safe may be the exact thing that makes someone else feel unsafe. It's an absurd concept. They are less about keeping people safe as they are keeping people isolated.

And again. It's not my job (nor profession) to treat other people's issues. But I'm also not going to do something that (IMO at least) will only make those issue worse and more pronounced over time. My exerience is that people who seek out safe spaces, become more withdrawn over time, and less able to handle "normal" social encounters. They are literally learning to use their own (often quite minor) social issues as a shield to avoid a great amount of social interaction, which makes them less comfortable in social situations, and becomes a negative feedback loop. It's not good treatment. It's the opposite of good treatment. Again. I'm not trying to treat anyone here. Just trying to not do additional harm.

I see your point but I'm not sure I agree. Maybe our definitions of "safe space" differ, and maybe mine is inaccurate. I see them as places to recharge and "be yourself" with close, trusted friends who (either implicitly or explicitly) have agreed not to bring up hard conversations or upsetting topics. Not to get too heavy, but as one example, my trans friends have a lot of upsetting news to deal with these days, and I have no objections to them asking we leave all that at the door on game night. Some groups will see more value in this than others, because some groups have a very different "real life" experience than others, and thus the difference between a space where their existence is constantly judged, mocked, or painfully analyzed and one where they are allowed to just "be themselves" is going to be a lot more obvious. If my issues are, as you put it, "often quite minor," then there's often less of that recharge needed.

The way I've always understood the concept, there is no expectation that this is where you spend all or even most of your time. The real world will always be challenging, and full of conflicting and sometimes hateful opinions directed at you, and learning how to operate in that space is essential. But time on your own or with close friends is necessary for mental and emotional wellbeing as well, so you're not constantly thinking about all the problems of the world.

Like I said, maybe I'm using the term wrong though.


I do appreciate that you understand where I'm trying to come from here. And yeah, we may disagree on methodology, but that's ok.

I do also believe strongly that "talking things out" with friends/family is often the best form of therapy. Not something I want to do at table, but as an aside. Professional help is important for a lot of things. Usually sorting out how your own behaviors are affected by various things in your past. But actually talking about those things is often incredibly important too. Keeping them bottled up, even if you are also talking to a therapist, is not healthy. I have gone through some pretty serious trauma in my life, and I'm sure I drove my friends absolutely nuts, leaning on them. Going over and over with what happened. Crying on their shoulders, etc. It's not about those people having the professional skills to "treat" you. It's about getting it out. They don't have to do anything more than just listen.

Everyone is different, of course, but for me personally? I found that was the number one most important thing for my recovery. Again. It didn't matter what any of those people said in response. It was about allowing yourself to feel your feelings, and go through the process of grief and pain. And yeah, I'm self aware enough to understand that this is almost certainly why I view "safe spaces" as a questionable approach (certainly when the approach is just "tell people you don't like something, without explaining why, and they must stop"). It's the opposite. It's about feeling that you don't have to communicate these things to anyone, but they can feel sorry for you anyway. And that might feel good for a short while, but it will never help you heal. And it runs the extreme danger that your trauma becomes a shield to avoid any future contact ("I am a rock", right?).

Which leads to inwardness, which leads to depression, which leads to "bad things". All while feeling empowered to continue doing so to "feel safe". Nope. You have to let this stuff out, or it will poison you. Again. My opinion and experience. YMMV.

And again. Not something I'm doing at my table. But if we're broadly speaking about what does and doesn't work over time to help people deal with their social problems? Yeah. Talking works. Developing avoidance tools (which are what safe spaces and 'stop' cards are) is going in the opposite direction.

Yeah, I think we mostly agree and are talking around each other. I agree with you about getting support and talking/venting about your troubles with loved ones!


Again though, I'm not trying to turn this into a therapy session. I'm trying to do the opposite by preventing such uncomfotable events from occuring at the table in the first place. Again. I've never used these precise types of tools, but my expecation is that people will tend to use them in preference to coming to me ahead of time. Because that's literally why the tool exists. You honestly don't think that someone who has a phobia or trigger might not be tempted to just stay quiet about them, in the hopes that they never come up, and then flag something when it does? If that flag exists, they will do that. If it doesn't, they will come forward ahead of time. Because I've provided them with the best way to avoid the trigger/phobia. If I provide the flag for them to use, they'll use that instead.

And again, I'm trying to avoid that happening at my tables, not increase the likelihood of it happening.

Correct, I don't think the people at my table would leave a phobia/trigger unstated in Session 0 because "oh, I'll just X-card it if it comes up". Stating it outright at the start is simpler and less disruptive than having to be potentially surprised by it and then interrupt the session. But then, my players are pretty open to discussing these things and are probably not the type that would even need an X-card as a result.

[kyoryu]

Yes. Exactly this (better than I said it even). I don't want to turn my table into therapy. If you have so many triggers/phobias, and are unwilling to communicate them to me ahead of time, it will turn "game time" into "therapy time" (or, I suppose, "trigger bumpercars"), because I can't possibly know what things to avoid if you don't tell me. I don't want that. The rest of the players don't want that. So yeah, that's my minimum bar.

For sure. No tool like this should actually give you a blank check to control the game. If that's happening, a further discussion is warranted about how to proceed - if there are topics that can be avoided, or if you're a good fit.

Not all gamers are suited for all games/tables, and that's okay.


This isn't just for the benefit of the other players either. It's also about avoiding uncomfortable situations for the one player themselves. If they are so unable to tell one person (the GM0) about these things, they are probably going to be 10x more uncomfortable with bringing it up with the table. Talking these things out with close friends is one thing, and sometime tables are a group of close friends. But more often than not, they are just acquaintances, or even just "people who signed up for the game". These are not the people you probably want to discuss your various issues with.

Sure. Get past the uncomfortable situation, and then have the other discussion later when everyone is more settled.



So, all of this is at least a usable procedure. Not one I like, but usable. My remaining issue is that it flat-out contradicts the "and then the game continues as if nothing has happened," since it blatantly calls for the game to come to a record-scratch-sound-effect halt, and yes, actual discussion of what the problem is.

It really doesn't. The discussion doesn't need to happen in the moment.

1. Do a skip now.
2. Have a convo later.

So if you have a fight with blobs and spiders, and someone drops the card, you skip the fight. You don't need to talk about it (the person might not be in a good space right then).

But since you don't know what triggered it, at some point you need to circle around and at least know what it was. Sometimes it might not be something that they can put a finger on. It might be a combination, etc. But if it keeps happening, and they can't identify the issue, then the "hey, this might not be the game for you" convo happens.



I don't think tools like this need to be used often to matter. Using them once, or even not using them at all, can still have the desired effect, because just knowing they're there can help you feel confident enough to engage in something that makes you uneasy. Like having a bucket of water next to your campfire, or having an ejector seat in your fighter jet.

I agree that if they're being used with any significant frequency, they're going to start to exacerbate problems. But I think those problems are already there (i.e. it's not the fire extinguisher, it's the oven)

100%. They're a lot more useful if you're dealing with people you don't know, or are deliberate engaging subjects that tend to be pushing the edge of what people are comfortable with.

I'll light a bigger bonfire if I have a way of putting it out if it gets out of control, basically.


Correct, I don't think the people at my table would leave a phobia/trigger unstated in Session 0 because "oh, I'll just X-card it if it comes up". Stating it outright at the start is simpler and less disruptive than having to be potentially surprised by it and then interrupt the session. But then, my players are pretty open to discussing these things and are probably not the type that would even need an X-card as a result.

Yeah, I can't imagine it either. It seems weird to think somebody would deliberately leave something hanging out there to trigger them.

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for explaining the procedure! I do appreciate clearly understanding what people are getting at.
:smallsmile:


Alright. I think calling that "safety" is a bit overblown, but I can see where you're coming from.
Yes. Most of my familiarity with and education about safety tools is from cases where calling it "safety" is warranted. In contrast, that vocabulary is usually overblown when talking about RPGs.


So, all of this is at least a usable procedure. Not one I like, but usable. My remaining issue is that it flat-out contradicts the "and then the game continues as if nothing has happened," since it blatantly calls for the game to come to a record-scratch-sound-effect halt, and yes, actual discussion of what the problem is.

Thanks for explaining the procedure! I do appreciate clearly understanding what people are getting at.

I think the 3 steps (invocation, "record-scratch-sound-effect halt", and actual discussion of the problem) was summarized in your post as "you just stop the problem thing". The game "continuing afterwards as if nothing has happened" is after the process that deals with the problem.

Yeah, it is a usable procedure. For many campaigns, majority of mine included, I don't think safety tools are needed. If you are doing something particularly risky, then using safety tools might be valuable even if disliked. (I wear a bike helmet when biking but not when walking despite disliking the helmet in both cases)




It really doesn't. The discussion doesn't need to happen in the moment.

1. Do a skip now.
2. Have a convo later.

So if you have a fight with blobs and spiders, and someone drops the card, you skip the fight. You don't need to talk about it (the person might not be in a good space right then).

But since you don't know what triggered it, at some point you need to circle around and at least know what it was. Sometimes it might not be something that they can put a finger on. It might be a combination, etc. But if it keeps happening, and they can't identify the issue, then the "hey, this might not be the game for you" convo happens.


Doing a skip (with a later conversation) instead of a pause (with a break and a conversation) can cause issues if you don't know what the trigger is. You could go from trigger to trigger to trigger rather than give the person time to get into a good space and help identify the trigger.

However you are right that sometimes it might not be something they can put a finger on.

[kyoryu]

Doing a skip (with a later conversation) instead of a pause (with a break and a conversation) can cause issues if you don't know what the trigger is. You could go from trigger to trigger to trigger rather than give the person time to get into a good space and help identify the trigger.

However you are right that sometimes it might not be something they can put a finger on.

I think the key here is you can say what triggered you, but you don't have to. You don't want to pin somebody already in a bad space against a wall and force them to deal with things they aren't ready to talk about.

[OldTrees1]

I think the key here is you can say what triggered you, but you don't have to. You don't want to pin somebody already in a bad space against a wall and force them to deal with things they aren't ready to talk about.

I agree. However, skipping has risks and pausing has risks. We prioritize getting the out of the bad space. I defer to the "stop & get out of the bad space" model but both have pros and cons.

[Talakeal]

I feel like safety tools that enable and encourage communication are good, and those that shut down communication are bad.

Monte Cook's book on the subject, for example, is absolutely terrible and unplayable, as it says to default to assuming everything is a no, doesn't allow for a middle ground, and says that players should never be asked about the what's or the why's of shutting a scene down, which means that it is sure to come up again repeatedly while everyone else plays a guessing game.

[kyoryu]

Yeah, I dunno.

I think for stuff like this you can either design them around people that will abuse them, or around people that don't. I personally prefer to design around people that don't abuse things, and then handle abuse as a separate conversation.

So, if someone encounters something that triggers them, and can't talk about it, I'm 100% behind just moving on. The idea that it will come up again is based on the idea that there are specific, concrete triggers that the person is aware of (like spiders). And for that, it makes sense. But I suspect a lot of this is around more nebulous things, or combinations, that are far less likely to come up again. And I suspect those are the ones that people are unable or unwilling to articulate. I mean, I'm horribly afraid of wasps, have just about had a panic attack from watching a video on wasps, and run in fear and let my 110 lb wife handle wasps if they get in the house - and yet I can say "yeah, no, wasps bad", and frankly am probably okay with them being in a game I play. So I doubt the "can't tell you" situations are really around obvious things like that.

And if it does keep coming up, then playing "dodge the content" doesn't make sense, and you just have the conversation of "hey, this game doesn't seem to work for you, as it keeps triggering you. Maybe you should do something else".

And if someone is abusing this? Talk to them about that, and deal with it as such.

Again, the X-Card and similar tools don't say you can't talk about it. It says you can't interrogate the person who played it. A person, acting in good faith, would likely communicate the trigger if they could just so that it could be avoided in the future. That just makes sense. So forcing the issue doesn't seem particularly helpful.

[kyoryu]

I guess what I'm saying is this: If you have a person that is triggered, acting in good faith:

1. They don't want to be triggered. Their goal is to avoid that state because it's awful.
2. If they know likely triggers, they'd likely tell you ahead of time, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered.
3. If they get triggered by something, and can tell you what it was, they'd tell you, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered again.
4. If they can't tell you because they're just too frotzed out to do so in the moment, they'd tell you afterwards. Again, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered.
5. They might be more comfortable doing that in private, too.
6. If they can't verbalize it, or even identify the trigger, they probably won't - but interrogating them, especially in front of the play group, probably won't have any real benefit. Again, if they're acting in good faith, they Don't Want To Be Triggered and would logically give you as much info as they can.

The "serial triggering and won't tell you" scenario just doesn't make sense to me. If the triggered person is acting in good faith, then they'll want to avoid getting triggered, and won't deliberately withhold information.

The only way it makes sense is:

1. The person can't identify the trigger, it's not a specific thing, but keeps coming up. That person probably shouldn't play your game.
2. The person is acting in bad faith. Deal with that as you would any bad faith situation.

[KaussH]

I guess what I'm saying is this: If you have a person that is triggered, acting in good faith:

1. They don't want to be triggered. Their goal is to avoid that state because it's awful.
2. If they know likely triggers, they'd likely tell you ahead of time, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered.
3. If they get triggered by something, and can tell you what it was, they'd tell you, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered again.
4. If they can't tell you because they're just too frotzed out to do so in the moment, they'd tell you afterwards. Again, because They Don't Want To Be Triggered.
5. They might be more comfortable doing that in private, too.
6. If they can't verbalize it, or even identify the trigger, they probably won't - but interrogating them, especially in front of the play group, probably won't have any real benefit. Again, if they're acting in good faith, they Don't Want To Be Triggered and would logically give you as much info as they can.

The "serial triggering and won't tell you" scenario just doesn't make sense to me. If the triggered person is acting in good faith, then they'll want to avoid getting triggered, and won't deliberately withhold information.

The only way it makes sense is:

1. The person can't identify the trigger, it's not a specific thing, but keeps coming up. That person probably shouldn't play your game.
2. The person is acting in bad faith. Deal with that as you would any bad faith situation.

So, not wanting to talk about, expand on, or explain a known trigger is not bad faith. Game groups run the gambit of closeness and what you might tell a close friend, you might not tell your game group. Also true triggers can be a bit slippery. Knowing you dont like bugs, pretty easy. Realizing that for some reason that sound the GM makes when they do the demons attack, makes you think about insects in the back of your head and you suddenly are having a rush of blood and fast beating heart and so play the x card is.. less easy.

Triggers of themselves do not play in good faith with the people whom have them, and some people dont like to admit they have them at all as well. Its a bit of a social dance to use the tools well and softly. My 2 cents.

[Easy e]

....or the player really does not want everyone in the world to know their triggers because they are personal, embarrassing, a source of shame/fear, or other bad emotion anyway. They may not want to air their dirty laundry out in public. Therefore, the stop and move on approach is best for such traumas.

I mean, if it is a trauma that will effect a game of make-believe it probably is worth avoiding.


For example, I was a baker and Marble Cake really set me off*. However, when I encountered it in the game world, it was about to set me off again. However, rambling and ranting about it in public could have hurt my business or reputation as a baker. Therefore, I didn't want to experience it in the game world, but also did not want to make it a big deal so everyone in the real world knew my embarrassing trigger because it could have an impact outside of the game world. No one would want to come buy Marble cakes from me.

Just some random thoughts on why the "Stop and Move On" approach would make a lot of sense.




*= Now insert something much more severe or personal like abuse, addictions, crimes, etc.

[gbaji]

Thanks for this insight -- I've never had this experience so it's good to see more fully what you mean. That sounds frustrating and manipulative.

Yeah. It's rare, but I have run into some players who do play every game like it's a "I must win against everyone" competition (yeah, even in what should be cooperative RPGs). And to be perfectly honest, those are usually pretty terrible players you want to drum out of your group pretty quickly anyway. So maybe not really as much of a sticking point here (or at least not just in this case).



I see your point but I'm not sure I agree. Maybe our definitions of "safe space" differ, and maybe mine is inaccurate. I see them as places to recharge and "be yourself" with close, trusted friends who (either implicitly or explicitly) have agreed not to bring up hard conversations or upsetting topics.

Ah. Ok. That's probably where we're talking past each other a bit. To me, a space with just close trusted friends is always "safe". These are the people who know you best, know what you like/dislike, what will upset you, your life experiences and history, etc. I don't really consider that to be what is usually referred to as a "safe space". That's just "normal" when you are around friends. Or at least, it should be (or maybe you need to get new friends).

To me, when someone calls something a safe space, I'm assuming they're talking about official "safe spaces", which are generally where people who are strangers or maybe just acquaintances may share the space. You see this term used with regards to common areas in dorms, or cafeterias, or meeting halls. Not just "hanging out with your close friends" situations. My experience with the term is exlusively about social situations with strangers, and a desire to make those interactions "safe". And that's usually accomplished by more or less banning any conversation or topics that might possibly trigger anyone who might walk through the door (and having rules for reporting such things).

And yeah, I have a somewhat dim view of them. I mean, I get it. Best of intentions and all. I've just seen what happens to people who grow to only feel comfortable socializing in such safe spaces. They become more withdrawn over time. What seems like a great idea on paper and actually may work well in the short term, does great harm to those who most "need" these protections, over the long term. So yeah, without going any further on that topic, I have made the decision to not implement similar methods at my gaming tables. I don't want to cause harm to people.



The way I've always understood the concept, there is no expectation that this is where you spend all or even most of your time. The real world will always be challenging, and full of conflicting and sometimes hateful opinions directed at you, and learning how to operate in that space is essential. But time on your own or with close friends is necessary for mental and emotional wellbeing as well, so you're not constantly thinking about all the problems of the world.

Yup. That's the "on paper" concept. It's a tricky balance though. And again, I'm not a psychiatrist, so take this as just a layman's observation. But I've personally seen people (and a close family member) do exactly that which you are saying should not happen. For some people, safe spaces will be used as a crutch/shield aginst *all* social interaction over time. It's kinda like how something that is ok for most people is absolutely devastating for an addict or alchohlic. They become dependent on safe spaces, and will lose any ability to operate on even a basic level anywhere else. It becomes an escape, but ironically that escape become a prison. And yes, IME those who feel they most need safe spaces are going to be those most likely to be harmed by them (very much like an addict actually).

If someone is on that edge, and maybe playing my game will give them enough confidence in "normal" social situations to avoid that slide? I'll certainly do everything I can to make that social experience fun and exciting for them. But in the same way I would expect anyone to find enjoyment in it. For those people, I supose I am just normalizing "nomal" for them. But I don't have to do anything other than just "act normal" to do this. Again, I'm not playing table thereapist here, but if that experience at my table gives someone like that the confidence to branch out into more challenging social situations over time? Then that's great for them. I'm not going to hinder that process.

Obviously, I'm still going to avoid things any player has requested me to avoid. But honestly, that's pretty few and far between. I run a pretty G-PG rated set of games, focused on adventure, fun, and whatnot.

And yeah. I get the whole "better to have something even if it's not used" concept. But think of this in terms of an alchoholic at your table. Is it better to have that open bottle of whiskey at the table, even if no one drinks whiskey, you know, just in case someone has a sudden desire for a shot? The people who don't strongly need it one way or the other, don't care about it and aren't affected if it's not there. Those who do and/or will insist it be there? Probably exactly the folks you don't want to be providing the whiskey to.

I take a "do no harm" approach to this. I just find that anything that is a really serious trigger condition, most people will/should tell me about them ahead of time. And for more minor stuff? I've yet to run into someone who just absolutely couldn't handle just playing through, and then coming to me afterwards to let me know they were a little bothered by <whatever happened>, and I can make adjustments in the future. I'm not going to provide tools that most of the time will simply turn molehiles into mountains.

Again though, I play a pretty "tame" game. But if I were to run a more graphic scenario with explicit and potentially shocking stuff in it, I would have that conversation as a sesson 0 thing anyway. I guess a lot of this just comes down to setting expecations and following through with them. And yeah, communication with your players. And frankly, if during my session 0 conversation some (or even just one) of my players is expressing that there may be content they will feel uncomfortable with, rather than coming up with some kind of "throw a card if something bothers you" rules, I'll lean towards just not doing that thing in the first place. Dunno. That's just me. I'm not a huge fan of "on the edge" kind of stuff anyway.



So, if someone encounters something that triggers them, and can't talk about it, I'm 100% behind just moving on. The idea that it will come up again is based on the idea that there are specific, concrete triggers that the person is aware of (like spiders). And for that, it makes sense. But I suspect a lot of this is around more nebulous things, or combinations, that are far less likely to come up again. And I suspect those are the ones that people are unable or unwilling to articulate. I mean, I'm horribly afraid of wasps, have just about had a panic attack from watching a video on wasps, and run in fear and let my 110 lb wife handle wasps if they get in the house - and yet I can say "yeah, no, wasps bad", and frankly am probably okay with them being in a game I play. So I doubt the "can't tell you" situations are really around obvious things like that.

Yup. We had a player who had a thing about spiders. Similar deal. She wasn't bothered by the mere playing out of a fight with spiders, but if we pulled out a bunch of spider miniatures (2ish inches across, with long legs, and well painted), well... she'd start leaning waaaaaay back in her chair to get away from them. It was the direct visual that got her. So yeah, we just didn't use spider minis. She also had no problems articulating this issue.

And frankly, that's usually the kinds of things I've dealt with. Occasionally, some more social situation things. But rare in either case.


Again, the X-Card and similar tools don't say you can't talk about it. It says you can't interrogate the person who played it. A person, acting in good faith, would likely communicate the trigger if they could just so that it could be avoided in the future. That just makes sense. So forcing the issue doesn't seem particularly helpful.

Yeah. Having read more posts on the subject, I can see that there could be some value to that method, as long as it's accompanied by communication. But if someone is constantly throwing a card, and stopping the game, there's a point where I'm going to be "Um... Maybe this kind of thing just isn't for you". If the last 5 times I had to stop the game for an unknown trigger didn't result in you giving me some better hints as to what to avoid in the future as well, then this isn't really working.

So yeah, I suppose there could be a range in there where this could work? Maybe? Dunno. I'm still leaning in the "I'm having a hard time seeing that range", but I'm willing to acknowledge that for some groups it may exist and the tools might work. I'm just concerned that the mere existence of such things as an official game play tool, may cause them to replace actual direct communication. And that would have a negative effect IMO. So yeah. Call me "extremely hesitant" maybe?

[Slipjig]

While I think that the idea that D&D inflicts "trauma" can be a bit hyperbolic, if we remember that the point of the game is for everybody to have fun, it's often a good idea to have a discussion about lines and veils during Session Zero, especially if it's your first time playing as a group. While some tables may be perfectly fine with graphic descriptions of sexual content, torture, genocide, SAW-level violence, or children and dogs dying "on-screen", that's just not fun for a significant slice of the population. If that population includes several of your players, it's good for the DM to know that BEFORE he writes a campaign where all if that is going on. He might still decide to run that campaign, but he might tone it down or do it with different players.

A lot of the people who pooh-pooh safety tools say something along the lines of, "I've been playing with the same people for 15 years, and..." Okay, sure, you already KNOW what your group is into, so you probably don't need them. But even for them, if your table mostly does Indiana Jones-style PG-13 stories, you might want to have a chat before running your adventure "SAW meets Eyes Wide Shut".

[Ionathus]

Again, the X-Card and similar tools don't say you can't talk about it. It says you can't interrogate the person who played it.

I like this way of phrasing it. It feels like the situation to be avoided is Player 1 saying "hey can we pause/skip over this? I really don't like X and I'm having a bad time right now" and Player 2 (either maliciously or well-intentioned) takes that as a prompt to have a discussion or even a debate about X as a concept, or ask Player 1 to explain their feelings in more depth (which can feel very gross indeed, since now you feel like you're in the spotlight and having to justify yourself, etc).

The goal is to have a conversation about X only in relation to keeping everyone comfortable and keeping the game moving, whether that be minimal like "just don't mention XY or XZ" or a bigger ask like "can we skip this encounter/can I take a break while you do this fight". I think these tools would draw that line much more clearly, and send the message "this isn't up for debate, please focus on what the player needs and the logistics of how we're going to make them feel comfortable."

As a much more extreme example: if someone is having a panic attack, asking them "how can we help/ what do you need" will be more helpful than trying to debate the impact, the treatment, or even the validity of panic attacks. I'm not saying that anyone here would do anything like that - but in my experience TTRPG players like to talk, and sometimes the line can blur between "character" and "player" and things can get weird in ways you don't expect. Having a way to clearly demarcate "I am not longer having a good time, please do not challenge me on this" can be valuable.


<snip>

Thanks for your responses! Yeah, I think we were mostly talking past each other. I've never seen "safe spaces" turn toxic for anyone like you have (I mean, aside from the nebulous society-level impact of how modern social media is basically designed to close you off from opposing viewpoints whether you want to be or not) but that sounds really hard to go through.

My first experience with Safe Spaces was at college, seeing small stickers on professors' doors with the pride flag and the words "safe space" indicating that they were someone who could be trusted if you were LGBTQ+ and seeking advice or support. Because at that time, you sometimes couldn't know whether or not the professor would be cool about it or get weird/nasty. It was recent enough that this wasn't controversial, but long ago enough that it was noteworthy. I guess that's how I've always seen "safe spaces": one person or a small group of people who will listen and offer help as requested, without challenging or interrogating the person's experience.

The idea of making "safe spaces" be department- or especially campus-wide doesn't compute for me, since that group size is just too big and you'd never be able to ensure compliance from everybody in the way you'd need it. A much more high-stakes version of how lots of people think a subreddit's quality is inversely proportional to its follower count :smallbiggrin:

[kyoryu]

While I think that the idea that D&D inflicts "trauma" can be a bit hyperbolic,

I'm sure D&D has inflicted trauma, but that's really if you've got a serious jerk at the table doing abusive stuff. In which case it's not the game, it's the jerk.

The bigger issue is that people have trauma, and D&D can bring up triggers for that trauma. And, really, D&D is less likely to than a lot of horror/etc. type games.


it's often a good idea to have a discussion about lines and veils during Session Zero, especially if it's your first time playing as a group.

100%. But sometimes it's a combination of things or something you can't predict that will trigger you.


A lot of the people who pooh-pooh safety tools say something along the lines of, "I've been playing with the same people for 15 years, and..." Okay, sure, you already KNOW what your group is into, so you probably don't need them. But even for them, if your table mostly does Indiana Jones-style PG-13 stories, you might want to have a chat before running your adventure "SAW meets Eyes Wide Shut".

Right. The more you know your group, and the more PG your content, the less useful safety tools are. But if you're playing a horror scenario at a con, it's a bit different.


So, not wanting to talk about, expand on, or explain a known trigger is not bad faith. Game groups run the gambit of closeness and what you might tell a close friend, you might not tell your game group. Also true triggers can be a bit slippery. Knowing you dont like bugs, pretty easy. Realizing that for some reason that sound the GM makes when they do the demons attack, makes you think about insects in the back of your head and you suddenly are having a rush of blood and fast beating heart and so play the x card is.. less easy.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. My point is that people acting in good faith are very very unlikely to run into the breakdown situation people seem very concerned about - somebody having lots of triggers, constantly playing the X-Card, and never expounding on that, so that the whole game becomes "what's going to be triggered? I have no idea!"

If you assume someone is acting in good faith, there's almost no way for that to occur. Because people acting in good faith don't want to be triggered, so they're pretty likely to say "hey this doesn't work for me" at some point so that, you know, they stop getting triggered. Like, they have as much or more vested interest in avoiding that breakdown scenario as everyone else at the table does. If someone is in good faith, they don't want to be triggered every session either.


Triggers of themselves do not play in good faith with the people whom have them, and some people dont like to admit they have them at all as well. Its a bit of a social dance to use the tools well and softly. My 2 cents.

Yeah, for sure. That's why I've been an avid proponent of the "skip now and don't force a discussion" method. If the person wants to say the trigger, they can. If they want to later, they can. If they want to do it privately with the GM (or someone else) they can.


....or the player really does not want everyone in the world to know their triggers because they are personal, embarrassing, a source of shame/fear, or other bad emotion anyway. They may not want to air their dirty laundry out in public. Therefore, the stop and move on approach is best for such traumas.

Again, why I'm a proponent of "skip for now, and don't force a discussion". But I think someone with a trauma that is continually triggered would eventually find it easier to say privately "hey, I'd prefer we skip XYZ" than let it continually be brought up.


I mean, if it is a trauma that will effect a game of make-believe it probably is worth avoiding.

This seems so obvious as to really not be arguable.


For example, I was a baker and Marble Cake really set me off*. However, when I encountered it in the game world, it was about to set me off again. However, rambling and ranting about it in public could have hurt my business or reputation as a baker. Therefore, I didn't want to experience it in the game world, but also did not want to make it a big deal so everyone in the real world knew my embarrassing trigger because it could have an impact outside of the game world. No one would want to come buy Marble cakes from me.

Sure, and if marble cakes aren't really a common occurrence in the game world, then just "stop and move on" makes sense. If marble cakes keep coming up, that's where it makes sense to privately tell the GM "hey, I'd really like to not deal with marble cakes", rather than have them come up every session.


Just some random thoughts on why the "Stop and Move On" approach would make a lot of sense.

100%. I'm 100% in favor of not forcing an interrogation of triggers.


I like this way of phrasing it. It feels like the situation to be avoided is Player 1 saying "hey can we pause/skip over this? I really don't like X and I'm having a bad time right now" and Player 2 (either maliciously or well-intentioned) takes that as a prompt to have a discussion or even a debate about X as a concept, or ask Player 1 to explain their feelings in more depth (which can feel very gross indeed, since now you feel like you're in the spotlight and having to justify yourself, etc).

I don't even think Player 1 should have to say "I don't like X". Just get past the issue and keep going.

But, yeah.


The goal is to have a conversation about X only in relation to keeping everyone comfortable and keeping the game moving, whether that be minimal like "just don't mention XY or XZ" or a bigger ask like "can we skip this encounter/can I take a break while you do this fight". I think these tools would draw that line much more clearly, and send the message "this isn't up for debate, please focus on what the player needs and the logistics of how we're going to make them feel comfortable."

As a much more extreme example: if someone is having a panic attack, asking them "how can we help/ what do you need" will be more helpful than trying to debate the impact, the treatment, or even the validity of panic attacks. I'm not saying that anyone here would do anything like that - but in my experience TTRPG players like to talk, and sometimes the line can blur between "character" and "player" and things can get weird in ways you don't expect. Having a way to clearly demarcate "I am not longer having a good time, please do not challenge me on this" can be valuable.

Exactly. And if it's a one and done situation, then no need to go further. If the player can tell you what it was, then awesome. If they do so privately, awesome. If it keeps coming up, they'll be as invested as you in figuring out how to avoid it going forward.

[kyoryu]

Here's a general flow of how I expect things to work, roughly, presuming X-Card but also 'normal' processes. I'm going to, at each point, point out how the issues can be resolved in such a way that prevents the next step. The final state is the one people seem to be concerned about - people consistently using the X-Card, not saying why, and having it be a continual disruption.

1. Player has a known trigger.
- Player tells the GM what the trigger is. The GM doesn't include that content, or asks the player to not join the game. STOP.
2. A trigger, known or unknown, comes up during the game.
- The player tells the GM that the content is upsetting them. The game is altered, or the player sits the encounter out. STOP.
3. The player plays the X-Card, and the game continues.
- The player tells the GM after the fact what the trigger was, and the GM does not include that content in the future. STOP.
- The player does not tell the GM, but teh trigger is uncommon enough it never comes up again. STOP
4. The trigger comes up again, and the player X-Cards.
- The player realizes that this is a theme of the game, and asks the GM to not include it in the future. STOP
5. This happens repeatedly, to the point that it is impacting the game as a whole.
- The GM finally has a talk to the player about what the trigger is, and the player lets them know. The GM doesn't include this content, or there's a discussion and they agree that the player isn't a good fit due to the inherent themes of the game. STOP.
- The GM has a talk with the player, and the player doesn't say what the issue is. The GM informs the player that though the player is welcome, they seem to have issues with fundamental themes of the game, and they'd be happy to play with them at another time in another game. STOP.
6. The game continues, with the player X-Carding on a regular basis, and nobody knows why.

So, the "breakdown" case is step 6, and there's a ton of different things that can happen before then that prevent it. Given that people generally don't like getting triggered, I think a very, very small number of cases would ever get there, presuming people are working in good faith. And there's a ton of things you have to go through before you get there.

[OldTrees1]

Here's a general flow of how I expect things to work, roughly, presuming X-Card but also 'normal' processes. I'm going to, at each point, point out how the issues can be resolved in such a way that prevents the next step. The final state is the one people seem to be concerned about - people consistently using the X-Card, not saying why, and having it be a continual disruption.

1. Player has a known trigger.
- Player tells the GM what the trigger is. The GM doesn't include that content, or asks the player to not join the game. STOP.
2. A trigger, known or unknown, comes up during the game.
- The player tells the GM that the content is upsetting them. The game is altered, or the player sits the encounter out. STOP.
3. The player plays the X-Card, and the game continues.
- The player tells the GM after the fact what the trigger was, and the GM does not include that content in the future. STOP.
- The player does not tell the GM, but the trigger is uncommon enough it never comes up again. STOP
4. The trigger comes up again, and the player X-Cards.
- The player realizes that this is a theme of the game, and asks the GM to not include it in the future. STOP
5. This happens repeatedly, to the point that it is impacting the game as a whole.
- The GM finally has a talk to the player about what the trigger is, and the player lets them know. The GM doesn't include this content, or there's a discussion and they agree that the player isn't a good fit due to the inherent themes of the game. STOP.
- The GM has a talk with the player, and the player doesn't say what the issue is. The GM informs the player that though the player is welcome, they seem to have issues with fundamental themes of the game, and they'd be happy to play with them at another time in another game. STOP.
6. The game continues, with the player X-Carding on a regular basis, and nobody knows why.

So, the "breakdown" case is step 6, and there's a ton of different things that can happen before then that prevent it. Given that people generally don't like getting triggered, I think a very, very small number of cases would ever get there, presuming people are working in good faith. And there's a ton of things you have to go through before you get there.

Good general flow. There are so many listed, and unlisted stopping points.

Like you, I do not see #6 as a common issue.

Initially when reading the post I thought about elaborating on #3 (the important moment), but I don't think it was needed.

[gbaji]

While I think that the idea that D&D inflicts "trauma" can be a bit hyperbolic, if we remember that the point of the game is for everybody to have fun, it's often a good idea to have a discussion about lines and veils during Session Zero, especially if it's your first time playing as a group. While some tables may be perfectly fine with graphic descriptions of sexual content, torture, genocide, SAW-level violence, or children and dogs dying "on-screen", that's just not fun for a significant slice of the population. If that population includes several of your players, it's good for the DM to know that BEFORE he writes a campaign where all if that is going on. He might still decide to run that campaign, but he might tone it down or do it with different players.

Yeah. I think this is one of many factors the GM should consider when planning any adventure or scenario. And the same appies to anything about said game while running which players should feel free to talk about.

And honestly, especially in less well known groups, I've found that lack of enjoyment and/or outright dislike rarely generates from the GM to one or more players, but is more often a disruptive/offensive player (though there are some pretty horrible GMs out there too). But that's totally the GMs job to police. I tend to clamp down really really hard on players who make offensive comments during play. But I don't think of this in terms of making my table "safe" (at least not in the more common modern terminology). Sure, that's the result, but it's an older concept we used to just call "civility". We're playing a game. It's supposed to be fun. Keep your snide comments, or offensive opinions, ideas, and statements to your self.


The idea of making "safe spaces" be department- or especially campus-wide doesn't compute for me, since that group size is just too big and you'd never be able to ensure compliance from everybody in the way you'd need it. A much more high-stakes version of how lots of people think a subreddit's quality is inversely proportional to its follower count :smallbiggrin:

Doesn't compute for me either. But that has been a trend on college campuses for going on 8-10 years now, and also creeping into the workplace. With the exact questionable results you might expect. And I honestly don't blame the venues for doing this. They're just bowing to various pressures placed on them. I will point out, however, that this is a progression from what you mentioned. If an office, or small private space is labeled as "safe", then the implication is that all other locations are "unsafe". Which leads, quite naturally, to a movement to make those larger, more public spaces "safe" as well. Which leads us to the broader use case I spoke of, which "does not compute" at all.

I'd honestly hope that a professor, or advisor, or work manager should always listen to and respect anyone who walks in individually to talk to them, and that those locations should never be places where you have to worry about those people engaging in directly offensive or dismissive actions. To me that's "normal behavior" when interacting with anyone one-on one. I can disagree with someone's lifes choices, clothing choices, music choices, etc, but if that person comes to me for a one-on-one conversation I'm going to be polite and non-judgemental. Because I'm dealing with an actual person, who's right in front of me, right now. You treat that person as a person, not a collection of identity labels. Done. That falls back to what I labeled earlier as "civility".

I shouldn't need to put a special label on my door (or at my table) to tell people that I'm going to treat them as human beings. That should be the norm, not the exception. I will act to encourge civility for all the players at my table, not just ones with particular labels, or identities, or phobias/triggers. All players. I just think that sometimes, people get so caught up in the weeds of things like this, that they fail to just step back and look at the whole picture, and sometimes turn something that should be pretty simple by following some basic methods ("be excellent to each other"), into something very regimented and complex.



Here's a general flow of how I expect things to work, roughly, presuming X-Card but also 'normal' processes. I'm going to, at each point, point out how the issues can be resolved in such a way that prevents the next step. The final state is the one people seem to be concerned about - people consistently using the X-Card, not saying why, and having it be a continual disruption.

1. Player has a known trigger.
- Player tells the GM what the trigger is. The GM doesn't include that content, or asks the player to not join the game. STOP.
2. A trigger, known or unknown, comes up during the game.
- The player tells the GM that the content is upsetting them. The game is altered, or the player sits the encounter out. STOP.
3. The player plays the X-Card, and the game continues.
- The player tells the GM after the fact what the trigger was, and the GM does not include that content in the future. STOP.
- The player does not tell the GM, but teh trigger is uncommon enough it never comes up again. STOP
4. The trigger comes up again, and the player X-Cards.
- The player realizes that this is a theme of the game, and asks the GM to not include it in the future. STOP
5. This happens repeatedly, to the point that it is impacting the game as a whole.
- The GM finally has a talk to the player about what the trigger is, and the player lets them know. The GM doesn't include this content, or there's a discussion and they agree that the player isn't a good fit due to the inherent themes of the game. STOP.
- The GM has a talk with the player, and the player doesn't say what the issue is. The GM informs the player that though the player is welcome, they seem to have issues with fundamental themes of the game, and they'd be happy to play with them at another time in another game. STOP.
6. The game continues, with the player X-Carding on a regular basis, and nobody knows why.

So, the "breakdown" case is step 6, and there's a ton of different things that can happen before then that prevent it. Given that people generally don't like getting triggered, I think a very, very small number of cases would ever get there, presuming people are working in good faith. And there's a ton of things you have to go through before you get there.

Except it's not just the final step that causes disruption. Every single step except 1 does. Assuming that "plays an X-card" or "talks to the GM" happens during the game session, and the GM adjusts the game right then and there (or the player sits out the rest of the session). If your assumption is that someone plays the X-card, and the play just continues un-interrupted and unchanged to the end of the session, and only then does the GM and player talk about why the card was played, then yeah, that's lesss disruptive, but also not really at all what most posters were talking about with regard to the effect of playing an X-card.

Everyone has pretty clearly been stating that the moment a card is played, the play stops. The encounter is ended. And the GM moves on to the next thing, so as to just stop whatever is happening that the person playing the card finds offensive/triggering. At least that's the impression I got. So anytime a card is played, that is a massive disruption to the game. If the player is playing an X-card, but play continues, and the player only speaks to the GM after the game, then what's the point of the card? The player could have just talked to the GM after the session anyway without bothering with the dramatics of playing a card.

Anything played/said during the game session (which are the tools we are discussing here) can only be useful if they directly impact/stop the current thing happening right then. Otherwise, there's no point. In fact, I'd argue that's excactly the point of those tools. We can debate the benefit of this, or the utility of this, or the exact methodology for doing this, or whatever else, but it's pretty undebatable that the use of this kind of tool will always result in some disruption of the game. Again, the whole point is to disrupt the game session, because it's about stopping something that's happening, right now, in the game session, that is upsetting one of the players.


Uh... but aside from that, I pretty much agree with that as a progression. And I agree that the terminus point is pretty much a "worse case outcome" thing. But there's a lot of other disruptions along the way before you get to that end point IMO.

[Ionathus]

Everyone has pretty clearly been stating that the moment a card is played, the play stops. The encounter is ended. And the GM moves on to the next thing, so as to just stop whatever is happening that the person playing the card finds offensive/triggering. At least that's the impression I got. So anytime a card is played, that is a massive disruption to the game. If the player is playing an X-card, but play continues, and the player only speaks to the GM after the game, then what's the point of the card? The player could have just talked to the GM after the session anyway without bothering with the dramatics of playing a card.

Anything played/said during the game session (which are the tools we are discussing here) can only be useful if they directly impact/stop the current thing happening right then. Otherwise, there's no point. In fact, I'd argue that's excactly the point of those tools. We can debate the benefit of this, or the utility of this, or the exact methodology for doing this, or whatever else, but it's pretty undebatable that the use of this kind of tool will always result in some disruption of the game. Again, the whole point is to disrupt the game session, because it's about stopping something that's happening, right now, in the game session, that is upsetting one of the players.

Uh... but aside from that, I pretty much agree with that as a progression. And I agree that the terminus point is pretty much a "worse case outcome" thing. But there's a lot of other disruptions along the way before you get to that end point IMO.

Yeah, playing an X-card will definitely be disruptive (by necessity!). But that's what you want with any "emergency stop" kind of tool. They're only there for the edgiest of edge cases, the one-in-a-thousand perfect storms where a player has an issue that is both A) undiscussed/undiscovered and also B) so upsetting that they can't power through and just talk to you after the fact. That's a mighty rare case, IMO.

I apologize for continuing to bring it up, but the fire extinguisher analogy continues to be relevant here IMO. They leave a ton of mess and are highly disruptive, so you want to do everything in your power to have plenty of other safeguards and behaviors and mechanics in play to prevent your ever needing to use them. And you can easily go years without having to -- you may never use one. But if everything else fails, I'd rather have the mess and disruption than letting the fire get worse.

[kyoryu]

Except it's not just the final step that causes disruption. Every single step except 1 does.

Except I didn't say "disruptive". I said "breakdown", referring explicitly to the presumption that many people have that the X-Card will lead to players using it, not telling people why, and doing so on a regular basis.

Of course it's "disruptive", but so are lots of things. I'd argue that if you've gotten to the point where someone feels compelled to use an X-Card, something is probably getting disrupted anyway. Using a fire extinguisher is disruptive, too.

(If someone is using the X-Card trivially or to game things, deal with the same way that you'd deal with someone spraying a fire extinguisher over your game unnecessarily)

[Ionathus]

(If someone is using the X-Card trivially or to game things, deal with the same way that you'd deal with someone spraying a fire extinguisher over your game unnecessarily)

Depends on what kind of a DM you are and which class of fire extinguisher -- it'd be dangerous to use anything except a Class B on my games, since they can all charitably be described as grease fires.

[gbaji]

Except I didn't say "disruptive". I said "breakdown", referring explicitly to the presumption that many people have that the X-Card will lead to players using it, not telling people why, and doing so on a regular basis.

Sure. But "(total) breakdown" is not the only negative condition to be considered here. I get where you are coming from, and what you were responding to. But just because "player keeps playing X-card and no-one knows why" is the absolute worst case, this does not mean there are not other less bad, but still problematic, cases as well.


Of course it's "disruptive", but so are lots of things. I'd argue that if you've gotten to the point where someone feels compelled to use an X-Card, something is probably getting disrupted anyway. Using a fire extinguisher is disruptive, too.

Sure. Which is why "hand guests a fire extinguisher when entering your house" is a thing no one actually does. To kinda follow that analogy here, it's my responsiblity as the host/GM to "put out fires". I'm going to decide if the fire on the stove just needs a lid put on it to put it out, or I need to spray the area with an extinquisher. That responsibity is why I don't hand out extinquishers to guests. Same deal with the GM at the table. To me, it's the GM's job to manage the table environment and "put out fires" if they occur.

The moment you had out X-cards (or fire extinguishers) you vastly increase the odds they will be used in situations where they were likely not really needed in the first place. The same process you'd use in a fire in someone's home (tell them about it, then they make a decision, with "use a fire extinquisher" likely being the very very last thing they go to), works with social triggers/phobias. Tell the GM about it. Let the GM adjust the game. In the same way that very very rarely is a fire so dangerous that you need an extinguisher, very very rarely is a social issue so powerful/immediate that you'd need an X-card.

Now, to be fair, and where the analogy breaks down, is that there are certainly likely to be cases where the "fire" is subjective and the GM/host may not have the same view of its danger/importance. So yeah. I can get this process here. But IMO, there's already been a bit of a breakdown at that point anyway. Maybe this is just me, but I'd stick to only playing really edgy socially questionable scenarios with folks I play with regularly and know well. If I'm running a game with a group of strangers, I'm sticking with some very standard adventure troppy kind of things. They work. People enjoy them (they are tropes for a reason). And everyone tends to have a good time.

After I've played with a group of people for a while I might maybe think about something a little more out on the boundaries. But that's after a full discusssion with the group, tossing the idea at them, and seeing what they think. That's plenty of time for any players with strong objections/triggers to bring them up. So even if something comes up that none of us expected/anticipated, it's very unlikely to be such a powerful trigger that the player is just unable to continue the scene and would feel the need to use something like an X-card.

It's just that in my experience, the ratio of "legitimate cases where a player is strongly enough triggered to need this" to "cases where players will abuse something like this for an in-game advantage" is very skewed to the latter condition (and even more likely the less well I know the players, which is maybe a good reason to avoid this with folks you don't know well all together) . And yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing a lot of case range where you've clearly discussed the game and theme and whatnot enough with the players to have the idea/rule of X-card use come up in the first place, but then still progress to having such strong tirggers to actually need them. Again, if that is happening, then something else broke down horribly in your previous discussions (or players are actually abusing them). Maybe focus there?

I guess I can see a situation where the GM and players actually agree to play an "edgy game that will push all our boundaries" or something, and intentionally use this method as a "safe word" kind of thing, maybe? But yeah, that's a pretty special case situation IMO. You basically have to start with a session 0 of "I'm going to push really awful horrible themes at you and put your characters in terrible moral/ethical situations, and intentionally push social boundaries and buttons, but I"m handing out these cards if things just get too much for anyone". It's like handing out barf bags before serving a meal. I'm only going to do that if I also warn my guests that I'm serving goat testicle, monkey anus, and <insert other really intentionally gross things>", and my guests have agreed to go along for the crazy culinary experience or something.

Not at all what I'd consider for any normal game though.


(If someone is using the X-Card trivially or to game things, deal with the same way that you'd deal with someone spraying a fire extinguisher over your game unnecessarily)

My first step would be to not hand out fire extinguishers to my players.

[OldTrees1]

The moment you had out X-cards (or fire extinguishers) you vastly increase the odds they will be used in situations where they were likely not really needed in the first place. The same process you'd use in a fire in someone's home (tell them about it, then they make a decision, with "use a fire extinguisher" likely being the very very last thing they go to), works with social triggers/phobias.
The moment you hand out X-cards, or have a visible and accessible fire extinguisher, you vastly increase the odds they will be used in situations where they were likely needed in the first place. The same process you'd use in a fire in someone's home (assess the severity of the fire and grab the extinguisher if needed rather than let the house burn down), works with social triggers/phobias.

gbaji, you have a fire extinguisher because some reasonable potential fires are bad enough to warrant using it. For various reasons you would rather have a fire extinguisher be used when needed (with a risk of being used when not strictly needed) rather than risk being in a situation where you don't have it when you need it.

On the other hand Merfolk would be unlikely to have fire extinguishers because their risk of potential fires and the damage that would occur, is low enough to not worry about it.

In neither case is the case of "used when not needed" actually relevant. You have it to hedge against "need it but don't have it" or you don't have it because you don't anticipate needing to hedge against "need it but don't have it".

PS: Also if you have players that are so exploitative, then maybe your situation is abnormally unfortunate. I don't invite people over that will use my fire extinguisher to paint my sofa regardless of whether I have one or not. I suggest considering your experience with those players as having limited application when applied to others. (A YMMV kind of consideration)

[icefractal]

It's just that in my experience, the ratio of "legitimate cases where a player is strongly enough triggered to need this" to "cases where players will abuse something like this for an in-game advantage" is very skewed to the latter condition (and even more likely the less well I know the players, which is maybe a good reason to avoid this with folks you don't know well all together) .I guess this is a YMMV thing, because I've literally never seem anyone use a safety tool to get an in-game advantage. Has this actually happened in practice?

[OldTrees1]

I guess this is a YMMV thing, because I've literally never seem anyone use a safety tool to get an in-game advantage. Has this actually happened in practice?

Considering I don't think they have used x-cards (or similar), I suspect they making an educated guess about "what if" for their players.

In my experience, I have used them infrequently (use if needed). They were needed 1 time and were abused 0 times. It is a YMMV thing, but I am avoiding extrapolating from my 1:0 ratio.

[gbaji]

The moment you hand out X-cards, or have a visible and accessible fire extinguisher, you vastly increase the odds they will be used in situations where they were likely needed in the first place. The same process you'd use in a fire in someone's home (assess the severity of the fire and grab the extinguisher if needed rather than let the house burn down), works with social triggers/phobias.

gbaji, you have a fire extinguisher because some reasonable potential fires are bad enough to warrant using it. For various reasons you would rather have a fire extinguisher be used when needed (with a risk of being used when not strictly needed) rather than risk being in a situation where you don't have it when you need it.

And how many times have you ever handed a fire extinguisher to a guest in your home? Zero right? How many times have you ever taken the time to go through a safety speach and even informed guests where said fire extinguisher is ("Here's where the bathrooms are, and I expect each guest to make sure to re-position the seat when finished. And here is where the fire extinguisher is, just in case a fire breaks out. And now let's talk Heimlich maneuver...")? Someone who's staying in your home for an extended period of time? Maybe. Someone house/pet sitting? Absolutely. A group of people coming over for a dinner party or something? Not at all (ok. maybe the bathroom thing).

I apply the same rules in both cases. My expectation is that if a fire breaks out, one of my guests will inform me (rapidly, I would hope), and *I* will make the determination as to whether the fire extinguisher is needed, and use it if it is. Same deal with saftey tools. My expectation as a GM is that if a trigger issue breaks out, the person triggered will inform me, and I will make the determination as to what steps to use, and how severe those steps will be.

And just like with a risk of fire, I will also proactively make sure to make my home/table as "safe as possible", so that fires don't happen. I will not leave piles of flammable materials laying about. I will keep an eye on people in case they start playing with matches. I'll stop people if they decide to start chasing eachother around the house with a kitchen lighter and an aerosol can of something (for fun!). I will monitor any use of my stove if someone decides to cook something for some reason (or just do that myself). You know. Normal preventative measures you take before you let people into your home.

Same deal at my tables. The degree to which I'm going to trust people at my table is the same as I'd trust them to not light my house on fire (ie: how well do I know them?). And within that range, I'm also going to keep an eye out for "bad/dangerous behavior", and stop it before it ever reaches the point of "starting a fire" (so to speak).

The irony here, is that the last group of people I'd ever trust to hand fire extinguishers to if they were in my home, would be people I don't know very well (and some that I do!). They're the most likely to do random dumb things just because they think it's funny. There's a huge difference between "I have a fire extinguisher and will use it if needed" and "I will hand a fire extinguisher to everyone in the house (at the table)". The former? Great idea. The latter? Probably not so much.

Maybe I've just had more experiences with house parties that went horribly awry than most. Then again, most of my friends back then had mohawks (and those were the "normal" ones), carried dangerous weapons/tools on themselves at all times, and honestly really did need to be monitored (RIP bannister...). Trust me. You handed those people fire extinquishers? They would find a reason to use them. Heck. They would make a reason to need to use them. Guaranteed. So yeah. Maybe not the best analogy from my historical pov. :smalleek:



PS: Also if you have players that are so exploitative, then maybe your situation is abnormally unfortunate. I don't invite people over that will use my fire extinguisher to paint my sofa regardless of whether I have one or not. I suggest considering your experience with those players as having limited application when applied to others. (A YMMV kind of consideration)

And that's kinda the catch-22 here. The players you would most trust not to abuse having the fire extinguishers are the least likely to create a situation where it's needed in the first place. Folks I know well and play with all the time? I'd have no problem handing them the equivalent (an X-card). How many times would they ever be used? Zero.

Folks I don't know well are probably the most likely for me (or others at the table) to not know their triggers/phobias. But I also don't know them well enough or have enough play history with them to know that they wont just fire them off "for the heck of it".

And let me be clear. I'm not really poo-pooing the idea entirely. I do think there are some specific cirtumstances (really game theme specific) where this may be a great idea. I'm just a bit cautious about blanketly applying it to any and every game (and am tossing out some cautions). As with anything, each table can and should have their own rules, and those are the rules the GM and players all agree to when playing the game. Every table is going to be different. And absolutely, if I find myself running a table with a player who feels they need this, or asks for it, I would likely enact something like it. But yeah, I'd really rather communicate with the player who approached me and talk through their needs and then work to fulfill them ahead of time (like making my house "safe" for guests). I'd just rather go with a proactive approach here.

And just to be really clear here. This is not motivated out of some kind of cruel "you just deal with it" mind set, but as an honest attempt to reduce the stress/pain for the player. People who do have strong triggers/phobias (especially ones strong enough to warrant something like an X-card) are often also very uncomfortable even drawing attention to these things. It can be a bit traumatic even just having to play the card in the first place (draws attention to them, and yeah, some people have phobias about that all by itself). If I can avoid having those things occur in my game in the first place and/or steer the situation around/past said things if I see them coming (kinda like steering folks away from playing "twister, the drinking game version" near the china cabinet), I feel that far better serves the players needs than "here's a card. Play it if you feel uncomfortable". As I mentioned earlier, I'd have to already be running a very "on the social edge" kind of game to really consider this. Just like I'd have to basically be setting a bonfire in my back yard before I'd make sure to have a fire extinguisher readily at hand for any guest nearby to use "if something goes wrong". The closer to the danger zone the game is, the more relevant this kind of tool really is. But I would also simply not invite someone with a phobia of fire to such a party in the first place (or not do such a thing if I know someone has said phobia).


Considering I don't think they have used x-cards (or similar), I suspect they making an educated guess about "what if" for their players.

In my experience, I have used them infrequently (use if needed). They were needed 1 time and were abused 0 times. It is a YMMV thing, but I am avoiding extrapolating from my 1:0 ratio.

Correct. I've never used X-cards specifically. I have played at a couple tables where similar (but not so regimented) methods were in play. I think I described one such example earlier in this thread. I've seen and played with players (usually not that long though) who do approach these sorts of games as a competition where any method to "gain an advantage" is in play. Again, I think we're all talking about some pretty outlier cases in games anyway.

I also used to run game tourney tables way back in the day. So I've seen some pretty ridiculous behavior at gaming tables. Nothing overt, of course (cause overt stuff gets penalized pretty hard), but an absolute metric ton of more "passive agressive" kinds of behaviors. I've seen players directly take advantage of less experienced players (give them bad advice, or make "suggestions" that are intentionaly questionable/misleading). I've seen players more or less play mind games (roleplaying in a particularly over the top manner, thus requiring others to "go along with it", despite no one having agreed to this ahead of time). And yeah, I've seen players fake over-emotion during play to gain sympathy, or to influence other player's behavior as well (that one I've seen at regular tables as well, and it usually does not play out well in the long run). We had one player for a period of time who would regularly claim some kind of emotional trauma or dislike, so as to avoid his character doing certain things, or to make others take riskier actions on his behalf. It became obvious over time that this was just a tool he would use to "get ahead", since if things went poorly, someone else's character suffered, but if things went well, he got the same share of the loot/experience. To be fair, this one guy would sometimes roleplay his character as having some emotional issue (which I guess is somewhat better, maybe), but sometimes would also claim that he personally had an "issue with enclosed dark spaces" (or something similar, and always when it was a "someone has to take a risk here" situation). This despite also always seeming to try to play the "heroic paladin" type character.

Let's just say he was an odd duck and leave it at that. And absolutely, some of my opinions on this subject are certainly colored by those experiences. But yeah. I can't even begin to imagine what that player (or someone of similar mindset) would have done with an X-card at his disposal.

[JNAProductions]

If you were doing something involving fire, would you not remind your guests where to find the extinguisher?

[OldTrees1]

And let me be clear. I'm not really poo-pooing the idea entirely. I do think there are some specific cirtumstances (really game theme specific) where this may be a great idea. I'm just a bit cautious about blanketly applying it to any and every game (and am tossing out some cautions).
1) Good.
2) You already know it was never suggested to "blanketly apply it to any and every game". It was suggested as "use if needed". Please, for the sake of clarify, don't argue against things nobody said.
3) Your main concern (someone might try to abuse it) is unlikely and not a big deal. Even with years of strangers at an LGS (all ages) I never encountered someone I suspected would try to abuse an x-card, and even if they did it would not be a big deal. Your past experience with some "troublesome" people has made you more cautions than I feel the need to be myself.


I'd just rather go with a proactive approach here.
The word "rather" must be a typo. You do realize the safety tools work with the proactive approach. It is not about rather A (proactive approach) vs B (safety tools). It is about whether A or A+B is better for this campaign. (either answer is possible, it depends on factors)


And how many times have you ever handed a fire extinguisher to a guest in your home? Zero right?
-snip-
Maybe I've just had more experiences with house parties that went horribly awry than most. Then again, most of my friends back then had mohawks (and those were the "normal" ones), carried dangerous weapons/tools on themselves at all times, and honestly really did need to be monitored (RIP bannister...). Trust me. You handed those people fire extinquishers? They would find a reason to use them. Heck. They would make a reason to need to use them. Guaranteed. So yeah. Maybe not the best analogy from my historical pov. :smalleek:

Fire extinguishers are on the wall, highly visible and accessible. Guests have been over hundreds of times. If a fire that needed an extinguisher happened, the extinguisher was right there ready for them to use if needed. No, not zero, it was hundreds.

My extinguisher is there to put out fires if needed. I would rather trust my guest than require they delay the emergency response just to find me and ask me to come take a look.

Honestly your abnormal experience of horribly awry house parties might mirror your experience of troublesome players. So maybe the analogy is great but your history has given you more reason to be concerned than others have reason to heed your concern.


And that's kinda the catch-22 here. The players you would most trust not to abuse having the fire extinguishers are the least likely to create a situation where it's needed in the first place. Folks I know well and play with all the time? I'd have no problem handing them the equivalent (an X-card). How many times would they ever be used? Zero.

Folks I don't know well are probably the most likely for me (or others at the table) to not know their triggers/phobias. But I also don't know them well enough or have enough play history with them to know that they wont just fire them off "for the heck of it".
You are right that the ones you trust more will correlate with the ones that need the tool less.

However you are much more distrusting (due to your troublesome past experiences). I see plenty of possibility space where I trust them enough to use the tool and the tool has a use. I GM'd published modules for adventure's league for a couple years. Even the least mature player would not have abused an x-card. Although since it was published adventure's league modules, they were tame enough that my risk assessment was there did not need safety tools, so I did not use them.

[Vahnavoi]

.
If someone is using the X-Card trivially or to game things, deal with the same way that you'd deal with someone spraying a fire extinguisher over your game unnecessarily.

You really should not. Fire ALARM would make a better comparison point, but an extinquisher is not the same kind of tool.

Fire poses potentially lethal risks, and because of this, it is acceptable of a fire extinquisher to cause major disruption and some outright damage; not only will the exhausted device be expensive to replace, releasing it in a room will wreck most property in there. Doing so needlessly is an outright criminal offense, for these reasons.

Nothing in your typical tabletop game poses a lethal risk and correspondingly no stopping signal has the same capacity for damage as a fire extinquisher. Disingenously using a stop signal to gain attention or an unfair advantage in a game is an annoyance, but it is not a crime. The standard for sports and games is that the guilty party gets a warning, and if they repeat the offense, they get expelled from that game.

Again, the correct comparison point for misuse of safety tools in tabletop gaming, is diving in sports. To reiterate what I said earlier: the correct use case for a safety tool is when it stops harm to physical or mental health, and that's it. That's the reward. Incentive for misuse happens when there is some other reward and the risk of being caught is low. If you want to gauge the likelihood of misuse happening, you need to have an honest discussion on what exactly players are trying to do in a game, can a safety tool be used just to get ahead in it, and how likely will you notice and call them out if it happens.

Also, as reminder, the reason why I brought up diving was to explain why a game master or designer should not artificially add more rewards to use of a safety tool. That's what warps gameplay, that's how a tool meant for one thing gets used for another.

[kyoryu]

I guess what it boils down to is something very simple for me:

If I don't trust a player to not abuse an X-Card, they're exactly the kind of player I don't want at my table.

I don't deal with disruptive players. My life is too short, and they drive out the people I do want to play with.

Keep in mind, I don't think I've ever actually used an X-Card in a game. If I felt it was needed for a game (due to content and audience) I would, sure. But I haven't really hit that yet.

But I also don't tolerate disruptive players. They get the boot.

If you are willing to tolerate disruptive players, I can absolutely understand the desire to not give them additional tools to be disruptive. That's logical and consistent. I just find the "kick them out" answer to be a lot better in the long run.

[Satinavian]

For me the main reason to not use the X-card specifically is that it is yet another thing that needs to be placed on the table which tends to be already quite full with charatcer sheets, maps, handouts, nots, the occasional laptop, snacks, softdrinks, cups/glasses, minis, dice and pens. And it not only needs some place, it needs a place that can be reached from all seats.

Considering the benefit over just speaking up is imho pretty negligible and the use cases extremely rare anyway, it doesn't look like a good trade off.

[Vahnavoi]

If you are willing to tolerate disruptive players, I can absolutely understand the desire to not give them additional tools to be disruptive. That's logical and consistent. I just find the "kick them out" answer to be a lot better in the long run.

That's the thing. It's not about giving additional tools to people who are already disruptive, it's about giving additional incentive to be disruptive for completely normal people. There isn't a neat dichtomy between disruptive and non-disruptive people before they come into contact with a game's rules.

This applies to kicking people out just as well - what you will kick them out for, and how fast, will change how they act. A table where you get kicked out for first infraction will have people behave differently than one where you get three warnings first. Under the latter kind of rules, people will occasionally take the warning and do the disruptive act anyway. This is not hypothetical, this is exactly what you see in sports up to the highest level: occasionally s player will commit a foul and eat the penalty because the advantage gained is worth it.

---

@Satinavian: the X-card specifically is a bad example of a safety tool, because it has no obstacle it is uniquely suited to overcome; the same function can be carried out by tapping the table, or any other standard gesture for stopping an activity. So it isn't just you, that specific tool objectively has little use.

[Segev]

2) You already know it was never suggested to "blanketly apply it to any and every game". It was suggested as "use if needed". Please, for the sake of clarify, don't argue against things nobody said.

Generally speaking, I have found that those who talk about them want them in literally every game. If my experiences are unusual, then that's just me being an outlier, but if his are similar to mine, and given the topic here isn't spelling out that this particular game will be edging close to lines or anything, I do not think it disingenuous to assume this discussion is about blanket application, honestly. It was never said nor hinted it wasn't, to my recollection.

[kyoryu]

I have explicitly said, multiple times, that the usefulness of safety tools is variable dependent upon the group and subject matter.

I don't think I can be much more explicit about "I don't see them as a blanket solution" without saying that I, personally, don't use them in every game.

Which I also did.

[OldTrees1]

Generally speaking, I have found that those who talk about them want them in literally every game. If my experiences are unusual, then that's just me being an outlier, but if his are similar to mine, and given the topic here isn't spelling out that this particular game will be edging close to lines or anything, I do not think it disingenuous to assume this discussion is about blanket application, honestly. It was never said nor hinted it wasn't, to my recollection.

Clarifying question: "Want them in literally [every] game"
Is every scoped down to just the campaigns they play? I could believe that general observation. Those games might have relevant details in common. There will be exceptions (I have talked about their merits, yet my campaigns rarely need them, and thus rarely include them) but that general observation makes sense.

However I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that asserts it for every campaign regardless of if they are participating or the details of the campaign & playgroup. (the 1st page of this thread has several counter examples where a proponent says it is not always needed)

Generally speaking, I have found that those who talk about safety tools don't think they are needed in every campaign anyone plays anywhere, however they don't mind adding them to a campaign if someone asks. A sort of "it is a harmless addition but not needed in every campaign" attitude. That attitude is technically incorrect because it erases a negligible harm, but human do that from time to time.

[gbaji]

If you were doing something involving fire, would you not remind your guests where to find the extinguisher?

Yes. Which I specifically stated in the post I wrote above. But what I would not do is hand an extinguisher to every guest every time they walk into my house "just in case".


2) You already know it was never suggested to "blanketly apply it to any and every game". It was suggested as "use if needed". Please, for the sake of clarify, don't argue against things nobody said.

See my point earlier about "safe spaces", and how such tools/methods tend to spread until they are expected to be everywhere. I don't think it's unreasonable to caution that the very introduction of such "formal" methods can themselves cause an increase in the perceived need for them (or demanded presence of them). There are additional issues with the "use if needed" bit as well.



The word "rather" must be a typo. You do realize the safety tools work with the proactive approach. It is not about rather A (proactive approach) vs B (safety tools). It is about whether A or A+B is better for this campaign. (either answer is possible, it depends on factors)

But which is it? Is this something that isn't blanketly applied to every game (at the discretion of the GM running the game)? Or an option that can be "used if needed" (presumably at the discretion of the player, right)? You can't have both options. Either you have X-cards (or whatever) available to the players, or you don't. Ultimately, if we are to accept that this really isn't a "blanket requirement for every game", then that means that the GM will decide if this game is one such that player might want to or need something like an X-card, right?

But then that puts it into the category I spoke of earlier: Where I'm intentionally creating a game/scenario/adventure where I expect that the content will trigger people. Otherwise, I would not think this "applies to this game" and not make X-cards available. Right? Cause we're not applying this blanketly to every game. Right? Just checking that we're all following along the logic here.

So yeah. I'd "rather" not run a game where I expect to trigger my players. So I'd "rather" proactively do this crazy thing called "communicating with my players" and make sure that this falls into the catetory where I *don't* need X-cards at the table. So yes. The word "Rather" is not a typo, and is not incorrect. It's a core point here.

The other alternative (before anyone goes there) is "well, what if you don't think your scenerio will trigger someone, but it does?". Ok. But if that's our assumed case then the only way to be certain/safe is to *always* provide X-cards (cause that assumes the GM doesn't know what might cause a trigger in the players).

Which puts us right back into the case a couple of posters just insisted up and down this would never be.

So. Applying just a smidge of logic here, then if we assume that games wont ever be required to always blanketly use this sort of tool, then the only way that is possible is if all games fall into one of two categories:

1. The GM knows 100% that no one will ever be triggered by the content in the game. No X-card needed.

2. The GM knows that at least some content will trigger some players. X-cards are required.


That's it. Those are the only options if we exclude "GM doesn't know if content will trigger players", right?

Which is where my response is: I"m going to avoid condition 2". If I know what will trigger my players (which again, we are kinda assuming in the "no blanket need for this tool" case), then I should avoid doing things that trigger the players. Otherwise, I'm kinda being a jerk, right?

If I don't know what will trigger my players, then the only way to "be safe" is to provide the X-cards at every table I run. But that's what folks are insisting isn't being requested. Again. This is a relatively simple logical progression here:

I either know or don't know my players triggers.

If I know them, I should avoid including them in my game (no X-card needed)

If I know them, I could include those triggers in my game (I'm being a jerk, but hey you get an X-card to remind me of this I guess?)

If I don't know them, and don't include X-cards, then I'm being a jerk again (and not giving you a tool so double jerkness!)

If I don't know them, and include an X-card, I'm avoiding the potential of being a jerk, but now I'm using X-cards in every game (but this condition doesn't exist, so just erase it).

I'm seeing no condition where I'm not a jerk except the first one (which is the one I advocated), or the last one (which is the one two posters just insisted no one is talking about).

So yeah. Pick one. I'm ok with discussing either direction here. But let's be honest about what we're really talking about.



Honestly your abnormal experience of horribly awry house parties might mirror your experience of troublesome players. So maybe the analogy is great but your history has given you more reason to be concerned than others have reason to heed your concern.

Just to put things in perspective though. I don't think we ever actually lit anyone's house on fire. So there is that! :smallcool:



However you are much more distrusting (due to your troublesome past experiences). I see plenty of possibility space where I trust them enough to use the tool and the tool has a use. I GM'd published modules for adventure's league for a couple years. Even the least mature player would not have abused an x-card. Although since it was published adventure's league modules, they were tame enough that my risk assessment was there did not need safety tools, so I did not use them.

Eh. I'd rather trust them (and myself) to avoid needing them in the first place. And yeah, I expect that any tournament/league play should stick to content that should *never* require the use of such a thing.

Which, really leave us to the scenario I spoke of earlier. Which is maybe the one legitimate case I can see for this kind of tool. If you and your players previously agree to play a "edgy" game where the intention is to push boundaries and bump against people's triggers. And that's a situation where the players know this, and everyone has bought into this. And the X-cards realy act more like a safe word in other sorts of situations.

For any other situation? If we assume that my objective as the GM is to *not* trigger people? I'm going to avoid content that will trigger them to the absolute best of my ability. And IMO, that's where the X-cards can be a detriment. If I don't provide them, then if players do have odd triggers that range a bit into the "norm", they know to come to me ahead of time. If I provide a tool to use at the table? It's either never going to be used (so it wasn't needed) or it will. And if it will, then I always have to wonder if the mere presence of the tool perhaps lead to the player not informing me about this ahead of time. Again. My goal is to be proactive to the greatest degree possible. I know that nothing is perfect, but I've found this method to be more than sufficient at every table I've ever run.

And yeah, if there are triggers and I don't know about them (cause the players don't tell me), then that puts us into the condition where the only absolutely safe way to play is to always have X-cards. And that's just not a bridge I'm willing to cross (for a number of reasons).

[OldTrees1]

But which is it? Is this something that isn't blanketly applied to every game (at the discretion of the GM running the game)? Or an option that can be "used if needed" (presumably at the discretion of the player, right)?

The GM decides if their campaign is using safety tools.

You know this. At this point my replies are starting to be reminders about what you are disregarding.


But then that puts it into the category I spoke of earlier: Where I'm intentionally creating a game/scenario/adventure where I expect that the content will trigger people. Otherwise, I would not think this "applies to this game" and not make X-cards available. Right? Cause we're not applying this blanketly to every game. Right? Just checking that we're all following along the logic here.

So yeah. I'd "rather" not run a game where I expect to trigger my players. So I'd "rather" proactively do this crazy thing called "communicating with my players" and make sure that this falls into the catetory where I *don't* need X-cards at the table. So yes. The word "Rather" is not a typo, and is not incorrect. It's a core point here.

No. It puts it into the category I spoke of earlier and which you already knew. If the GM's Risk Assessment (a function of both likelihood and severity) indicates it is worth adding a extra layer to the defense in depth, then they add the extra layer to the defense in depth.

If there is a reasonable but unlikely chance of a high severity issue despite the proactive steps, then the Risk Assessment might suggest using a safety tool to complement your proactive steps. A horror game with strangers, or at least people you have not done horror games with before, might cross that threshold (YMMV and it is a judgement call based on the details).

Since that risk assessment already takes into account your proactive steps, it is not a valid use of the word "rather". You are already doing all those proactive steps before deciding if you are ALSO going to use safety tool. You are NOT choosing to do the proactive "rather" than the safety tools. You are going to do those proactive steps regardless and then decided you will or will not ALSO include safety tools.

Remember, I am a direct counterexample to the bogeyman you are trying to weave. As a GM, I used Safety Tools for 1 campaign out of many, so I am not blanketly applying it to every game. They have use cases but are not some contagion.


So yeah. Pick one. I'm ok with discussing either direction here. But let's be honest about what we're really talking about.
I was already being honest. Maybe considering these points I am making would help clear up your misconceptions.

You are already doing proactive steps. For most games there is a non 0% non 100% risk of a trigger getting past those proactive steps and being bad enough that tools that lowering the barrier to speak up would have an impact. Safety tools lower the barrier to speak up when a trigger occurs. If the risk assessment (considering both likelihood and severity) evaluates the risk is high enough, then it might be worth using a safety tool in addition to your proactive steps.

This nuanced understanding explains why the recommendation is that Safety Tools are a "use if needed" tool for the GM. They add it if the Risk Assessment is high enough after already considering the context (play group, campaign, proactive steps, etc). It is self evident that they are not needed in every game.

I'm ok with discussing Safety Tools, but I don't care about your strawmen or bogeymen. On the other hand there is not much to discuss beyond "They do XYZ. They are sometimes but not always useful/needed. Use them if needed."


And yeah, if there are triggers and I don't know about them (cause the players don't tell me), then that puts us into the condition where the only absolutely safe way to play is to always have X-cards. And that's just not a bridge I'm willing to cross (for a number of reasons).

Remove each misconception and your concern evaporates. You know there is a non 0% and non 100% chance of triggers you don't know about because the players couldn't/didn't tell you. You understand you live in an analog world rather than a binary one. Your risk assessment of your campaign concludes the risk is low enough that you don't estimate needing to supplement your proactive steps with the addition of safety tools to complement their proactive steps. You further recognize that for different conditions (different group, different campaign, different GM, etc) they might have a different risk assessment of their different circumstances. They might conclude the risk is high enough to merit the addition of safety tools. You understand how both of these things can be true. Not every game needs safety tools, but they do help out some games.

PS: Unrelated aside:
This emphasis on "absolutely safe" reminded me of a sci fi horror story where an AI made sure someone in their charge was kept perfectly safe. They were as good as dead. The moral of course, was that risk is a continuum and "perfectly safe" is a dangerous myth.

[KaussH]

Just an added reminders. Trigger is a wide term. It is not something you only have happen in gritty games. I run a number of games and as an example I have seen a lot more surprise triggers in a normal basic DnD game than something like a Cosmic Horror call of Cthulhu game. The point of things like the X card is less for Known triggers (That can be brought up in a session 0 or a setting write up) and more for the tricky or less common things. A player whom didnt realize that depictions of drowning were a thing. Those who didnt notice how they get a little extra ramped up when they see a clown, but chaos clowns are a thing apparently. (Note, I also prefer to call it red card, but more or less its the same) While you can go a long ways without an X card just being a GM and keeping an eye out, it is not harmful to do the X card thing. Best suggestion I can make is roll it into session 0. If any players want it, roll it in.

[kyoryu]

....

Just, big snip here for all of what you said. I really just 100% agree.

And I'm still going to fall back on "if someone is persistently being a jerk, kick them out." I have completely fallen out of love with games (or tools) that are designed to be bulletproof in the face of jerks. I much prefer games and tools designed to work with people that aren't being jerks, and then to deal with people acting like jerks directly (starting with a conversation about what is appropriate, and escalating to the boot, if needed).

(The exception is "could someone using this in good faith be unintentionally disruptive?" That's worth considering. IOW, is the game/tool/etc. mechanically incentivizing disruptive behavior? I don't think that's really the case here, but it is an area that's worth considering).

[OldTrees1]

Just an added reminder. Trigger is a wide term. It is not something you only have happen in gritty games. I run a number of games and as an example I have seen a lot more surprise triggers in a normal basic DnD game than something like a Cosmic Horror call of Cthulhu game. The point of things like the X card is less for Known triggers (That can be brought up in a session 0 or a setting write up) and more for the tricky or less common things. A player whom didn't realize that depictions of drowning were a thing. Those who didn't notice how they get a little extra ramped up when they see a clown, but chaos clowns are a thing apparently. (Note, I also prefer to call it red card, but more or less its the same)

Agreed. A hypothetical GM knows more details about their campaign/playgroup and the Risk Assessment is impacted a lot by those small details. Sometimes explanations become terse, and nuanced reminders like these are a good complement to the terse explanations.

[KorvinStarmast]

The assumption that safety tools are necessary is flawed. They can be helpful in certain edge cases.

Know your people, know your group. That's more than half of the battle.

Vahnavoi's points on convention play, an interesting sub set of RPG play, have been well made. Similarly, Adventure Path or Adventurer's League play sessions, or WH40K public play sessions (our FLGS before it died had loads of those, almost no D&D) have also been covered in the public play with strangers side bars-but these are not what the core TTRPG games are designed around: getting around the table with your friends and playing a game.

[kyoryu]

The assumption that safety tools are necessary is flawed. They can be helpful in certain edge cases.

Know your people, know your group. That's more than half of the battle.

I think that's the majority position here, at least among those that say "safety tools can be useful".

Frankly, the people arguing against them aren't actually addressing the position that the people finding them potentially useful actually have.

[Beelzebub1111]

I think that's the majority position here, at least among those that say "safety tools can be useful".

Frankly, the people arguing against them aren't actually addressing the position that the people finding them potentially useful actually have.

I think it comes down to how you weigh their value vs potential for abuse. No one denies that they can be helpful in certain situations, but if you believe that they are also harmful to potential communication and understanding or can be used to abuse in-game mechanics, both can be true but one can hold more weight than the other in their opinion.

Like it's not that it isn't paying attention or even not agreeing to some extent. It's about weighing pros and cons and what is more important.

[KaussH]

I think it comes down to how you weigh their value vs potential for abuse. No one denies that they can be helpful in certain situations, but if you believe that they are also harmful to potential communication and understanding or can be used to abuse in-game mechanics, both can be true but one can hold more weight than the other in their opinion.

Like it's not that it isn't paying attention or even not agreeing to some extent. It's about weighing pros and cons and what is more important.

I have to ask. Ignoring potential, has anyone honestly seen them abused in real play? In all my games whenever anything came up, it was no more than a pause to gather my brain and decide how to cut around. I had an odd response to a description of something that was also working as a poison effect. I just stopped describing. It was the work of like 5 seconds and no mechanics were even touched. Heck some crit rolls have taken more time to work with.

[Beelzebub1111]

I have to ask. Ignoring potential, has anyone honestly seen them abused in real play? In all my games whenever anything came up, it was no more than a pause to gather my brain and decide how to cut around. I had an odd response to a description of something that was also working as a poison effect. I just stopped describing. It was the work of like 5 seconds and no mechanics were even touched. Heck some crit rolls have taken more time to work with.
Personally? No, I have an anecdote from a friend who DMed for store games, but that's not really the point. Just as anecdotes aren't evidence, a lack of them isn't either.

Look at it this way: If a law on the books could be abused, leaves the door open for it being abused. If there were a law that that the government can seize your home for any reason it deems necessary with no explication or compensation, just because the government didn't do that doesn't make that law fine to be on the books. (I am being hyperbolic and not equating these things, but I am giving an example of similar logic)

[kyoryu]

Personally? No, I have an anecdote from a friend who DMed for store games, but that's not really the point. Just as anecdotes aren't evidence, a lack of them isn't either.

Look at it this way: If a law on the books could be abused, leaves the door open for it being abused. If there were a law that that the government can seize your home for any reason it deems necessary with no explication or compensation, just because the government didn't do that doesn't make that law fine to be on the books. (I am being hyperbolic and not equating these things, but I am giving an example of similar logic)

We get it. We just don't think it's a problem.

The main reason being that the law is the law, and really the only recourse is a constitutional challenge, and that's a crapshoot and difficult. So, yeah, with laws it makes a lot of sense to ensure that there aren't abusable loopholes.

That's not the case in a tabletop roleplaying game. There's the whole "table" and "GM" that are involved.

So, on the chance that someone is abusing the X-Card, I'll just talk to them. If I think it's in good faith, I'll tell them that we need to figure out the trigger, or it just might not be the game for them. If I don't think it's in good faith (and if that's the case I'll act much faster), then I'll just tell them it's not acceptable, and that while they're welcome at the table, the behavior isn't.

It's easy enough.

So, yeah. Everyone gets what you're saying. We just don't agree that it's an issue, as we don't see "if the rules say someone can be abusive they can be abusive" as an issue, as the general rule of "don't be a jerkface" trumps that.

When I said earlier I have no interest in rules/etc. that are written to prevent jerkface behavior, I was explicitly rejecting this line of logic.

[Beelzebub1111]

I know you disagree. That's why I said it's up to the individual GMs to determine whether a risk of abuse is worth using them or not. If I'm gaming with people, then part of our social contract is that if there is a problem I expect you to be upfront an honest with me about the problem and that we can work through a solution together. At my tables, a tool that circumvents that communication is not worth the effort to establish and, to my view, is harmful to the kind of games I would like to run.

I'm not saying you shouldn't use them if you feel you need to. I was explaining why I don't need something to have happened to me personally to see a potential for abuse. Sometimes the potential is enough.