Did anyone here use the X-card system? How well did it work for you? [Archive]

OldTrees1

2023-09-04, 09:02 AM

I played The Zone (https://play.thezonerpg.com/) one year ago. It is a horror RPG with the PCs doomed from the start and has an X-card system baked into it.

I played with my regular RPG group (a bunch of friends) but this was the first time we were doing a horror game. The closest previous game was 5E's Curse of Strahd (which has horror themes but was not really a horror game). In session 0 of Curse of Strahd I explicitly informed the players they have a verbal brake* (it was implicit before, but there was a higher chance of unfortunate surprises in a CoS campaign). So a jump to a full horror game about bad things happening was a bit of a leap. We had a more extensive session 0 where we talked about what types of horror we enjoyed and what we knew should be avoided. This included notice that someone had a newly heighted sensitivity to a particular topic. It is obvious in hindsight but I was oblivious before it was mentioned. This is exactly one of the kinds of change that could catch a group by surprise and merit a safety-tool safety net.

*Something wrong? Anyone can say something is wrong and I will immediately pause the game, create space to get away from what was wrong, and then discuss what needs to change before we resume in as much or little detail as the person feels comfortable with.

During the game of "The Zone" the X-card was never invoked.

1) How well does it work?
Depends on the group. The one time we used it, it was a redundant safety net that was never used. But we were doing something a bit more risky than normal, so the extra safety net added to the sense of comfort playing the game.

We did not add it to our normal sessions. We left it as something to be added if we decided to do something risky again.

2) Does it serve its intended purpose?
Yes and no. At the core safety tools (even informal ones like the informal verbal brake our group used by default) succeed or fail mostly based on how we choose to react to them. The tools themselves just lower the barrier for someone to invoke the reaction by reducing the prerequisite for the invoker to get to safety. The majority of that barrier is their concern about a negative (rejection or resentment) or slow (asking why?) reaction to the invocation.

If you handle the majority of the barrier by committing to reacting positively and swiftly, then the main remaining barrier is paralysis. If a really bad surprise happens, the player might struggle to speak (or worse). Most physical safety tools (like the X-card) give a non verbal alternative the player can use. They work great for that, more niche, purpose.

In conclusion, yes X-cards serve their intended purpose as long as the group reacts responsibly.

Anymage

2023-09-04, 03:58 PM

MoiMagnus

2023-09-04, 07:03 PM

I've been introduced to this concept without a card (making a cross sign with your arms).
In fact, if you use this concept, I strongly advise to introduce the cross sign instead (or on top) of the card. The reason is that the cross sign doesn't require to be around the table, and if your table have "side-talks" where multiple players (with GM or not) leave the table to conspire or exchange secret information, those are moments where some players can be a little "too much" in their roles and where this cross sign is useful.

Though, as said by others, it's significantly more useful with strangers than with long-time friends (in fact, I've never seen it used at my table of friends, I've only seen it used in a few one-shot games with strangers where I was a player). Though having a clear way to signify "it's not my character who is saying STOP, it's the player who is saying it" is never a bad thing to have.

The problem with the X card specifically is that there are few circumstances where a player would feel comfortable pointing to a card and expecting their stance to be honored and respected, but doesn't feel the same way about speaking up. The one time I can think of where that might be useful is when a player feels like they can't get a word in edgewise, which is itself a failure state regardless of what's happening in the game world. It's a good start to the idea of safety/comfort discussions. Looking at the updates page on the author's own site, though, it's clear that the card is just one early idea towards that end.

Especially with peoples having trouble reading social cues, the protestation by a player can be misunderstood as a protestation by the character, especially when the player protesting is stumbling with their words and failing to clearly say what they want to say.

A "safe word" would also work quite well. The point is just to have something that is immediate (no need for multiple sentences) and that cannot be misunderstood even between peoples lacking social skills.

But I agree that for most tables, the only important part is the discussion when you introduce that concept, and the card will likely go unused once those discussion did happen.

Xervous

2023-09-05, 06:32 AM

Given the choice of tables, I don’t see a place for the X-card in my gaming hobby time. I don’t do pick up games and campaigns are always selective about who gets invited. It’s a solution to a problem I’m just not going to have.

Ionathus

2023-09-05, 08:38 AM

The problem with the X card specifically is that there are few circumstances where a player would feel comfortable pointing to a card and expecting their stance to be honored and respected, but doesn't feel the same way about speaking up. The one time I can think of where that might be useful is when a player feels like they can't get a word in edgewise, which is itself a failure state regardless of what's happening in the game world. It's a good start to the idea of safety/comfort discussions. Looking at the updates page on the author's own site, though, it's clear that the card is just one early idea towards that end.

Especially with peoples having trouble reading social cues, the protestation by a player can be misunderstood as a protestation by the character, especially when the player protesting is stumbling with their words and failing to clearly say what they want to say.

A "safe word" would also work quite well. The point is just to have something that is immediate (no need for multiple sentences) and that cannot be misunderstood even between peoples lacking social skills.

But I agree that for most tables, the only important part is the discussion when you introduce that concept, and the card will likely go unused once those discussion did happen.

This is the important part for me. Not everyone is comfortable speaking up, and the original doc posted by OP makes a great point about how a less explicit "talk it out" approach can be in danger of having a person be "debated out of their boundaries."

But yeah, it's more useful in unfamiliar dynamics than with close tables, but it's good to keep all these ideas in mind when GMing, maybe stating some directly as needed.

kyoryu

2023-09-05, 09:13 AM

I generally don't.

I think you can basically do a risk assessment - the edgier your content, and the less you know your players, the more risk. At some level of risk you probably want to consider something like the X-Card.

My games don't normally hit that level.

Zalam

2023-09-05, 08:17 PM

I've played at tables with an X-card, and I've run all sorts of games, including a months-long weekly tabletop LARP where people did some just facepalm worthy nonsense (including freaking out one player by picking up a doorstop and gesturing threateningly with it) (...in a game system where weapons were specifically and exclusively paper objects only, precisely to avoid that kind of thing).

People can do stupid and bad things and I can't say for sure it doesn't help people speak up for themselves but I have not seen that happen.

The DM who was most firm about the X-card system also ran a light, fuzzy game where I believe nobody had boundary pushing issues.

I don't know what a better system would be, and having it does serve a fairly important role of saying how serious one is about that kind of thing. But the kind of person who installs extra after-market safety devices is likely also less likely to crash in the first place?

And yeah, one thing that makes it an imperfect solution is that even pointing at the X-card can be embarrassing, can make you feel like a buzzkill, etc. etc.

So I dunno. Could be worse, isn't a magic bullet, feel free to try alternate solutions to make people feel comfortable and respected at your table?

Eldan

2023-09-06, 05:27 AM

I've played with the same people and no one else for near 20 years. We don't even really do session 0s anymore, just a ten minute discussion of what we want to play.

Herbert_W

2023-09-07, 07:17 AM

I've never used and never needed such a system - it solves a problem that I just don't have. I can see what its trying to do though. Having a safety net lets you push further into territory that would otherwise be risky.

My main concern with the X-card system is that it would be very very easy for powergamers to abuse. This system relies on players to not be jerks and to not abuse it - but if you trust your players to not be jerks, then what's the value of this system? (Rhetorical question; I'll answer it in a moment.)

Just off the top of my head, a powergamer could (and these are extreme examples):

X-card any failure on a d20 test.
X-card other PC decisions, which could upset that player.
Engage in deliberate retaliatory X-carding. Angry that the cleric's player X-carded you torturing goblins? X-card divine magic! (Except healing).

I don't think that this system would play out that badly in practice, becasue most people are basically decent most of the time. Most people have a good intuitive sense of the difference between using and abusing a system and are willing to respect that boundary - but again, if your players are willing and able to respect boundaries like this then why do you need X-cards?

Especially with peoples having trouble reading social cues, the protestation by a player can be misunderstood as a protestation by the character, especially when the player protesting is stumbling with their words and failing to clearly say what they want to say.

Bingo. That's the value.

X-cards aren't a bad system, they're just badly explained. The potential abuse is obvious but the value isn't.

The Pause for a Minute (https://slyflourish.com/pause_for_a_minute.html) system serves very similar goals, and IMO serves those goals better largely due to being better-explained. It's also explicitly not just a safety system and better for non-safety-related game discussions (such as "I think this is getting a bit too goofy for a sword and sorcery game.") The only disadvantage of PfaM is that it requires players to speak - but, hey, nothing stops you from making pause cards.

In my experience, whenever we needed to pause and speak out of character, we just . . . spoke out of character. We never needed a formal system. Our informal system (which never gave us any problems) was much more similar to PfaM than X-cards.

Anymage

2023-09-07, 08:48 AM

My main concern with the X-card system is that it would be very very easy for powergamers to abuse. This system relies on players to not be jerks and to not abuse it

If you're deathly afraid of spiders and drow are going to be a major campaign theme, it's worth pausing after the break to mention that spiders are going to be thematic going forward and that the player might not feel comfortable with the rest of the game*. Similarly, if a player taps out regularly to cheat/troll, other players can mention that the player might be a bad match for the table. Or more likely just boot the player, because cheating/trolling are already things that happen without an X card and people can generally notice and react to those.

*(The good faith case of the arachnophobic player in a game that's going to heavily feature drow is an interesting discussion case of how much the DM/table/game world should adapt to individual players, vs. the degree to which players should just accept the game as presented and personally adapt. Which might mean sitting out on a mismatched game altogether.)

Atranen

2023-09-07, 02:19 PM

It's been offered in many of the convention and AL games I've played, but I've never seen anyone use it.

gbaji

2023-09-07, 05:39 PM

My main concern with the X-card system is that it would be very very easy for powergamers to abuse. This system relies on players to not be jerks and to not abuse it - but if you trust your players to not be jerks, then what's the value of this system? (Rhetorical question; I'll answer it in a moment.)

Yup. And not the traditional powergamers though. It almost adds another category of powergamers into the system. Maybe call them victimgamers? So instead of taking advantage of rule exploits and loopholes to gain an advantage in the game, they play on sympathy to do the same.

I just think there is a happy medium between "running a game that will deeply offend people constantly", and "running a game where anyone can just declare anything that happend to be offensive and we all take that seriously no matter how ridiculous it may actually be". And yeah, this does kinda come down to trusting that most of the time most of the players aren't going to be jerks (cause, you know, we're all trying to have fun here). And if they are, then maybe the solution is to get rid of the players, and not inconvenience everyone else to try to work around it.

The same jerk players who might make one feel they need this sort of system are the same jerk players who will likely gleefully abuse it.

X-cards aren't a bad system, they're just badly explained. The potential abuse is obvious but the value isn't.

Exactly. I can *kinda* see some cases where this may be helpful. But a whole lot of very very obvious ones where it would create more problems. It's one of those interesting things where the best case is that they are never used. Which, maybe, is precisely the point here. I can certainly imagine a case where merely having the option puts players on (maybe not "best", but "better"?) behavior and situations which may make players feel uncomfortable are avoided in the first place.

And yeah, I think I commented on this in a previous thread on this subject. It's something I could see using in a tourney type situation, where I don't know the players so well (or at all). But at a table I'm running with folks I play with regularly? We have existing social tools to deal with stuff like this. It's called "talking".

Is this where I grumble and wave my cane at the lawn occupying youngsters and comment on how maybe social media and texting (and cell phones in general) has now created a whole generation of people who are just uncomfortable with actually verbalising things in a face to face setting (sometimes even a virtual face to face one)? If I'm waxing poetical, I'd point out how S&G's "Sound of Silence" and "I am a Rock" are pretty freaking prophetic in regards to many communication styles folks use today (and not in a good way). So part of me says we should acknowlege and accept/work-with that reality, but another part suggest that maybe RPGs can be used to help some people get out of their shell's so to speak.

The Pause for a Minute (https://slyflourish.com/pause_for_a_minute.html) system serves very similar goals, and IMO serves those goals better largely due to being better-explained. It's also explicitly not just a safety system and better for non-safety-related game discussions (such as "I think this is getting a bit too goofy for a sword and sorcery game.") The only disadvantage of PfaM is that it requires players to speak - but, hey, nothing stops you from making pause cards.

In my experience, whenever we needed to pause and speak out of character, we just . . . spoke out of character. We never needed a formal system. Our informal system (which never gave us any problems) was much more similar to PfaM than X-cards.

Yup. We use this as a standard thing. You want to speak out of character, you just... speak out of character (echo!). I guess it's just that's how I've always run my games. I do know that some people do play games where they insist on talk being in-character. I personally find that method both exhausting and incredibly restrictive anyway. But yeah, also creates problems like this.

Just let your players communicate however they want to. It's not hard to noodle out when they are speaking in character and when they're not. I allow players to pretty much talk as themselves as much as they want. Unless there's some time critical thing going in, in which case I'll gently remind them they need to make a decision and declare an action for their character, but other than that? Speak however you want. There's no need for a special pause method. Just speak. If I feel like you're delaying the game, I'll let you know.

Again. It kinda all relies on the players and GM being somewhat on the same page, and trusting each other to work together. But IMO, that's somewhat required to have a succesful and fun game anyway. If you don't have that, no amount of special tools will make the game work.

If you're deathly afraid of spiders and drow are going to be a major campaign theme, it's worth pausing after the break to mention that spiders are going to be thematic going forward and that the player might not feel comfortable with the rest of the game*. Similarly, if a player taps out regularly to cheat/troll, other players can mention that the player might be a bad match for the table. Or more likely just boot the player, because cheating/trolling are already things that happen without an X card and people can generally notice and react to those.

*(The good faith case of the arachnophobic player in a game that's going to heavily feature drow is an interesting discussion case of how much the DM/table/game world should adapt to individual players, vs. the degree to which players should just accept the game as presented and personally adapt. Which might mean sitting out on a mismatched game altogether.)

I really feel like this sort of stuff is talked about a lot, but I'm questioning how often it really happens in real gaming. Like you create a game with a specific theme and then, partway into the adventure a player reveals to you that they have a super strong phobia about something that is triggered by something prevalent in the game being run. This is like a thing I've heard mentiond over and over, but literally have never actually seen at a table I've played in, nor heard of happening at a table either.

This feels a lot like something that should have come out at some point during the prep leading up to the adventure. Like you tell your player 'I'm planning on running an adventure where you'll be fighting giants, or drow, or whatever", seems like a great point for a player with such a strong phobia to mention something. And even then, I don't think I've ever met someone with such a strong phobia that they can't handle the thing merely being mentioned. Shown? Detailed? yeah. But merely mentioning the exiistence of a snail has never caused a panic attack, even in frends of mine who hate snails (for example).

So, again, this feels like a tool that primarily provides people with excuses not to communicate effectively ahead of time. And maybe that's a wash in the end. But personally, to me, the entire concept of playing RPGs is about people communicating with each other. The games always work best when everyone is participating in this. Dunno. I suppose we could imagine a slippery slope aspect to this. So someone has a dislike of X, but instead of telling you, just waits to see if X happens, and plays the card. Ok. But what if "dislike of X" turns into "I don't like it when my character takes damage", or "I don't like it when my character doesn't win?" (or any other somewhat game breaking thing)? Even just "I want my character to do <something>", requires communication. If the player doesn't tell me what they want to do with their character, I can't read their minds to figure it out any more than I can read their minds to know their phobias and triggers.

To me, those are kinda in the same area in terms of gaming approach. Tell the GM this stuff. I don't need your whole life story here, but if you really really don't like something, to the degree that you would consider using a tool like this, maybe just tell me? Treat it just like anything else you may communicate with/to the GM about a game.

What I have seen, far more often than actual phobias of things (like spiders or snails) is some players who dislike being pressured or put on the spot. I have run into some players who just don't like that. This is something that can be very uncomfortable for that player, because, let's face it, there are a boatload of pretty overbearing players in the RPG universe. Players who will tell you what you should do, or tell you when you did something wrong, correct you when you make a mistake, pressure you to make a decision, etc. And this is maybe one case I can see something like an X-card being useful, since it's less likely to itself be disruptive, because it's more about how something is said or done, than some innate nature of the thing itself.

I can absolutely tell my players (and myself) to lighten up on time pressures, or pushy table talk, without causing any harm to the game. It's a lot harder to discover a player who is deathly afraid of spiders and underground spaces, when you've just spent several weeks writing your drow adventure/opus, and are three sessions into the game and just entering the domain of said drow. Again though, I'd also like to think that most GMs will spot this via player behavior and response, and nip it in the bud. I kinda fall back to the concept that "everyone should be having fun", and I try to make it clear to my players that they are absolutely free to contact me about any concerns or questions about the game (including the game itself, and my GMing). If a player tells me "hey. I'm not really comfortable when I'm trying to make a decision and you ask me to hurry up cause there's a time crunch" (kinda like what I spoke about above with player talk) I'm probably not going to eliminate the fact that there will be a time limit to some degree in the game (cause there kinda has to be), but I will absolutely take actions to lessen the emotional impact of those things. There's a heck of a lot you can do differently just with word choice and inflection to reduce pressure on players. I'll probably dial back the "humming the Jeaopardy theme" bits at a minimum here, right?

Same goes with player bullying actions as well. I think these are far more common than actual phobia type situations, and yeah, I can *kinda* see something like an X-card situation, but still really in "these are people I don't know well" situations. I somewhat expect that if a gaming table has been operating for some time, the people in it should have an idea of how everyone else plays, and either accpept that style of play, or are willing able to raise issues to change things, or should maybe really think about playing with a different group of people.

Eldan

2023-09-08, 03:52 AM

I think it's much more a thing if you get into horror games and modern games, as opposed to traditional heroic fantasy. Like, if I were to run a game of Unknown Armies for players I don't know well, I would have to include all the trigger warnings. The game and the system are intentionally based on them, given that it's a grungy urban fantasy game about conspiracy theories, psychological horror and self-destructive behaviour.

Like, if I'm doing D&D, I can run something perfectly clean, or I might occasionalyl have to say "there's going to be violence and some mentions of slavery". If I'm doing Unknown Armies, I might have to say "there might be child abuse, torture, drug use, institutional injustice, police violence, magical cancer, murder and demons. During character creation."

Kurt Kurageous

2023-09-08, 03:45 PM

Back when I DMed in person at a public place with unfamiliar people, I used it.

One it was out there, it was never used in any game I ran in that place.

I think the benefit of the x card (explained well) is that it tells players there are boundaries (somewhere) and if you push, you will find them (sooner instead of later). And that's all the non-sociopath community usually needs.

gbaji

2023-09-08, 06:34 PM

MoiMagnus

2023-09-09, 03:50 AM

Yeah. I think maybe my innate dislike for something like this, and maybe I'm totally out of touch or out of line here, but it just feels very passive aggressive to me. Like. I'm not going to tell you what things will offend or upset me, but I'll hold this card with a big red X on it, and invite you to do or say whatever you want, but if do or say something that offends or upsets me, I'll play the card. Dunno. That just feels like it should be a social tool of last resort maybe.

Peoples probably don't want to start a RPG by saying they had a miscarriage recently and scenes where dead children are portrayed are bringing back some unwanted memories.

Because it's highly specific so will likely not happen, and and top of that actually talking about this subject is bringing back the bad memories. So ideally they want to not mention it at the beginning of the session and be lucky and not have it happen during the session either.

In other words, this card (or any other convention, as said before, I don't think the actual card is that useful of a tool) is a way of saying "there are things that are out of bound, talking about them is also out of bound (and/or I'm too ashamed to do it) so I'm not gonna mention them. Obviously you can't guess them as you don't read my mind so I won't blame you if you mention them by accident, as long as you stop as soon as I show you this card".

OldTrees1

2023-09-10, 09:55 AM

My experience is the kinds of folks playing in games that probably should have required a Tigger warning / xcard or whatever are the the kinds of folks most likely to deride folks who would want to include it. And the kinds of folks most likely to want include it are the kinds of folks playing games where it isn't going to be needed.

That is an unfortunate observation about the extremes, and concerning if it extends to the continuum.

If someone credibly communicates they are willing to respect a safety tool (ex: X-card or Pause for a Minute), then not only does that lower the barrier to invoking a formal safety tool, but it also lowers the barrier to communicate in general because an explicit promise to listen & be reasonable in some specific circumstances increases the expectation that the person will listen & be reasonable in general even if you forget the phrase "pause for a minute" in the moment.

Thus, all else equal, credibly communicating you are/are not willing to respect a safety tool does decrease/increase the risk in your game. Alone this would not be enough to explain your unfortunate observation, so I still hope it is an artifact of small sample sizes.

On the other hand, there is the excluded middle in there. From my observations there are some that scale their use of safety tools based on the expected risk of the campaign. I am not sure these are "the kinds of folks most likely to want to include it" and the games function with little to no invocations of the last resort safety tool, but I am not sure that is the same as "playing games where it isn't going to be needed". On one hand, a safety tool can be beneficial even if never invoked. On the other hand, with defense in depth, usually you err on the side of having more than needed.

@Herbert_W
That Pause for a Minute (https://slyflourish.com/pause_for_a_minute.html) tool was a good one to mention. I wonder, for those using an informal tool but adding a formal tool as well, is it better to use one that is similar, or use one that is different? The answer probably depends on the context.

Anymage

2023-09-10, 03:29 PM

On the other hand, there is the excluded middle in there. From my observations there are some that scale their use of safety tools based on the expected risk of the campaign. I am not sure these are "the kinds of folks most likely to want to include it" and the games function with little to no invocations of the last resort safety tool, but I am not sure that is the same as "playing games where it isn't going to be needed". On one hand, a safety tool can be beneficial even if never invoked. On the other hand, with defense in depth, usually you err on the side of having more than needed.

I think that general good practices here (keeping an eye on the players to track their investment in the game, being open to feedback between games, helping make sure that every player feels like they have a voice at the table) will do the vast bulk of what an explicit safety tool would. Conversely, as you noted, bad table practices make the table riskier, would make me wonder if the safety tools would be respected, and might make me worry that a game with a nonfunctioning safety tool would be even more prone to take risks in the expectation that the safety tool's presence gives them a pass.

OldTrees1

2023-09-10, 08:26 PM

I think that general good practices here (keeping an eye on the players to track their investment in the game, being open to feedback between games, helping make sure that every player feels like they have a voice at the table) will do the vast bulk of what an explicit safety tool would.

It helps to think of the tools and an additional layer of defense rather than an alternative. See Swiss cheese model of defense in depth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model)https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/Swiss_cheese_model_textless.svg/495px-Swiss_cheese_model_textless.svg.png

There are holes remaining after all the general good practices. The vast bulk should already be covered, but a few unlikely but severe cases remain. Depending on the contextual risk, an explicit safety tool might or might not be worth adding. The vast bulk is already covered by the general good practices, and you can't cover everything, but is it covered enough for this campaign? *Shrug*

Conversely, as you noted, bad table practices make the table riskier, would make me wonder if the safety tools would be respected, and might make me worry that a game with a nonfunctioning safety tool would be even more prone to take risks in the expectation that the safety tool's presence gives them a pass.

There are really only 3 ways a safety tool would be nonfunctional.

It is not respected when invoked.
Distrust in whether the invocation would be respected lead to someone not invoking it when they should have.
Something worse comes up and the invoker can't invoke the safety tool.

You will notice both #1 and #2 are serious concerns with bad table practices. We wonder if those bad table practices imply #1, and that doubt can cause #2. Both of these can happen and can lead to someone taking a risk without realize the tool is missing. Communication and honest (those general good practices) help with both. In the case of #1, if someone cannot be trusted to respect the invocation, but they are honest about that, then don't use the safety tool. The only way to fix #2 is to credibly communicate you (plural) will respect the invocation. That is easier said than done, but the conversation about an explicit safety tool is currently a strong indicator that the implicit safety tools would be respected.

#3 is hard and can't ever be 100% solved since it is "everything that defeated your defense in depth. However it is less likely to cause someone to take risks expecting the tool to give them a pass.

On the plus side, this is all practice (relatively speaking). The stakes are higher outside.

Zuras

2023-09-10, 09:31 PM

I’ve found that X cards work best when the DM is willing to let the game get dark, but people aren’t necessarily sure where their boundaries are. Stuff like “are we going to kill the goblin children we just orphaned, or just handwave it away”, or “can we just say he’s a bad guy without detailing the specifics of domestic abuse”.

Mostly though the X card is symbolic. People will usually just tell you when they’re uncomfortable if they feel comfortable doing so, and the X card is mostly a tool to make people feel comfortable.

gbaji

2023-09-11, 04:56 PM

There are really only 3 ways a safety tool would be nonfunctional.

It is not respected when invoked.
Distrust in whether the invocation would be respected lead to someone not invoking it when they should have.
Something worse comes up and the invoker can't invoke the safety tool.

Well. That depends on how we define "functional" though. If "functional" simply means "shutting down talk about something someone doesn't like", then yes, that is an accurate list. But that's only half of the equation and essentially ignores most of the concerns being raised.

If "functional" means "improves the social dynamic of the game table", then there is a whole set of different problems;

1. Someone uses it just to troll other players.
2. Someone uses it to silence discussion or activities that are otherwise "normal", but offend them personally (ie: unreasonable restrictions).
3. Other players are so afraid of getting an X-card played that they stifle their own actions and are made uncomfortable for having to "walk on eggshells" at the table.

All of those cause harm/disruption to the social dynamic and fun of the game.

It's not just a question of "does it work"? We have to also ask if by working it's producing positive outcomes at the table. And that's a far trickier question IMO.

On the plus side, this is all practice (relatively speaking). The stakes are higher outside.

Sure. But to reflect on another comment earlier, we're still talking about edge cases and frankly some edge tools anyway.

In a real social situation, most people, if they were having a conversation with a group of people, and one person pulls a card with an X on it and holds it in front of them (or crosses their arms, or whatever), would be like "what are you doing"? If they were then informed that this means that they just have to stop talking about whatever it was they were saying, most would be like "Um... why?". And yeah, the further you go to try to explain this the more most people's (quite rational IMO) responses would fall heaviliy in the "this is really a dumb way to express this" direction.

You're in a social setting. You are having a conversation with people. Use your words and express yourself. Or don't. Your choice. But, and this is where the passive/aggressive thing comes in, trying to say "I can make you shut up, but am not required or expected to explain why" will almost certainlly not be well received by most people. At least not in the "real world". You really do have to create some very contrivied social rules to mandate this sort of thing for it to even possibly work. And yeah, as I mentioned above, there's some question as to how well it actually "works" in the first place.

Which yeah, puts me into the mindset of "maybe an Ok idea", and I can see maybe using it in some very very specific circumstances. But it's not a tool I would use or expect the vast majority of time.

Cluedrew

2023-09-11, 05:18 PM

So I've never used the X-card system. Between the groups I play with and something about the formality of it that doesn't sit right with me, neither I no anyone I play with have suggested it. But it leads me to an important question:

Did anyone here use the X-card system?

All this conversation seems very hypothetical and not grounded in actual experience. Personally, I can think of some times where at least the message that "It is alright to speak up and ask the game to move away from uncomfortable topics," being sent clearly would have helped. And it makes sense that the X-card system could be used to help communicate that message, to say nothing of actually using the tool itself. But that is all hypothetical on my part, and some of these issues dive even deeper into theoretical territory.

(And/Or actually seem to be revealing an existing underlying problem, such as mismatch in the tone people have for the campaign, in which case wouldn't that actually be a positive of the X-card system?)

icefractal

2023-09-11, 06:22 PM

1. Someone uses it just to troll other players.
2. Someone uses it to silence discussion or activities that are otherwise "normal", but offend them personally (ie: unreasonable restrictions).
3. Other players are so afraid of getting an X-card played that they stifle their own actions and are made uncomfortable for having to "walk on eggshells" at the table.No offense, but have you seen (or heard from someone who saw) #1 or #2 ever occur in practice? Or any of the other hypotheticals such as "using it for in-game advantage"? Because I'm not saying they're impossible, but I've been in several games that did use the X-card (or other similar tools) and these have never occurred. Nor have I heard of them occurring elsewhere.

And for #2 - if it's unreasonable, then you tell them that. What exactly is to be gained by pretending everything's fine when it isn't? Like if someone says "I really hate the smell of garlic, can people stop eating garlicky food at the table", then any of the following are valid options:
A) Tell them "sorry, but we all love garlic, you should look for a different group".
B) Designate a "garlic time" where that person goes somewhere else while the garlicky food is eaten.
C) Stop eating garlicky food at the table.
But this one is just dumb:
D) Complain, "Why would you ruin our good time by telling us that?! You should just make excuses to leave the table without ever saying the reason!"

Now #3, that's a personal question, and it's certainly possible someone could feel stifled by the presence of the X card. But IMO, that goes both ways - it's not a big difference, but I'd say that if anything I feel slightly more comfortable pushing the envelope when safety tools are in use, because "someone felt uncomfortable, raised the issue right then, and we changed course" is a lot more pleasant / low-stakes of an outcome than "someone felt uncomfortable, it festered, now they don't want to play with us and/or think I'm an *******".

Because that's the difference - it's not like someone would think "Oh, I thought I was uncomfortable with this, but since I see no X card on the table ... I guess that actually I enjoy it." It's a bug either way, and generally you want systems to "fail loud" rather than "fail silently" for anything that could be a big deal.

OldTrees1

2023-09-11, 06:31 PM

So I've never used the X-card system. Between the groups I play with and something about the formality of it that doesn't sit right with me, neither I no anyone I play with have suggested it. But it leads me to an important question:

Did anyone here use the X-card system?

All this conversation seems very hypothetical and not grounded in actual experience

Yes. I have used the X-card system. (see post for details) Since the opening post explicitly asked who has used it, and nobody else spoke up (except Atranen?), I might be the only (other?) here that has? Although some responses are ambiguous.

I played The Zone (https://play.thezonerpg.com/) one year ago. It is a horror RPG with the PCs doomed from the start and has an X-card system baked into it.

That said some of the others (Herbert_W for example) have knowledge that does match actual experience.

gbaji

2023-09-11, 08:30 PM

No offense, but have you seen (or heard from someone who saw) #1 or #2 ever occur in practice? Or any of the other hypotheticals such as "using it for in-game advantage"? Because I'm not saying they're impossible, but I've been in several games that did use the X-card (or other similar tools) and these have never occurred. Nor have I heard of them occurring elsewhere.

I'm simply being complete. Probably part of my engineering background that when examining a system, I look for potential failure states. We have to assume that they *could* be used this way and ask "what happens in that case?"

And for #2 - if it's unreasonable, then you tell them that. What exactly is to be gained by pretending everything's fine when it isn't? Like if someone says "I really hate the smell of garlic, can people stop eating garlicky food at the table", then any of the following are valid options:
A) Tell them "sorry, but we all love garlic, you should look for a different group".
B) Designate a "garlic time" where that person goes somewhere else while the garlicky food is eaten.
C) Stop eating garlicky food at the table.
But this one is just dumb:
D) Complain, "Why would you ruin our good time by telling us that?! You should just make excuses to leave the table without ever saying the reason!"

Sure. I was primarily examining the issue with an X-card play resulting in "we all stop what we're doing/staying immediately". And also examining the implications of the claimed case where the person is so uncomfortable with the subject at hand that they are unwilling to even verbalize *why* they are playing the X-card in the first place.

That's where I kinda keep coming around to here. The starting point (and your example above) assume normal communication methods. Someone dislikes something and they tell those around them that they do. Then we resolve it. Whether we resolve it well or not is another question. In this case, I'm examining the move from "I tell people I don't like something" to "I play an X-card".

The implication with the X-card is that I can force a stop condition on what's going on without actually telling anyone else why. It's literally the only reason to have such a tool in the first place. But it's that exact case (which you do *not* address in your example) that I find potentially very problematic. To follow your analogy, someone plays an X-card while others are eating. No one knows why. The person just says they are offended, and everyone has to stop eating now. Leaving the rest of the table, well, hungry, but also with no clue what specifically about eating, or the food, or something else, the X-card was played for.

Certainly, we can examine what happens after someone explains their complaint (as you did in your example), but we can't get to that point until that complaint is actually explained (in this, case they hate the smell of garlic), right? So all the X-card is doing here is delaying that process. And actually lends itself to more risk, since maybe at the next game session we choose to eat some other food that contains garlic in it, because until the X-card player decides to actually tell the rest of the table what upset them about the food, no one is going to know what not to bring to eat.

We can passive/aggressively assume that the other players will be big meanie's and eat garlic intentionally just to upset us, and thus proactively just play the X-carrd to stop them, but wouldn't it be a lot more productive (and mature) to just tell them and trust them to do the right thing? At least give people a chance to be jerks before asssuming it and using a tool like this. And yeah, if you've told people not to do certain things and they keep doing it anyway, no use of an X-card is doing to fix that problem. So... maybe start with the open communication first?

Now #3, that's a personal question, and it's certainly possible someone could feel stifled by the presence of the X card. But IMO, that goes both ways - it's not a big difference, but I'd say that if anything I feel slightly more comfortable pushing the envelope when safety tools are in use, because "someone felt uncomfortable, raised the issue right then, and we changed course" is a lot more pleasant / low-stakes of an outcome than "someone felt uncomfortable, it festered, now they don't want to play with us and/or think I'm an *******".

You're still assuming that the only "victim" here is the person potentially playing the X-card. I'm examining the case where that person is the abuser. Any social tool has to fail to a "can't be abused" state. In normal communication, the "can't be abused" state is that if someone does something other's object to, they have the same free speech as the other person and can say something about it. If it "festers" it's because they either did not raise the issue *or* it was raised and ignored. But at no point can one person, all on their own, just make life miserable for others.

The problem with an X-card is that you are handing a "silence the other person" tool out there. Which, by design, can be used by one person and only one person, to force a stop condition on everyone else. The only check to this is someone else talking to this person after the fact (the GM maybe?) and asking for more detail/explanation. Which, depending on interpretation, may or may not even be required. The assumption for needing an X-card is that someohow there's this one lone person who is offended by something in a sea of other people who are not, and they need a tool to somehow balance out that innate unfairness. Because in any case where this isn't what's going on, we have to assume that most of the players (or GM) at the table will agree that <whatever> was offensive or upsetting or whatever, and there is no failure in the "normal communication" method.

So we've now created a failure state, which can be readily abused, and is in fact designed based on the assumption that "I'm right and everyone else at the table is wrong" about <something>. Which, again, if we assume that one person *is* actually in the right, and everyone else at the table are just a pack of unthinking clods being horribly offensive and upsetting, works. Um... But what if that one person is actually being ridiculously unreasonable about this? And heck. Even if that person is honestly offended by something that every other person at the table thinks should be perfectly acceptable, isn't the correct solution for that player to just leave the group? I'm not seeing any means to resolve that level of base disconnect. Something like an X-card will just create more conflict at a table that already has a fundamental and unresolvable social problem.

And again. The implied reduction of actual communication involved is where I have the most issue with this. If this is merely a "stop, and I'll immediately explain why I called for the stop", I don't have any issues with it. Again, could have just raised your hand, or your voice, or whatever, but otherwise it's in the realm of normal communication tools. Heck. I don't have a problem with having some kind of "I'd like to talk now" signal at a table anyway (I've had some tables where this is almost a requirement in fact). But that's not really what folks are talking about here. The moment we start imparting some extra power to it, I find problems.

Because that's the difference - it's not like someone would think "Oh, I thought I was uncomfortable with this, but since I see no X card on the table ... I guess that actually I enjoy it." It's a bug either way, and generally you want systems to "fail loud" rather than "fail silently" for anything that could be a big deal.

And again, you are still considering this as though the only person who could be the victim is the person who plays (or wants to play) the X-card. And I'm not sure if your "fail loud" versus "fail silently" is accurate. I'd prefer "fail in the direction of the most communication and clarity so any issues can be addressed". And to me, the X-card has a strong potential to do the exact opposite of that. Um... It also only "fails loud" in the direction of the use of the X-card itself. But it's only loud in that it's empowered to silence everything else. That's... not exactly the same thing IMO.

The problem with this is that the more seriously we take the play of an X-card, and the more we respect the feelings of the person playing it, the more likely it will be abused. If playing an X-card results in an immediate question/requirement of explanation from the GM/table, then it's hard to abuse it. But then, there's not much reason to do so either. You could have just told them, right? But if playing an X-card requires a stop with either no questions asked, or questions asked later, then we are handing a potential abuser a tool that can't be countered. And that's always a bad thing.

I would really rather fail to a state of "everyone has the same ability to speak and be heard".

And sure, these are purely hypthetical issues I'm raising. And yes, I can see some value in this if you find yourself at a table full of complete strangers maybe. Dunno though. It really does feel like a solution in search of a problem. For those who have used it, was it actually needed, or could the players have just verbalized the same things?

OldTrees1

2023-09-11, 11:18 PM

For those who have used it, was it actually needed, or could the players have just verbalized the same things?

Yes it was actually needed (although that was in a campaign a decade before the one I used X-cards).

For the rest, replace your post with Herbert_W's post above (including mention of an alternative tool)

Edit: Simplified post

akma

2023-09-12, 05:38 AM

Xervous

2023-09-12, 07:19 AM

We could theorize endlessly on possible ways it could be abused, but in practice, the X card is often not used at all.

13. Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private.

I will admit it feels a little bit like cherry picking on my part, with how much of the document talks about the mere existence of the X-card delivering most of its value. But how am I supposed to interpret that line item if not “throw it around frequently so as to disguise when it’s being used on something serious that you have no plans of discussing”?

Anymage

2023-09-12, 10:41 AM

Did anyone here use the X-card system?

All this conversation seems very hypothetical and not grounded in actual experience. Personally, I can think of some times where at least the message that "It is alright to speak up and ask the game to move away from uncomfortable topics," being sent clearly would have helped. And it makes sense that the X-card system could be used to help communicate that message, to say nothing of actually using the tool itself. But that is all hypothetical on my part, and some of these issues dive even deeper into theoretical territory.

Does it count if I've seen plenty of times when someone was made very uncomfortable through what was happening in game but didn't feel comfortable speaking up? Again not specifically about a card with an X on it, but the general idea of safety tools.

I will admit it feels a little bit like cherry picking on my part, with how much of the document talks about the mere existence of the X-card delivering most of its value. But how am I supposed to interpret that line item if not “throw it around frequently so as to disguise when it’s being used on something serious that you have no plans of discussing”?

Because presumably the person is there playing because they enjoy the game itself, not odd head games to mess with their fellow players. They also probably don't like to bring everything to a screeching halt and throwing off the game's momentum. They just dislike playing through a triggering situation even worse.

All of this does assume a good faith table. Things do break down in the face of bad actors. But things break down at a table with bad actors anyways, and they've found many ways to ruin games long before safety tools were being discussed.

Anymage

2023-09-12, 02:55 PM

Other players are not robots who ignore the fact that you keep pulling the emergency brake. If you pull it, someone will ask if you're okay sharing what is upsetting you so they can avoid it going forward. If you say that you don't like rolls happening behind screens, you can jump right to the table compatibility issue you should've talked about before. If you keep pulling it and refuse to explain yourself, the rest of the table will reasonably conclude that you're trolling and disinvite you.

gbaji

2023-09-12, 04:14 PM

I find the discussion of how the X system could be abused by a very malicious player to be somewhat pointless, as such a player would be destructive under any system, so the solution is simply not to include them in games (although it did give me an idea for a game in which the point would be to use such a system to mess up a plot of a GM/storyteller as much as possible).

The concern is that you are introducing a tool which can allow for abuse where you *can't* actually apply the standard "call them out on it, and then boot them if they continue" solution.

As a GM, the assumption behind an X-card is that I'm supposed to accept it as a legitimate thing every single time it's played. No questions asked, right? But I can't tell if the person playing that card is legitimately playing it due to some strong deep seated emotional trauma that they can't even talk about, or if they're just doing it to mess with and harrass other players (or me). And the entire system is constructed such that I'm not supposed to push or prod or question at all, right? Cause that would just create pain for the legitimate user.

So how am I supposed to ever know if the use is actually legitimate? I can't. By design of the system itself. IMO, that's a huge problem.

And that's before even looking at whether this tool is actually helpful for those for whom it is intended. It "helps" by avoiding the circumstances in which they are uncomfortable in the first place (but may actually introduce another source of anxiety as well). I'm just not sure if that's actually a healthy thing in the first place. My personal experience and observation is that our fears of things are often greater than the things themselves, and that socially interactive environments (like RPGs) are great places for those who experience various fears and anxieties to learn how to interact socially, have fun, and over time become more comfortable in those settings. My concern is that the very availability of a tool like this may step on the value of that interaction in the first place, by giving those people a way to keep others at a distance and maybe never actually learn how to become comfortable.

I think we often use examples of specific trauma/experiences and connect them to various events which may occur in a game environment. And that's certainly something that *could* happen, but more often it's going to be about specific subjects, or situations, or even just basic direct social interaction that is the issue. The former gets better with time and exposure (not the best term, but "getting it out" so to speak). The latter will *never* get better except by simply learning how to manage those subjects and situations (it's not trauma driven, but fear and inexperience). Giving people avoidance tools may help a bit in the former cases while moving through the process, but can be devastatingly harmful in the latter.

And no, I don't approach my games as some kind of therapy session or something. However, I do approach them from the point of view of "everyone should be having fun". To that end, I always try to make the games friendly and encourage my players to interact with eachother and me during play. And to me, something like an X-card is a block to that. It's just too formal of a tool, where I think that softer social methods will likely work better.

Dunno. That's just my take on the whole thing.

And it's not even just about folks knowingly abusing it. The mere presence of a tool may influence how folks play, and what they do. So on the one side, some players may think that since there's this saftey tool in place, they are free to go well beyond what they might normally think is socially acceptable, assuming "if someone is offended, they'll play the card". And on the other side, players may be inclined to use the card instead of the normal social interactive methods they would use to express themselves. Which could result in this odd form of social bumpercars going on.

Now, to be fair, if that's specifically what your going for in the game (pushing boundaries), then yeah, I get it. But for a "normal" game? Not so much.

icefractal

2023-09-12, 04:31 PM

On thing that's irking me on this thread is the assumption that the X-card makes obnoxious player behavior possible, like it wouldn't be already. For example, this:

In normal communication, the "can't be abused" state is that if someone does something other's object to, they have the same free speech as the other person and can say something about it. If it "festers" it's because they either did not raise the issue *or* it was raised and ignored. But at no point can one person, all on their own, just make life miserable for others.Because that's just blatantly false. One player could easily make the rest of the table miserable, just by talking, no X-card required:
* They could start viciously insulting the other players.
* They could describe something disgusting in great detail.
* They could sing an annoying song and refuse to stop.*

Or plenty of other things. Now yes, this is obviously obnoxious behavior and most tables would tell them to GTFO (although likely, the session would still be ruined) - but how's that different with an X-card in play? The X-card has no legal significance - the police aren't going to bust in and arrest everyone if you say "This is the third time you've used the X-card and refused to clarify - either say what the issue is or find a different group".

Now in regards to this:

The implication with the X-card is that I can force a stop condition on what's going on without actually telling anyone else why. It's literally the only reason to have such a tool in the first place.I get where you're coming from, but "just have a conversation about it" isn't always so simple. During a session, people often get loud and boisterous, and a quiet objection can be missed. Also, people often object in-character to things they don't mind IRL. For example, I'm currently playing a character who's terrified of vampires. If a vampire showed up, I might say "Oh **** no, I can't handle this, I'm outta here!" Which would be purely IC, and in fact I'd OOC welcome another PC saying "If you run away I'll shoot you myself, now get a grip!" So if someone was OOC terrified of something, just saying "nope!" / "**** no" / "I can't handle this!" could easily be mistaken for IC.

What the X-card takes the place of is not just conversation, it's standing up, waving your arms, going "Hey everyone, hold on a minute, hey!" until people are actually listening, and then explaining the situation and clarifying the fact that this is OOC. Which is not so easy for someone who's on the verge of panic to do.

Now as far as not explaining it? IDK, I've always thought that meant "not needing to explain it in detail or justify / debate it" - as in, you can just say "no spiders" rather than having a discussion - at that moment, while you're stressed - about exactly much spider-related detail is too much, whether arachnophobia is a "real" phobia, and so forth. Like, it's probably worthwhile to discuss "exactly how much spider-related stuff is ok?" at some point before the next session, but it should be at a time where everyone is calm, not in the midst of things.

Maybe there are some people using it as "literally no discussion at all, not even a couple words", which does seem confusing to me, but if so I haven't met them.

* To the response of "I'd just be stoic and not let those things bother me" - then be stoic and don't let the X-card bother you, lol.

OldTrees1

2023-09-12, 04:34 PM

The concern is that you are introducing a tool which can allow for abuse where you *can't* actually apply the standard "call them out on it, and then boot them if they continue" solution.

As a GM, the assumption behind an X-card is that I'm supposed to accept it as a legitimate thing every single time it's played. No questions asked, right? But I can't tell if the person playing that card is legitimately playing it due to some strong deep seated emotional trauma that they can't even talk about, or if they're just doing it to mess with and harrass other players (or me). And the entire system is constructed such that I'm not supposed to push or prod or question at all, right? Cause that would just create pain for the legitimate user.

As a GM I will always assume a safety tool is being invoked out of necessity. At that moment my priority is safety rather than ego.

As a GM I will also notice if there is growing evidence that my campaign and a particular player are not compatible. Each time a safety tool is invoked by a player it is evidence that my campaign might not be compatible with that player. I don't want a player to be constantly put in situations where they need to invoke a safety tool. If there is growing evidence my campaign is going to continue to be so risky for that player, I will separate the player from the campaign.

Which is why your concern is not relevant. I can assume every invocation is legitimate and being invoked out of necessity. I can assume every player is honest. Even with those reasonable responsible charitable assumptions, your unreasonable hypotheticals get resolved. Your troll gets removed despite me assuming they are a honest player that is being more risky with themselves than I am willing to enable.

OldTrees1

2023-09-12, 05:01 PM

Now as far as not explaining it? IDK, I've always thought that meant "not needing to explain it in detail or justify / debate it" - as in, you can just say "no spiders" rather than having a discussion - at that moment, while you're stressed - about exactly much spider-related detail is too much, whether arachnophobia is a "real" phobia, and so forth. Like, it's probably worthwhile to discuss "exactly how much spider-related stuff is ok?" at some point before the next session, but it should be at a time where everyone is calm, not in the midst of things.

Maybe there are some people using it as "literally no discussion at all, not even a couple words", which does seem confusing to me, but if so I haven't met them.

This varies. You have the core of not "having a discussion - at that moment, while you're stressed - about exactly much spider-related detail is too much, whether arachnophobia is a "real" phobia, and so forth." and "it's probably worthwhile to discuss "exactly how much spider-related stuff is ok?" at some point before the next session, but it should be at a time where everyone is calm, not in the midst of things.".

However some use: You never have to justify it. You don't need to name, much less explain it "at that moment, while you're stressed". It is worthwhile naming, explaining, or elaborating on it "at some point before the next session, but it should be at a time where everyone is calm, not in the midst of things" if, and to the extent that, it is possible to do so safely. The goal is to prioritize both present and future safety. As always there is the option to separate the player from the campaign if needed.

This has 3 differences
A)
With these topics sometimes the fear of judgement during justification can have a strong silencing effect. Since we want the tools to work, sometimes it makes sense to remove judgement from the equation.
B)
Some people are not able to safely discuss some topics. In these cases naming the topic before continuing can be sufficient when prioritizing present and future safety.
C)
Rarely something can happen and the person does not even have the words to identify it or describe it after the fact. This might be due to comprehension issues during the panic. This is unlikely to persist. If it is repeated they become able to describe it. If it is not repeated, it did not persist.

However there are similarities.
A)
Minimize the "in the moment" barriers stopping or slowing getting the player to safety
B)
Communication is good. The later still encourages communication.

With my informal tools I use this latter system. However, in practice, it functions as the former almost all of the time because it does not need the flexibility of the latter. However if I run into one of those rare cases, the latter system continues to prioritize safety.

I don't think there is any usage that discourages communication.

gbaji

2023-09-12, 06:47 PM

On thing that's irking me on this thread is the assumption that the X-card makes obnoxious player behavior possible, like it wouldn't be already. For example, this:
Because that's just blatantly false. One player could easily make the rest of the table miserable, just by talking, no X-card required:
* They could start viciously insulting the other players.
* They could describe something disgusting in great detail.
* They could sing an annoying song and refuse to stop.*

And, as I thought I'd already explained, in all of those cases, the obnoxious/abusive behavior is obvious to the GM, and the GM can immediately act to stop it. And if the obnoxious/abusive behavior continues, the GM can boot the player.

It's not that it makes this behavior "possible", but that it makes it "harder to detect" and "easier for the abuser to get away with". Let me throw some examples at you:

* They play an X-card randomly when someone is describing their character's actions, just to disrupt that player
* They play an X-card randomly when the GM is describing something in game, just to disrupt the GM
* They play an X-card whenever something happens in game that they don't like (for their character)

In all cases, they can justify it by vaguely mentioning a word or phrase or action/mention that was used and claiming that this is triggering them, or reminding them of some trauma, or something (they don't need to be specific). And you are supposed to accept this at face value because that's the assumption behind the existence of an X-card in the game.

It's the very fact that it allows for a whole new set of bad behavior and provides a protection for that behavior, that is a problem. Is this going to happen if you have good players? No. But then again, if you have good players you probably don't need an X-card in the first place. That's also predicated on the assumption that players will do or say things that are offensive or painful to a player, are unaware or uncaring that they are offending or upsetting that player, and the player is so intimidated by those other players that they are afraid to speak up and say that they are bothered by this, and need a card to do so instead.

We're talking about pretty rare edge cases either way. I just think that if we're creating a system more or less designed around the assumption of a rare edge case, it's fair to point out that there are other similarly rare edge cases in which it can be abused.

Or plenty of other things. Now yes, this is obviously obnoxious behavior and most tables would tell them to GTFO (although likely, the session would still be ruined) - but how's that different with an X-card in play? The X-card has no legal significance - the police aren't going to bust in and arrest everyone if you say "This is the third time you've used the X-card and refused to clarify - either say what the issue is or find a different group".

Sure. But how vague may the player be? How much are you "allowed" to dig into this? Again, I keep coming back to the innate assumption that this is something so painful that the player simply can't talk about it (or doesn't want to share with the people they're playing a game with). That can only work if the player is allowed to basically just give a vague explanation ("I don't like the use of the phrase <whatever>"). Which is all the cover a potential abuser needs.

And heck, it need not even start out as abusive. Let's imagine a player actually does have some triggers and trauma, and legitimately plays the X-card when those things come up and they feel uncomfortable. They come to associate "play the X-card" with "avoid something I don't like". And perhaps, over time, this player may feel emboldened to play this for things that maybe aren't that triggering or traumatic, but they just don't like or agree with. Don't like the thief stealing? Play the X-card. Don't like the ranger hunting animals for food? Play the X-card. There's a real risk that the sensitivity to "trigger" the play of such a card may increase over time.

And then, one day the player realizes that they're relying on the X-card to avoid anything they don't like in the game. Plot going in a direction that doesn't work with their character plan? Play the X-card. Other players not agreeing with your plan? Play the X-card. GM hits the party with a monster that's resistent to your character build? play the X-card. There's a very real slippery slope risk here. The more comfortable people get with using these sorts of tools (which is presumably also part of the objective here), the more likely that they'll be used for increasingly trivial things.

And again, this all comes back to "GM has to take this seriously, with little or no questions allowed". That's always a bad tool methodology IMO.

Now in regards to this:
I get where you're coming from, but "just have a conversation about it" isn't always so simple. During a session, people often get loud and boisterous, and a quiet objection can be missed. Also, people often object in-character to things they don't mind IRL. For example, I'm currently playing a character who's terrified of vampires. If a vampire showed up, I might say "Oh **** no, I can't handle this, I'm outta here!" Which would be purely IC, and in fact I'd OOC welcome another PC saying "If you run away I'll shoot you myself, now get a grip!" So if someone was OOC terrified of something, just saying "nope!" / "**** no" / "I can't handle this!" could easily be mistaken for IC.

What the X-card takes the place of is not just conversation, it's standing up, waving your arms, going "Hey everyone, hold on a minute, hey!" until people are actually listening, and then explaining the situation and clarifying the fact that this is OOC. Which is not so easy for someone who's on the verge of panic to do.

Ok. But that's more like having some kind of flag for players to throw when they want to speak, but the crowd is too boisterous. I have no issue with that (though I would prefer that the GM maybe maintain a little more control over the table than that, but whatever). But that's a very very different thing than the X-card description. It's one thing to say "Hey guys. I want you to stop speaking, so I can tell you something without shouting over you" (followed by you saying what you want to say), and "Hey guys. I want you to stop speaking, period, because what you are saying offends/upsets me" (followed by maybe a minimal explanation of the offense, but no other communication to replace that which was shut down).

The former promotes good communication. The latter retards it.

It's interesting that I'm responding specifically to the "shut down a topic with minimal explanation given" part of the X-card tool, but keep getting responses that examine cases where this isn't what's going on at all. In your example, the issue wasn't that the player was uncomfortable verbally communicating their fear of vampires (or whatever), but that they literally couldn't speak over the crowd and there was confusion over whether the player was saying something IC versus OOC. Those are very very different issues and not at all what I was talking about.

Anything that allows one to clarify speach (like being able to speak if the table gets too loud, or define whether something is said IC or OOC) is a good tool. And if that were the end point of X-card use, I'd be all for it (heck, I posted to this effect earlier). But, at least from everything I've read about it, that's not at all the intent much less the end point of the use of the X-card concept. What makes it different from having a flag to calm the table down so someone can speak or clarify something, is that the X-card is specifically about communicating a trigger warning to the table while minimizing the explanation required (to make it easier to use the tool in the first place). It's this specific use that I'm talking about and questioning heavily.

As a GM I will always assume a safety tool is being invoked out of necessity. At that moment my priority is safety rather than ego.

As a GM I will also notice if there is growing evidence that my campaign and a particular player are not compatible. Each time a safety tool is invoked by a player it is evidence that my campaign might not be compatible with that player. I don't want a player to be constantly put in situations where they need to invoke a safety tool. If there is growing evidence my campaign is going to continue to be so risky for that player, I will separate the player from the campaign.

So you will accept the play of an X-card without question, but if it's used too often, you'll boot the player?

Wouldn't this result be avoided if you talked to the player about what is bothering them and then considered whether making some minor changes to the campaign might be called for? Just seems like what you're describing is a heck of a whiplash concept: "Ok. I'm providing this tool for you to use if you are triggered by something in my game, and I wont ask any questions if you use it. But if you do use it too much, I'll ask you to leave the game".

That's even worse IMO. If we do assume that the target audience for this tool are players with high anxiety in social settings in the first place, you've just ladled the mother of all anxieties on thier heads. So every time this player experiences something in the game they aren't comfortable with, they have to weigh the value of the X-card at easing their immediate discomfort against the rising fear that this time will be the time it'll result in them being booted from the game. That's... probably not a good thing.

Why can't we just communicate with each other? When did this very simple concept just become too difficult to manage? The moment we start communicating with freaking cards instead of words, we're really moving in the wrong direction IMO.

AWhich is why your concern is not relevant. I can assume every invocation is legitimate and being invoked out of necessity. I can assume every player is honest. Even with those reasonable responsible charitable assumptions, your unreasonable hypotheticals get resolved. Your troll gets removed despite me assuming they are a honest player that is being more risky with themselves than I am willing to enable.

Sure. That solves the problem of the potential abuse, but in a way that leaves the potential legitimate user of an X-card totally out in the cold. You'd be better off not having the X-card in your game at all at that point. Which, again, is kind of my point. The very design of the X-card and its use as a trigger avoidance tool results in conditions such that it cannot be detected if abused. Which, yeah, leaves only somewhat draconian measures as a means to prevent that potential abuse, and in the process eliminates any value that the X-card might have legitimately had.

Which brings me back to: I'm just not seeing a lot of value here. Again, I can see it for games where the intention is to push the boundaries (someone mentioned a specific game that includes this system earlier). And I can *maybe* see cases where I'm at a tourney and it's one or two days of gaming, and it's random players I'll likely never see again. But for any actual gaming group? Not seeing the value.

icefractal

2023-09-12, 07:07 PM

Why can't we just communicate with each other? When did this very simple concept just become too difficult to manage? The moment we start communicating with freaking cards instead of words, we're really moving in the wrong direction IMO.You communicate with words after the session, in a low-stress environment, and maybe with only the GM rather than the entire group. Which incidentally, is the advice most people give for mechanical disputes - talk to the GM between sessions, don't hold up the entire game - so IDK why it'd be that controversial.

I think you might be attributing more power to the X-card than it has, with some of your examples? The X-card isn't a "the invoker gets authorial control of the story and can resolve things however they feel like" situation. The most typical ways of handling it I've seen are reflavoring, "let's jump to another scene and come back to that later", or "resolve it in a neutral way, make the next situation the decisive one instead". None of which are a "win" button.

Also, I contend that in terms of the "you could shut down someone's roleplaying with it" aspect, the vast majority of tables already do that for certain topics, they're just commonly-agreed enough that people don't think about it. But, for example, try playing out a sexual encounter with an NPC in detail - most GMs would "X-card" that by mandating you "fade to black" rather than describe it - and most groups would agree with the GM in doing so. Heck, many tables wouldn't even "fade to black", they'd just straight-up say it's not happening.

OldTrees1

2023-09-12, 09:42 PM

Why can't we just communicate with each other? When did this very simple concept just become too difficult to manage?
Communication is happening. In the simple cases (someone has a problem they can talk about in the moment), it happens the simple ways (they talk about it in the moment). In more complex cases (someone has a problem but there are barriers slowing/stopping them from communicating, and there is time pressure since it is an ongoing problem), it happens in more complex ways (lower the barriers and allow deferred elaboration).

So why can't we just communicate with each other? We can and do.
When did this very simple concept just become too difficult to manage? When we decided to tackle cases where people normally can't communicate, but we made a way they could.

The moment we start communicating with freaking cards instead of words, we're really moving in the wrong direction IMO.
{Scrubbed}

As for the rest of your post, it fails to reply to my post. Your misrepresentation is not worth replying to.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-13, 02:52 AM

The X-card is physically redundant and pointless. Why? Because if you're going to tap something to tell other people you have an issue and need them to stop, you can just tap the table for the same effect. Or make an X with your hands, or yell "Stop!", or use any of the other standard gestures that fit the purpose. A chairman's hammer, to make the tap audible in a noisy environment, would be a more useful tool. For these reasons, the X-card specifically is supremely uninteresting to me and my only motive to care is that someone might lobby to make it a convention standard where I live.

But let's move past the particular tool and talk about how often do players need to use such a stopping signal. My answer is: not very. And I say this as a convention game master who runs horror scenarios such as Death Love Doom and **** for Satan at minimal notice *) to interested convention goers, some of who might be playing roleplaying games for the first time. Dead babies, mutilated children, naked elderly people and penis monsters consistenly fail to cause any table drama or negative feedback. Don't get me wrong. People are shocked. They do freak out. They will wonder aloud "who sick pervert made this adventure?". But it's very rare for them tap out. Part of the reason is something that is regularly overlooked in discussions such as this: they already have let-outs. As part of normal game play, they can opt for their characters to escape, or commit suicide, or take any of myriad other game actions to get out of a situation. Since participation is voluntary by default, they can also stand up and leave at any point, and nobody in a convention will ask questions if you say you have to catch a bus or go meet some friends who just arrived.

Now, as for the question of whether stopping signals can be abused, the answer is: of course they can. People pretending to be more hurt than they really are to get a game advantage is common behaviour in all kinds of games. It's a really basic deceptive tactic. But the appeal of doing that depends on stakes of a game. Most tabletop roleplaying games have zero real stakes in them, or even if they do, the stopping signal has no relation to them. For a simple example, turning a giant spider into a giant otter might help someone with arachnophobia, but their character is still getting eaten. They can't possibly get anything more out of it than alleviating their own fear response.

*) on that sidenote, people vastly overestimate how much time and effort game set-up (AKA "session zero") for hardcore games takes. Time taken to get buy-in from a random convention-goer for all the dead babies, mutilated children, naked elderly people and penis monsters is five minutes and all the relevant content warnings and disclaimers can be fitted on a single A5, which also has the game pitch and list for participants.

Cluedrew

2023-09-13, 06:55 AM

Yes. I have used the X-card system. [...] Since the opening post explicitly asked who has used it, and nobody else spoke up (except Atranen?), I might be the only (other?) here that has? Although some responses are ambiguous.Yeah, I just can't help but notice that anyone who seems to have actually used it has nothing bad to say about it. Reading this thread has had some better and worse arguments for both using and not using the X-card system, but being rooted in actually experience is a huge bonus.

So is there anyone who has used it and found it didn't help* or made things worse?

* Preferably when it should have helped and not when it wouldn't have made a difference either way.

OldTrees1

2023-09-13, 08:31 AM

The X-card is physically redundant and pointless. Why? Because if you're going to tap something to tell other people you have an issue and need them to stop, you can just tap the table for the same effect. Or make an X with your hands, or yell "Stop!", or use any of the other standard gestures that fit the purpose. A chairman's hammer, to make the tap audible in a noisy environment, would be a more useful tool. For these reasons, the X-card specifically is supremely uninteresting to me and my only motive to care is that someone might lobby to make it a convention standard where I live.
There are some edge cases where including a non verbal stop signal is beneficial. However your chairman's hammer example is an improvement. If they can't talk but can reach out and swing the hammer, it gives a visual and audio signal. If they can't talk, and can't swing a hammer, but can reach out, then it still gives an visual cue.

But let's move past the particular tool and talk about how often do players need to use such a stopping signal. My answer is: not very. And I say this as a convention game master who runs horror scenarios such as Death Love Doom and **** for Satan at minimal notice *) to interested convention goers, some of who might be playing roleplaying games for the first time.

The use cases I have found are:
1) When playing with someone that can have panic attacks or have severe trauma in their past. Sometimes not all of the triggers are known or understood. So in addition to all the other session 0 prep and ongoing communication, I could see adding a safety tool as an extra safety net. (And despite X-cards adding a nonverbal signal, I would use a slightly different tool).
2) When taking extra risk than normal, use an additional safety net. When we played the horror game The Zone it was a significant shift from our normal games. We were not sure if we would accidentally stumble unto any unknowable triggers, so we had no objections over the X-card that comes build into that RPG. We did not expect it to be invoked, but the riskier context encouraged humility and precaution.

How often would I suggest using a stopping signal? Not very.
I have run & played in many campaigns (although with long running groups). I count only 3* times I would have suggested including them.
* One of those times the stopping signal was explicitly telling them in session 0 that if they tell me "stop" or any words to that effect, I would treat it as a stopping signal. That is a policy I always implicitly implement, but I am counting the one time I explicitly implemented it.

Of the times I would suggest using a stopping signal, how often do I expect it to be invoked? Almost never.
Of those 3 campaigns, the first had a single moment that would have been an invocation. Unfortunately we were not using a stopping signal and the situation made it hard for the player to articulate the problem in the moment. It was a severe, and sloppily handled. The fallout prevented the player from being able to continue with the campaign.

Use a stopping signal when needed. It is rarely needed, although risk assessment can help predict when it is more likely to be needed.

Also choose the stopping signal policy that works best for your context. The next time I include a safety tool, it is unlikely to be the X-card. Pause for a Minute (https://slyflourish.com/pause_for_a_minute.html) is closer to what I would use for my group.

Most tabletop roleplaying games have zero real stakes in them, or even if they do, the stopping signal has no relation to them.
A good reminder on how to maintain trust in the stopping signal.

OldTrees1

2023-09-13, 11:08 AM

Vahnavoi

2023-09-13, 04:00 PM

You can compare the principle OldTrees mentions to making staff security wear bright colors. Making it visible that there is security around can prevent events that would actually require the security to do something. The difficulty with measuring prevention is that it's hard count things that don't happen.

gbaji

2023-09-13, 05:19 PM

You communicate with words after the session, in a low-stress environment, and maybe with only the GM rather than the entire group. Which incidentally, is the advice most people give for mechanical disputes - talk to the GM between sessions, don't hold up the entire game - so IDK why it'd be that controversial.

It's not. It becomes so when you hand a tool to someone that does "hold up the entire game". That's literally what the X-card is for. To stop whatever is happening "right now". Not "finish playing the session, and then talk to the GM about this later". Right?

I think you might be attributing more power to the X-card than it has, with some of your examples? The X-card isn't a "the invoker gets authorial control of the story and can resolve things however they feel like" situation. The most typical ways of handling it I've seen are reflavoring, "let's jump to another scene and come back to that later", or "resolve it in a neutral way, make the next situation the decisive one instead". None of which are a "win" button.

Ok. "let's jump to another scene and come back later" is a huge mechanical "win" for the player who finds their character in a tough spot, losing a fight, need to use a rare consumable, or well, just about anything. Your second case of "resolve it in a neutral way, make the next situation the decisive one instead" is also a mechanical "win" for the player(s) if they find themselves doing poorly in a major conflict/encounter, and want to effectively get a "do-over". Oh... This fight wasn't really the one that determines if the bbeg's plan succeeds, we'll make it the next one instead.

Maybe part of this is my own professional background. I'm trained when creating or implementing any new tool to basically put on a black hat and ask "can I abuse this if I want to?". And yeah, this tool gives almost limitless ability for someone using it in bad faith to abuse the heck out of it (again, if they want to). That makes it a "bad tool".

And what I find interesting is that every time I raise these concerns the responses seem to just ignore this case, and go right back to assuming that everyone who ever plays an X-card (or similar safety tool) will always do so in good faith. Um... That's not how you test things. You assume someone's going to do something they shouldn't be doing and see what happens if that is the case. And then you try to make changes to prevent that from happening, or to reduce the damage done when it does.

Also, I contend that in terms of the "you could shut down someone's roleplaying with it" aspect, the vast majority of tables already do that for certain topics, they're just commonly-agreed enough that people don't think about it. But, for example, try playing out a sexual encounter with an NPC in detail - most GMs would "X-card" that by mandating you "fade to black" rather than describe it - and most groups would agree with the GM in doing so. Heck, many tables wouldn't even "fade to black", they'd just straight-up say it's not happening.

Sure. We do these things normally at gaming tables all the time. No problem. But what was previously a collective decision is now a single person decision when you introduce a safety tool like the X-card. The GM has a direct feedback on their rulings in the form of the players. If the players don't like the game, they stop playing (or, hopefully, come talk to the GM about this ahead of time). This allows for a table to establish their rules/norms/standards/whatever for play based on what the players collectively enjoy. This process is normal, natural, introduces feedback, and is inclusive.

The issue I have with the X-card concept is that it allows for an interrupt of pretty much anything that's happening at the table, by any one player at the table, with no explanation required at the time of interruption. The default pre-existing method is that if you don't like or disagree with something happening right now, you speak up about it, right now, and we make a decision about this, right now (even if the decsion is "ok, we'll skip this and have a conversation about it later"). Alternatively, you let it drop for the time being, let things play out, and then raise it later after the session. Those two options should be sufficient. We assume that if something is really really that important to you in the moment, you should raise that issue, in the moment.

The X-card concept introduces a method that is "stop the action, right now, but I'll only talk about it (maybe) later". And yeah, we might question what the differences is between a player simply saying "Hey guys. I'm not really comfortable with <whatever>. Can we not do this?", versus "play an X-card, say what you aren't happy about", and we move on. Kind of the same, right? But that's if the X-card is only used in the "flag to get people's attention so you can say something" way. Which, as I've stated repeatedly, is not a problem at all. It's the other aspects of this, suggesting that the player need not expreess themselves about the what or why of the X-card play, that I have some serious reservations about.

If you're at all saying "Play an X-card and we just stop the current scene and move on to something else, no questions asked", then that's what I'm saying I have a problem with. If it's "play an X-card and we stop what we're doing and have a conversation about things, and then decide what to do about it", then that's more in line what I would consider normal healthy communication and I have no problem with it. But yeah. That puts this back into the "flag to get people to stop, so you can say something" which I spoke about earlier. I have absolutely no issues with that. Back when I ran tourney games, this was a normal thing. When you're seated around a pretty long table, with sometimes up to a dozen people sitting around it, and let's face it the "Loud and I Roleplay by being overly dramatic and therefore sit right next to the GM to hog the spotlight" players present, we always had instructions for GMs like "player raises their hand, you call for everyone to stop and ask the player what they want to say". Very simple tool. Worked just fine for the many years I ran tables at tourneys (and I'll assume is still a method used today).

That's very very different from a signal that, when used, simply causes the GM to assume the "trigger warning" position, stop the entire scene where it is, skip it entirely and move on to something else, with no additional conversation involved. Anything in that realm, I'm going to still put a hard "no" on.

icefractal

2023-09-13, 08:06 PM

And what I find interesting is that every time I raise these concerns the responses seem to just ignore this case, and go right back to assuming that everyone who ever plays an X-card (or similar safety tool) will always do so in good faith. Um... That's not how you test things. You assume someone's going to do something they shouldn't be doing and see what happens if that is the case. And then you try to make changes to prevent that from happening, or to reduce the damage done when it does.Well I can answer that pretty easily. Here are some things I do while running a game (and the other GMs in the group are similar) that are very exploitable by "black hat" players:
* I don't closely monitor die rolls.
* I don't audit character sheets, much less memorize their modifiers so I know if people are giving the right results.
* I don't keep my own separate accounting of PC's resources like HP, spell slots, or money.
* When running a module, I don't verify (IDK how I even would) that the players haven't read it themselves to know what's ahead.
* In games with session-based resources (like Savage Worlds) I don't regulate how often people can use the bathroom, or how long they can RP for.
* If a player says they're not feeling well and has to leave, I don't require a doctor's note. They could exploit this to end the session (or at least any scenes involving their character) early.

And probably lots of other things. If my players are trying to cheat / be jerks? Then my game is already FUBAR. So all I'm assuming is that normal non-jerkass players won't suddenly become terrible by the X-card existing, because my game is already not remotely jerkass-proof.

Cluedrew

2023-09-13, 08:15 PM

Edit: IMO The benefits (when they happen correctly) would be immediately obvious. The likely harms this thread has pointed out are far more subtle and wouldn't be immediately obvious, it would most likely require a comparison to the same game without it to see the difference. Furthermore they would be spread out over the entire session, as opposed to zero or one time specific event.

The real question for someone considering using it shouldn't be based on anecdotal. It should be if those likely harms are worth more than a possible one time beneficial use. And likely zero times. IMO in the standard game, they wouldn't be.For the most part I agree with this, there are only two parts I will address:

A decision on whether to use the X-card system should be based on the best information/understanding available. If the best available is anecdotal evidence, then it should be based off that. And I will say that I think anecdotal evidence is better than pure theory-crafting which is what a lot of the arguments against the X-card system.

Which brings me to the main point. You described them as "likely harms" and while the harms and problem cases described in this thread all seem possible, not many of them seem likely. I was asking if anyone had actually encountered any of these problems in actual play and the answer seems to be no. Admittedly our sample size is one which only technically counts as a sample, more people who have tried it would be great.

So yes, there could be subtle effects of adding the X-card system to the game, for good and for ill. And I don't want to dismiss these completely but I think we should take a step back and ask if they are likely to come up. For instance the chain of "introduce a tool that makes people cut painful topics signals it is OK to ask that we stay away from such topics and so people end up doing so more naturally" is a chain that make sense to me. On the other hand "introduce a tool that makes people cut painful topics signals it is OK to use this to disrupt play whenever anything you don't like in anyway happens" does not; at least not in an otherwise healthy group. I'm not interested in disusing the already toxic group and if its purpose is made clear I don't see how it is used that way in good faith.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-14, 01:22 AM

truemane

2023-09-14, 08:48 AM

As I've said in other places, in RL most of my recent tabletop experience has been DM'ing for strangers (and relative strangers), a high percentage of which are new to role-playing. I've been using the X-card consistently for quite some time.

This is a topic that touches me pretty closely, and it's the sort of thing I have a lot of thoughts on. I've written several versions of this post, but I keep creeping away from 'some thoughts' territory and into 'full-blown manifesto.'

So, some thoughts: There's a sort of paradox at the heart of discussions about safety tools. There is a kind of person who is mostly immune to the harm facilitated by the lack of safety tools. And so that harm is invisible to them. And so safety tools are far more likely to restrict them than they are to benefit them. And so, because they can easily see the restrictions but not the benefits, they see safety tools purely in terms of misuse. Whereas the fact that they (and many others like them) see it that way is, in fact, why explicit safety tools are needed.
If you think the X-Card is stupid (silly, redundant, unnecessary) because 'anyone can just speak up anytime something bothers them' then the X-Card is not for you. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be. But just because you find "speaking up when something bothers you" to be a simple, direct, and unproblematic process, doesn't mean everyone does.
And again (in my experience) the pervasive notion that 'we don't need safety tools because we can all just use our words' is the exact attitude that creates an environment in which safety tools are necessary.
I can't find it, but I saw a comic once with two fancy foxes eating and one says "I ran into Mr.Rabbit today and he says that something must be done about Mr. Badger." And the other says "Really? That's strange. Mr. Badger never did anything to me." If you talked to the fancy foxes about Badger Safety they'd be very resistant.
Much like any given RPG, rules guide behaviour. Both explicitly (because they're rules) and also because the things you have rules for tell you what kind of thing you're doing. An RPG system that has a ton of rules for combat and none for social conflict is telling you what that game is about. In the same way, a table that has clear rules for handling harmful or problematic subject matter is telling you what that table is about.
In my experience, the primary benefit of a safety tool is that its presence resets the social contract at the table. The very fact that it is in place tells everyone at the table what kind of game we're playing and offers strong guidelines as to what kinds of behaviours will and won't be acceptable (both explicitly and implicitly).
At tables with safety tools in place I have seen a significant reduction in the kinds of casual racism, homophobia, misogyny, transphobia, ableism and all the other kinds of weaponized prejudice that have seeped into polite society. People are more careful with their speech. They're less likely to make jokes about women making them sandwiches, less likely to use certain words as pejoratives ("I got hit again? GAY!"), less likely to default into stereotype, less likely to casually bring up sexual assault. More likely to steer away from problematic topics before they get to them.
Most importantly, in my experience, tables that have safety tools and women or BIPOC, the drop in casual weaponized prejudice is nearly 100%. Whereas (again, in my experience) the presence of women and BIPOC without explicit safety tools does not have the same effect. With no explicit safety tools in place, people are generally as likely to engage in casual weaponized prejudice roughly as often as they do otherwise (sometimes with a side-glance and a half-hearted 'sorry' - which just makes it worse).
In my experience, misuse of a safety tool is rare. You know how, in 3.5, you could technically heal someone by drowning them? No one ever did that at a table either, not seriously. Because the social contract says that, generally speaking, misusing a rule system to generate a cynical result is out of bounds.
(In my experience, and somewhat counter-intuitively, when someone does misuse a safety tool, it's more likely to be the kind of person the tool was designed to protect than the kind of person you suspect. But my thoughts on that delve into manifesto territory so I'll leave it there)

kyoryu

2023-09-14, 11:04 AM

I think the idea of X-Card abuse is a bit overblown, and perhaps based on a misunderstanding.

The goal of the X-Card is to get out of the uncomfortable situation right now. Period. That's what the emphasis on "no discussion necessary" is for.

Once you're out of the situation, presumably the person triggered could talk about it, at least if the situation is likely to reoccur.

If the person continually uses the X-Card, won't tell you why, and seems to be "controlling" the game with it? Then they're not a good fit for the table anyway. No matter what "power" the X-Card gives, the ultimate answer is you don't have to play with them.

"Well, why risk it?"

Because you have two groups of people - people that might get legitimately triggered by stuff and use the X-Card in the intended way, and jerkfaces. Making sure that people that are legitimately triggered have a way out is much, much more important to me than preventing abuse by jerkfaces, since jerfaces will abuse things no matter what. The solution to jerkfaces is to kick them out of games.

Beelzebub1111

2023-09-14, 12:01 PM

I feel like, to some extent, there should be a mutual level of trust and respect for GM and between players. If you can't have an honest discussion about what's bothering you, then it shows a lack of emotional maturity that i don't really want to play with or run for. That doesn't mean we can't stop if things get too intense and you need 5 minutes to cool down or whatever. Or if things are getting to crazy we can't stop. or if a player's actions bother you, you can't stop to hash it out OOC. We are all trying to have fun together.

In the end a safety tool, like the x-card, is no different from saying "Time Out" or having a safeword. But the issue is that when we stop, take time to cool off, or whatever you need, you can't tell me what went wrong then it's just a bad fit. No one's behavior gets corrected and noone learns anything. Even if you just needed time to wind down from a scene that's enough of a reason, but I would like a reason at all.

The sad truth is that tables that generally need X-Cards aren't the type to use them and those that would generally aren't he type to need them.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-14, 01:03 PM

I ran games for many college age kids...

College aged people aren't kids, they are young adults. To clarify, when I think of younger players, I mean children from age of 4 up to teenagers at age of 16.

IMO the place this system would be the most beneficial is a Con game. Because that's where you really get the kind of That Guys that stomp all over normal boundaries IMX. Negative RPG geek stereotypes exist for a reason, and at Cons they're usually out in force.

As noted, I am also convention game master, and as far as I'm concerned those stereotypes are full of crap and largely stem from negativity bias. That is, somebody at some point had one bad experience at a convention and then generalized it to all others. Like That Guy, they are memes with only tenuous relation to reality and are given far more weight in discussions than their actual occurrence rate warrants.

---

Because you have two groups of people - people that might get legitimately triggered by stuff and use the X-Card in the intended way, and jerkfaces. Making sure that people that are legitimately triggered have a way out is much, much more important to me than preventing abuse by jerkfaces, since jerfaces will abuse things no matter what. The solution to jerkfaces is to kick them out of games.

I've dug into this before, but since these kind of ideas keep getting repeated, it bears repeating:

This kind of dichotomy, and especially the part in italics, is wrong. Again, it is common in all kinds of games for players to pretend to be more hurt than they are if that can get them a game advantage. Whether they bother to do that depends on stakes of the game. It is not a "no matter what" type of deal at all, the incentive grows stronger or weaker depending on how much skin they have in the game and how big a price is on the table. The punishment of being kicked out does not exactly solve this, it is only weighed against whatever reward would be gained by the deception. The likelihood of getting caught matters more than severity of punishment, so a game master who is good at noticing and quick at intervening can solve the matter with warnings before the situation escalates to the point where a player has to be kicked out.

The important part, again, is that most tabletop roleplaying games have zero real stakes to them, or the stopping signal has no relation to them. If they can't win the match by crying uncle, they have no reason to do so unless they are actually in pain. It's that simple.

gbaji

2023-09-14, 07:24 PM

Well I can answer that pretty easily. Here are some things I do while running a game (and the other GMs in the group are similar) that are very exploitable by "black hat" players:
* I don't closely monitor die rolls.
* I don't audit character sheets, much less memorize their modifiers so I know if people are giving the right results.
* I don't keep my own separate accounting of PC's resources like HP, spell slots, or money.
* When running a module, I don't verify (IDK how I even would) that the players haven't read it themselves to know what's ahead.
* In games with session-based resources (like Savage Worlds) I don't regulate how often people can use the bathroom, or how long they can RP for.
* If a player says they're not feeling well and has to leave, I don't require a doctor's note. They could exploit this to end the session (or at least any scenes involving their character) early.

Sure. I get that. But if someone produced a game aid that was in the form of a dice box, which allowed players to roll dice (inside the box) without anyone but them seeing the result, I'm going to assume you would not allow that at your table. And if someone created a character sheet system designed specifically to encode the values so that only the player could possibly see what's on the sheet, you probably woulnd't allow that either. How about a game system in which the player rolls for damage to his character (under a dice box even), and then secretly records this (on his encoded character sheet that only he can see), without telling you what the results were. Probably wouldn't be a fan of that either, right?

The point is that, yes, players can cheat if they want. But the normal game methodologies provide tools for the GM to determine if this is happening. You don't have to stand over the player and watch them roll, but would probably expect that they make rolls out on the table. The later allows you to monitor the rolls if you decide it's needed. Similarly, you may not be looking at the players sheet constantly, but you absolutely can ask to see the sheet if you want/need to, and the player should provide this. Same deal with recorded damage, consumables, spells, etc. You *can* see these things if you want to, and the normal expecation is that the player has to make these things available to the GM.

Some aspects of the X-card concept (and it becomes moreso the farther we get into the "without question/expanation" side of things) are similar to those somewhat tongue in cheek examples above. You're intentionally adopting something that doesn't allow someone to cheat (because as you say, anyone can if they want), but makes it very difficult to impossible to know when/if they are. And the mere existence of such a tool may very well create cheating where it would not exist otherwise. In exactly the way that having some kind of concealed dice rolling methodology might do so.

And probably lots of other things. If my players are trying to cheat / be jerks? Then my game is already FUBAR. So all I'm assuming is that normal non-jerkass players won't suddenly become terrible by the X-card existing, because my game is already not remotely jerkass-proof.

But you'd still not introduce a "hidden dice roll" or "hidden character sheet" system at your table, right? I mean, you trust your players not to cheat, but you still don't make it ridiculously easy for them anyway.

And I guess another issue I have with the X-card idea is the very binary nature of it. There's no nuance here. Do you play it merely when something is heading in a direction you aren't comfortable with? Or when it's arrived? Do others know which is which when it's played? There's a lot of variable use potential going on here. And at the end of the day, RPGs are social games. They are best when everyone is participating and communicating with each other comfortably. Anything that facilitates this is a good thing. I just don't realy see a tool that just acts as a "make people stop when they do or say something I don't like" interrupt as conducive to this. I'd rather encourage players to particpate and communicate. And yeah, some players will be the shy anxious types. But again, I'd rather do things that encourage them to engage with the group, then a tool to enable them to continue to stand off by themselves (socially anyway) and veto other people when they don't like things.

I just don't like the "social bumpercar" aspect to this. Everything's fine... until it's not.

Again. I can see this for a group of strangers, if we're really concerned that there may be really inappropriate stuff going on (though, again, I'd like to think the GM or table as a whole should act to damper this stuff anyway). And I can maybe see this for someone with really high anxiety issues, to get them to even try to particpate in social games. But if this were a friend of mine going through this, I'd be working with them to wean them off the X-card though. At the end of the day, it's a social crutch. And sure, sometimes crutches are needed. But ideally, they should always be temporary measures.

icefractal

2023-09-14, 08:05 PM

This kind of dichotomy, and especially the part in italics, is wrong. Again, it is common in all kinds of games for players to pretend to be more hurt than they are if that can get them a game advantage. Whether they bother to do that depends on stakes of the game. It is not a "no matter what" type of deal at all, the incentive grows stronger or weaker depending on how much skin they have in the game and how big a price is on the table.See my response to gbaji a few posts above. You're saying that the emergency door people want to install isn't very secure and could be pried open from the outside. I'm saying that's true, but since I'm installing this door on a house with no locks at all, it's not really any less secure than how it already was.

But you'd still not introduce a "hidden dice roll" or "hidden character sheet" system at your table, right? I mean, you trust your players not to cheat, but you still don't make it ridiculously easy for them anyway.Eh, I might? If there was some benefit to it.

The dice, it's true that "the GM is probably not looking" is a different case than "nobody is looking" - it's possible that there are some players who would cheat but are currently afraid of being noticed by the other players even if I'm not looking myself.

The character sheet? What would it really change? If a player says they have Bluff +15, looking at their sheet won't prove anything unless they're really incompetent at cheating - they'll have written "+15" on there. If they're saying a value that's implausible then I'd ask "How?" which doesn't require seeing their sheet to answer. I guess having the sheet to audit would make subtle fudges more noticeable (if you audit it semi-carefully), but if they're that subtle it's unlikely to be noticed anyway.

And I guess another issue I have with the X-card idea is the very binary nature of it. There's no nuance here.This is true, and IDK if I'd call it the best safety tool for that reason. Something like Line and Veils gives a lot more information. But that information requires the player to know up front what they have issues with, and/or for the GM to know up front what kind of content they'll be including in future. The X-card is more like a fire extinguisher - it's an emergency tool that hopefully doesn't need to be invoked ever, but it's good to have available when needed.

For this reason, I don't really agree with "use it on a regular basis so that it's no big deal". Like yes, that does lower the stakes of using it, but it also lowers the perceived need to respond to it. I'd treat it more like an emergency brake on a train - you pull it when you need to stop immediately. And like an emergency break of a fire extinguisher, the corrective action needs to happen first and the discussion second.

And I guess that's why I'm against "don't unilaterally stop things" / "this should be a discussion to reach a mutual conclusion" as counterpoints. If someone is standing on my toes, until they move I don't care that it was by mistake, that they didn't intend any harm, that they're not a bad person, that the issue is where I was standing, or the lights being too dim, etc, etc. That's all fine, and we can talk about it after they get the **** off my foot. But not before.

And that's how I think the X-card is intended. It's not "I don't particularly like this theme, can we move the campaign in a different direction?" It's "this conversation right here is viscerally uncomfortable for me, it needs to stop until I can GTFO" - which can either mean the group switches tracks, or the player in question leaves early - but not "just stay there being viscerally uncomfortable until a good moment to discuss things arrives".

Or to put it another way:
"This game is very spider-heavy, if that bothers you then you should step out, I'll let you know when the next campaign starts." - Perfectly fine.
"This game is very spider-heavy, and if that bothers you, you should keep playing it anyway and not make a fuss." - No.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-15, 03:38 AM

See my response to gbaji a few posts above. You're saying that the emergency door people want to install isn't very secure and could be pried open from the outside. I'm saying that's true, but since I'm installing this door on a house with no locks at all, it's not really any less secure than how it already was.

I find this an odd criticism of me, given I effectively explained no-body will use the emergency door if there's no benefit to it.

The other reason it's an odd criticism, and odd analogy, is because my chief criticism of the X-card is not that it makes a game worse, it's that it's physically redundant and pointless. Just like an additional emergency door would be in a building that already has enough unlocked doors to cover capacity. For your specific argument, that analogy also means that if players can already lie and cheat to their heart's content in other ways to get the outcome they want, they are also less likely to abuse a stopping signal for that specific purpose.

OldTrees1

2023-09-15, 09:25 AM

Edit: as Vahnavoi points out below, I misread them here.

I find this an odd criticism of me, given I effectively explained no-body will use the emergency door if there's no benefit to it.

The other reason it's an odd criticism, and odd analogy, is because my chief criticism of the X-card is not that it makes a game worse, it's that it's physically redundant and pointless. Just like an additional emergency door would be in a building that already has enough unlocked doors to cover capacity. For your specific argument, that analogy also means that if players can already lie and cheat to their heart's content in other ways to get the outcome they want, they are also less likely to abuse a stopping signal for that specific purpose.

The part of your post they quoted and were talking about, was a part where you mentioned a hypothetical theoretical exploit which is not observed in practice. Their argument was the building is unlocked (there are other areas of their game that are more exploitable, like cheating at dice since the GM is not checking) that it does not make sense to critique the emergency exit (the safety tool) for being able to be pried open from outside (hypothetical exploit). If their argument is correct, then we would expect these hypothetical exploits to not be observed in practice (or at least vanishingly infrequently). We have a low sample size of actual experience by these exploits show up 0% of the time in that sample.

Now the other parts of your post did raise an argument that you don't see why anyone would ever use the emergency door since you don't see a benefit to it. Let me quote Truemane here:

As I've said in other places, in RL most of my recent tabletop experience has been DM'ing for strangers (and relative strangers), a high percentage of which are new to role-playing. I've been using the X-card consistently for quite some time.

This is a topic that touches me pretty closely, and it's the sort of thing I have a lot of thoughts on. I've written several versions of this post, but I keep creeping away from 'some thoughts' territory and into 'full-blown manifesto.'

So, some thoughts: There's a sort of paradox at the heart of discussions about safety tools. There is a kind of person who is mostly immune to the harm facilitated by the lack of safety tools. And so that harm is invisible to them. And so safety tools are far more likely to restrict them than they are to benefit them. And so, because they can easily see the restrictions but not the benefits, they see safety tools purely in terms of misuse. Whereas the fact that they (and many others like them) see it that way is, in fact, why explicit safety tools are needed.
If you think the X-Card is stupid (silly, redundant, unnecessary) because 'anyone can just speak up anytime something bothers them' then the X-Card is not for you. And that's fine. It doesn't have to be. But just because you find "speaking up when something bothers you" to be a simple, direct, and unproblematic process, doesn't mean everyone does.
And again (in my experience) the pervasive notion that 'we don't need safety tools because we can all just use our words' is the exact attitude that creates an environment in which safety tools are necessary.
I can't find it, but I saw a comic once with two fancy foxes eating and one says "I ran into Mr.Rabbit today and he says that something must be done about Mr. Badger." And the other says "Really? That's strange. Mr. Badger never did anything to me." If you talked to the fancy foxes about Badger Safety they'd be very resistant.

Truemane is correct that to some the safety tools might appear to have no benefit. Those people believe that "anyone can just speak up anytime something bothers them". Without assistance, those people are not going to see the benefit the safety tools have to others.

Some of them (like myself) have the fortune or misfortune of having some context or encounter that reveals that others DO benefit from these safety tools even if they(I) won't themselves.

You might never benefit from a safety tool. I won't ever need a safety tool in an RPG. However I have seen what happens when someone did need one and none was provided. So, keep that in mind when I give the conclusion "Include a safety tool when needed. It is rarely needed, although risk assessment can help predict when it is more likely to be needed" because we can benefit from my mistake.

kyoryu

2023-09-15, 10:22 AM

And probably lots of other things. If my players are trying to cheat / be jerks? Then my game is already FUBAR. So all I'm assuming is that normal non-jerkass players won't suddenly become terrible by the X-card existing, because my game is already not remotely jerkass-proof.

Correct, and I explicitly play games that don't put guardrails in for exploitative players.

I think one of the arguments is often "but if there's a benefit players will use it." That presumes that said players are unmotivated by social norms and niceties. IOW, that the social damage done by abuse of tools/etc. is of no consequence to them.

I reject that argument whole cloth. That's only true if:

1. You're playing with people that don't care if they upset others at the table
2. You're unwilling to enact consequences to perceived antisocial behavior

In other words, people will use something like that to their benefit only if there are no negative consequences to doing so that they care about - either internal (feeling bad about damaging relationships) or external (getting removed).

I'm 51 years old. I have a lot of things on my plate, so maximizing the pool of people I can play RPGs with is not a priority. Maximizing my enjoyment from my limited free time is. So I will 100% be selective on who I game with, and people that fit criteria #1 don't clear the bar, and therefore I'm 100% willing to bypass #2 and enact consequences towards people doing that. I'm also 100% in favor of prioritizing the experience of people that are acting in good faith and trying to stay within social norms, and handling exploitation of those things as social issues to be resolved via normal social mechanisms - explaining standards, setting boundaries, and ultimately enforcing them.

Ionathus

2023-09-15, 10:37 AM

Shy and anxious people failing to express themselves or do much anything because they're afraid to push boundaries, is a far more common and severe issue than players pushing boundaries to the point of someone breaking. If establishing a stop signal makes them live a bit, that's overwhelmingly a positive.

I get where you're coming from, but "just have a conversation about it" isn't always so simple. During a session, people often get loud and boisterous, and a quiet objection can be missed. Also, people often object in-character to things they don't mind IRL.
...
What the X-card takes the place of is not just conversation, it's standing up, waving your arms, going "Hey everyone, hold on a minute, hey!" until people are actually listening, and then explaining the situation and clarifying the fact that this is OOC. Which is not so easy for someone who's on the verge of panic to do.

This part right here is why I believe so fervently in the value of some sort of explicit "pause" mechanic. What I'm seeing consistently from one corner of this debate is the idea that you can "just talk it out" so a pause mechanic is redundant. Well, hey, guess what, not everybody is like that. Not everybody has the social confidence to speak up and start a conversation about the fact that they're the only one having a bad time.

My players are awesome and they're excellent at communicating their needs. But we very recently hit a snag on something I never would have expected: a roll on the Wild Magic Surge table caught one player by surprise, and that was the moment the rest of us learned she had a pretty niche but intense phobia. You know what she did when the phobia came up? She got quiet. We only caught it because we know her playstyle very well, and even then it took a little bit. At a different table where we hadn't all gamed together for 3+ years, I can easily see a scenario where the rest of the party laughs it off and keeps playing while she sits there panicking silently, unable to form a coherent request to dial it back or take a break.

Some people freeze up in a crisis. Having a "button" they can metaphorically push, without having to have a whole discussion about it and potentially get into a well-intentioned "debate" about the topic, simplifies their escape from that crisis.

Well I can answer that pretty easily. Here are some things I do while running a game (and the other GMs in the group are similar) that are very exploitable by "black hat" players:
* I don't closely monitor die rolls.
* I don't audit character sheets, much less memorize their modifiers so I know if people are giving the right results.
* I don't keep my own separate accounting of PC's resources like HP, spell slots, or money.
* When running a module, I don't verify (IDK how I even would) that the players haven't read it themselves to know what's ahead.
* In games with session-based resources (like Savage Worlds) I don't regulate how often people can use the bathroom, or how long they can RP for.
* If a player says they're not feeling well and has to leave, I don't require a doctor's note. They could exploit this to end the session (or at least any scenes involving their character) early.

And probably lots of other things. If my players are trying to cheat / be jerks? Then my game is already FUBAR. So all I'm assuming is that normal non-jerkass players won't suddenly become terrible by the X-card existing, because my game is already not remotely jerkass-proof.

This is where I land, too. I don't find "it could be misused by a bad-faith actor" compelling at all. All of the hypothetical scenarios in this thread, where some jerk strongarms the game with an X-card or equivalent, just...don't track for me. The mechanic is extremely unsubtle by design. If you abuse it, people are going to notice.

As I've said in other places, in RL most of my recent tabletop experience has been DM'ing for strangers (and relative strangers), a high percentage of which are new to role-playing. I've been using the X-card consistently for quite some time.

This is a topic that touches me pretty closely, and it's the sort of thing I have a lot of thoughts on. I've written several versions of this post, but I keep creeping away from 'some thoughts' territory and into 'full-blown manifesto.'
<snip>

Excellent post, thank you for sharing. This encapsulates my feelings on the matter almost entirely. In particular, I really appreciate the point you made about experienced players seeing the "cons" but not the "pros":

There's a sort of paradox at the heart of discussions about safety tools. There is a kind of person who is mostly immune to the harm facilitated by the lack of safety tools. And so that harm is invisible to them. And so safety tools are far more likely to restrict them than they are to benefit them. And so, because they can easily see the restrictions but not the benefits, they see safety tools purely in terms of misuse. Whereas the fact that they (and many others like them) see it that way is, in fact, why explicit safety tools are needed.

This aspect of the discussion ("I don't see a good reason to use them, but I do see how they could impact my experience") feels like unintentional "old guard" mentality for me. Mechanics like this are designed to make the hobby safer and more accessible to a wider audience, some of whom might see RP as outside their comfort zone, but they're being dismissed by longtime TTRPG people who say some variation of "well, I don't see what's so hard about just talking it out." Of course you don't. You've been doing this for years or even decades. We're debating this on an honest-to-god TTRPG message board with a 2003-style interface - I think it's safe to say we're here because we're experienced and passionate about the hobby, and thus represent a pretty diehard subset of the community.

We are not (usually) the intended audience for entry-level safety tools. But that doesn't mean those tools are useless or damaging. And if we don't have them where they're needed, we stand a chance of driving people away from the hobby if they don't fit the hobby's core demographic of "experienced RPer, always outspoken about personal comfort, fully aware of all triggers & phobias". I don't know about you, but I have people at my table who fall outside those criteria. It's not unreasonable to make accommodations for them, and it's not fair to assume straightaway that those accommodations will be abused.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-15, 02:56 PM

@OldTrees:

Pay close attention. I was not making the argument you think I was making. The thing I was critiquing, and the part which IceFractal quoted, was about a bad dichotomy of players into honest people and cheaters and the false idea that cheaters gonna cheat no matter what. In actuality, whether people cheat depends on the advantage gained. If no extra benefit is gained by it, they won't cheat in that specific way even if it is possible, that is literally the explanation for why you don't observe everyone abusing stop signals even if they technically could.

As for the redundancy of the X-card specifically, do remember that I made a distinction between it and stop signals in general. The X-card is not redundant and pointless because stop signals in general are pointless, the X-card is pointless and redundant because there are and were other existing stop signals before the X-card even became a discussion topic. (https://xkcd.com/927/) Related, the practice of players feigning offense or injury to gain advantage is so well known that specific games have their own terminology (such as "flopping" for basket ball or "diving" for association football) and scientific research for why it happens, how often it happens, how good referees are in spotting it, and what you can do about it. Most of it is really basic psychology, to the point it's unreasonable to think it would not be applicable to tabletop roleplaying games.

OldTrees1

2023-09-15, 03:18 PM

@OldTrees:

Pay close attention. I was not making the argument you think I was making.
You are right. Thanks for pointing it out so I could see that I misread.

As for the redundancy of the X-card specifically, do remember that I made a distinction between it and stop signals in general. The X-card is not redundant and pointless because stop signals in general are pointless, the X-card is pointless and redundant because there are and were other existing stop signals before the X-card even became a discussion topic. (https://xkcd.com/927/)
Ah, right. The chairman's hammer nonverbal signal you mentioned earlier. Sorry, I had gotten confused. Your critique was about this specific nonverbal stopping signal, rather than the concept of a nonverbal signal for when the verbal signals are inaccessible.

My players are awesome and they're excellent at communicating their needs. But we very recently hit a snag on something I never would have expected: a roll on the Wild Magic Surge table caught one player by surprise, and that was the moment the rest of us learned she had a pretty niche but intense phobia. You know what she did when the phobia came up? She got quiet. We only caught it because we know her playstyle very well, and even then it took a little bit. At a different table where we hadn't all gamed together for 3+ years, I can easily see a scenario where the rest of the party laughs it off and keeps playing while she sits there panicking silently, unable to form a coherent request to dial it back or take a break.

Some people freeze up in a crisis. Having a "button" they can metaphorically push, without having to have a whole discussion about it and potentially get into a well-intentioned "debate" about the topic, simplifies their escape from that crisis.

Yup. I sympathize that you (plural) went through that. I am glad you (plural) caught on sooner rather than later.

gbaji

2023-09-15, 06:35 PM

The dice, it's true that "the GM is probably not looking" is a different case than "nobody is looking" - it's possible that there are some players who would cheat but are currently afraid of being noticed by the other players even if I'm not looking myself.

It's not just "GM probably not looking" vs "nobody is looking" though. It's "nobody is allowed to look". More to the point, you are normalizing behavior such that it's now expected that nobody looking is the norm, and asking to see rolls becomes the non-norm. If "Everyone rolls their dice under a box, and questinoing that is considered offensive and must not be done", you've created conditions in which cheating becomes not only very very easy to do, but there are zero actual risks and consequences for doing it. The clues we'd normally see that indicate someone is cheating on their dice (rolls and quickly picks up dice, or rolls between two stacks of game books in front of them where it's difficult to see) are now gone. So someone who might not cheat because doing so may be detected, no longer has that concern.

We're left to absolutely trust that the person rolling under the dice box is acting in a purely altruistic way. The default human behavior is to always do what benefits you the most with the least associated risk/cost. Always. What normally prevents cheating is the social risk/harm of being caught (or even suspected). When you remove that risk of being caught or suspected, you are left with the player themselves deciding internally that the value of cheating to allow their character to do better in a game than they should is not greater than the cost of feeling bad about having cheated. And sure, for most decent players, they still will avoid cheating anyway. But, as the value of cheating increases, the likelihood of cheating increases. So a random roll to see how well I do something in game with little or no consequences, probably not going to cheat even if it's easy to do so. But "fate of the (game) world hangs in the balance, and my character and the entire party will die if I don't make this roll"? The odds of cheating increase to pretty much 100%.

But the larger point is that you would never introduce that into a game and tell your players they should all use this new dice rolling tool as the norm, and furthermore that any questioning of the use of the dice box is not allowed. Because it serves no purpose other than as a strong incentive for players to cheat.

And yes. The X-card isn't just about that, but my point is that the value it does provide is strongly about that. I'll talk about that more below.

As for the redundancy of the X-card specifically, do remember that I made a distinction between it and stop signals in general. The X-card is not redundant and pointless because stop signals in general are pointless, the X-card is pointless and redundant because there are and were other existing stop signals before the X-card even became a discussion topic. (https://xkcd.com/927/) Related, the practice of players feigning offense or injury to gain advantage is so well known that specific games have their own terminology (such as "flopping" for basket ball or "diving" for association football) and scientific research for why it happens, how often it happens, how good referees are in spotting it, and what you can do about it. Most of it is really basic psychology, to the point it's unreasonable to think it would not be applicable to tabletop roleplaying games.

This is maybe where the communication problem is here. A lot of people are looking at the X-card as a complete "thing". But I (and I think you) are looking at it as a delta from already existing tools. ie: What does the X-card do that existing "raise your hand", or "throw a flag", or other "stop the game so someone can talk" tools do already? I, and most folks questioning this, are not saying that "stop" tools are the problem. It's the steps beyond that. It's "what happens after you stop things?".

My expecation if someone throws a stop out there, is that they will use that stop action to communicate something. It could be "someone's on my (proverbial) foot". Or "I'm really uncomforatable with <whatever>". Or even "I want to say something, but can't get a word in edgewise". This falls squarely in the "useful tool for enabling group communication", and I wholeheartedly endorse tools for doing that. So if someone disagrees with me, please don't talk about the "stop" component. That's not at all what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about, and am concerned about is this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SB0jsx34bWHZWbnNIVVuMjhDkrdFGo1_hSC2BWPlI3A/edit):

The X-Card is not a replacement for conversation. If you prefer to talk about an issue that comes up instead of using the X-Card, please do. Just because the X-Card is available does not mean it has to be used. But when it is used, respect the person who uses it and don't ask why. The X-Card is optional.

And a bit of this:

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private.

This is the "delta" in the X-card relative to other tools we've been using at gaming tables for decades. It's not a "stop what's going on so we can talk", but "stop what's going on, but with no expecation of talking". The rules specifically state not to ask why the card was played (and even suggest using it spuriously just to more easily conceal your reasons when playing "for real"). And yeah, I get the motivation for this. But I also find this to be extremely problematic, for a host of reasons I've already mentioned.

It just seems like we keep going around in circles with folks looping back to "but you need a stop tool for players to use", as if that addresses the specific elements of the X-card that I have issues with. That's not it.

And just to quickly restate, I expect that if you interrupt the game, you have a reason to do so, and you will explain that reason. If not to the whole table, at least to the GM. And yeah, I get that this can be uncomfrotable for some players, but at the end of the day, we are playing a social game with an entire table full of people who's enjoyment I also have to consider. Removing the ability of the GM to make an assesment and judgement in these situations (because the GM can't know the details of what is going on) is not a good thing. It creates the potential for one player to effectively hijack the entire table's enjoyment. The GM needs to be able to arbitrate anything that goes on at the table. This tool removes that ability from the GM.

And yeah, as I think I mentioned in the previous thread on this, I'm also looking a bit at how other social saftey tools have worked out in other settings, and often, while very well intentioned at the start, they result in a pretty extreme amount of supression of the free exchange of ideas and open communication in general. And sure, that's a lot broader than what we're usually doing at a gaming table, but it's just not a direction I like my tables to go in. I want my players to feel comfortable talking about and roleplaying a whole variety of things. I want them to feel comfortable to tell me when they are uncomfortable with something going on at the table as well.

A tool that, at its core, is specifically designed to allow someone to stop what's going on without explaining themselves in any way other than "I don't want this thing to continue" (again, that's the sole difference between this and previous tools that already exist), is counter to what I want to have at my tables. And again, as I've mentioned previously, I can see this being implemented in some situations. But very very situationally, and my expecation at any table and group that I'm playing with regularly is that we should rapidly work to move away from something like this, if it is present at all. Call me a mean ol GM or something, but if you can't even explain to me, at least in broad terms, why you felt the need to stop something in my game, I'm going to find it difficult to continue having you play in my game.

Again. RPGs are social games. I may occasionally find myself playing with strangers, but my expecation is that this should not be the assumption over time (they should become at least good aquiantances, if not friends, right?). I'd much rather we apply our own normal social tools to get to know each other, and learn to play comfortably together instead. I'll certainly work with any players (I do this aleady, cause let's face it gamers are their own breed sometime). But I do kinda expect players to meet me half way here. I can't help a player fit in with the table, if they can't communicate to me what will faciliate that happening. And sure. Maybe part of that is that I've been doing this for like 40 years or so, and so it's a bit easier to get a sense for how players are reacting to the game content. Maybe.

Dunno. Maybe just part of this is a broader social observation that the more we formalize rules to avoid the potential for offending someone, the more we seem to be losing the ability to learn how to do this on our own. There's a bit of "baby with the bathwater" aspect to this that I'm concerned about. Or maybe I find it analgous to "lather kids in anti-bacterial soap, and wrap them in bubble wrap, and never let them go outside, and then wonder why they get sick/injured every time they walk outside the safety of this environment". It is, as with all things, a balance of factors. I just think this is tiiping us into unbalanced and unhealthy (and something like the X-card is just a symptom of this). There is a point where trying too hard to make things "safe" is actually causing more harm than help. And sure, I'm not my player's therapist here, so it's not my job to help them get over whatever issues they have, but I'm also not going to participate in something I consider to be at best not helpful to them, at at worst, actively harmful. Doubly so if this may impact the enjoyment of the rest of the table at the same time.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-16, 03:47 AM

This part right here is why I believe so fervently in the value of some sort of explicit "pause" mechanic. What I'm seeing consistently from one corner of this debate is the idea that you can "just talk it out" so a pause mechanic is redundant. Well, hey, guess what, not everybody is like that. Not everybody has the social confidence to speak up and start a conversation about the fact that they're the only one having a bad time.

My players are awesome and they're excellent at communicating their needs. But we very recently hit a snag on something I never would have expected: a roll on the Wild Magic Surge table caught one player by surprise, and that was the moment the rest of us learned she had a pretty niche but intense phobia. You know what she did when the phobia came up? She got quiet. We only caught it because we know her playstyle very well, and even then it took a little bit. At a different table where we hadn't all gamed together for 3+ years, I can easily see a scenario where the rest of the party laughs it off and keeps playing while she sits there panicking silently, unable to form a coherent request to dial it back or take a break.

Some people freeze up in a crisis. Having a "button" they can metaphorically push, without having to have a whole discussion about it and potentially get into a well-intentioned "debate" about the topic, simplifies their escape from that crisis.

Going back to this, because it is a good sample case to explain an underappreciated distinction:

Fight-flight-freeze is a physiological reaction. It's a distinct matter from lack of social confidence. When someone is frozen up, they are unlikely to be able to push literal buttons, nevermind metaphorical ones, and we know this because we do regularly give them literal buttons to push in more serious contexts. People who are freezing are overwhelmingly reliant on other people pushing those buttons for them. Put another way, if a person is using a stop signal for their own sake, it's best used, and meant to be used, in a pre-emptive manner. They are supposed to give the signal when they anticipate something might cause them to freeze. A simple example of this would be an arachnophobe using the signal immediately when they hear a mention of spiders, before they are actually shown or given a detailed description of spiders that could actually trigger their phobia *).

The corollary to the above is that stop signals don't do much to prevent genuinely surprising event from causing a situation. The purpose of stopping the game in those cases is so that the other people realize they need to take a break and give first aid to the affected person. Again, it's other people who have to use the signal in these cases.

Fortunately, I have good news for you: it doesn't take three years of playing together to learn how to spot an unusually quiet person or what to do about it. A crisis training or emergency first aid training course is enough. Before anyone thinks that's unusually high bar to cross, I first went through the relevant training in scouts when I was nine, which is about the same age I coincidentally started playing tabletop roleplaying games. The relevant skills are something that can be taught to literal kids, and can be taught through the medium of a game to boot. You can stage the relevant event within a roleplaying scenario, just like scouts stage car crashes for first aid training.

It's worth noting that tabletop roleplaying is primarily carried out through verbal communication. What's the first thing you'd do to check if a person is unusually unresponsive? Talking to them. Which is what every player, and especially a game master, ought to be doing as part of normal play. If somebody falling quiet can go unnoticed for prolonged period of time, that suggests there is already a problem with how the game group divides game turns and time between players. You go a long way to prevent this just by timing turns and cycling through players in steady manner.

So, lets get back to lack of social confidence. Unlike someone undergoing a fight-flight-freeze reaction, someone lacking confidence still has their wits about. More often than not, it's those same wits that keep them from speaking up or even using a stopping signal - in simple terms, they think it's not proper of them to act. Usually it is based on disproportionate concern over social consequences, most of which only exist in the imagination of the afflicted person. The solution there is for other people to convince them that their reasoning is wrong. Establishing a stop signal for them to use can be part of that, as are all other social rules and devices that give them explicit permissions to speak up. But that's the thing. These methods aren't an alternative to them speaking up, they are ways to prop up their confidence so they do speak up. When such signals and permissions are respected, when the unconfident person realizes other people will listen to them, they will realize they have agency over their situation and will begin to build up confidence.

So, when talking about stop signals, consider which problem you are actually trying to solve. It changes how you would apply them in practice, and what other things you would do around them.

*) It's not alltogether clear whether verbal descriptions even can trigger all phobias, hearing someone say spider is not the same as seeing a spider.

Anymage

2023-09-16, 08:35 AM

It just seems like we keep going around in circles with folks looping back to "but you need a stop tool for players to use", as if that addresses the specific elements of the X-card that I have issues with. That's not it.

If the issue is with the specific verbiage of the X-card, it isn't the final word in safety tools and the document has undergone revisions. Such ideas do tend to pick up some odd wording due to the people they're around. The intent of "be willing to call for minor edits for your comfort even if panic isn't imminent" and "accept when people say that they're uncomfortable without expecting them to justify it in the moment and/or turning it into a debate" can lead to wording that can be read as "bring the game to a screeching halt for no reason at all", but that's just a matter of tightening up wording. Or hoping that people are better at inferring from context.

However...

Or maybe I find it analgous to "lather kids in anti-bacterial soap, and wrap them in bubble wrap, and never let them go outside, and then wonder why they get sick/injured every time they walk outside the safety of this environment". It is, as with all things, a balance of factors. I just think this is tiiping us into unbalanced and unhealthy (and something like the X-card is just a symptom of this). There is a point where trying too hard to make things "safe" is actually causing more harm than help. And sure, I'm not my player's therapist here, so it's not my job to help them get over whatever issues they have, but I'm also not going to participate in something I consider to be at best not helpful to them, at at worst, actively harmful. Doubly so if this may impact the enjoyment of the rest of the table at the same time.

Is not about glitches of wording, so much as a claim about how people need to toughen up and learn to work through a little discomfort. At which point it's worth asking whose comfort levels should be treated as the baseline we aspire to and what sort of experiences are considered normal. Which just reinforces existing biases and does impact who does or does not find your average game table comfortable. This is one of the things that people are seeking to change, and why I'm skeptical that you're really just concerned about some sloppy wording.

Just a couple of days ago I talked with someone who has clear cases where a "not cool" card would've been very handy but they were too new to the table to feel comfortable speaking up in the moment. In one of those cases it involved another player dropping a slur that none of the rest of us - myself included - even noticed. If we want to make the hobby more appealing to more people, making them feel like their perspectives and voices are heard is pretty key. Even if that does involve some clunky wording and looking a little silly along the way.

OldTrees1

2023-09-16, 10:47 AM

Going back to this, because it is a good sample case to explain an underappreciated distinction:

Fight-flight-freeze is a physiological reaction. It's a distinct matter from lack of social confidence. When someone is frozen up, they are unlikely to be able to push literal buttons, nevermind metaphorical ones, and we know this because we do regularly give them literal buttons to push in more serious contexts. People who are freezing are overwhelmingly reliant on other people pushing those buttons for them. Put another way, if a person is using a stop signal for their own sake, it's best used, and meant to be used, in a pre-emptive manner. They are supposed to give the signal when they anticipate something might cause them to freeze. A simple example of this would be an arachnophobe using the signal immediately when they hear a mention of spiders, before they are actually shown or given a detailed description of spiders that could actually trigger their phobia *).

The point of freezing is a threshold and the expected consequences of speaking up can contribute to crossing that threshold. The situation "This is too much, this is too much, but if I try to get out they will block the exit and pester me with spiders" is more likely to cross that threshold than "This is too much, this is too much, but they will help if alerted". Which of course is why stopping signals state they should always be trusted and acted upon immediately.

Edit: You list some of this in the social confidence section. I don't think it is isolated to that. The expected consequences of acting (fight or flight) impact the freeze response when the brain makes its quick decision. Those consequences are also inputs to the slower mental process that you discuss in the social confidence section, but it impacts both.

Sometimes there is no warning. Sure someone that knows they have a phobia would have a warning (although sometimes that detailed description precedes any warning), but if they have a phobia and don't know it (maybe exposure was never high enough to trigger before?), then they won't have a warning until it crosses a threshold.

People who are freezing can sometimes "press buttons". While it can't be the only safety net*, stopping signals are the best tool we have for someone in a freeze getting themselves out.

*General good practices include watching out for each other (like in the example)

When someone needs to get out, it does not matter if they are at a warning stage, a triggering stage, or a freezing stage. Not only should we be watching out for them, but if they have any way of signaling their distress, we should get them to safety. Furthermore while it gets harder and harder for them to signal their distress, we can make tools and policies that extend their ability to signal. We can watch for known nonverbal signals so the ability to signal persists after the voice is lost. We can have an explicit policy of immediate extraction that is not slowed by interrogation to A) delay the freezing state and B) shorten the duration of danger.

So I think you are right that it is best used pre-emptively, but you are wrong to say it is meant to be used pre-emptively. It is meant to be available for use at all point. No matter how bad it gets, it is also meant to be used at that time.

The corollary to the above is that stop signals don't do much to prevent genuinely surprising event from causing a situation. The purpose of stopping the game in those cases is so that the other people realize they need to take a break and give first aid to the affected person. Again, it's other people who have to use the signal in these cases.

I elaborated above, but stopping signals do help extraction for genuinely surprising events. They delay the freezing threshold and are the best tool we have found for allowing a freezing person to signal for extraction.

Fortunately, I have good news for you: it doesn't take three years of playing together to learn how to spot an unusually quiet person or what to do about it. A crisis training or emergency first aid training course is enough. Before anyone thinks that's unusually high bar to cross, I first went through the relevant training in scouts when I was nine, which is about the same age I coincidentally started playing tabletop roleplaying games. The relevant skills are something that can be taught to literal kids, and can be taught through the medium of a game to boot. You can stage the relevant event within a roleplaying scenario, just like scouts stage car crashes for first aid training.
This is another good tool to learn. They do more together than using either alone. This tool requires longer in the dangerous situation before extraction will begin. On the other hand it relies on the unaffected players who are unimpaired by the situation.

I consider watching out for the other players to be in general good practices (things I recommend for all games, rather than optional additions like safety tools). Taking a course would be an optional addition (a risk assessment can help identify if it is a good idea for your context).

So, when talking about stop signals, consider which problem you are actually trying to solve. It changes how you would apply them in practice, and what other things you would do around them.

*) It's not altogether clear whether verbal descriptions even can trigger all phobias, hearing someone say spider is not the same as seeing a spider.

I agree with this section. It helps understanding the problem you are trying to solve. In my case I have tools for other players to watch out for each other, but those react slower than I would want (good as backup, bad as a primary). I want a tool that extends the affected player's ability to signal for extraction. I know a tool (a stopping signal / nonverbal safe word) that remains usable deep into a situation, so I use that. The X-card is not my ideal safety tool, but it is similar so some of this applies.

* It is clear that verbal descriptions can trigger a situation (ex: a phobia) where a stopping signal is beneficial. You are right that hearing a description of a spider is not the same as seeing a spider. Sometime, contrary to expectations, the former might be more triggering than the latter.

Edit: I did not address your social confidence section. It is a tricky topic that is easier said than done. For example: "Have your group's reactions be trusted and trustworthy". So I am leaving that to you and Ionathus.

gbaji

2023-09-22, 06:40 PM

If the issue is with the specific verbiage of the X-card, it isn't the final word in safety tools and the document has undergone revisions. Such ideas do tend to pick up some odd wording due to the people they're around. The intent of "be willing to call for minor edits for your comfort even if panic isn't imminent" and "accept when people say that they're uncomfortable without expecting them to justify it in the moment and/or turning it into a debate" can lead to wording that can be read as "bring the game to a screeching halt for no reason at all", but that's just a matter of tightening up wording. Or hoping that people are better at inferring from context.

Right. But the exact things I'm questioning are the wordings that say the equivalent of "bring the game to a screeching halt with no explanation needed". As I pointed out in my previous post, the delta between this set of rules/guidelines and ones I was personally using at tourney tables 25+ years ago is specifically the bits saying "don't ask why". So yes. From my perspective, this is the change/delta here, and I'm going to question the value of those things. When the only thing an X-card brings to the table that wasn't already there with a host of "throw a flag/raise your hand/talk to the GM" rules that already existed are the very "stop the game, but don't tell anyone why" bits I'm talking about, countering that with "well, you can choose not to use those bits" isn't a terribly satisfactory response. "Those bits" are the only thing "new" about the X-card.

Is not about glitches of wording, so much as a claim about how people need to toughen up and learn to work through a little discomfort. At which point it's worth asking whose comfort levels should be treated as the baseline we aspire to and what sort of experiences are considered normal. Which just reinforces existing biases and does impact who does or does not find your average game table comfortable. This is one of the things that people are seeking to change, and why I'm skeptical that you're really just concerned about some sloppy wording.

I think there are extremes on all sides, and we should strive to avoid them. There's a difference between "beat someone with a stick to toughen them up", and "expect that people should be able to handle normal day to day interactions with other people".

And yes. This does represent "social biases". And before you maybe kneejerk respond to the terminology itself, lets stop and think about what that really means. All social interaction involves some degree of agreed upon social norms, and therefore biases to those norms. All of them. If I greet someone by saying "good morning", my social bias says that's a normal greetinig and we should all be able to handle that just fine. If a group of people are sitting on chairs around a table, our social biases say that someone joining our group will also sit on a chair around the same table. That fact that there exist social actions and expecations that are unreasonable, does not mean that all social actions and expecations are.

So someone rebeling against my greeting by being angry at my assumption that "mornings are good for all people" (I've literally run into this before), or refusing to sit at a chair because they'd rather sit on the table or on the floor instead, doesn't make their actions ok, simply by the fact of "fighting social biases or norms". In most cases, that's going to make them anti-social, right? It's all a matter of degrees and reasonableness.

And, fair or not, it's generally going to be the group that decides what is "acceptable and normal" within that group. Now, obviosuly, we should steer away from things that are overtly offensive. But we need to also avoid bending too far to the needs of individual foibles as well. And this is where I usually try to apply a standard somewhat similar to the legal one of "reasonable person". Is it reasonable for someone to say "I'm afraid of spiders, so can we not talk about spiders"? Yeah. Is it reasonable for a person to say "I don't like the word blue, so no one can use that word in my presence"? Uh... Probably not. At least not without a heck of a lot more explanation behind it.

I guess what I'm really opposed to is absolutism in either direction. I equally reject the player who says "I'm free to say/do whatever I want, and no one else's opposition or disagreement matters", as the one who says "I'm free to object to anything anyone else says or does, and require that they must stop, without any explanation or discussion". So I'm somewhat automatically suspicious of any tool that grants any one member of a social group some sort of absoute say/fiat in either direction.

Just a couple of days ago I talked with someone who has clear cases where a "not cool" card would've been very handy but they were too new to the table to feel comfortable speaking up in the moment. In one of those cases it involved another player dropping a slur that none of the rest of us - myself included - even noticed. If we want to make the hobby more appealing to more people, making them feel like their perspectives and voices are heard is pretty key. Even if that does involve some clunky wording and looking a little silly along the way.

Yeah. As I said earlier, I have no issue with providing some sort of "stop" tool for players, especially in a group where the members are somewhat new to each other. This example hits two of the points I already said are perfectly acceptable: It's a new player, not yet fully comfortable with the game dynamic. And a simple "stop" tool, followed by an explanation to the GM, would have solved the problem. Heck. We can even argue that even though there was no stop tool in play, the player came to you after the game session and talked to you about it. You recognized the issue, and presumably had a conversation with the other player about it (it's unclear if you were the GM here, or just another player, but either way).

The point is that, normal social interaction did actually work here. Maybe not as well, but it still did. I've been in a number of social situations where someone has said somethiing I've disagreed with or been offended by. And in each case, I assess whether the offense to me is worth interrupting the social activity right in the moment, or even whether it's worth mentioning later. We all (should anyway) make these sorts of assessments in our own lives all the time. And IME, trying to apply any sort of social absolutism here is not going to work well.

And no. I don't really see that as "toughening people up", so much as people just learning how to socially interact. It's a normal thing that we all go through. It's a healthy thing. As small children, when we were upset/hurt by something we cried, and waited for someone to come and fix the problem. As we grow, we learn better communication tools to tell people what is upsetting us and we learn how to manage or avoid these things. Social interaction is a bit more (lot more?) complex than that, but really follows the same kind of rules. The more you socially interact with others, the better you get at it. Which is why I strongly endorse "talk to someone about what happened" as a minimum requirement for tools like this. Because otherwise, you are stuck as the child crying and not communicating. There is no growth, and there is no progress. Worse, the entire group is kinda "stuck" right there with you.

And, as I pointed out earlier, if I'm the one running the game, I have to take into account the entire group's enjoyment of the social activity. Which means I must be able to assess the reasonablness of any one player's actions/behavior. Which yeah, means we have to be able to communicate about these things. Otherwise, we don't really have a group social activity.

kyoryu

2023-09-24, 12:01 PM

Right. But the exact things I'm questioning are the wordings that say the equivalent of "bring the game to a screeching halt with no explanation needed". As I pointed out in my previous post, the delta between this set of rules/guidelines and ones I was personally using at tourney tables 25+ years ago is specifically the bits saying "don't ask why". So yes. From my perspective, this is the change/delta here, and I'm going to question the value of those things. When the only thing an X-card brings to the table that wasn't already there with a host of "throw a flag/raise your hand/talk to the GM" rules that already existed are the very "stop the game, but don't tell anyone why" bits I'm talking about, countering that with "well, you can choose not to use those bits" isn't a terribly satisfactory response. "Those bits" are the only thing "new" about the X-card.

What do you think happens at a table when the x-card is played? Like, what is your idea of what that dialog would look like, specifically?

I suspect we have different ideas of how that plays out.

gbaji

2023-09-25, 08:09 PM

What do you think happens at a table when the x-card is played? Like, what is your idea of what that dialog would look like, specifically?

I suspect we have different ideas of how that plays out.

That's a good question. I don't know. But that's the point. I can only go by the description in the linked article by the author of the x-card concept. But when I've asked people (multiple times in this thread) how exactly they respond when an X-card is played, I've kinda gotten vague responses.

I have been very specific. I'm concerned about these two elements of the X-card:

The X-Card is not a replacement for conversation. If you prefer to talk about an issue that comes up instead of using the X-Card, please do. Just because the X-Card is available does not mean it has to be used. But when it is used, respect the person who uses it and don't ask why. The X-Card is optional.

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private.

Both of these points highlight the intention to allow the person playing the X-card to be allowed to conceal their reason for playing it. I have stated repeatedly why I consider this to be problematic, and specifically that this is the only actual difference between the X-card and other tools that gamers have been using for decades (I even gave examples of tourney play going back to the mid 80s).

So yes. My expectation, based on the posted instructions, is that a player will tap the X-card, and the GM will stop whatever is currently going on, and just skip to the next scene in the adventure, no questions asked. The GM is not allowed to ask why the player taped the card (that's literally what the rules say, right?). It's left vague as to whether the GM may ask after the adventure, or perhaps wait and hope the player will come up to them and tell them why, but again, the second bit I quoted pretty strongly suggests that players should engage in a lot of suberfuge just to hide what is actually bothering them from the rest of the table (and potentially the GM, though that's not clear). So yeah. I have problems with all of this if this is actually what people expect the play to be like.

But when I ask folks about this, they give vague responses like "respect the players use of the card" (or something similar). Ok. But what exctly does that mean? Let's be very specific. Because I'm being very specific that my concernes lie in the ability of someone to close off a game or topic or scene in a game without having to explain why. I've been very clear the entire time that this is my primary (if not sole) concern. Yet, despite getting a whole lot of counter talk from other posters, none of them have actually said: "You're right gbaji. This tool should never be used in a way which allows any player to play the card but not be required to provide an explanation to at least the GM, at least somewhat soon after the same session in which it was played (and certainly before the next gaming session)". Heck. I don't even get (yes, I re-read the entire thread): "You're dead wrong gbaji. The X-card allows any player to stop anything happening in a game right then with no questions asked, either right then or at any point in the future, and that's exactly how it should be played. The importance of allowing a player to avoid and conceal their triggers/traumas is much more important than any other consideration at hand". Either of those would be fine responses IMO.

If you are saying that the specific aspect of the X-card isn't how you play it, or isn't how you expect anyone to play it, then we are all in agreement. Right? Or, alternatively tell me you do think that method of playing it is absolutely fine. But tap dancing around the core issue I'm addressing just isn't helpful.

So I'll ask a more direct question to all of those who are X-card advocates: If you use the X-card, what exactly do you do in response when it's played? Do you halt the current session entirely? Do you skip to the next scene, no questions asked? Or something else? Do you require anyone playing the X-card to provide an explanation for why they played it to the GM, either right then (pulled aside to talk), or sometime after this session, but before the next? Never? Again. Let's be specific here.

It just sometimes feels like some people are trying to both reject that my concerns are legitimate because that's now how the X-card is used, but then also avoid actually stating that they would never allow it to be played that way. Similar to your statement above, I suspect that there is a good difference between what people will say publically in terms of support/use of an X-card tool versus how they would actually use it in their own game. Because it's easy to support something when it's theoretical or hypothetical, but the trick always comes in actual real-world application. And that's where the feel good theory of something like an X-card meets the reality of actually trying to use something like it, and falls short.

icefractal

2023-09-25, 08:41 PM

The X-Card is not a replacement for conversation. If you prefer to talk about an issue that comes up instead of using the X-Card, please do. Just because the X-Card is available does not mean it has to be used. But when it is used, respect the person who uses it and don't ask why. The X-Card is optional.I read that differently, but TBF the wording is ambiguous and it's possible I'm the one who's reading it wrong. How I read it is "don't ask why the given subject is a trigger for them, just accept that it is one, even if it doesn't make intuitive sense to you".

So this is fine:
GM: "A demon appears in the circle and gestures dramatically. In response, a flood of viscous slime pours into the room, quickly rising past your knees, more of it starting to drip down from the ceiling ..."
Player: *signals using X-Card*
GM: "The slime, right? Not the demon?"
Player: "Yeah, the slime."

And this is what is being discouraged:
GM: "You have a problem with slime? Why?"
Player: "Um, it just viscerally grosses me out."
GM: "Well it's supposed to be gross, this is a bad thing IC too. And you didn't mind that the road was muddy earlier, so I don't see why this is a problem. Please specify what substances bother you: Blood? Pus? Oil? Tar? What exactly about slime do you find disgusting?"

Because, let's be real, gamers often do nitpick things. Someone at the table says something like "Cleric is a boring class" and they'll probably get a debate going, with people pressing them for more details and coming back with refutations. Which is fine for most matters, but not if discussing the thing is the equivalent of waving a bucket of rotten fish near their face and saying "please explain why this is unpleasant to you, and then I'll remove it".

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private.Personally, this one seems like a bad idea, so I have no defense of it. I mean, I get the intention, but it seems like it risks creating a "boy who cried wolf" situation, even if subconsciously. But I haven't run into it in practice either, so I can't comment much.

kyoryu

2023-09-26, 10:57 AM

So I'll ask a more direct question to all of those who are X-card advocates: If you use the X-card, what exactly do you do in response when it's played? Do you halt the current session entirely? Do you skip to the next scene, no questions asked? Or something else? Do you require anyone playing the X-card to provide an explanation for why they played it to the GM, either right then (pulled aside to talk), or sometime after this session, but before the next? Never? Again. Let's be specific here.

Here's what I expect. I'm not necessarily a supporter, but I'm also not against its use, to be clear. It's a tool that might have value in specific scenarios.

I suspect it be used appropriately, when someone really just can't engage in the content as presented and needs it to end now. Which means that, yes, if it is played I expect the GM to end the scene as quickly as possible and move on to the next. If you don't need it to end now, then say something and talk it out. Note that the X-Card itself says this, though maybe not as explicitly as I just put it.

I suspect that it's what happens after that that is the real sticking point. I see a few possibilities:

1. It's never brought up again, and the x-card isn't used again. Cool. Maybe it was a weird combination of things, no big deal. Play continues as normal.
2. The player at some point says what the trigger is, and the GM can either decide to avoid the trigger, or that the player isn't a good fit. Also fine.
3. The player doesn't say what the trigger was, and continues to use the x-card to the extent that it is disruptive. At this point, I 100% think a conversation of "look, either you tell us what's going on (leading to point 2), or you figure out how to tolerate it better (leading to point 1), or this just isn't the game for you" is appropriate.

In no case do I think it confers players any authority over the game beyond "hey, this is a problem, I need this to stop now". That's what it's for. Any use beyond that is abusive. And also note that in the mid/long term, I absolutely consider "if this subject matter doesn't work for you, this might not be the game for you" is a very valid resolution. I do not see the X-Card as giving anyone long-running, unimpeachable editorial power over the game.

It just sometimes feels like some people are trying to both reject that my concerns are legitimate because that's now how the X-card is used, but then also avoid actually stating that they would never allow it to be played that way. Similar to your statement above, I suspect that there is a good difference between what people will say publically in terms of support/use of an X-card tool versus how they would actually use it in their own game. Because it's easy to support something when it's theoretical or hypothetical, but the trick always comes in actual real-world application. And that's where the feel good theory of something like an X-card meets the reality of actually trying to use something like it, and falls short.

Oh, 100%. That's why I asked for specifics so that we could have a conversation about like actual things rather than vague descriptions.

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private

This is just weird to me. I don't advocate this.

Atranen

2023-09-26, 11:36 AM

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private

This is just weird to me. I don't advocate this.

One of the AL groups I was a part of made all the DMs provide X cards in their games. After a while, no one was using them. So, they put "break" on the other side, with the idea that a player could use it when they wanted a break, and then people would get used to using the X card and be more likely to use it in play.

But I never saw anyone use the "break" card either.

There was an assumption that at those games, lines were being crossed regularly and they needed to reign it in somehow. But in practice, there weren't any issues for the x card to address.

kyoryu

2023-09-26, 11:42 AM

One of the AL groups I was a part of made all the DMs provide X cards in their games. After a while, no one was using them. So, they put "break" on the other side, with the idea that a player could use it when they wanted a break, and then people would get used to using the X card and be more likely to use it in play.

But I never saw anyone use the "break" card either.

There was an assumption that at those games, lines were being crossed regularly and they needed to reign it in somehow. But in practice, there weren't any issues for the x card to address.

It seems like AL games would be very unlikely to trigger an X-Card usage. You're playing normal D&D stuff with normal D&D tropes. People know what they're getting into.

Where I'd see it as more useful is if you're doing stuff that's a little bit on the edgier side, or more likely to touch on real-life issues. I mean, I could see wantonly killing people/monsters being a trigger for someone, but if you have that much of an issue with it, you're probably not playing D&D.

Zuras

2023-09-26, 11:51 AM

The core reason for using the X-card system is to ensure public-play environments like FLGS game nights and conventions feel welcoming and safe. They are going to err on the side of comfort—that’s their job.

In a situation where someone shows up to play because they trust you, the person running the game, and not the venue, you have a lot more latitude, and formal safety tools may not be needed, but in a public play scenario there is no realistic option other than respecting it 100%.

To do anything else means litigating on a case-by-case basis and telling at least one of your customers they’re either an insensitive creep or a whiny snowflake.

You don’t need to import the whole X card system to a high trust home game, although some sort of nonverbal signal that things are getting out of someone’s comfort zone is a really good idea.

I honestly think it’s easier just to respect people’s limits, though, and assume everyone is making a good faith effort to have a fun game. People can get really defensive about that stuff because nobody wants to think they’re a creepy creeperton.

Edited to add: I have played plenty of AL games where an X card was needed, mainly due to torturing prisoners for information scenarios and inappropriate and unwanted in-character attempted romances. Very infrequent, but I have played a LOT of AL over the years.

kyoryu

2023-09-26, 12:12 PM

In a situation where someone shows up to play because they trust you, the person running the game, and not the venue, you have a lot more latitude, and formal safety tools may not be needed, but in a public play scenario there is no realistic option other than respecting it 100%.

Well, in general, I think if someone says "I can't", the only reasonable thing is to respect that. And if you think they're abusing or gaming that, deal with that after the fact.

To do anything else means litigating on a case-by-case basis and telling at least one of your customers they’re either an insensitive creep or a whiny snowflake.

Yeah, and any kind of "plead your case" creates that situation. Just get past it, and deal with it later if needed.

I honestly think it’s easier just to respect people’s limits, though, and assume everyone is making a good faith effort to have a fun game. People can get really defensive about that stuff because nobody wants to think they’re a creepy creeperton.

Agreed. Like, at the end of the day, you're going to draw the line wrong - everyone does. Do you want to draw it wrong in a way that hurts people engaging in good faith? Or do you want to draw it wrong in a way that might let someone abuse the mechanic? Personally, I'd rather play with people that are acting in good faith, and deal with abuse as a separate issue.

Edited to add: I have played plenty of AL games where an X card was needed, mainly due to torturing prisoners for information scenarios and inappropriate and unwanted in-character attempted romances. Very infrequent, but I have played a LOT of AL over the years.

That's a good point - it might not be the GM that's introducing the x-carded content.

Atranen

2023-09-26, 12:59 PM

It seems like AL games would be very unlikely to trigger an X-Card usage. You're playing normal D&D stuff with normal D&D tropes. People know what they're getting into.

Where I'd see it as more useful is if you're doing stuff that's a little bit on the edgier side, or more likely to touch on real-life issues. I mean, I could see wantonly killing people/monsters being a trigger for someone, but if you have that much of an issue with it, you're probably not playing D&D.

That's what I think too--but I also see the X-card held up as most appropriate for public games.

The core reason for using the X-card system is to ensure public-play environments like FLGS game nights and conventions feel welcoming and safe. They going to err on the side of comfort—that’s their job.

This is the most charitable take I have on it. You have the x-card available in your games, expecting never to use it. The whole point of having it is to say "I am the type of DM that understands that on occasion people cross the line and want to make sure you have a good experience". Because the DMs who make it available know that an AL game should be broadly accessible.

This explains why it's never used, and also implies that it's not a problem that it's never used. (But the X-card designer and some people who implement it feel otherwise).

Edited to add: I have played plenty of AL games where an X card was needed, mainly due to torturing prisoners for information scenarios and inappropriate and unwanted in-character attempted romances. Very infrequent, but I have played a LOT of AL over the years.

Ugh, that sounds pretty bad. Hopefully the DM can intervene to put their foot down..."hey, we're not playing evil characters, right", or "no in-character romances, this is AL" both could head that kind of stuff off.

kyoryu

2023-09-26, 01:45 PM

And to be clear to gbaji and others - I don't dismiss your concerns at all.

I think it's just that you have to make a choice - do you prioritize protecting people acting in good faith that may need them? Or do you prioritize reducing harm by people not acting in good faith?

Either way, you risk harm. How do you prioritize that? Which harm are you more interested in avoiding? Which has other mitigation strategies?

As a whole, I prefer to mitigate harm done to people acting in good faith. People that are being disruptive already need to be dealt with, so it's not a novel concern if they have another tool.

(And, no, it's not binary... except it is - someone kind of in the grey area, if it's being disruptive, you tell them to knock it off. If they don't continue being disruptive, they're not abusing it. If they do, they are. Pretty simple).

Zuras

2023-09-26, 04:03 PM

Ugh, that sounds pretty bad. Hopefully the DM can intervene to put their foot down..."hey, we're not playing evil characters, right", or "no in-character romances, this is AL" both could head that kind of stuff off.

The vast majority of the time, it was younger players testing boundaries, or simply really socially awkward players unable to read a room. All the real horror stories I hear are from the store organizer who tells me about people at other tables who got entirely banned from the store.

Granted, my table has generally been the “younger players welcome” table, so it’s only natural I run into boundary testing teenage edgelords and not the other types of problems.

gbaji

2023-09-27, 04:40 PM

Use the X-Card for more than just triggers, so that you have more opportunities to practice, and don't unintentionally disclose a trigger you want kept private

This is just weird to me. I don't advocate this.

Yeah. This is the one, which when combined with the other I quoted, really kinda puts this into questionable territory for me. It strongly suggests a recommended use of this tool that I find to be absolutely in opposition to what we should be trying to accomplish in a social interaction focused game (which all RPGs are). Any mechanic, in game or out, which is basically about trying to trick other players (not characters, but players) on some meta-game or at-table issue, just seems to be.... well... a bad idea.

The whole point of having it is to say "I am the type of DM that understands that on occasion people cross the line and want to make sure you have a good experience ".

Right, but that's part of the issue, and something I somewhat touched on earlier. It's about how something feels to the person using it (or implementing it in this case), and not whether the actual outcome is "better".

Just taking your statement, we can presumably flip it around and say that DMs who *don't* implement this tool must not "understand that on occasion people cross the line" and must not "want to make sure you have a good experience". So the tool itself acts as a social pressure (with a bit of shaming involved as well) to DMs to implement it in the first place.

It also suggests that this is the only means by which we can understand those things and want to have good experiences. That's a whole boatload of arrogant assumption wrapped up in this tool IMO. There are a lot of tools out there to handle social issues that may occur at gaming tables. Different ones work better or worse in different situations. Good DMs learn how to detect when problems are arising at their tables, and take action to reduce or eliminate them, always with the focus of creating a good experience for all of the players.

I don't need to point to my adoption of an X-card so I can wear that as a sort of "I Care. I really really do!" badge for my game. And my concern is that GMs will implement something like this, and assume that this actually fixes all problems and resolves all conflicts that may arise. So, not only can this become a crutch for the person playing it, but it's also a crutch for the GM to use. And in both aspects, it may result in neither the player nor the GM ever developiing the actual social/gaming tools that would better serve them over time.

We have to ask the question: Are you implementing something like this to really make your game better? Or are you implementing it so you can show that you have implemented it and thus feel good about yourself for being a "good GM"? If even a tiny bit of your reasoning is that "people will judge me poorly if I don't, so that's why I do", then you are doing this for the wrong reasons. You should be striving to actually make your game a better and more enjoyable experience for all players, not just going through the motions and checking off boxes that indicate that you are to others.

And to be clear to gbaji and others - I don't dismiss your concerns at all.

I think it's just that you have to make a choice - do you prioritize protecting people acting in good faith that may need them? Or do you prioritize reducing harm by people not acting in good faith?

Either way, you risk harm. How do you prioritize that? Which harm are you more interested in avoiding? Which has other mitigation strategies?

As a whole, I prefer to mitigate harm done to people acting in good faith. People that are being disruptive already need to be dealt with, so it's not a novel concern if they have another tool.

(And, no, it's not binary... except it is - someone kind of in the grey area, if it's being disruptive, you tell them to knock it off. If they don't continue being disruptive, they're not abusing it. If they do, they are. Pretty simple).

Sure. It's never binary. But some aspects of the X-card, and how the instructions are written, seem designed to create a very binary situation where there should not be one.

There are certainly aspects of it that I have no problems with. Heck, as I've said, we've utilized "stop" and "Pause" tools at tourneys for decades now. And not just out of some concern for triggering people, but just as a mechanism for managing large tables of people, where it may be difficult for everyone to particpate equally. The fact that these same tools also allow for resolution of triggers is a happy benefit as well.

My issue with the X-card has always been the implication that the GM should never investigate the cause/source of the card's play, and that players should actively disquise their reasons for playing the card itself. Those are the only things that actually make this any different than previous tools. So yeah, I'm going to judge this on that basis. And yes, you are correct that in a single-game/tourney style environment, I'm not going to be playing with these folks regularly, so I should absolutely err on the side of "what the player says they don't like". Um... Again though, this is what we have always done (or at least what every instruction at every tourney I've ever participated has done). But within reason. If the main opponent in the scenario is a dragon, and someone says "I'm afraid of dragons, can you just remove that opponent", that's going to be a pretty hard no. They're free to remove themselves from the table, or even assign someone else to play their character through that part of the scenario, but if the request is unreasonable and disrupts the entire game/scenario for the entire table, we're not just going to eliminate it.

And it bears repeating, that even in those environments, while we'd certainly stop things for the moment when requested, the assumption was always that you pull the player aside and have a conversation with them about whatever it is they need to talk to you about.

I think it also bears mentioning that IME, the cases where there's an actual hard triggering event in games like this are extremely rare. Like, I think I've maybe run into a situation like this like 2 times? And in all cases, the person had no issue with having a private conversation with me about what was bothering them. So some of the core assumptions behind some of the instructions in the X-card just seem "wrong" to me.

In my experience what is vastly more common are players with anxiety in social situations in general, not specific triggers. And no amount of X-card on the table will fix that. That takes a GM (and potentially other players as well) who recognize how people are behaving in the group, how well they interact, when they feel comfortable and when they don't, and making subtle adjustments to their own actions in response. It's far far more common for me to pull the other players aside and have a conversation with them to talk about something like this. And no, it's not to mock those players. It's to say something like "Joe seems like he's not having fun with the fast cross talk, and appears to be uncomfortable needing to interrupt others to say what he wants his character to do. Could you guys make an effort to put pauses in your conversations, and maybe even ask Joe for input?". And if that doesn't work, I'll put a pause in there. Because IME, players with that kind of anxiety (which again, seems much much more common that individual triggers) are also going to be very anxious about playing an X-card. If they feel uncomfortable just gettting a single sentence out in the course of PC interaction in a scene in my game, they're absolutely going to be terrified of hitting the "big red button of everyone stops and looks at me" card.

I've also found that some players really love to "help out" newer/younger players, but that can often come off as condescending or even a bit bullying ("you should really do this instead of that"). Pause/Stop signals can help at least identify when that's happening (sometimes). But again, players who really have a hard time dealing with this, or feel uncomfortable speaking up about this (cause this is usually not a "immediate" thing, but a more "over time" thing) are going to be uncomfortable with these sorts of interrupt based tools. This is really something where the GM being proactive is better. I notice when a player appears uncomfortable with something, and *I* approach that player and ask some simple questions to see what is the problem. And yeah, usually it's something like "I really love the game, and the scenario, and everything, but sometimes it feels like I'm being put down because I don't know the rules as well as the other players, or because I didn't make the exact right decisions with my skills, and things like that". There's no single "triggering" event happening, but it's a general thing that occurs over time.

Dunno. I guess, in general, I prefer a more soft touch to resolving social conflicts/issues in my games, and tools like the X-card are basically the "bumpercars" of tools one could use. And sure, for a one-shot tourney style game? They're fine. But I would never ever adopt a tool like this in an ongoing game with a regular play group. IMO, if you feel like you need these tools, you are probably already doing a number of other things wrong. And you should be addressing/fixing those things first. Just saying "I adopted the X-card, so my game is safe. Go me!" isn't really going to ever work.

Eh. I suppose I could put in one additional caveat for a situation where my gaming group is specifically playing in a game/setting/scenario designed to have shocking or triggering events, and we're intentionally pushing boundaries. But I'd assume we would have talked about that ahead of time, gone over things, and gotten full agreement. And yeah, if the table felt the need for a tool like this, I'd absoultely use it. Again though, it would be a stop/pause tool only though. The expectation I always have for those tools is that if you are stopping things immediately, you must immediately inform me as to why (er... what). I don't need the whole story, but tell me what bothered you, or went over the line, so we can resume play while avoiding that one thing. IMO, it's doubly important in a game like this, because otherwise we have no clue how to avoid it in the future, and... well... if the point of the game is to push those boundaries, then we *will* do it again.

Atranen

2023-09-27, 05:34 PM

Just taking your statement, we can presumably flip it around and say that DMs who *don't* implement this tool must not "understand that on occasion people cross the line" and must not "want to make sure you have a good experience". So the tool itself acts as a social pressure (with a bit of shaming involved as well) to DMs to implement it in the first place.

...

We have to ask the question: Are you implementing something like this to really make your game better? Or are you implementing it so you can show that you have implemented it and thus feel good about yourself for being a "good GM"? If even a tiny bit of your reasoning is that "people will judge me poorly if I don't, so that's why I do", then you are doing this for the wrong reasons. You should be striving to actually make your game a better and more enjoyable experience for all players, not just going through the motions and checking off boxes that indicate that you are to others.

You've put it very well here. I think you're right, which is why even the most charitable defense of the x card is imo not that strong.

icefractal

2023-09-27, 07:44 PM

Eh, I think "advertising" has value in a context where you're interacting with strangers.

Like, I'm not a violent person. To someone who knows me well, it would be obvious that if I were walking around in what looked like bloodstained clothes with a big knife, it would be a costume and no cause for concern. But if I actually did that downtown, people would call the police, and reasonably so.

Or for a more plausible scenario - my job is not customer facing. I could perform it just as well when wearing stained gym shorts and a t-shirt full of holes. But if I showed up for an interview like that, I wouldn't expect a good outcome.

So in the context of AL, a convention, or any other place where a GM is running for strangers? It's not unreasonable or "impure" for them to do things for the sake of presenting a better image. Like say, being clean, reasonably well groomed, having a cheerful or neutral expression rather than a glare or scowl, perhaps setting the rulebook out so people can see at a glance what system you're running, etc. Whether a visible X-Card counts as one of those positives, YMMV, but there's nothing any more "fake" about it than the rest of them.

OldTrees1

2023-09-27, 09:09 PM

You've put it very well here. I think you're right, which is why even the most charitable defense of the x card is imo not that strong.

Um, that was a bunch of nothing. The presumption that it can be flipped around is false. If you listen to actual people, then you will hear phrases like "Use safety tools if needed." but won't hear anything like that flipped around strawman. If you implement a safety tool when needed, it is evidence that you did a risk assessment and estimated a bit more safety was a good idea. However it is not a sign of being a selfish jerk when you don't implement a safety tool when it is not needed. If you don't implement a safety tool, and encounter a situation where it was needed, it still is not a sign of being a selfish jerk. It might be (in 20 20 hindsight) a sign of a mistake, or a risk that did not pan out well, but that is different. Some of us have been there too.

Please, listen to actual people rather than bogeymen. Nobody is judging those that don't use safety tools. Those with actual experience give the friendly suggestion to use them when needed, which implies there are times they are not needed. The tools have tangible benefits before and after invocation, but like all safety measures, you only need so much defense in depth before you have enough. If you don't need them, then you don't need them. No need to feel judged when nobody is judging you.

JNAProductions

2023-09-27, 09:16 PM

Um, that was a bunch of nothing. The presumption that it can be flipped around is false. If you listen to actual people, then you will hear phrases like "Use safety tools if needed." but won't hear anything like that flipped around strawman. If you implement a safety tool when needed, it is evidence that you did a risk assessment and estimated a bit more safety was a good idea. However it is not a sign of being a selfish jerk when you don't implement a safety tool when it is not needed. If you don't implement a safety tool, and encounter a situation where it was needed, it still is not a sign of being a selfish jerk. It might be a sign of a mistake, or a risk that did not pan out well, but that is different. Some of us have been there too.

Please, listen to actual people rather than bogeymen. Nobody is judging those that don't use safety tools. Those with actual experience give the friendly suggestion to use them when needed, which implies there are times they are not needed. The tools have tangible benefits before and after invocation, but like all safety measures, you only need so much defense in depth before you have enough. If you don't need them, then you don't need them. No need to feel judged when nobody is judging you.

Yeah. Playing a heroic game of D&D? Unlikely to need X-Cards, or anything of the sort. You're heroes, doing hero things against undead and fiends and such, and saving the world.
But if you're running a grim horror game, you might want to include it, depending on who's playing. Your best buds who you know like the back of your hand? Probably don't need it. Strangers at a convention? It's a good idea to include it.

I will agree with the statement that "Just by including the X-Card, you signify that as a GM you're concerned with the emotional wellbeing of your players," which is a positive.
The antecedent, though, of "If you don't include the X-Card, you don't care about your players," is an erroneous conclusion. It's certainly POSSIBLE for you to be a horrible GM who likes to see your players cry (which is something I recall a poster on this forum saying they took pride in, which is absolutely atrocious) but it's far more likely you're a perfectly fine GM who is running a safe game.

Zuras

2023-09-28, 09:59 AM

I think it also bears mentioning that IME, the cases where there's an actual hard triggering event in games like this are extremely rare. Like, I think I've maybe run into a situation like this like 2 times? And in all cases, the person had no issue with having a private conversation with me about what was bothering them. So some of the core assumptions behind some of the instructions in the X-card just seem "wrong" to me.

This does not square with my experience at all. First off, some people (mostly men) are socialized to respond to emotional discomfort with anger, so if something at the table sets off their internal warning bells, they’re actually getting increasingly pissed off.

I’m one of those people, and while normally speaking up with a “hey, let’s not go there” isn’t a problem, non-verbal signals like X-cards have occasionally prevented me from telling people “stop acting like the villain in a bad after-school special, you creepy little fascist”.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the X card system is anything more than one safety tool system that can be used in RPGs. In the face of ambiguity, it errs on the side of saying no. Similarly, the (rather restrictive) topic and content rules on this forum aren’t the only possible ones for online discussion. It’s perfectly possible to have online discussions about politics or current events without the conversation careening into a ditch. It’s a lot easier to just say no politics, no name calling, though.

As far as rules go, there are no rules or techniques out there that can survive bad faith actors. My experiences as a middle school substitute teacher certainly helped more than X-cards in managing a table and dealing with socially awkward individuals, but printing out some cards is a lot easier than spending two weeks trying to teach pre-algebra to tweens.

Yeah. Playing a heroic game of D&D? Unlikely to need X-Cards, or anything of the sort. You're heroes, doing hero things against undead and fiends and such, and saving the world.
But if you're running a grim horror game, you might want to include it, depending on who's playing. Your best buds who you know like the back of your hand? Probably don't need it. Strangers at a convention? It's a good idea to include it.

My experience with player discomfort has been that they come up in heroic D&D quite a bit, actually. Sometimes DMs want to make the world morally gray, and the players are not having it at all. I once had a session where one player eliminated an entire village of cannibal slavers (then player was very, very anti-slavery) and another player was OOC angry at them because genocide is bad too.

Of course, that’s not something X cards fix. It’s not even a bad topic to engage with (Doctor Who has had multiple interesting episodes discussing whether it’s moral to wipe out all Daleks from existence). The players were just too emotionally invested in it to be fun in that particular instance.

Still, it’s not a minor issue—there’s a reason the Star Wars prequels used robots as mooks for the bad guys.

kyoryu

2023-09-28, 10:31 AM

Yeah. This is the one, which when combined with the other I quoted, really kinda puts this into questionable territory for me. It strongly suggests a recommended use of this tool that I find to be absolutely in opposition to what we should be trying to accomplish in a social interaction focused game (which all RPGs are). Any mechanic, in game or out, which is basically about trying to trick other players (not characters, but players) on some meta-game or at-table issue, just seems to be.... well... a bad idea.

I think the idea is that some people don't want to discuss their triggers due to the trauma involved. Maybe it's something that they're ashamed of, or something that happened to them. That's not uncommon among certain types of survivors.

It also suggests that this is the only means by which we can understand those things and want to have good experiences. That's a whole boatload of arrogant assumption wrapped up in this tool IMO. There are a lot of tools out there to handle social issues that may occur at gaming tables. Different ones work better or worse in different situations. Good DMs learn how to detect when problems are arising at their tables, and take action to reduce or eliminate them, always with the focus of creating a good experience for all of the players.

I don't think that's something I've seen? Everything that they say seems to be "this is another tool, and does not supplant anything else".

We have to ask the question: Are you implementing something like this to really make your game better? Or are you implementing it so you can show that you have implemented it and thus feel good about yourself for being a "good GM"? If even a tiny bit of your reasoning is that "people will judge me poorly if I don't, so that's why I do", then you are doing this for the wrong reasons. You should be striving to actually make your game a better and more enjoyable experience for all players, not just going through the motions and checking off boxes that indicate that you are to others.

I mean..... both? Like, yeah, doing the real work to take care of people is the most important thing. But, at the same time, displaying a signal that you are doing this can also help people feel more at ease.

The bad part is when people loudly espouse these types of tools but act like jerks besides that. I can think of a few high profile cases.

My issue with the X-card has always been the implication that the GM should never investigate the cause/source of the card's play,

I'm actually okay with that. Again, there may be triggers that people just don't want to discuss or have known, for some of the reasons I've mentioned. I figure if someone plays the X-Card, and they are okay with telling me, they will. And if they're not, I probably shouldn't pry.

Like, if someone just can't deal with wasps, and they need to nope out? I can't imagine that they wouldn't tell me later.... and I say that as someone that has a serious wasp phobia.

If someone went through something? Man, that's where I don't think it's my job to pry.

And if someone doesn't want to tell me? I refer to my "next steps" that I laid out above.... either it keeps coming up or it doesn't, and if it keeps coming up and we can't figure out how to avoid it, then you're not a good fit for the game, and that's fine.

and that players should actively disquise their reasons for playing the card itself.

Again, for something that has happened to somebody that they don't want to disclose, I can understand that. I consider that more of an optional thing to use in the case that's true for you. I don't think anybody is going to judge anybody or shame them or that there's a deep shame involved with a fear of wasps.

Those are the only things that actually make this any different than previous tools.

I think the whole "no discussion, no words, just tap and we move on" is fairly novel. I think that's the core, and the rest kinda orbits it.

I think it also bears mentioning that IME, the cases where there's an actual hard triggering event in games like this are extremely rare. Like, I think I've maybe run into a situation like this like 2 times? And in all cases, the person had no issue with having a private conversation with me about what was bothering them. So some of the core assumptions behind some of the instructions in the X-card just seem "wrong" to me.

I think that depends on the subjects of your game, and the crowd you're playing with.

Atranen

2023-09-28, 02:19 PM

Um, that was a bunch of nothing. The presumption that it can be flipped around is false...However it is not a sign of being a selfish jerk when you don't implement a safety tool when it is not needed.

Nobody is judging those that don't use safety tools.

The antecedent, though, of "If you don't include the X-Card, you don't care about your players," is an erroneous conclusion. It's certainly POSSIBLE for you to be a horrible GM who likes to see your players cry (which is something I recall a poster on this forum saying they took pride in, which is absolutely atrocious) but it's far more likely you're a perfectly fine GM who is running a safe game.

I hope all of the above is true. I agreed with the "flipped around" version, "if you don't use safety rolls you don't care about the players", because in the AL groups I've run that ask the GMs to use X cards, I would feel uncomfortable saying "actually, I don't want to use that".

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I got a strong feeling that GMs who chose not to use safety tools would not be welcome to GM there.

OldTrees1

2023-09-28, 04:13 PM

I hope all of the above is true. I agreed with the "flipped around" version, "if you don't use safety rolls you don't care about the players", because in the AL groups I've run that ask the GMs to use X cards, I would feel uncomfortable saying "actually, I don't want to use that".

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but I got a strong feeling that GMs who chose not to use safety tools would not be welcome to GM there.

You changed the scenario slightly but there is a similar lack of judgement:
If a playgroup/player estimates the campaign is risky enough to ask for a safety tool to be used, and the GM chooses not to include the safety tool, then the playgroup/player might (probably? but not necessarily) decide they (the playgroup) are not a good fit for that GM's campaign, so they might find a different campaign/GM. The same thing happens all the time for other reasons that a player might not be a good fit for a specific campaign.*

* Although it is true that humans rationalize in cases like this to mask their disappointment. So there might be some temporary feelings of one person being too inflexible and the other having too many requirements. But when heads cool down the "this was not a good fit" conclusion is amicable and mutual rather than judgmental.

PS: In this scenario I would also feel uncomfortable saying I did not want to use a safety tool. However the judgement would be all in my head as I ask myself why not use the safety tool for that campaign. That is because I see it as a trivial cost to myself to implement and I see it providing disproportionate benefit to those that are asking for it. So I would feel selfish for refusing even if the players merely conclude the campaign is not a good fit for them. But that is just my internal self judgement where I can see more context and hold higher standards.

The early scenario:
A GM pitches a campaign during session 0 to a playgroup and does not include safety tools. Unlike gbaji's strawman, the player/playgroup does not assume the GM is a selfish jerk. Instead they assume the GM does not think safety tools are going to be needed for this campaign. No judgement. Most of my campaigns don't use safety tools and I have been one of those reiterating the "use if needed" advice. If the player/playgroup initially disagrees with the GM's risk assessment, they might address that with the GM** or find another group, but no judgement is cast.

** For example they might ask for a safety tool. They might describe the positive impact it would have on them (including enabling them to join the campaign) and the minimal cost to implement. But ultimately players (including GMs) want to be in a game only if it is a good fit for them.

There is no judgement cast for not using safety tools. A) They are a "use if needed" tool. B) Sometimes players are not good fits for a specific campaign, and that is fine.

Joke Scenario (although it could happen in campaign brainstorming):
A GM pitches a campaign that does not include safety tools. The GM does not assume the GM is a selfish jerk, but disagrees with their own risk assessment, so they ask if safety tools could be included. The GM listens but decides to continue without safety tools. The GM decides that without safety tools, this particular campaign might be risky for them. Concluding they are not a good fit for their own campaign, they leave to find another campaign.

Atranen

2023-09-28, 06:19 PM

Keltest

2023-09-28, 07:17 PM

Yeah, it's very different in a home game vs an organized play setting. I guess what turns me off about the organized play is, I felt like I would be judged/not welcome to DM if I didn't use the X card, but at the same time the X card was used very rarely in actual play. The campaign I was running wasn't risky enough to warrant it, imo. And many of my players were confused about why the X card was there as well. They would have been fine with it if I had run tables without the X card.

The game was safe, and the players were happy. But the organizers (who were not playing at my table) wanted it to be available, and they would have stopped me from running if I didn't offer it.

If you replace the x-card with, say, wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, the organizers goals become a lot more clear there. They don't want to have to vet and get to know every DM that runs at their event, so the safety equipment is just mandatory for everyone, even if you don't engage in unsafe behavior.

On an unrelated note, if you feel the need to use an x-card because a line is crossed and you genuinely can't talk about it, I think you are kind of obliged to excuse yourself from that table at that point. If you can't communicate where the line is so people can avoid it, you're only going to have your fun ruined and drag the group down with you when the trigger reappears, since the DM doesn't know and can't ask what the problem is.

OldTrees1

2023-09-28, 07:30 PM

Yeah, it's very different in a home game vs an organized play setting. I guess what turns me off about the organized play is, I felt like I would be judged/not welcome to DM if I didn't use the X card, but at the same time the X card was used very rarely in actual play. The campaign I was running wasn't risky enough to warrant it, imo. And many of my players were confused about why the X card was there as well. They would have been fine with it if I had run tables without the X card.

I was not speaking about just home games. Even in an organized play setting I think I described the general player and GM reactions. I do have some AL experience and encountered a diverse set of players (senior and children at the same table).

The game was safe, and the players were happy. But the organizers (who were not playing at my table) wanted it to be available, and they would have stopped me from running if I didn't offer it.

The 3rd party in organized play a complicated topic. They enable the event, but can orchestrate it to death.

I have been blessed in having my AL experiences at an LGS that made space for AL rather than trying to orchestrate AL. They focused on guiding new players to open seats rather than setting rules. Thus my only 3rd party friction was with the AL rules themselves. When that turned into a regular group we dropped AL but could still play at the LGS at the same time.

So if an GM organizer pitched an campaign event to you during session 0 the event description, and you brought a character campaign that did not comply with some of the session 0 restrictions event rules, I can see them deciding you are not a good fit for that campaign event. Hopefully they would have allowed you to run a non AL game at the venue. Or maybe they were trying to protect themselves from complaints? This isn't really about X-cards anymore. (AL prohibited evil characters even when I was fine GMing for the evil PCs the young kids created)

Beelzebub1111

2023-09-29, 06:11 AM

On the topic of players/organizers asking: "What safety tools do you use for your games?" It feels like a loaded question. The question implies that They are inherently necessary and always helpful, which are both up for debate. People say it's like wearing a hardhat at a construction site, but I disagree. You have to make sure your tools are appropriate and effective for the situation. You wouldn't bring steel toe boots and a welding mask as your PPE to volunteer at an animal shelter. Some sturdy gloves should be fine.

The GM can say "None" to that question, which sounds bad, but perhaps what they mean is "I stress the importance of open communication between everyone at the table and create a safe, non-judgmental environment where anyone can speak freely about anything that is bothering them." Or maybe they don't consider someone saying "That was intense I need to take 5." necessitates a physical card and mechanic with all these specific rules around how it functions.

We're all here to play a game, even the GM. It's JUST a game, and a safer one than most.

Vahnavoi

2023-09-29, 08:50 AM

@Beelzebub111: Yes and no. When talking about any official event of basically more than 10 people, safety has to be considered as matter of legal regulation. But, safety does not mean inclusion of any specific, idiosyncratic device that happens to be trending online. It means assessing frequency and severity of events to gauge what kinds of tools are necessary.

Which brings me back your remark about hardhats. You are correct that direct comparison between them and the X-card is unwarranted. In general, people should not use one type of safety tool as analogue for a completely different kind. I made the same point in a past thread when someone tried to use a fire extinquisher as an analogue. The correct category and comparison point for the X-card is emergency stopping signals, such as somebody yelling "Stop!" (or some other safeword), somebody forming an X with their hands, a martial artist tapping out, a referee blowing a whistle, etc.. In that crowd, the X-card doesn't stand out, but that's sort of the point. The loaded part of "what safety tools do you use for your games?" is not the implication that such tools are always helpful and necessary, it's that the questioner is expecting to hear some very specific answer. Mutual understanding that games have a variety of options to tackle the same problem removes the loading.

Atranen

2023-09-29, 04:43 PM

If you replace the x-card with, say, wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, the organizers goals become a lot more clear there. They don't want to have to vet and get to know every DM that runs at their event, so the safety equipment is just mandatory for everyone, even if you don't engage in unsafe behavior.

I get where you're coming from, but imo the benefits of hard hats are much more obvious than X cards. It seems more like an unnecessary tool (for many games) imo. Which the evidence supports--very few people used X cards at those events, to the extent that the organizers felt the need to address it.

The 3rd party in organized play a complicated topic. They enable the event, but can orchestrate it to death.

Agreed, and that was the case for this group. It may be that I was a bad fit for their event. But that's really the nature of my complaint. The X card was not being used at the table, and was not achieving its purpose of making games safer. Instead, it ended up being a signaling tool that said "I am on board with what the event organizers want".

Good point about there being other "safety" rules, like no evil characters. I do its legitimate for the organizers to define the scope of their event, and I was a bad fit here. But, it's a bit of a shame that that has been my main experience with the X card

Keltest

2023-09-29, 05:05 PM

gbaji

2023-09-29, 07:59 PM

You changed the scenario slightly but there is a similar lack of judgement:
If a playgroup/player estimates the campaign is risky enough to ask for a safety tool to be used, and the GM chooses not to include the safety tool, then the playgroup/player might (probably? but not necessarily) decide they (the playgroup) are not a good fit for that GM's campaign, so they might find a different campaign/GM. The same thing happens all the time for other reasons that a player might not be a good fit for a specific campaign.*

Ok. First off. Let's stick to the topic, which is the X-card specifically, and the aspects of the X-card that make it different from other previously existing saftey tools. I made a point about how the kind of language being used about this, acts as a form of social pressure/shaming to force GMs to adopt them. To which you claimed I was saying nonesense or creating strawmen.

But then you use a case like this, where you state that if the players don't think the safety tools in place are sufficient, then they can decide this game isn't a good fit for them. And you don't see how statementts about the X-card like "Just by including the X-Card, you signify that as a GM you're concerned with the emotional wellbeing of your players," may act to form those opinions and expectations in the minds of players in the first place?

You can insist that we aren't allowed to reverse that statement around, but your own statement above clearly indicates otherwise. How do you supopse these players are deciding that the saftey tool (again, let's be specific that we're talking about the X-card itself) not being present means they should not play the game? And can you honestly state that the threat (yes, threat) of players refusing to play in your game because of this doesn't itself act as a huge amount of pressure? Sorry. I don't buy that one bit.

The only reason a player would refuse to play in a game without the X-card in it, would be precisely because they have come to believe (perhaps via repetitive claims online and other sources) that the absense of an X-card means the game will not be safe. Again, for whatever possibly vague definition of "safe" being used. Insisting up and down that positive statements about the benefits of the X-card with regard to the saftey of a game don't translate into negative assumptions about the saftey of a game that doesn't use the X-card doesn't actually hold a lot of water. Especially if we're literally talking about people not feeling safe if it's not in use at a game.

I'm just tring to nip this (frankly bizarre) bit of thinking that I see occuring in the gaming industry right in the bud before it gets out of hand.

PS: In this scenario I would also feel uncomfortable saying I did not want to use a safety tool. However the judgement would be all in my head as I ask myself why not use the safety tool for that campaign. That is because I see it as a trivial cost to myself to implement and I see it providing disproportionate benefit to those that are asking for it. So I would feel selfish for refusing even if the players merely conclude the campaign is not a good fit for them. But that is just my internal self judgement where I can see more context and hold higher standards.

And you kinda double down on this odd thinking by acknowledging that not using the tool would make you uncomfortable, not because the game is actualy "unsafe", nor that other tools aren't sufficent to ensure an enjoyable playing experience for all players, but purely because of your assumption about how others will percieve your game if you don't use them.

My issue is that there's a bit of "emperor's new clothes" bit going on here. It's entirely possible that you are using the X-card because you fear the opinions of your players if you don't. And your players want the X-card because they each assume that, even though they personally don't need it, soimeone else might. We're all just assuming that we're doing this for "someone else's benefit", but no one is actually standing up and saying "I actually need this". We get a lot of people saying "We need this" (collectively), but is that because they themselves do, or they don't want to be the one kid who stands up and points out that the whole thing is just an illusion in the first place. No one's actually benefited by it, but we're all doing it anyway, for some group of fictional "others who might need it". And all of these people are afraid to be the one to stand up and say "this isn't really necessary at all".

And yeah. You follow up with yet another backhanded slap at non-use, by claiming that, having gone though this (somewhat absurd) mental process, you can slap yourself on the back and claim to "see more context and hold higher standards". Sorry. I disagree. This is a whole lot of group delusion going on here.

There is one and only one case where the X-card has any effect on a gaming table differently than standard "pause/stop" tools that we have been using gor 40 years at gaming tourneys. And I've specifically spoke aboout this: The ability to be used without having to explain to the GM why. That's it. If we assume that, having played a stop card, everyone stops, there is an expecation that the player who plays it either informs the entire table why (which could be as miild as "Things were just getting loud, and I wanted to say something, but couldn't be heard") *or* they pull the GM aside to explain why if it's something more personal, which, also, I don't need your life history, but I do need you to tell me what bothered you, this is no different than what we've been using all along.

The only difference with the X-card is the ability to conceal the reason for using it in the first place. And that is precisely the thing I do not agree with, and will not allow at a table I am running. At the end of the day, we have to consider the social experience of the entire group. And if there is a player who is so incapable of managing even the most basic of social activities and communication, I'm struggling to see how *they* fit at the table. Not the GM. Not the other players. Them. There's no magic rule that says "we allow anyone and everyone to play, no matter how disruptive or uncaring they are about their fellow players". And the "conceal your reasons for playing" part of the X-card rules flip the script to the point where the person playing it is the one being disruptive and uncaring, not the other way around.

And yes. Some people may knee-jerk react to this with shock and horror or something, but we have to make these determinations with regard to how much the entire group has to impact their enjoyment so as to make the game more enjoyable for one person. And there's a fair distance I'm willing to go with this, but that person not telling me why? Sorry. That's just a bridge too far.

And this strange idea that we should just create this mythos around the use of the X-card and ascribe to it magical importance that must always be allowed if asked? Nope. IMO, anyone asking of insisting on the use of this at a table is either just following along with the delusion (they think the clothes look just grand!) *or* they are the player at my table who wants to be empowered to stop the game when they want without informing me why. The former doesn't need the tool, but has been tricked into thinking they do, so the correct answer is to say "no". The later is not someone I want at my table.

If you replace the x-card with, say, wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, the organizers goals become a lot more clear there. They don't want to have to vet and get to know every DM that runs at their event, so the safety equipment is just mandatory for everyone, even if you don't engage in unsafe behavior.

Except that there is actual tangible evidence showing the value of hardhats in construction zones. There is zero evidence, beyond lots of delusional assumptions, that the X-card (and specifically the "can stop something without saying why") provides any benefit to any gaming table at all (and arguably a fairly good argument that it will actually increase disruption, if it does have any effect). Again. This is something a ton of people think is a good idea, so they just use it, because of that assumption. But some of us like to actually stop and ask "Um... Is this really doing anything useful".

And look. I would not care, except for when I see comments like "using this shows you care". Hmmmm... Yeah. The meat processing industry created a certification process to show that their meat mets specific standards. It's an entirely voluntary process. No one's required to do it, or place the USDA seals on their produts.

Would you buy meat without a USDA seal on it (or equivalent in another country)? No. Right? So any claims that this is just about positive value of the tool, and not at all a negative value placed on it's absense, is absurd. But what's worse is that at least the USDA seal means something. The "I use an X-card at my table" seal, literally means nothing. It's an exercise in group psychology and blindly following things because you are told you are "bad" if you don't.

On an unrelated note, if you feel the need to use an x-card because a line is crossed and you genuinely can't talk about it, I think you are kind of obliged to excuse yourself from that table at that point. If you can't communicate where the line is so people can avoid it, you're only going to have your fun ruined and drag the group down with you when the trigger reappears, since the DM doesn't know and can't ask what the problem is.

Yeah. This. And again, I keep coming back to the fact that this is literally the only thing that the X-card allows people to do, that other "stop' tools haven't done for decades. It's almost like we've latched onto it like a brand or something, but the kinda gloss over the problems it represents.

I'll say again: I have no issue with "stop" tools. I've used them for decades. My issue is 100% and has always been 100% with the bits in the X-card rules that allow for and even encourage concealing the reason for using the X-card in the first place. That's the point that is a hard "no" for me.

And yeah. If I'm at a tourney (honestly haven't GMed at one in probably 20 years, so maybe moot), and the organizers said "We're using X-cards at the tables", my immediate response would be : "Sure. But I'm not going to follow rules number X or Y (the stuff that is about concealing things). My expecation is that if someone plays the card at my table that they will tell me why. And if they can't, then we ignore it and move on".

I don't care about the label we use for this. Call it an "X-card" if you want, but I will *not* allow that kind of disruption at a table that I'm running. if it's just about the label but *not* the concealment bits, then the organizers should have no problem with this. If their respose is that I must follow the exact rules about using X-cards as written, including the concealment bits, then any claims (by many in this thread) that this is all just guidelines and optional, are totally bunk. It is about the label. And it is about strictly following even the absurd rules that everyone seems to be claiming aren't really what's supposed to be used in the first place. Kind can't have it both ways. That concealment part is either what we're talking about, or it isn't. And if the organizers say "yeah. That's fine", then we're all good. But then, we're just calling what we've always done by a new name, right?

So which thing is the "X-card" that I should be using, or that folks feel they should be using, or that they'd feel uncomfortable not using? Is it the one that works just like a traditional "stop' card/tool? Or is it about being able to conceal the reasons for playing the card. Seems like I asked that earlier, and didn't really get a satisfactory answer. If everyone on this forum agrees that the concealment bits should not be allowed, then we're all in agreement. Again, "X-card minus concealment bits" == "traditional stop card", so I have no problems. It's just a new label for an old tool. Great.

But if people do think the concealment bits are important and necessary, then they need to very clearly state this. And then we can discuss this and just talk about those bits and only those bits.

icefractal

2023-09-29, 09:08 PM

I get where you're coming from, but imo the benefits of hard hats are much more obvious than X cards. It seems more like an unnecessary tool (for many games) imo. Which the evidence supports--very few people used X cards at those events, to the extent that the organizers felt the need to address it.Very few people using them doesn't mean they're unnecessary. It doesn't mean that they are necessary either, it's simply insufficient data to make a judgement on. Most safety features are used very infrequently.

For example, I would be equally healthy as I am now if I'd never used a seat-belt in my life. The few collisions I've been in were low-speed enough that a seat-belt wasn't needed to avoid injury. This is probably true for the majority of people. Nonetheless, seat-belts do save a number of lives each year.

Similarly, you'll more likely (as in > 50%) be fine if you eat expired food, drink and drive, use addictive drugs a few times, run with scissors, set off illegal fireworks without any precautions, motorcycle without a helmet, spar without a cup, etc, etc. It's just that most people consider even a 1% chance of serious harm something worth taking steps to avoid.

Zuras

2023-09-29, 11:58 PM

And yeah. If I'm at a tourney (honestly haven't GMed at one in probably 20 years, so maybe moot), and the organizers said "We're using X-cards at the tables", my immediate response would be : "Sure. But I'm not going to follow rules number X or Y (the stuff that is about concealing things). My expecation is that if someone plays the card at my table that they will tell me why. And if they can't, then we ignore it and move on".

If something is really bothering someone to the point that they aren’t enjoying an RPG session, it’s probably not a great time to have a detailed discussion about it. Clearly if they want to continue to participate, someone who raises an X card may need to discuss the “what” component of their issue, so the GM can avoid it going forward.

They aren’t obligated to tell you their “why” reason for raising the X card, though. What possible difference would that make to the situation? The GM doesn’t get to decide whether their issue is valid or not—how would they know? We can’t see inside other people’s heads. As GM you don’t get to make a judgement call on that.

Sure, it’s a blunt tool, and actually talking things out like adults after giving a stop signal is preferable if everyone knows each other. That’s not the case in many public play settings, however.

Atranen

2023-09-30, 01:48 AM

Very few people using them doesn't mean they're unnecessary. It doesn't mean that they are necessary either, it's simply insufficient data to make a judgement on. Most safety features are used very infrequently.

For example, I would be equally healthy as I am now if I'd never used a seat-belt in my life. The few collisions I've been in were low-speed enough that a seat-belt wasn't needed to avoid injury. This is probably true for the majority of people. Nonetheless, seat-belts do save a number of lives each year.

Similarly, you'll more likely (as in > 50%) be fine if you eat expired food, drink and drive, use addictive drugs a few times, run with scissors, set off illegal fireworks without any precautions, motorcycle without a helmet, spar without a cup, etc, etc. It's just that most people consider even a 1% chance of serious harm something worth taking steps to avoid.

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

OldTrees1

2023-09-30, 12:16 PM

Ok. First off.

Your argument is
Premise: P -> Q
Conclusion: !P -> !Q

Please review the following doc explaining that logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

If you reply without correcting that fallacy, I will ignore you or quote this post again.

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

In specifically the worst gaming session imaginable? Yes, the literal worst case possibly imagined is worse than a standard bad car accident or even a falling object hitting your skull. Mental Trauma can get as bad or worse than physical trauma (notice we can directly talk about one). However most campaigns, even most campaigns would have used safety tools, do not risk anything close to the worst case scenario. A more reasonable metric, to compare to sessions that would have used a safety tool, might be someone wrestling, but unable to tap out, resulting in a severe injury that takes a while to recover and never fully recovers. You know, the reason wrestling has stop signals.

Agreed, and that was the case for this group. It may be that I was a bad fit for their event. But that's really the nature of my complaint. The X card was not being used at the table, and was not achieving its purpose of making games safer. Instead, it ended up being a signaling tool that said "I am on board with what the event organizers want".

Good point about there being other "safety" rules, like no evil characters. I do its legitimate for the organizers to define the scope of their event, and I was a bad fit here. But, it's a bit of a shame that that has been my main experience with the X card

Yeah. Personally I would advise organizers limit the content/tone to reduce the risk of needing a safety-tool rather than require a safety tool. There already is the implicit out of going to the organizer if you can't speak up at the table. It is nowhere as strong a tool as a safety-tool, but it is a better fit provided there are other risk reduction rules. Even the no-evil characters rule in AL is the right rule for AL to implement for the organized play as a whole, even if it was a bad fit for my particular AL table.

Although organizers need to be wary. When you (an outsider imposing laws) put safety rules that feel constraining, it incentivizes the playgroups to bend them slightly. In my case the children friend group that joined my table were allowed to play their characters because I did not fully enforce the no-evil characters rule. I monitored if that was working for my mixed ages table. This worked in the "no evil-characters" case, but would be terrible for a safety tool. Imagine someone invoking a safety tool and then the GM pausing play but interrogating them instead of letting them get to safety. So organizers should choose safety rules that work even if bent.

Atranen

2023-09-30, 01:32 PM

Your argument is
Premise: P -> Q
Conclusion: !P -> !Q

Please review the following doc explaining that logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

If you reply without correcting that fallacy, I will ignore you or quote this post again.

The argument is that other people will draw the conclusion, not that it is accurate. People make logical fallacies all the time.

In specifically the worst gaming session imaginable? Yes, the literal worst case possibly imagined is worse than a standard bad car accident or even a falling object hitting your skull. Mental Trauma can get as bad or worse than physical trauma (notice we can directly talk about one). However most campaigns, even most campaigns would have used safety tools, do not risk anything close to the worst case scenario. A more reasonable metric, to compare to sessions that would have used a safety tool, might be someone wrestling, but unable to tap out, resulting in a severe injury that takes a while to recover and never fully recovers. You know, the reason wrestling has stop signals.

I think this is a little pedantic. If a gaming session is so bad that it would cause severe mental trauma, an x card would not help. In the absence of an x card, a player can always walk away. The question is "how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc." And the answer is, nowhere near as much as a seatbelt on a bad accident.

kyoryu

2023-09-30, 02:17 PM

Yeah. Personally I would advise organizers limit the content/tone to reduce the risk of needing a safety-tool rather than require a safety tool. There already is the implicit out of going to the organizer if you can't speak up at the table. It is nowhere as strong a tool as a safety-tool, but it is a better fit provided there are other risk reduction rules. Even the no-evil characters rule in AL is the right rule for AL to implement for the organized play as a whole, even if it was a bad fit for my particular AL table.

It's the whole "zero tolerance" thing. It's not about what's effective - it's about defensibility if someone sues.

"Well we told people not to be jerks" may not be sufficient, when "why didn't you institute safety tools, since a number of them are well known?" is an easy counter-argument.

In that scenario, it's about pre-emptively creating a defense. Requiring it costs nothing, and reduces risk. Why wouldn't you do that?

Vahnavoi

2023-09-30, 03:15 PM

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

You have the right idea but your (rhetorical) question is wrong.

The correct question would be "do you think the degree of risk in a tabletop game is similar to driving a car or going through a construction site?"

Risk, not simply harm, because risk is properly calculated using both severity (of harm) of an incident and frequency of that incident. Seatbelts and hardhats exist to protect from known lethal risks: we can look at existing body of cases and see how often people died when they were not using these devices.

The existing body of cases where someone died because of game subject matter, to date, is zero. Children choking on gaming pieces? That has happened. People having life-threatening allergic reactions or food poisoning due to table snacks? That has happened. But somebody dying because of a panic attack or a stress reaction towards an in-game event? To my knowledge, this hasn't happened. Sure, I can imagine that happening, but "worst harm imaginable" has no place in a risk calculation if its frequency cannot be measured.

Now, emergency stopping signals, the proper comparison point for an X-card, have saved lives in other contexts than tabletop games. You need to look only so far as live-action roleplaying games to figure that out. Similarly, in physical sports, stopping signals obviously serve to prevent physical injury, including death. But this only turns into a justification for the X-card for a tabletop game if you can show similar level of risk in the tabletop game.

Most often, no such risks can be shown, because they don't exist. You are using the card to prevent panic attacks at worst, not preventing broken bones nor saving lives. There, the card works, but it isn't unique. The question faced by an event organizer is not "should we have safety tools?", it's "should we enforce the X-card specifically, as opposed to tapping out or crying uncle or any of the other things that cover the same ground?".

At the other end, putting content guidelines such as "no evil characters" on the same line as an X-card is just as non-sensical as comparing the card to hardhats. "No evil characters" is an idiosyncratic tabletop gamer issue that is almost entirely irrelevant to safety, an evil Pathfinder or D&D character has less risk to it than watching Game of Thrones or playing Grand Theft Auto. If the point is about controlling level of violence or other foul behaviour, a standard PEGI rating rould be a more powerful tool. But most often it isn't even about that, instead, an evil character would just be thematically or mechanically unfit for the game. That's a concern, but it isn't a safety concern.

(Some of the above is commentary on the running discussion, not specifically to Atranen's post. It's also a rehash of much that's already been said. Seriously people, stop making pointless analogies between inequal safety tools!)

Zuras

2023-09-30, 05:18 PM

OldTrees1

2023-09-30, 07:48 PM

The argument is that other people will draw the conclusion, not that it is accurate.
I disagree. Unlike our quality discussion about the actual reactions actual people have (which forked off into the organizer subthread). Their argumentation is based on inventing something that does not happen. I am not going to engage their argument when it relies on an obvious fallacy and is contradicted by observation.

I think this is a little pedantic. If a gaming session is so bad that it would cause severe mental trauma, an x card would not help. In the absence of an x card, a player can always walk away. The question is "how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc." And the answer is, nowhere near as much as a seatbelt on a bad accident.
My answer to the worst possible imaginable was a bit pedantic. In that reply you will see me critique the question and answer before answering a better question. We don't need to think about extreme edge cases.

A more reasonable comparison is to wrestling and the stopping signal preventing an injury that takes time to recover and never fully recovers. There are gaming sessions where someone goes quiet and suffers while hoping it will end soon. There are gaming sessions where, in the traumatic moment they fear trying to leave would cause the other players to barrage them with trauma triggering questions and prevent them from leaving that head space. Those gaming sessions, without a safety tool, can cause mental trauma that takes a while to recover and never fully removes (just like those wrestling injuries).

Your question is:
"how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools outs of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc."
The answer is:
There are cases those options are initially not accessible due to the triggering event and the specific headspace that inflicted on the specific individual. Safety tools (a subset of stopping signals) extend those outs to cases they were not accessible. So how much do they help compared to what they enable? Depends on if the campaign risk needing a safety tool because it risks circumstances where those outs we take for granted are not available in the moment.

Remember, I have had a session that would have benefited from a safety tool, but we did not have one implemented. The forum rules censor our ability to describe it, but the stopping signal wrestlers use to prevent severe wrestling injuries, is comparable. It was not seatbelt vs thrown through the windshield levels of severe, but it was bad. However none of my later campaigns were as risky as that campaign. So a typical campaign probably does not need a safety tool. Do a risk assessment and use a safety tool if needed.

It's the whole "zero tolerance" thing. It's not about what's effective - it's about defensibility if someone sues.

"Well we told people not to be jerks" may not be sufficient, when "why didn't you institute safety tools, since a number of them are well known?" is an easy counter-argument.

In that scenario, it's about pre-emptively creating a defense. Requiring it costs nothing, and reduces risk. Why wouldn't you do that?

Sadly that is correct. I will still judge their choice of "can't sue us" measures based on the positive/negative impact to the groups compared to alternative choices of "can't sue us" measures.

However you are right that requiring it costs next to nothing to the org (a few paragraphs and checking once in a while). However it will have negligible impact on their "can't sue us" defense since it might sound like "oh we trusted that the strangers would play nice without supervision" or there already was supervision?

I can understand their decision, but still think it was erroneous under their metrics.