Safety Tools: A Discussion

[Ionathus]

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This seems so obvious as to really not be arguable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, yeah.

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gbaji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Ionathus]

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

[Ionathus]

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

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

[gbaji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

The moment you had out X-cards (or fire extinguishers) you vastly increase the odds they will be used in situations where they were likely not really needed in the first place. The same process you'd use in a fire in someone's home (tell them about it, then they make a decision, with "use a fire extinguisher" likely being the very very last thing they go to), works with social triggers/phobias.

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

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

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

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

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

[icefractal]

It's just that in my experience, the ratio of "legitimate cases where a player is strongly enough triggered to need this" to "cases where players will abuse something like this for an in-game advantage" is very skewed to the latter condition (and even more likely the less well I know the players, which is maybe a good reason to avoid this with folks you don't know well all together) .

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

[gbaji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

[OldTrees1]

And let me be clear. I'm not really poo-pooing the idea entirely. I do think there are some specific cirtumstances (really game theme specific) where this may be a great idea. I'm just a bit cautious about blanketly applying it to any and every game (and am tossing out some cautions).

1) Good.
2) You already know it was never suggested to "blanketly apply it to any and every game". It was suggested as "use if needed". Please, for the sake of clarify, don't argue against things nobody said.
3) Your main concern (someone might try to abuse it) is unlikely and not a big deal. Even with years of strangers at an LGS (all ages) I never encountered someone I suspected would try to abuse an x-card, and even if they did it would not be a big deal. Your past experience with some "troublesome" people has made you more cautions than I feel the need to be myself.

I'd just rather go with a proactive approach here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right that the ones you trust more will correlate with the ones that need the tool less.

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Satinavian]

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

---

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

[Segev]

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

Which I also did.

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

[gbaji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

The GM decides if their campaign is using safety tools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was already being honest. Maybe considering these points I am making would help clear up your misconceptions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KaussH]

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

[kyoryu]

....

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

[Beelzebub1111]

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

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

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

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