Safety Tools: A Discussion

[Easy e]

Greetings all,

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

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

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

I appreciate your participation in this important topic.

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Silly Name]

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

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

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

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

So, to answers your questions:

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

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

[Eldan]

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

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

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

[Satinavian]

Personal experience :

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

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

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

[Jakinbandw]

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

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

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

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

[Mastikator]

Personal experience :

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

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

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

This is my experience as well.

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

[OldTrees1]

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

Spoiler: Risk assessment combines consideration about likelihood and severity.

Show

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


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

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


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


Additionally some cases lend to more severe reactions (phobias or familiar traumas) while other cases lend to a higher initial barrier to escape (like topics I am less comfortable talking to a forum about).

For a lot of topics the baseline campaign with friends will have a low likelihood of needing a safety tool (with a even lower likelihood for the more severe cases). You can probably get away with the implicit permission to speak up that comes from being friends that care about each other having fun.



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

[Pauly]

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

This.

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

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

[Xervous]

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

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

[TaiLiu]

Safety tools!

1. They're like carrying around emergency cash or a multitool—you probably won't use them, but they takes up relatively little room and are nice to have.
   
   
2. The circumstances when you'd use them are relatively narrow. A player or GM needs to be able to recognize that (i) this situation is making them seriously uncomfortable and that (ii) this is the right time to use the safety tool. They must then (iii) overcome whatever emotional block they have to using it and invoke it.
   
   
3. There's a kind of inherent hesitance to using it. If everyone's having fun and you're not, are you really gonna tell everyone to stop? If the GM put so much work into this scene, do you really feel comfortable telling them to abandon it? Will your friends dislike you for using it?
   
   
4. To overcome that, I've seen people attach mechanical benefits for using them. No idea if that works or not.
   
   
5. Having a session zero discussion on what everyone wants and doesn't want out of the game can make safety tools mostly vestigial. But people forget.
   
   
6. As a player, I've never used them.
   
   
7. There's only been two situations where they may've been useful for me. In the first one, I lacked the emotional awareness to tell them to stop. In the other, I just mentioned it at the end of the session and tried dissociating during it.
   
   
8. Safety tools won't solve the basic (but difficult) social problem of playing with people who you don't jive with for whatever reason.

[Vahnavoi]

As a commentary on above post:

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

[Ionathus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

That's a risk assessment matrix. Nothing wrong with those, there are standard template for larger projects. A typical tabletop game is just so small that it's not worth the effort. For example, in a convention, it's not worth it for an individual game master to worry about this. It's more realistically a task for someone in the event organization, such as a program manager.

[TaiLiu]

As a commentary on above post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For sure. I think that explicitly mentioning that as part of the safety tool stuff probably helps ensure everyone's comfortable using them when they need to.

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TaiLiu]

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

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

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

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

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

That's not a bad argument. I think I'd need empirical evidence to be swayed one way or the other. But you're right that there's a possible backlash that I didn't think about.

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ionathus]

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

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

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

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

[Beelzebub1111]

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

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

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

[icefractal]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup.

[Segev]

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

You do see at least 1 way to do it. (the online game option)

My biggest issue with these "tools" is that they seem to do more to create tension than relieve it.

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

My biggest issue with these "tools" is that they seem to do more to create tension than relieve it. Kind-of like how anti-bullying rules in schools

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


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


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

[Zombimode]

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

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

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

[Zombimode]

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

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

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