# When Gaming Bleeds



## SMHWorlds (Sep 30, 2019)

Great stuff to think about. Consent is a complicated issue, no matter how easy it may seem to just talk about something. And there is a big difference between people who have played together for a while or at least have been aware of one another's style for a while and those who are new to the hobby or just new to the table. That will definitely change how the conversation is framed.


----------



## dytrrnikl (Sep 30, 2019)

Feel free to disagree, but unless it's a therapeutic RPG session, I can't support the idea of the X-Card at the regular gaming table. After over 30 years of gaming, I've lost track of the number of times various GMs have run scenarios in which I got uncomfortable due to my own real life experiences. Never once when it happened, did I ever think it was their responsibility for my baggage. The idea that someone else has to worry about my issues when I game is just bonkers to me. If I get uncomfortable when I play, that's my issue, not the GM or anyone else sitting at the table. From my perspective, the x-card idea goes beyond courtesy and understanding to being responsible for another's baggage/issues. I'm all for being mindful, but that doesn't mean we should be responsible for how others respond or react to something in game.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 30, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## SMHWorlds (Sep 30, 2019)

I am of the opinion that is a stage where the hobby and how we play changes. Eventually the X-Card and other examples may fade or change. At the moment, as a means of communicating between those who play instinctively and implicitly and those who need more explicit communication, these tools and discussions are good for the hobby and the people involved. But evolution is ongoing; before we know it this discussion may not even be needed.


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 30, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Weirdly, I've played for more than "over 30 years," and I would say that my opinions have changed over time, as has the way I've run my game.
> 
> Some would say that comes with maturity.
> 
> ...



I have appreciated your thoughtful opinions on this matter for a while now. 

I'm really really sorry, but you seem to have the heart of a...... paladin.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

If you have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, perhaps you should consider not playing RPGs.   

That said, if you are the one deliberately blurring fantasy and reality, accusing someone else of getting confused about the two is a jerk move. For example, I think it is safe to say that there is at some level of involvement no difference between a pretend romantic relationship or a pretend erotic relationship and a romantic or erotic relationship. If you are LARPing out a romantic or erotic relationship with a person, you are in a romantic or erotic relationship with that person. The other person isn't having trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality, you have already blurred that line. There is no sense trying to pretend that there is some sort of 'bleed' going on if you are both players are receiving some sort of sexual feelings or gratification from erotic word play or in character flirtation. Pretending that there is some sort of distance created by saying that the characters are involved in that but the players aren't is pretty ridiculous.

Beyond that, there is a huge disconnect between the problem here labeled under the jargon language of 'bleed' and the proposed solutions. For example, if you go and read the Geek and Sundry article 'Coping With Emotional Bleed During Roleplay', none of the diverse problems lumped together and labelled as 'bleed' in that article could possibly have been dealt with social contracts involving consent. Nothing in those stories suggests that the play involved had been anything but consensual and had stayed within bounds agreed upon by the participants. Yet "bleed" occurred not only anyway, but actually because the play had been consensual, desirable, and emotionally engaging.

Once again, we have a very broad jargon term being adopted to cover a wide range of situations in a way that reduces rather than enhances understanding.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 30, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## dytrrnikl (Sep 30, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Weirdly, I've played for more than "over 30 years," and I would say that my opinions have changed over time, as has the way I've run my game.
> 
> Some would say that comes with maturity.
> 
> ...




You missed the first portion of the highlighted blurb _*"I'm all for being mindful,..." *_I follow the golden rule of treat others how I want to be treated. When I am aware of something, I don't go out of my way to trigger anyone. If I do say or do something, whether in game or in real life, which triggers someone, and it was  something for which I was genuinely unaware, of it being a trigger until it gets pointed out, I apologize and move on, keeping in mind what I just learned so I don't repeat the it with that person.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2019)

dytrrnikl said:


> Feel free to disagree, but unless it's a therapeutic RPG session, I can't support the idea of the X-Card at the regular gaming table.




Define "regular".  

For some, "regular" means a group of people that they've known for 10+ years, in their own home.  For others, it is a convention or FLGS gaming space, with people they've never met, and whose ideas of what makes for good gaming, and how fellow gamers should be treated, are not well-understood.  For some it is G-rated D&D, and others it it R-rated Vampire.  

Some "regular" tables don't need it.  Mine doesn't, for example.  But some people might.  And that's fine.  Let them use it.  Don't spend energy dumping on the thing in general, just because you don't need it.



> After over 30 years of gaming, I've lost track of the number of times various GMs have run scenarios in which I got uncomfortable due to my own real life experiences. Never once when it happened, did I ever think it was their responsibility for my baggage.




We'll get to the idea of "baggage" in a moment...



> The idea that someone else has to worry about my issues when I game is just bonkers to me.




Oh?

If someone came to game using crutches, or a wheelchair, would it be "bonkers" to shift some of the chairs around to make way for them?  If they had a deathly allergy, would it be "bonkers" to make sure the pizza you ordered that night didn't have mushrooms on it?  If you are on meds that mean you need frequent bathroom breaks, would it be "bonkers" to pause when you needed them?

Our would it just be common courtesy?

Health is health.  Mental or physical.  We slap a whole lot of connotations on mental health, because most of us have not managed to learn enough about it - we place a kind of blame on the person who has the problem.  Referring to it as "baggage" suggests that really, if you wanted to, you could drop it.  You could, as the song suggests, just let it go.

But, you can't.  That's not how it works.  It is less like "baggage" and more like "that old football injury" - there to stay, or only fading after a very, very long time, and it can, at times, be very painful.

Making some accommodations for a person's mental health is not any more "bonkers" than making accommodation for their physical health.  Are you required to do so?  No, not really*.  Is it really polite and considerate?  Yes.  Your choice.



> From my perspective, the x-card idea goes beyond courtesy and understanding to being responsible for another's baggage/issues.




With respect, when we sit down at the table, we should all be taking some responsibility for each other - we are there for a shared purpose of having a good time.  If one of the players is horribly inconsiderate or a jerk, we think poorly of them for failing in this responsibility.  

The X-card is not "making another responsible" for your problems.  It is merely a communication tool that allows folks with a problem to communicate that with a minimum of fuss.  We have socially accepted ways to say, "Hey, I need you to move that chair" or "Please don't put mushrooms on my pizza".  We don't have ways to say, "That is about to freak me out, please don't do that," such that folks don't argue with you over it.

I mean, if you don't want to know when something you've done is making another person uncomfortable... or  miserable or freaking them the heck out.... that's fine.  You don't want to know.  You keep on playing having done that to someone.  

Me, I want to know, and I want to be able to make a reasonable accommodation for them if I can.  There is nothing in the content of the game that is so danged important that it can't be shifted a bit for the real-world person sitting at the table.  After all, the content is _for_ those real world people.






* Though, honestly, turning away a player with an injury, because you don't want to be bothered moving a few chairs... is kinda selfish, and folks would be within their rights to consider why you would do that.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2019)

I will, separate from that, note that... the issue of consent isn't really about "bleed".  Bleed is a real thing, sure, but it isn't the major issue that leads us to want to get consent.

As noted above, bleed is when the emotions of a character impact the player - you feel sad because your character is sad.  That's not really what including consent is about.

Consent is needed because some things impact the player, whether or not they impact the character.  To choose an example with few moral entanglements - Thog the Mighty may not have an issue with, say, spiders, but Sam the Player might get nightmares from the scene you're about to put Thog in.


----------



## dytrrnikl (Sep 30, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Define "regular".
> 
> For some, "regular" means a group of people that they've known for 10+ years, in their own home.  For others, it is a convention or FLGS gaming space, with people they've never met, and whose ideas of what makes for good gaming, and how fellow gamers should be treated, are not well-understood.  For some it is G-rated D&D, and others it it R-rated Vampire.
> 
> ...




Regular for me - any game table not being run for therapeutic purposes, ie, in my own home or someone else's, at a Con.

Calling mental issues baggage is not the best turn of phrase, just how I've always viewed my own issues.

I have no problems making reasonable accommodations for those with physical injuries. AS for the mental side of things, to quote myself:

_*"I'm all for being mindful,..." *_I follow the golden rule of treat others how I want to be treated. When I am aware of something, I don't go out of my way to trigger anyone. If I do say or do something, whether in game or in real life, which triggers someone, and it was something for which I was genuinely unaware of it being a trigger until it gets pointed out, I apologize and move on; keeping in mind what I just learned so I don't repeat it with that individual.

That's as far as I'm willing to go for others. On the flip side, I do not expect anyone to make any kind of accommodation or consideration for me. If something happens which causes me to become uncomfortable, that's my problem.


----------



## AriochQ (Sep 30, 2019)

I had an interesting session that indirectly relates to this discussion.

We have a player who plays AL at our FLGS.  He is almost entirely blind.  Eyes clouded over, white cane, uses an app that reads his character sheet to him and announces die rolls out loud.  Normally, I just treat him like everyone else since all the issues that would require special accommodation have already been addressed.

Last week we started Decent into Avernus and in chapter one there is a pirate captain who is described with having one blind eye, clouded over.  Even his name refers to his blindness.  As I read the description, I thought to myself that it would inappropriate to stick to that characterization, so I changed it on the fly.

I have been DMing for a long time, so it didn't interfere much with the flow.  But, I could see some DM's being totally oblivious to something like that.  Personally, I don't have much need for the consent cards/questionnaires/etc., but as our hobby grows I can see them having a place at some tables.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Sep 30, 2019)

Bleed is a fascinating thing. A little bit of bleed can be exciting, a sign that the game is coming to life for the table, that everyone is _invested_.

Too much bleed is an ugly thing, and can wreck a session or even the group itself. 

_Edited to make my opinion on too much bleed sound less like it's the player's fault. It's one thing for a player to rage out because they stuck their magic sword in the magic sword destroying machine to see what would happen, and another for a player to have been forced to confront an emotionally-triggering experience in-game._


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Sep 30, 2019)

In my now close to 40 years of gaming (will be somewhere in November) I never experienced such things at the table. And I´ve been DMing and playing with all kinds of people from all walks of life in many different games and systems.
Personally I have certain morale values, that I more or less transfer to the table. Those things considered "mature" content are never explicitly played out or described. it´s mentioned with a sentence or two, but in a polite neutral as possible tone. But never ever it is roleplayed. Period.
if I read "reviews" about such obviously deranged material like that OSR "Carcosa" supplement, where all kinds of sick stuff is described more or less in detail, then I have to ask myself who was writing that and to what purpose. Certainly many will know what I talk about, but I don´t want to give that piece of crap any more advertising than it deserves.
An example for me handling such things:
If for a blood sacrifice has to be made to a dark god for the sake of the ritual, then the PCs arrive just in the moment BEFORE that actually happens - the dark priest has the dagger in hand ready to strike. very cinematic, very tense, but despite everybody knows what will be coming, the actual blood shed didn´t happen yet. The perfect situation for the heroes to act quickly and without great planning and still a tense situation without the gore and splatter.
the same goes for a prostitute tallking to a PC in the streets. there is little RPing to get the PC into what he wants to do, but no big description about the actual happening.
Such mature content can be handled more the way Hitchcock did it than nowadays.
And of course examples like the last one should never ever be present in games where minor aged players are involved. Perido and no discussion about that.
but otherwise? You fear spiders? I do also, but in games they are one of my fav beasts to throw at the party and I am a true follower of the Spider Queen.


----------



## Isolfer (Sep 30, 2019)

My very unpopular opinion on this is it had value 15 years ago and a lot less value now. Today we have new rpgs cranked out every year, some without combat, many that are kid and family friendly. This is more of an inclusion issue than a health one. Years ago when it was just Pathfinder, dnd, and white wolf for that most part this would have made sense, now we have my little pony, no thank you evil, and fate which can all be worked to be a zero gore, low violence and light conflict games.

Thus I feel this is more a gm should list out what will be in the game and players decide what they can and cannot handle. The issue is you have a lot of people who want to play x game because their friend did or they saw this video or pod cast. It's like the little kid wanting gta at game stop, if the game isn't for you then avoid it. When I want dark fantasy I run Warhammer, bonkers I go dnd, high fantasy I go to one ring, etc. When I'm running a game for people that do not want gore, violence, or adultish themes then I'll pull out my little pony or the secret life of cats.

I'll admit I can see some use for this, mainly if you have a gm that doesn't have a list of what to expect or pushes boundaries there, or a young gm, but when I first saw this idea added on to vampire 5th Ed I grew a distaste for it on the grounds of the simple fact "some games are just not for you", and players should be able to figure out what games those are.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 30, 2019)

I have to wonder if some folks don't look at a concept like "bleed" being applied to tabletop role-playing games and see shades of the old Chick Tract or Jack Thompson arguments peeking in around the edges. And I can understand the hesitation; from a certain point of view the difference between "bleed" to Chick Tract nonsense like "you character is dead, now you must kill yourself" doesn't seem that big a logical leap. And while the reality could not be farther from the truth, even those who can acknowledge that also know that the more the hobby discusses "bleed" and particularly it's dangers, the more likely some B.A.D.D. nutter will pick up and run with it no matter illogical it is. It's easy to imagine some respectable-seeming activist on the cable news after a school shooting from an individual with an incidental enjoyment of D&D to start talking about "bleed" for the moral panic to return, especially as D&D grows more popular.

I think that fear might be a bit overblown, is the thing. While moral panics are real and have negative consequences for quite a few people they... they don't really succeed, now do they? D&D and Magic: The Gathering survived. So did Harry Potter, and Buffy. Each subsequent Grand Theft Auto game has well outsold its predecessors. The Matrix still maintains its legacy, which if anything has only grown more fondly in the interim. After all, moral panics aren't really about the tangible things, the games, books, movies, properties, etc., that they purport to be about. They're a distraction, a way for us to ignore having to address the real, deeper, more complex and troubling aspects of ourselves and our society.

My feelings about consent and trauma and content warnings in RPGs are well established by this point. I think that between Session Zeros ought to be the rule in home games for this and so, so many other reasons, and that some sort of short, anonymous forms like this or the Same Page Tool coupled with some of the more frequent specific content warnings should be considered best practice for pickup-with-strangers games like at cons and game stores. I think that we do ourselves and our hobby a favor when we couch it in terms of trauma rather than academic psychological gobbledygook like "bleed" (which is much more likely to be misunderstood and/or weaponized) but that's my two cents.


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 30, 2019)

It's a tool. If you put an X card in the middle of the table and no one uses it, that single card is not impacting your game at all. Should be no biggie, right? If it gets tapped then the player is in distress. Why would I ignore that? Same with a social contract. It's information. It's good to know.

Scenario 1
The PC who snuck ahead in villain's lair gets overwhelmed by thugs, and is about to be locked in a small dark closet.  This PC has faced far worse, but player taps the X card. I'm surprised, but can easily shift the  scenario. I don't need to know details. Game isn't interrupted, and player doesn't have to leave session.

Scenario 2
My player characters are in a plane that's going down. I'm getting into all the little details, the panic, the desperate pilot, etc. Suddenly, it occurs to me I might have a plane crash survivor at my table, and maybe I'm about to freak out a player. No one is tapping X card though, so I'm good to go.

Sounds useful for all involved. I don't get the vehement criticism. I really don't.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2019)

dytrrnikl said:


> Feel free to disagree, but unless it's a therapeutic RPG session, I can't support the idea of the X-Card at the regular gaming table. After over 30 years of gaming, I've lost track of the number of times various GMs have run scenarios in which I got uncomfortable due to my own real life experiences. Never once when it happened, did I ever think it was their responsibility for my baggage. The idea that someone else has to worry about my issues when I game is just bonkers to me. If I get uncomfortable when I play, that's my issue, not the GM or anyone else sitting at the table. From my perspective, the x-card idea goes beyond courtesy and understanding to being responsible for another's baggage/issues. I'm all for being mindful, but that doesn't mean we should be responsible for how others respond or react to something in game.




Yes, I tend to think my issues are my responsibility, unless the GM is clearly violating social norms. I'd count "don't rape the PCs" as a social norm, though!

I was a bit uncomfortable yesterday running Red Hand of Doom when I said "the hobgoblin plans to have his wicked way with the peasant girl"; in case it offended/disturbed the only female player present, who I don't know all that well. She seemed ok but I'm definitely more mindful of this stuff than I used to be.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 30, 2019)

Arduis de Gispard said:


> In my now close to 40 years of gaming (will be somewhere in November) I never experienced such things at the table.




"I haven't seen it, so it can't be an issue!" is a common argument, whether it be about a mechanic that's found problematic, or an issue of table management.  It isn't a particularly strong argument.

First, we have the issue that one person's subjective memory of things from decades ago is.. anecdote, not data.  Even if you were 100% correct, you don't stand as a large enough representative sample, statistically thinking.

For another, that you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.  Have you considered the possibility that, for most of the past 40 years, there has been such a stigma of such stuff that, if you didn't explicitly invite people to say anything, they would just sit and suffer?  Or maybe leave the table to "go to the bathroom" or "have a cigarette" as a cover to get away and gather their composure?  

Most people will reject that possibility, but... well, lots of guys say they know for certain that sexual harassment doesn't happen, because they've never seen it.  Guess what?  It happens, and it either happens when we aren't looking, or we fail to recognize it (or dismiss it as not meaningful) at the time.

"I haven't seen it" is not an argument against the existence of ways of dealing with such issues.  I mean, my house has never burned down, but I have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher.  Risk mitigation is about finding low-cost ways to handle high-cost negative events.

Consider the following - Let us say these things don't happen at your table.  But, you implement the X-card (or some other communication tool).  You put out one lousy index card, and spend two minutes explaining it.  If, as you say, this is never an issue, then... nobody uses the card.  You are out one whole index card, and whole minutes of time.  

It isn't exactly expensive.


----------



## DemoMonkey (Sep 30, 2019)

For those DMs who don't like it...

Session zero (or even, when announcing to people that you have a new campaign)/In the convention booklet:

"NX. No X card will be used in this game. Judge accordingly if you want to play."
or
"X. This game will use the X-card mechanic. Judge accordingly if you want to play."

If adopted as a general convention, that ironically means an "X-rated" game would be the one withe the LEAST likelihood of sex and gore.

...
As an aside to one of the comments above, "If they had a deathly allergy, would it be "bonkers" to make sure the pizza you ordered that night didn't have mushrooms on it?"

If the majority of people liked mushrooms, we would order a pizza with mushrooms and the allergic person can get one without them for themselves. (Like any decent gaming group gets only ONE Pizza!)


----------



## Dire Bare (Sep 30, 2019)

AriochQ said:


> I had an interesting session that indirectly relates to this discussion.
> 
> We have a player who plays AL at our FLGS.  He is almost entirely blind.  Eyes clouded over, white cane, uses an app that reads his character sheet to him and announces die rolls out loud.  Normally, I just treat him like everyone else since all the issues that would require special accommodation have already been addressed.
> 
> ...




Awesome man, for being thoughtful towards your blind player.

However, consider this . . . avoiding including characters or situations in our stories that mirror real life issues can have the opposite effect than intended, it can create a fantasy world where there are no blind people, or folks with limited mobility (crutches, paralyzed, etc), or folks who fit into other categories (cultural, racial, religious, gender/preference). Your blind player might not have been offended in the least with a pirate captain blind in one eye. In fact, he might have been tickled that there are folks in your fantasy world like him to some degree! If I had a blind AL player in one of my games, I wouldn't skip past issues of blindness in the game, but I probably would check in with him afterwards to see how he felt about things. I'd definitely want to have that conversation with a regular player, and hopefully include normal, everyday NPC's who are blind, in addition to some blind villains and heroes too!

_EDIT: The word I'm looking for is "representation". If I were blind, I might want to have people like me represented in our shared fantasy world, blind commoners, blind heroes, blind villains. Overdo it and I'll think you're pandering to me, but a reminder every now and then would be awesome._


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2019)

DemoMonkey said:


> If the majority of people liked mushrooms, we would order a pizza with mushrooms and the allergic person can get one without them for themselves. (Like any decent gaming group gets only ONE Pizza!)




This is a serious issue for me as I am hosting my monthly group on Saturday, and planning to provide takeaway pizza, in contrast to the gourmet  delicious foodstuffs my American & French players do when they host... I think if I send my son (12) out to buy all the pizzza, I can disclaim responsibility for the outcome, and he'll come back with a lot of greasy but tasty Peperoni.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Sep 30, 2019)

Umbran said:


> "I haven't seen it, so it can't be an issue!" is a common argument, whether it be about a mechanic that's found problematic, or an issue of table management.  It isn't a particularly strong argument.
> 
> First, we have the issue that one person's subjective memory of things from decades ago is.. anecdote, not data.  Even if you were 100% correct, you don't stand as a large enough representative sample, statistically thinking.
> 
> ...



Heh, a modern version of Pascal's Wager.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Bleed is a fascinating thing. A little bit of bleed can be exciting, a sign that the game is coming to life for the table, that everyone is _invested_.
> 
> Too much bleed is an ugly thing, and can wreck a session or even the group itself.




In the LotR, Galadriel tell Frodo that she's unsure what he means by "magic" because mortals use it to lump together a bunch of things which are entirely unlike. I feel the same way about the term "bleed".

The examples I'm getting are things that are entirely unlike each other. In fact, some of them even feel like they might be abusive, in that I can see people manipulating the term to suggest that the victim is the one at fault for feeling "bleed". Indeed, I can see hints of victim self-blame in some of the examples that were linked to, and that's not cool.

Beyond that, I think mixing the already controversial ideas of "bleed" up with the equally controversial topic of "consent" does neither topic any favors. Bleed can occur independently of consent. Consent violations can occur independently of bleed. The two things aren't really strongly related in my opinion.

And for that matter, I'm far from convinced the "consent" paradigm is the best way to discuss everything that might make someone feel uncomfortable at the table.   The fact that so much of the language around "consent" was drawn from sexual assault just mixes up things that don't need to be conflated in a way that ensures maximum drama, discomfort, and distress around a conversation that is supposed to be about minimizes drama, discomfort, and distress.  To say nothing about the fact that I think it trivializes sexual assault by lumping that sort of horror into a broader class of things that just aren't sexual assault.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Sep 30, 2019)

@Umbran 
I agree, that personal opinions/experiences are not data. I also agree, that it is a very very changing world.
In the days were i started playing many issues were never talked about, simply kept in secret or not that present in the media as we have it nowadays. Also the awreness of people increased a lot ( and to the better). Many of the nasty things were just silenced or by some stupids pretended not to be present.
But in long past times certain subjects were not part of roleplaying, there was a kind of what I would call a Code of Ethics. The bad issues were not a part of the game. There were those things like blood sacrifices, the kidnapped princess and orcs raiding the village. Let your imagination run wild, but ask yourself, how do half-orcs come into existence? For me the answer is pretty obvious, since Grunge doesn´t look nor behave like Romeo (at least in my small world of understanding RPGs).
I will never ever deny such things as sexual harrasment, domestic violence and child abuse to happen just at this moment as we are talking about them. They are, and unfortunately were!, always happening, but fortunately society changed, media availability and awareness improved and nowadays the situation is different compared to the past (which is absolutely good). That is definitely not helping the victims of such acts, but perhaps it might prevent further abuse, since a neighbour nowadays is more likely to call the police and perhaps prevents further violence.     
But just take those covers from the Weird Tales magazines. Nowadays no serious publisher would dare to have them nowadays for good reasons. But it was part of the past and basically nobody took offense in them. Like said nowadays? No way and that is good. 
The problem I intended to point out (and horribly lost) is, that in the times we are living in, a basically "innocent" concept of gaming (and please no discussion about  racism against the goblinoid races)  is getting dragged into the "normal" life, where everything has to be tailored/reevaluated/considered if it might hurt somebodies feelings.
And I wholeheartedly disagree to use that so-called x-card. If you run your adventures in a halfway civilized manner leaving out those disgusting elements of real life (and yes I am a big fan of large scale combat scenes aka Conan against the beastman), then my subjective experience is, that you won´t run into the problems mentioned. 
I agree with your comments about the ciggy/bathroom leave, for being a possibility to leave the darkness imposed by the portrayed situation. But one thing I always do is to recap a session, and may it be two weeks later for the next one, and ask my players about their impressions. Sometimes short, sometimes it eats up a lot of gaming time, but in the end it pays out - feedback.
And one thing I ask myself as an old grumpy guy: Why are people always feeling to have the need to carry their cross in front of them and let others feel sorry on occasions  that are supposed to be fun? I feel bad about people suffering from the hands of others, I hate injustice and I hate violence against weak beings of all kinds. But when you run your games in a halfway decent manner and avoid certain things, than it is still a leisure time for everybody.
and BTW @S'mon: In my view still a way to express the situation, but I am totally with you when presented to people (especially women9 you are not too familiar with. Always a walk on the edge of the blade.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Sep 30, 2019)

Yeah, that's why I went back and edited my post to sound less victim blame-y. Emotional bleed isn't something a person can control (though how they react to it is, sometimes).

I agree that putting the two topics together does make the discussion a thorny one. But there is overlap between the two topics - consideration of your players' emotional states and reactions to subject matter is, I think, central to both. 



Celebrim said:


> The examples I'm getting are things that are entirely unlike each other. In fact, some of them even feel like they might be abusive, in that I can see people manipulating the term to suggest that the victim is the one at fault for feeling "bleed". Indeed, I can see hints of victim self-blame in some of the examples that were linked to, and that's not cool.
> 
> Beyond that, I think mixing the already controversial ideas of "bleed" up with the equally controversial topic of "consent" does neither topic any favors. Bleed can occur independently of consent. Consent violations can occur independently of bleed. The two things aren't really strongly related in my opinion.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Sep 30, 2019)

Decades ago people watched western movies where the indians (native Northamericans) were the bad guys. Today the vision about this matter is different. In a future fiction where the antagonist is a Catholic bishop or cardenal, for example "the hunchback of Notre Dame" will be politically incorrect. 

Sometimes reading World of Darkness is really annoying when they show their own point of view, their prejudices, when they want to teach about History but they forget a lot of facts, of preaching about tolerance and respect but they forget to defend the respect of human dignity. 

Other example is "7th Sea" with Castilla, with all cliches and stereotypes about anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish black legend. 

I can allow some things in the story, but only "off-screen", for example about sexual predators looking for underage teens.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> "consent" was drawn from sexual assault




Not really: Consent of the governed - Wikipedia it is from concepts of governance that is very relevant to game mastering.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

Ralif Redhammer said:


> Not really: Consent of the governed - Wikipedia it is from concepts of governance that is very relevant to game mastering.




If in fact the document stirring up all this controversy was rooted in the writings of John Locke, and not, as is actually the case, drawing the specifics of its language from practices around sexual consent in BDSM situations and sexual consent in the context of larger social conversation around sexual consent on campuses, affirmative consent, the #metoo movement, and so forth then you might actually have a point. But the title "Consent in Gaming" didn't come out of having just read John Locke's '_Essay concerning Human Understanding'_. They are quite obviously treating all consent in gaming in this context as a medical/health issue and quite obviously appropriating language from the larger cultural discussion around sexual consent, not the least of which seems to be because the industry is dealing with sexual harassment and at the same time there are at the same time groups that want to make erotic content a part of their gaming. I protest however that not all issues of gaming together recreational need to be lumped together under this umbrella of "consent". That is to say, people's desire for emotionally and sometimes physically risky play, and predatory and inappropriate behavior at conventions, and the ordinary issues of playing together at a table involve particulars unique to those cases and lumping how we ought to handle them all together doesn't produce more effective solutions - but rather less effective solutions and less effective discussion about those solutions.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 30, 2019)

This "Consent in Gaming" exercise is just one of several ways to show kindness, respect, and consideration to one's friends.  It's a very strange thing to be opposed to.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> If in fact the document stirring up all this controversy was rooted in the writings of John Locke, and not, as is actually the case, drawing the specifics of its language from practices around sexual consent in BDSM situations and sexual consent in the context of larger social conversation around sexual consent on campuses, affirmative consent, the #metoo movement, and so forth then you might actually have a point. But the title "Consent in Gaming" didn't come out of having just read John Locke's '_Essay concerning Human Understanding'_. They are quite obviously treating all consent in gaming in this context as a medical/health issue and quite obviously appropriating language from the larger cultural discussion around sexual consent, not the least of which seems to be because the industry is dealing with sexual harassment and at the same time there are at the same time groups that want to make erotic content a part of their gaming. I protest however that not all issues of gaming together recreational need to be lumped together under this umbrella of "consent". That is to say, people's desire for emotionally and sometimes physically risky play, and predatory and inappropriate behavior at conventions, and the ordinary issues of playing together at a table involve particulars unique to those cases and lumping how we ought to handle them all together doesn't produce more effective solutions - but rather less effective solutions and less effective discussion about those solutions.




I'm not absolutely 100% sure it makes things worse, but it certainly seems risky to me. Especially the 'no talking about it' rule, which probably makes sense in some therapeutic situations, and certainly makes sense in BDSM play, but is a long way from normal social interaction.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> language from practices around sexual consent in BDSM situations




I have little to no knowledge of that, if that is where your preference lies, nothing wrong with that, except to that the "consent of the governed" is the original that is taken from, not the other way around.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> I have little to no knowledge of that, if that is where your preference lies, nothing wrong with that, except to that the "consent of the governed" is the original that is taken from, not the other way around.




Not sure why you think that? Do you have a source? AFAICT Celebrim is right that Consent-in-Gaming talk derives mostly from sexual consent policies, not any Lockean Social Contract theory.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> This "Consent in Gaming" exercise is just one of several ways to show kindness, respect, and consideration to one's friends.  It's a very strange thing to be opposed to.




Yes, it always seems to be the same bad apples as well. Personally I have never had an issue with respecting people's boundaries.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> I have little to no knowledge of that, if that is where your preference lies, nothing wrong with that, except to that the "consent of the governed" is the original that is taken from, not the other way around.




Perhaps the problem here is that you haven't actually read any excerpts from the document that has provoked all this furor. When you are better informed of the context, then you will be better prepared to engage with the topic.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Not sure why you think that? Do you have a source? AFAICT Celebrim is right that Consent-in-Gaming talk derives mostly from sexual consent policies, not any Lockean Social Contract theory.




It is the logical source:

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from *the consent of the governed ...*_


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Perhaps the problem here is that you haven't actually read any excerpts from the document that has provoked all this furor. When you are better informed of the context, then you will be better prepared to engage with the topic.




I don't think you know where it originally was written, and why Americans are big on the issue of consent, which is fine, except I am just educating you on the fact. It predates some lurid bondage sex thing by hundreds of years, so obviously one is the logical source for the other, and you can't argue against one philosophically, without arguing against the original.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Sep 30, 2019)

Arduis de Gispard said:


> @Umbran
> Let your imagination run wild, but ask yourself, how do half-orcs come into existence? For me the answer is pretty obvious, since Grunge doesn´t look nor behave like Romeo (at least in my small world of understanding RPGs).



they come from loving families? what answer is "pretty obvious"? also last I checked Bran the (human) fighter might have a Cha of 9 and an odor that'd make an orc blush, but his player might still expect to find someone to spend the night with at the local tavern. 

tell me, in a fantasy setting how do humans come into existence? what's the obvious answer?



> But just take those covers from the Weird Tales magazines. Nowadays no serious publisher would dare to have them nowadays for good reasons. But it was part of the past and basically nobody took offense in them. Like said nowadays? No way and that is good.



you know that for a fact? I'm pretty sure what actually happened is some people actually took offense to them and tried to make them not the norm over time.



> The problem I intended to point out (and horribly lost) is, that in the times we are living in, a basically "innocent" concept of gaming (and please no discussion about  racism against the goblinoid races)  is getting dragged into the "normal" life, where everything has to be tailored/reevaluated/considered if it might hurt somebodies feelings.



or maybe people are starting to question what is and isn't "obvious" and what actually makes sense in a fantasy setting. people don't shy away from all orcs being evil because they're "offended', it's because they know that idea is based in some weird ideology that turns out is not actually true.



> And I wholeheartedly disagree to use that so-called x-card. If you run your adventures in a halfway civilized manner leaving out those disgusting elements of real life (and yes I am a big fan of large scale combat scenes aka Conan against the beastman), then my subjective experience is, that you won´t run into the problems mentioned.



so you don't have half-orcs in your games? I thought they have an "obvious" origin based on some disgusting element of real life.



> I agree with your comments about the ciggy/bathroom leave, for being a possibility to leave the darkness imposed by the portrayed situation. But one thing I always do is to recap a session, and may it be two weeks later for the next one, and ask my players about their impressions. Sometimes short, sometimes it eats up a lot of gaming time, but in the end it pays out - feedback.



not everyone is going to give honest or full feedback. or maybe they have and they felt that you were dismissive about it. you may not have thought that way, but they might have. or they don't want to bring it up lest they be seen as not "fun" and unable to handle certain themes and subjects other people are okay with. also, it might not be you necessarily; their experience bringing up objections with other people may inform them on how you might react to that sort of discussion.

hell I've been in that situation before myself, something happened to my character that I was pretty uncomfortable with. the DM was (and still is) a good friend of mine, but when I finally brought it up sometime later I was met with skepticism, and was making him responsible for making me feel uncomfortable. like okay, clearly other people may be okay with what happened, but I'm myself, and at the end of the day he decides what happens in the game he runs; I can change how my character handles a situation, but as a player I can't say "this situation doesn't happen".



> And one thing I ask myself as an old grumpy guy: Why are people always feeling to have the need to carry their cross in front of them and let others feel sorry on occasions  that are supposed to be fun? I feel bad about people suffering from the hands of others, I hate injustice and I hate violence against weak beings of all kinds. But when you run your games in a halfway decent manner and avoid certain things, than it is still a leisure time for everybody.



what is a "leisure time" for you might not be great for others? I for one hate insects. I can't stand them. if I had to fight them in something like D&D I might be okay, but if the GM decided to make the experience visceral or tried to use visual aids it might make me very uncomfortable. 

on the other hand I'm okay with spiders. like sometimes they're creepy, but generally speaking I think they're fine, and I personally find it ridiculous that a lot of people have this inherent fear of spiders. that being said, if someone in my party was genuinely afraid of spiders and having them in the game was an issue I'd probably find a way around that. and really, if I can't find a way to remove spiders from my campaign am I really a good GM?



LuisCarlos17f said:


> Sometimes reading World of Darkness is really annoying when they show their own point of view, their prejudices, when they want to teach about History but they forget a lot of facts, of preaching about tolerance and respect but they forget to defend the respect of human dignity.



???? what?


CleverNickName said:


> This "Consent in Gaming" exercise is just one of several ways to show kindness, respect, and consideration to one's friends.  It's a very strange thing to be opposed to.



but something something my very important campaign story that is somehow immutable. also I have An Opinion™ about something and I made it part of the story but it might offend people but it needs to be said (spoiler: the opinion is "actually orcs are evil and here is why")



S'mon said:


> I'm not absolutely 100% sure it makes things worse, but it certainly seems risky to me. Especially the 'no talking about it' rule, which probably makes sense in some therapeutic situations, and certainly makes sense in BDSM play, but is a long way from normal social interaction.



....ooookay, last I checked people get uncomfortable if you talk about sexual things a lot during normal social interaction. I should know, irl I've been told to tone it down many times before. also pretty sure the same applies for bodily functions, and apparently discussing the nature of consent in an RPG setting.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> It is the logical source:
> 
> _We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from *the consent of the governed ...*_




No, that's not the logical source. It's quite obvious - to say nothing of logical - that the title "Consent in Gaming" was not derived from Jefferson's paraphrase of Locke. I mean seriously, have you read "Consent in Gaming" at all?


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> No, that's not the logical source.




Even if it flowed though some weird sex thing you read, that is still the source. Philosophically you would have to prove that consent in the two, bear no relation.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> Even if it flowed though some weird sex thing you read, that is still the source.




Ok, at this point I'm going to tell you for your own edification that you are embarrassing yourself and you probably should research things before speaking further. Because it's not me that brought what you are calling "some weird sex thing" into a discussion of table top RPGs.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> it's not me that brought what you are calling "some weird sex thing" into a discussion of table top RPGs.




You are the one who seems to always be steering the discussion back to that. 

Consent is consent, attack it one way and you attack it in all ways.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 30, 2019)

Interestingly, I was wrong that "Bleed" was an academic psychological term; it was coined by a game designer and speaks specifically to the nature of role-playing (I also recall bleed being a plot-relevant concept in the Assassin's Creed). Here's a good primer on the concept: Bleed: The Spillover Between Player and Character - Nordic Larp


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Sep 30, 2019)

I can teach a little trick. 

If you really want to convince somebody, the secret is never be contrary to nobody, nor to force to agree you. Don't offend if you get to get his trust and keep listen you. 

And do notice when the manipulative people try to use the feelings to influence: fear, desire, resentment, pride, shame and envy. Forget that about "listen your heart" when you have to contrast the different opinions and understar the mind by the rest of people. A good debate is like a chess game where both players try to understand the thoughts by the other to give the best answer. 

To know how is really somebody, look his reactions when other dare to disagree. Who really is a freethinker who knows a lot of things tries to share his knowledges, no trample who has a different point of view.

Being politically correct is totally useless when you forget the respect for the human dignity. Then the rebel against authority can fall in the dark side of the force and become a new tyrant. 

* In the past the creators of World of Darkness has showed their titles aren't for people who go to church every Sunday. Maybe you didn't notice, but I am in Spain where the propaganda war is still really hard and I can see some signs in the speculative fiction by Hollywood. Why do you think there was a boycott against the movie "the golden compass"? And now Netflix is losing customers because it dared to defend its point of view about certain controversy matter. The people in the real life are rebelling against that. We don't want propaganda like the serie "the bride's tale" when we know that is happening in the real life to Christian women from Egypt or Pakistan. We don't need more characters like Margaret White, main character's mother from Stephen King's novel "Carrie". Other example is Catholic kings with the conquest of Granada in the movie "Assasin's Creed". They aren't going to tell Muslims started the war. 

White Wolf are hypocrite because they use fiction to report fanaticism but their characters are monsters who can hurt innocents, and they forget certains periods of History as the genocide in la Vendée after the French revolution.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> You are the one who seems to always be steering the discussion back to that.
> 
> Consent is consent, attack it one way and you attack it in all ways.




Well, to begin with you began this conversation with me by a blatantly deceptive edit. The noun in that clause was never "consent" in the first place, but the phrase "the language around "consent"". So I made it very clear right from the beginning that my problem was not with mutual agreements at the table in which everyone participated, but in the particulars of how this subject was being handled.

Secondly, the particulars of the document "Consent in Gaming" are in fact pertinent to a discussion around the document "Consent in Gaming", and if you are made uncomfortable about those particulars, perhaps you ought to think about that.

And thirdly, I have not attacked "consent" as a concept in the first place, and it sure as heck is not logically true that an objection against the particulars of arranging consent is attacking the concept in all ways. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to build a consensus about a social contract, whether formal or informal, and how to tactfully and compassionately handle any problems that come up. I don't need to appropriate language about "consent" for any reason for that, whether we are talking inappropriately about importing ideas from government to a group of friends or whether are talking inappropriately about importing ideas from the BDSM community. That's because what is going on around the RPG table has only very limited and specific relationships to forming a government or ensuring safety in a BSDM relationship.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

@LuisCarlos17f  - I can appreciate your depth of feeling around these topics, but considering we already have at least two controversial issues to discuss, adding a couple more probably won't help keep the conversation on topic.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Interestingly, I was wrong that "Bleed" was an academic psychological term; it was coined by a game designer and speaks specifically to the nature of role-playing (I also recall bleed being a plot-relevant concept in the Assassin's Creed). Here's a good primer on the concept: Bleed: The Spillover Between Player and Character - Nordic Larp




Aside from the fact that I agree that emotions can effect how you play, and how you play can effect your emotions, I disagree with mountains of that.

I don't particularly like the term "bleed" as a term for discussing that emotional spillover, but I'll use the term for now for clarity and speed.

And I think that there is a very important discussion to be had on just how deep your investment in a character actually is and whether it is for some levels of investment even possible to avoid bleed. It's one thing to say you don't experience bleed with a character played in pawn stance in a tabletop wargame, and another thing to say you are experiencing no bleed in a LARP where your character is conceived as and inhabited as an avatar of yourself and where you are self-identifying with that character, and where - in my experiences - many participants are seeing bleed as one of the primary aesthetics of play.

I mean, fundamentally I think we are all aware that what the writers calls an 'alibi' - "I'm only doing what my character would do." - can and often is an excuse for abusive play. And a lot of the language I'm seeing around "bleed" is I think cover for abusive and manipulative actions.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> ensuring safety in a BSDM relationship.




For the wall of text smoke screen, you always end with the lurid exposition.

However: 



Celebrim said:


> what is going on around the RPG table has only very limited and specific relationships to forming a government




This is wrong, it does have a strong linear relevance through power structure, and everyone having a voice at the table.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2019)

dragoner said:


> For the wall of text smoke screen, you always end with the lurid exposition




Do you or do you not agree that specific language and ideas in the document "Consent in Gaming" were borrowed from the BDSM community? Because, for all the "wall of text smoke screen", you seem have a problem dealing with blunt fact.



> This is wrong, it does have a strong linear relevance through power structure, and everyone having a voice at the table.




We aren't forming a government and power structures at a gaming table. The very fact that people are arguing about creating formal power dynamics in the name of protecting people is one of the things that makes me very leery of the actual motivations here. Governments aren't part of your daily social arrangements because in your daily social arrangements no one has to submit to anyone, no one has to reserve the right to dispense justice, no one has to be granted power over anyone else, and we don't have to reserve the right to violence to any member of the group, and so forth. We don't normally form formal contracts in order to regulate friendly behavior. We sure as heck shouldn't be adopting the norms of forming a government to our social play.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Aside from the fact that I agree that emotions can effect how you play, and how you play can effect your emotions, I disagree with mountains of that.



"aside from the fact I agree with everything that says I disagree with what that says" ????



LuisCarlos17f said:


> And do notice when the manipulative people try to use the feelings to influence: fear, desire, resentment, pride, shame and envy. Forget that about "listen your heart" when you have to contrast the different opinions and understar the mind by the rest of people. A good debate is like a chess game where both players try to understand the thoughts by the other to give the best answer.
> 
> To know how is really somebody, look his reactions when other dare to disagree. Who really is a freethinker who knows a lot of things tries to share his knowledges, no trample who has a different point of view.



I like the part where you say manipulative people use their feelings to influence others but also try and convince others what a real free thinker is.



> * In the past the creators of World of Darkness has showed their titles aren't for people who go to church every Sunday. Maybe you didn't notice, but I am in Spain where the propaganda war is still really hard and I can see some signs in the speculative fiction by Hollywood. Why do you think there was a boycott against the movie "the golden compass"? And now Netflix is losing customers because it dared to defend its point of view about certain controversy matter. The people in the real life are rebelling against that. We don't want propaganda like the serie "the bride's tale" when we know that is happening in the real life to Christian women from Egypt or Pakistan. We don't need more characters like Margaret White, main character's mother from Stephen King's novel "Carrie". Other example is Catholic kings with the conquest of Granada in the movie "Assasin's Creed". They aren't going to tell Muslims started the war.
> 
> White Wolf are hypocrite because they use fiction to report fanaticism but their characters are monsters who can hurt innocents, and they forget certains periods of History as the genocide in la Vendée after the French revolution.



dude, a lot of bad things happened in the name of Catholicism. I'm not gonna go into it, and I'm not saying other religions haven't done bad things either, but it's honestly incredibly off-putting to act as if Christianity is somehow innocent and the only reason people have negative opinions about it is because of big bad Hollywood movies.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> We aren't forming a government and power structures at a gaming table. The very fact that people are arguing about creating formal power dynamics in the name of protecting people is one of the things that makes me very leery of the actual motivations here.



yes, the people here are trying to take over tabletop gaming. or... honestly I'm at a loss, I don't understand how any of this can even be "leery". like what motivations can even be considered leery and what are the potentially dangerous outcomes of said motivations?



> Governments aren't part of your daily social arrangements because in your daily social arrangements no one has to submit to anyone, no one has to reserve the right to dispense justice, no one has to be granted power over anyone else, and we don't have to reserve the right to violence to any member of the group, and so forth. We don't normally form formal contracts in order to regulate friendly behavior. We sure as heck shouldn't be adopting the norms of forming a government to our social play.



one time I said my level 1 character had a +5 Holy Avenger and my DM said no, but my character still had one. another player didn't even make a character, they started a Star Wars game with the DM's cat as their one player. the DM said they're no longer part of the game, but in the end it was okay 'cause all the other players used the time to start a game of Twilight Imperium. though I guess without any sort of contracts this sort of thing should be considered typical.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 30, 2019)

Oh, gee, is it Tuesday?  Guess it's time to watch the same couple of folks pontificate from the ir soapbox and try to convince everyone of the evils of trying to be inclusive and being respectful of other people.

Huh, all we need now is middle aged white men ranting about Swedish girls and we've hit the trifecta.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Sep 30, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Oh, gee, is it Tuesday?  Guess it's time to watch the same couple of folks pontificate from the ir soapbox and try to convince everyone of the evils of trying to be inclusive and being respectful of other people.
> 
> Huh, all we need now is middle aged white men ranting about Swedish girls and we've hit the trifecta.



wait what?

also considering people on here will argue hard against the idea of considering player input I'm not at all surprised tbh


----------



## dragoner (Sep 30, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Do you or do you not agree that specific language and ideas in the document "Consent in Gaming" were borrowed from the BDSM community?




I'm not part of the BDSM community, so how would I know? That may be relevant to your interests, except not to mine. The concept of consent goes beyond that though.



Celebrim said:


> We sure as heck shouldn't be adopting the norms of forming a government to our social play.




There are these crazy people where I live, called Americans, they like to vote on things. So that "shouldn't" seems to have sailed back in 1776.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 1, 2019)

dragoner said:


> There are these crazy people where I live, called Americans, they like to vote on things. So that "shouldn't" seems to have sailed back in 1776.



Apropos of nothing in the thread, this makes me want to toss a gaming table into the Boston harbor.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

If, as @dragoner suggests, my D&D table is the equivalent of forming a government then we're all in bigger trouble than I ever thought possible! 

And here I will simply end with "In before the Locke".


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> If, as @dragoner suggests, my D&D table is the equivalent of forming a government then we're all in bigger trouble than I ever thought possible!
> 
> And here I will simply end with "In before the Locke".



man I love it when people can't (won't?) comprehend the idea of analogous comparison


----------



## 3catcircus (Oct 1, 2019)

This x-card thing reminds me of the "training timeout" cards that were starting to be used in the military when I was in.  No one liked when we pointed out that the enemy wouldn't honor a "fighting timeout" so why would you train differently than you fight?  

If you are an adult and playing a game with adult thematics, you need to deal with those adult themes.  If you want to do them the Hitchcock way, fine. If you want to do them the Tobe Hooper way, that's fine too.  But, no one person should be allowed to derail the game for everyone else because the subject matter makes that one person feel upset.  In other words - if you are an adult, act like it.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> man I love it when people can't (won't?) comprehend the idea of analogous comparison



Just as I love it when people can't (won't?) comprehend the idea of humour.

Ah well, at least I tried.......


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> "aside from the fact I agree with everything that says I disagree with what that says" ????




The linked essay runs to nearly 3000 words. Do you think that the whole of the essay can be summed up in just one sentence, or that the other content is so meaningless that no dissent from it is possible.

Moreover, I went on to immediately discuss three separate issues (of the many) that I had with the discussion.

To just reiterate and elaborate on only one of them, if the term is supposed to be neutral and have no positive or negative connotation, why select a word like "bleed" which is noticeably negative.

Moreover, I think that the way bleed is framed empowers the following conversation:

"Participant #1: I'm not feeling comfortable with this."
"Participant #2: Your just letting yourself experience negative bleed. It isn't actually you experiencing this, it's your character."


----------



## dragoner (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> If, as @dragoner suggests, my D&D table is the equivalent of forming a government then we're all in bigger trouble than I ever thought possible!
> 
> And here I will simply end with "In before the Locke".




If it turns into "Salo, or the 120 Days of Gaming" you're in way bigger trouble.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

3catcircus said:


> This x-card thing reminds me of the "training timeout" cards that were starting to be used in the military when I was in.  No one liked when we pointed out that the enemy wouldn't honor a "fighting timeout" so why would you train differently than you fight?
> 
> If you are an adult and playing a game with adult thematics, you need to deal with those adult themes.  If you want to do them the Hitchcock way, fine. If you want to do them the Tobe Hooper way, that's fine too.  But, no one person should be allowed to derail the game for everyone else because the subject matter makes that one person feel upset.  In other words - if you are an adult, act like it.



you mean playing D&D was really an exercise in preparing for becoming a real adventurer? I guess you got a point, no mind flayer will honor my objection for not giving me advantage on a saving throw against a psionic blast :/


Celebrim said:


> To just reiterate and elaborate on only one of them, if the term is supposed to be neutral and have no positive or negative connotation, why select a word like "bleed" which is noticeably negative.



they say multiple times in the article that bleed isn't an inherently bad thing. bleed is a word used because it literally means when one thing accidentally flows into another. "bleed" is used in printing to describe the margin around a an image that may or may not actually make it on the final page due to the possible inaccuracy in printing, and I'm not sure this is considered negative (except the part of the page where ink doesn't get printed lolololol)



> Moreover, I think that the way bleed is framed empowers the following conversation:
> "Participant #1: I'm not feeling comfortable with this."
> "Participant #2: Your just letting yourself experience negative bleed. It isn't actually you experiencing this, it's your character."



okay, well for those of us who are able to comprehend how experiences shape future behaviors (and experiences in general) that's not what this article is trying to say. this sort of thing has been talked about in method acting, and method acting is basically an applied version of bleed. there's also been countless stories of how actors have been affected by studying and performing specific roles. roleplaying is basically a kind of long form improvisation so this really isn't anything new, just framed in a way that makes sense from a gaming perspective.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Just as I love it when people can't (won't?) comprehend the idea of humour.
> 
> Ah well, at least I tried.......



man we got people here insisting that this sort of consent in roleplaying is actually sexual in origin, I got that you were making a joke, doesn't mean it can't prop up the people who think we're honestly saying an rpg group is literally a government.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

3catcircus said:


> This x-card thing reminds me of the "training timeout" cards that were starting to be used in the military when I was in.  No one liked when we pointed out that the enemy wouldn't honor a "fighting timeout" so why would you train differently than you fight?
> 
> If you are an adult and playing a game with adult thematics, you need to deal with those adult themes.  If you want to do them the Hitchcock way, fine. If you want to do them the Tobe Hooper way, that's fine too.  But, no one person should be allowed to derail the game for everyone else because the subject matter makes that one person feel upset.  In other words - if you are an adult, act like it.




Funny, I would have thought acting like an adult meant approaching each other's hang-ups with maturity and respect. 
But just because a GM bills his or her game as having adult thematics in a convention pre-registration list, that doesn't means that they've exhaustively covered everything that might be of concern. Being prepared for one mature subject-matter doesn't mean you're prepared to tolerate all of them.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> they say multiple times in the article that bleed isn't an inherently bad thing




You can say what ever you like, but it doesn't make it true. I can say "GTFA" doesn't carry inherently negative and rude connotations all I like, and that it is meant to be an entirely neutral term, but if I wanted to create an entirely neutral term I probably shouldn't have started with that as a basis. The truth is "bleed" is a very loaded word, bringing to mind as it does injury and the like.



> bleed is a word used because it literally means when one thing accidentally flows into another. "bleed" is used in printing to describe the margin around a an image that may or may not actually make it on the final page due to the possible inaccuracy in printing, and I'm not sure this is considered negative (except the part of the page where ink doesn't get printed lolololol)




Yeah, I understand all that but people aren't books or paints, and in the context of talking about people and emotions experiencing bleed, that's heavily loaded language that's going to be really easy to weaponize. There are plenty of alternative terms that you could use - "spillover" is I think a better term, especially as a shortened form of "emotional spillover" which is much more descriptive anyway and requires far less explanation to get where everyone understands the meaning of your jargon.

Or heck, let's try this term from 1983(!): "This issue is particularly problematic in campaign play, where long-term immersion into a particular character or fiction without distinct stopping points can produce what Gary Alan Fine calls _overinvolvement_, a phenomenon in which the players do not sufficiently shed the role and fail to fully reintegrate into their mundane lives." 

There, that's a useful starting point. But not particularly interested in starting with the term "bleed".



> okay, well for those of us who are able to comprehend how experiences shape future behaviors (and experiences in general) that's not what this article is trying to say.




I don't care what you think it is trying to say. I'm evaluating it not on its stated good intentions but what I think it will actually accomplish. And I'm basing that not only on my first impression, but actually having gone to read the links in the article, which confirmed my first impressions. There are some important concepts here but I don't agree with a lot of the framing of the discussion, which seems to me to provide way too much emotional cover for a manipulative person to abuse the system.

Now, there is part of this that I think is vastly more relative to LARPing than typical table top play. I'm not a big fan of LARPing because I find way to much self-identification with character going on, and there are a lot of negatives I associate with some of the aesthetics of play I find in LARPing - including what is here being described as "bleed". But I think in the context of a LARP you better be up front about the reality that people are "bleeding" all over the bloody place, and not think for a second that the rivalries and relationships that are intensely felt in game are just something that can easily be separated out by a "magic circle" that you can step in and out of. 



> this sort of thing has been talked about in method acting, and method acting is basically an applied version of bleed. there's also been countless stories of how actors have been affected by studying and performing specific roles. roleplaying is basically a kind of long form improvisation so this really isn't anything new, just framed in a way that makes sense from a gaming perspective.




You know, if this such a mature thing in the method acting community, then perhaps that should have been imported into the discussion rather than inventing this "bleed" term. When you start talking about method acting, I think how for the movie "The Breakfast Club" the actor Judd Nelson stayed entirely in character as "Bender" both on and off the set for the duration of the movie. And we could have an argument about how in a professional setting, whether or not that behavior is justifiable for the purposes of creating commercial art, but just my opinion here is that no actors should have to put up with you being a jerk all the time for the sake of your art, and that certainly should also apply to recreational roleplayers who are just doing this for fun and not getting paid to be a jerk.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Funny, I would have thought acting like an adult meant approaching each other's hang-ups with maturity and respect.
> But just because a GM bills his or her game as having adult thematics in a convention pre-registration list, that doesn't means that they've exhaustively covered everything that might be of concern. Being prepared for one mature subject-matter doesn't mean you're prepared to tolerate all of them.



y'know what's funnier is why he didn't insist they get shot by real guns as part of training, not getting shot is very different from how real fighting is, and it's not like the enemy is going to respect their need to not die lol (inb4 something about live fire exercises, I said shot, not shot at)


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Oct 1, 2019)

When I read the Consent in Gaming document it did come across a bit like what would be discussed between people who are negotiating a BDSM scene to eventually play in between consenting parties, only all references of BDSM were changed to Gaming instead...but that's just anecdotal.

I feel the real reason for all of this to be coming up now is more people want to be part of a game group that feels like it has more Integrity in it. 

I also think the heavy handed way this document goes about it is offputting. The real purpose of it is to get everybody on The same page at the table, to help people become more Aware, to help with having better Session 0's, and create a space where everybody has a voice that recognizes then.

But this document is written in a way that it will probably cause an increase in misunderstanding, sow more chaos, and it will have (is having) the opposite effect... Which is its created dissension and argument. It's absolute focus on promoting the power one person can have over the group is an issue. 

And nowhere does this document bring up the idea that if a person is having struggles at the table with some of the table's content that perhaps the player should leave the table... That maybe it's the wrong table for them. 

I think part of consent is understanding your own limits. I will never play a game of Shadow of the Demon Lord for that reason... It's body horror isn't for me. So why would I go to a table to play that game and then try to use the X-card to change it for my own selfishness? 

I much prefer Lines and Veils myself. I prefer having a good Session 0 where communication is important and everybody can feel comfortable. And I think starting in the future what I will do is hand out index cards at the start of the game so people can write their phobias down in secret so i know what not to put into the game.

It all comes down to Integrity to me.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

Threads like this make me value face-to-face human interaction where we can observe the body language, facial expressions, and hear the inflection of someone's voice to receive immediate feedback on how well we're communicating.  It might do all of us some good to take a step back for just a moment and consider that those you disagree with may be arguing in good faith, might agree with you on certain points, but disagree on the best way to go about handling the situation.

It shouldn't be difficult for us to remain respectful to one another in this forum.  We all share similar interest and none of us want to hurt people.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I much prefer Lines and Veils myself.




We had lines and veils 30 years ago, we just didn't call them lines and veils. We tended to negotiate them as they came up, asking players how they wanted to play a scene out or if they wanted to play a scene out and "cut to black" and opting out of a scene were normal. We just talked about it, which seems to me a pretty functional solution among friends. (In larger groups, such as LARP communities or at conventions, you may need more structure, but bringing the structure you need in a larger group to a smaller group is likely to be counter-productive.)



> I prefer having a good Session 0 where communication is important and everybody can feel comfortable.




Typically I hand out a questionnaire and then broadly discuss the answers with the players without calling out any particular player. I tend to run a PG-13 table, but I can adapt it down to PG or G for younger players. The sort of topics and descriptive devices that I employ we work out as we go, but I try to err on the side of avoiding things that are distasteful and throw veils over things that need veils thrown over them.



> And I think starting in the future what I will do is hand out index cards at the start of the game so people can write their phobias down in secret so i know what not to put into the game.




I can definitely see that.  I definitely prefer a secret voluntary open ended disclosure to checklists. I really dislike affirmative consent in this context because I think it puts too much pressure on a player to stick with a consent and not withdraw it. That is, I'll never ask a player for a list of things that they agree to experience and consent to ahead of time, which feels to me like the sort of thing that would validate someone in a position of power being abusive and pushing lines and barriers.   In fact, I just think lists are abusive period.

But, just as a personal aside, I wouldn't disclose to strangers my phobias. I just not a self-disclosing sort of person, and I'm equally pretty sure no in game experience could mimick my sensory cues enough to make me uncomfortable, unless it was an actually dangerous situation - and handling that is not something you can handle in the context of rules around gaming. I don't want people to ask me what I'm afraid of, and if they did I'd just keep silent about it.



> It all comes down to Integrity to me.




I wish. I don't get that impression.


----------



## 3catcircus (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> you mean playing D&D was really an exercise in preparing for becoming a real adventurer? I guess you got a point, no mind flayer will honor my objection for not giving me advantage on a saving throw against a psionic blast :/
> 
> they say multiple times in the article that bleed isn't an inherently bad thing. bleed is a word used because it literally means when one thing accidentally flows into another. "bleed" is used in printing to describe the margin around a an image that may or may not actually make it on the final page due to the possible inaccuracy in printing, and I'm not sure this is considered negative (except the part of the page where ink doesn't get printed lolololol)
> 
> ...






Panda-s1 said:


> y'know what's funnier is why he didn't insist they get shot by real guns as part of training, not getting shot is very different from how real fighting is, and it's not like the enemy is going to respect their need to not die lol (inb4 something about live fire exercises, I said shot, not shot at)




You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok.  The analogy is simple:  the world is as it is, not as you want it to be.  You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to.  You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.



billd91 said:


> Funny, I would have thought acting like an adult meant approaching each other's hang-ups with maturity and respect.
> But just because a GM bills his or her game as having adult thematics in a convention pre-registration list, that doesn't means that they've exhaustively covered everything that might be of concern. Being prepared for one mature subject-matter doesn't mean you're prepared to tolerate all of them.




Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly.  You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content.  Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at.  Unless the GM or the other players know _specifically_ what your issue is and deliberately introduce that _exact_ same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them.  Hate spiders?  Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games.  Recently got your house broken into?  Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games.  Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards?  That's entirely different.  I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season.  Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers _not_ describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel?  No - it just means I turned off that program.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 1, 2019)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> When I read the Consent in Gaming document it did come across a bit like what would be discussed between people who are negotiating a BDSM scene to eventually play in between consenting parties, only all references of BDSM were changed to Gaming instead...but that's just anecdotal.



Coming from the BDSM scene... Consent In Gaming comes across as an "introductory manual" for new people joining an _exceptionally_ toxic and dangerous BDSM group.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 1, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Apropos of nothing in the thread, this makes me want to toss a gaming table into the Boston harbor.




Just make sure it's a cheap card table, and not one of those super-fancy, felted, wooden monstrosities! Well, unless you really need to make a statement!


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Coming from the BDSM scene... Consent In Gaming comes across as an "introductory manual" for new people joining an _exceptionally_ toxic and dangerous BDSM group.




Given the pushback, that seems to be about the temperature of the gaming community... or at least some segments of it.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Funny thing is, the whole X card thing is hardly a new discussion.  I mean, I was hearing about this when I used to listen to Fear the Boot.   That was back in 2016.  This has been around for quite a few years now.  

But, suddenly, it's all "oh, noes, this comes from the BDSM community, so, it must have all sorts of bad cooties on it"    It's bloody ridiculous the mind buggeringly stupid lengths folks will go to to enforce their ideas on the community.  Good grief.  

Ok, you don't like it for your group and you wouldn't use it.  THAT'S FANTASTIC.  

Can you please stop thread crapping then?  If you're not going to use it, and it doesn't apply to you or your group, there are ten thousand other threads on the boards to enjoy.  Why does it bother you in the slightest that other people are finding this useful? How is it some sort of thing that you need to "defend" against?

IOW, if it's not applying to you, then why are you here talking about it?  What benefit are you getting trying to force the conversation away from how to apply this stuff to "we shouldn't even be talking about this at all"?  

@Celebrim specifically, what is your goal here?  What are you trying to prove?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Funny thing is, the whole X card thing is hardly a new discussion.  I mean, I was hearing about this when I used to listen to Fear the Boot.   That was back in 2016.  This has been around for quite a few years now.
> 
> But, suddenly, it's all "oh, noes, this comes from the BDSM community, so, it must have all sorts of bad cooties on it"    It's bloody ridiculous the mind buggeringly stupid lengths folks will go to to enforce their ideas on the community.  Good grief.
> 
> ...



something something what if a new player comes in and puts this extremely obtuse expectation on me, the poor beleaguered GM who no longer gets any say in this modern gaming environment? 

really though, I am not at all into BDSM, but I can at least appreciate they have more respect for consent than some gaming groups apparently.

EDIT: come to think of it, @Celebrim never did explain what he found leery about the whole thing.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 1, 2019)

3catcircus said:


> You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok.  The analogy is simple:  the world is as it is, not as you want it to be.  You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to.  You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.
> 
> ***
> 
> Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly.  You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content.  Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at.  Unless the GM or the other players know _specifically_ what your issue is and deliberately introduce that _exact_ same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them.  Hate spiders?  Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games.  Recently got your house broken into?  Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games.  Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards?  That's entirely different.  I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season.  Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers _not_ describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel?  No - it just means I turned off that program.




I'd say there are options for a player besides suck it up, leave the game, or _demand_ that issues you don't like be avoided.

If you are phobic about spiders to the point that referencing them disturbs you and you like the group, it is completely reasonable to say "Hey guys, I have a thing with spiders, I'd appreciate it if they not be part of the game."

I've actually had this exact example of spiders happen, it was easy for me as a DM to switch up spiders in a module to a different description monster with the same stat block. Lolth is still a spider queen as a background and spiders exist in the world, but I did not have to have them show up front and center in my gothic horror module even though they were listed as a monster.

If the dislocation of your son's shoulder got to you to the point that medieval rack torture disturbs you it is appropriate to communicate that to a DM or fellow players who are getting graphically medieval so they can choose to not push those buttons on you.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> something something what if a new player comes in and puts this extremely obtuse expectation on me, the poor beleaguered GM who no longer gets any say in this modern gaming environment?
> 
> really though, I am not at all into BDSM, but I can at least appreciate they have more respect for consent than some gaming groups apparently.
> 
> EDIT: come to think of it, @Celebrim never did explain what he found leery about the whole thing.




To me, it's just baffling.

I mean, complaining about the word "bleed"?  Seriously?  It's a perfectly understandable word that carries virtually no connotations.  Stuff from the outside bleeds in or bleeds through.  It's a perfectly every day use of the word that is used in every day conversations.  

I washed my shirt and the colors bled.  OH MY GOD!! I'm triggering people?!?!?! 

The counter example was GTFO.  Again, this isn't exactly an every day use acronym and it only has one meaning - a negative one.  How is that even remotely close to a word that is being used in the proper way, exactly the way the word is meant to be used?  The whole "negative connotation" thing is such a red herring that is solely meant to distract and derail the conversation because NOW instead of actually talking about how we can respect people's sensibilities at the table, we have to have a pointless sidebar about what words we should be using.

It's bloody textbook by now.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Funny thing is, the whole X card thing is hardly a new discussion.  I mean, I was hearing about this when I used to listen to Fear the Boot.   That was back in 2016.  This has been around for quite a few years now.




That how things work sometimes.  I first heard about the X card a year or two back but it looks like a wider circle of people are discussing it now.  



> But, suddenly, it's all "oh, noes, this comes from the BDSM community, so, it must have all sorts of bad cooties on it"    It's bloody ridiculous the mind buggeringly stupid lengths folks will go to to enforce their ideas on the community.  Good grief.




I applaud the BDSM community for coming up with their Safe, Sane, and Consensual standards.  They engage in very intimate activities, often physical in nature, and it's very important for everyone to know what everyone involved is into so nobody gets hurt.  My relationship as a dungeon master for a role playing game is nowhere near as intimate as the relationship between a dungeon master and their thrall in a BDSM relationship.  For me it's not so much "bad cooties" it's that I'm not approaching my RPG sessions as though it's an emotionally risky venture.  



> Can you please stop thread crapping then?  If you're not going to use it, and it doesn't apply to you or your group, there are ten thousand other threads on the boards to enjoy.  Why does it bother you in the slightest that other people are finding this useful? How is it some sort of thing that you need to "defend" against?




When someone posts in a forum like this they're inviting others to participate.  Not everyone will see eye-to-eye on everything.  



> IOW, if it's not applying to you, then why are you here talking about it?  What benefit are you getting trying to force the conversation away from how to apply this stuff to "we shouldn't even be talking about this at all"?




I occasionally enjoy gaming in public spaces like game stores and conventions.  I'd certainly like to participate in conversations regarding what may become the expected norm in gaming.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Coming from the BDSM scene... Consent In Gaming comes across as an "introductory manual" for new people joining an _exceptionally_ toxic and dangerous BDSM group.




Have you ever been in a convention gaming hall?   Have you not seen the discussions of harassment?


----------



## Isolfer (Oct 1, 2019)

3catcircus said:


> You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok.  The analogy is simple:  the world is as it is, not as you want it to be.  You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to.  You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly.  You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content.  Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at.  Unless the GM or the other players know _specifically_ what your issue is and deliberately introduce that _exact_ same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them.  Hate spiders?  Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games.  Recently got your house broken into?  Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games.  Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards?  That's entirely different.  I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season.  Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers _not_ describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel?  No - it just means I turned off that program.



Like I said on this, if there was only a handful of table tops and all of them were the same then sure this want to make everyone else accommodate one person or two would make sense, but we have hundreds now if not more. Star trek adventures is a good balance for people that want to roleplay with challenge and avoid dark themes, just write sessions in rodenberrys style, low conflict and a lot of hope.

People saying it's wrong to expect players to be okay with the themes of the game seem to be acting like that game is the only one they can play. Star wars is a good one to avoid blood, gore, and themes on as well.

If I run a dragon age game though, ho boy we going to get dark and there will be issues. My players know it ahead of time, and I work to accommodate a lot of things, and I'll find players games that fit them with other dms, but there are to many ways for players to play and game systems out there for people to derail games


3catcircus said:


> You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok.  The analogy is simple:  the world is as it is, not as you want it to be.  You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to.  You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly.  You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content.  Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at.  Unless the GM or the other players know _specifically_ what your issue is and deliberately introduce that _exact_ same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them.  Hate spiders?  Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games.  Recently got your house broken into?  Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games.  Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards?  That's entirely different.  I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season.  Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers _not_ describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel?  No - it just means I turned off that program.



I'm over here agreeing with you, there are to many ways to game and to many systems to game in for games to follow this logic. It's what ticked me off with V5, if at some point the lore of a game and the wants of a player do not mix and that is fine, if it wasn't we wouldn't have new games being made.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> /snip
> 
> 
> 
> I occasionally enjoy gaming in public spaces like game stores and conventions.  I'd certainly like to participate in conversations regarding what may become the expected norm in gaming.




Ok, fair enough.  Let's talk about that.

You are gaming in a public space.  

1.  As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?  Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?  What if it's never used?  Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?  Why?  

2.  As a DM, if you're gaming in a public space, you must abide by that space's rules and regulations.  It's pretty standard practice now for any con (at least, dunno about FLGS') to have harassment rules in place.  But, let's run through a possible scenario.  You are running a game at a con, with an X card in place.  You are doing your thing and you are doing it well.  Good on you.  One of the players reaches out and touches the X card during a scene.  Do you:

A)  Respect the feelings of that player, gloss over things and keep the game going so that everyone at the table is having fun, or

B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves?  I guess I just don't see the issue here.  It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM.  It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.  

I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't see how this is a problem.  Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves?  I guess I just don't see the issue here.  It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM.  It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.
> 
> I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't see how this is a problem.  Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?



really though, I'm like wondering how much you have to love something like spiders to feel so thrown off to find out that one of your players doesn't want to deal with spiders.

that or you as a GM are that offended that someone might be offended by something in your adventure, but it's not like GMs with authority issues are uncommon...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

Dire Bare said:


> Just make sure it's a cheap card table, and not one of those super-fancy, felted, wooden monstrosities! Well, unless you really need to make a statement!




And that statement may be... "Please take me to the hospital!"

(Link, because I don't know if this has been directly referenced:  Post | D20 News Network )


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Though these were asked of @MGibster I think I'll have a go at answering anyway.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> 1.  As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?  Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?  What if it's never used?  Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?  Why?



I know for me that though I'm nigh-certain I'd never use it its existence would cause me to sit there all session half-wondering whether someone else would - in other words, it would be a distraction.



> 2.  As a DM, if you're gaming in a public space, you must abide by that space's rules and regulations.  It's pretty standard practice now for any con (at least, dunno about FLGS') to have harassment rules in place.  But, let's run through a possible scenario.  You are running a game at a con, with an X card in place.  You are doing your thing and you are doing it well.  Good on you.  One of the players reaches out and touches the X card during a scene.  Do you:
> 
> A)  Respect the feelings of that player, gloss over things and keep the game going so that everyone at the table is having fun, or
> 
> B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?



Far more likely C) Stop dead and (unless it's obvious) try to determine, either through internal reflection or by cautious trial and error, where I'd gone off the rails.  Is it a cumulation of things through the session (e.g. one spider too many) or a single trigger (e.g. the rising water in the closed space has triggered someone's fear of drowning); and on answering this, is it something I can easily fix on the fly (e.g. subsequent spiders become snakes) or not (how do I change the rising-water scenario that's already in place and ongoing)?

Either way, whatever flow I had going (and, quite likely, any immersion the other players had going) would take a real hit.  Put another way, your option A) is an extremely unlikely outcome as I might well have no way of knowing what to gloos over.



> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves?  I guess I just don't see the issue here.  It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM.  It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.



But, assuming the DM is acting in good faith and isn't presenting the X-causing scenario in a deliberate attempt to trigger the player, the question becomes simply one of what that player's best course of action is:

A - silently hit the X card (and, in effect, veto the scene or (an) element(s) thereof)
B - leave the table (with or without explaining why)
C - raise a point of privilege (i.e. initiate a discussion)
D - stick it out (always an option, though rarely the best)

In something like a con game or a one-off where time is very limited and you're only likely to ever play with those same people once, A could have its uses as could B: things need to be resolved quickly.  In an ongoing home game is where C would most likely come up, as there'll be more time for discussion and the intent is to go on playing with the same people for a while; also in an ongoing home game there's the added variables of whether it's the same player always raising issues over different things and-or whether that player is consistently finding much agreement from the other players (in which case the DM needs to do some rethinking; ditto if issues are coming from multiple players) or is an outlier (in which case that player probably isn't a good fit for that group).

I hope the above ramblings make any sense.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

I never deliberately use a scene with the intent to trigger anyone.  There are certainly dms who do.  That being said, the highest potential for a quality game or story is when the dm deliberately casts aside such concerns as they would constrain him.  I do this.  My favorite dms do this.  It only works in a group of people who go in knowing that they have no protection from such events occuring.  That being said some people just cant handle that, and thats ok.  That's why its still good to have dms authors and other artists who do consider these things.  I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge.  While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity.  Definitely a place for it though.  But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session.  Pretty simple.  Flexible.  And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

> Though these were asked of @MGibster I think I'll have a go at answering anyway.
> 
> I know for me that though I'm nigh-certain I'd never use it its existence would cause me to sit there all session half-wondering whether someone else would - in other words, it would be a distraction.[\quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?

Actually yes.

Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?

Weirdly loaded way to ask that but yes.  Intensely so.

What if it's never used?

Its still there and severely breaks my immersion.

Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?

Sorta already asked that but yes.

Why?

You can't make tom sawyer without prejudices (or other unsavory things) anymore than you can make a good omelet without cracking a few eggs.  Powdered eggs are revolting fake food.  Cant make a good sparticus without voluntary martyrdom and a slave rebellion.  Cant make dantes inferno without purgatory (where babies go to exist for a while in pain and bees chase people around incessantly for years or centuries).  And when these things are able to just go poof and disappear, you may still get a taste of the literary idea but its less visceral less grand less engrossing and less urgency is felt.  Powdered eggs are but immitations of the real deal.  An aspect of tge story is lost.  Some of its vigor is suppressed.  So too is a story with constraints other than those which directly serve the purpose of the story's potential.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge.  While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity.  Definitely a place for it though.  But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session.  Pretty simple.  Flexible.  And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.



Following on from this, another option is to allow or encourage note-passing during sessions - the DM passes a note to a player regarding something only that PC would know, or a player passes a note to the DM regarding an action the other PCs don't know about, that sort of thing; such that note-passing becomes commonplace.

Then, with this now an ordinary fact of life at the table, a player passing a note to the DM that says "Hey, sorry, but these spiders are settin' me off" can raise that concern even more anonymously than having to reach out and hit an X card.  The DM can then pass a note back - might say "sorry, there won't be any more" or "sorry, but there's a reason that these have to be spiders, and there'll be a few more before we're done with 'em - maybe sit this one out", or whatever.

But the DM is now aware, and the ball's in her court.  Further, the time taken in writing the note back to the player is time the DM can also use to think of how to fix the situation.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Oct 1, 2019)

@Panda-s1 
I am old fashioned, when it comes to portray the different races IG. So, and I may be wrong, Orcs were always the bad guys. I don´t know if Tolkien invented them this way at first or he took inspiration from some myths and legends, but in the current MM they are also portrayed as "savage raiders and pillagers ", "satiesfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging  a settlement... etc.etc." (p. 244). And on page 245 under the section _Orc_ _Crossbreeds _is stated: "Luthic,..., wife of gruumsh , demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races." So these two descriptions alone imply for me, that according to the basic standard orcs are not the good guys (but I may be wrong) and my remark "pretty obvious" should be backed by this and explained.
And without reading or quoting past editions of the MM, orcs are IIRC presented more or less the same.
Now that doesn´t imply, that all individual campaigns at every table are or should be played that way, and everybody is free to do otherwise, but at least the basic implication is there saying, that orcs are the baddies (for whatever reason). Perhaps a bit narrow minded from me since more modern games and takes on the game handle orcs different, but at least I see it that way.
IIRC somehwhere in 1E (Greyhawk setting?) there were percentile beakdowns of half-orc populations for each city. Now that is justified, when they are treated as a normal playable race. But already in 1E the question comes up, how half-orcs fit into societies where orcs are hated by elves and dwarves and vice versa. One of the controversal points of 1E for me. 
The question for how humans come into existence? Well a very provocative question (which I like in a good discussion). As an example I amassuming, that a player may decide that his or her PC was born "illegitimate". The reasons for that may be manyfold and everyone in deciding for this path has to be answered for the player himself or herself. Otherwise I assume, and I think perhaps others too, normal RL ways apply in an RPG also with all its different aspects.

For the Weird Tales covers: The portraying of women in the mentioned way was certainly not up to everybody's taste, and I can imagine, that they also contributed for such magazines as being considered trash by a many regardless of the actual content. But for how long where these kinds of covers published and openly sold? Why wasn´t there a landwide outrage from the first day? Now I am not an expert on this matter, but why did it take so long until that changed? It took a long way until such things were widely considered offensive and society in general was different back then. I would certainly be interested in reading more on this subject, since I can imagine, that the publication of magazines like Weird Tales for example rose more than just one eyebrow even back then. But the prolonged publication implies, that it was somehow tolerated for women being portrayed like the said way.

Why I don´t want a discussion about the racism aspect towards the handling of goblinoid specimen? A perhaps one sided, very subjective answer from me:
Real life racism is an everyday all present problem that is affecting our lives in one way or the other. It is an ongoing daily struggle to eradicate it. Unfortunately I believe, that although we as a society came a good way forward, it will take still a long time until all people realize the equality of men. 

And since I play for recreation and entertainment, do I have to carry all RL problems into my game? Is it necessary to be "true to reality" even in my free time? The answer for me is simply no.
And a question from my side: What does your remark "or maybe people are starting to question what is and isn't "obvious" and what actually makes sense in a fantasy setting. people don't shy away from all orcs being evil because they're "offended', it's because they know that idea is based in some weird ideology that turns out is not actually true." imply? Do I understand it right, that people start rethinking the handling of orcs? Well they can certainly do so, but implying that the handling/presentation of orcs always as the bad guys "based in some weird ideology" gives me the impression, that orcs are generally currently unfair treated as a kind of sub-race which needs to be totally terminated and eradicated for some obscure ideological reasons. I may be wrong in this point, but sorry that sounds for me like connecting a fantasy RPG directly to the Shoah. Or how is this to be understood, when you say it´s "actually not true"? What is the truth behind the nature of the orcs I wonder then.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Oct 1, 2019)

@Panda-s1 
No I don´t have half-orcs in my games for the obvious reason (for me), that orcs are the baddies in my games and half-orcs are considered outcasts. They act as NPC yes, but are no playable race. Does this turn me into a racist? Well we talk about a fantasy game with fantasy races, sorry species (politically more correct nowadays I assume). So do we have to talk about the morality of branding a fictional species as "bad/evil" compared to the generally "good" species in a fictional game like D&D? 
I am not a fan of games like "Achtung Cthulhu" or any other WWII RPG. I gave up wargaming for the simple fact, that the Shoah and the suffering of the Nazi regimes victims is always part of that period. I don´t want to minimize these suffering and killings in the slightest ways nor do I want to excuse them for one thought. But is it possible to leave out this dark chapter of history at least in FANTASY gaming? Is it possible to enjoy a game without having always Rl problems transferred to it? And that is exactly why I stated I don´t want this discussion to turn into this direction. I know there were/are discussions exactly about this subjects, but please forgive me, when I don´t want to partake in it. 

Now I can´t comment on your personal experience since personal is personal. I deeply respect such things and the mentioned reaction by your DM is his thing. But in my games, it can happen once and I try to avoid such things for future situations. 
But like said, if you keep your game civilized in a way, then such things should be prevented. For feedback I can only say, that a good DM is not only running the game, but also constantly observing the reactions of his players. And if necessary a good DM may alter some things, when he realizes, that players feel uncomfortable with it. But my question is, why is somebody not saying openly right at the moment of the inconvenience that he/she considers this thing to be offensive or feels unpleasant? Perhaps not everybody is made that way to speak open all the time, but is it really the responsibility of every Dm to always ask beforehand what makes a player feel uncomfortable? He won´t get a serious reply either, since it may be difficult for that person to speak openly. The basic problems persists even with the X-card, since it´s hanging like a Damokles sword over the table at every moment.

Do we really have to define the term "leisure time" in this context? If playing at my table, or any other table, is not leisure time, then I don´t know what.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Use myself as an example.  Some years ago, I wound up playing in a game where another player (a female player whose husband was sitting at the table) really wanted to play up the romantic interests between my character and hers.  I got more and more uncomfortable with the whole thing.  Not that she did anything bad.  Absolutely not.  It was 100% my issue, not hers.  I just was really, really uncomfortable playing this out.
> 
> Now, with an X card, all I'd have to do is touch that card and poof, problem goes away.  We move on, and play out other stuff.  If the romance stuff comes up again, I touch the X card, and we move on.  I don't have to explain anything, no one has to feel like they "went off the rails" just that I DO NOT want to play this out.



OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.

With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?

Because poof, problem doesn't go away.  All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.



> And, frankly, that's most likely how it would come up in game.  If it's coming up every single session, well, yeah, maybe it's time to part company.  You obviously shouldn't be playing together if every time you sit down together, this player feels so uncomfortable that he or she needs to veto the scene, then fair enough.
> 
> But, again, let's be honest, that's not likely going to happen.  It's likely some small thing (at least in the scope of the campaign) that gives that one player the wobblies.  Again, I find it baffling that anyone would sit at a table knowing that someone at the table is having a terrible time and basically want to force it out of that person why.  Isn't it enough to know that the person isn't having fun to the point where they are actually upset about it?



Situationally dependent, to be honest.

I've had a player in the past (but not any more!) who would now and then show up to the session upset, project it on to the rest of us all night with no explanation even if asked, and then leave.  No fun for anyone, but none of us had the balls to simply tell this person to get lost - it'd be like kicking a puppy - and so we just put up with it.

In a different type of situation, where a fellow player's discomfort is obviously due to that person's prejudices being offended (be it their racism, sexism, anti-LGBTetc.-ism, or similar) then I WILL poke that bear.  I'll poke it deliberately, I'll poke it with malice, I'll keep on poking it until I get a response, and then I'll poke it some more.   And if all that poking ends up in a screaming argument I'm more than cool with that: I've no problem with making an idiot look and sound like an idiot; and the person's either going to end up looking in the mirror afterwards and realizing the problem lies there, or - far more likely - not want to game with me any more, or both.  Either way: problem solved.

As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!


----------



## macd21 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?
> 
> Actually yes.
> 
> ...




All of which I would happily sacrifice to avoid shoving eggs down the throat of someone with an egg allergy - or hell, someone who just hates eggs.

Yes, an aspect of the story may be lost. Some of the ‘vigor is suppressed.’ That’s because someone at the table had a problem with that aspect of the story, that your ‘vigor’ wasn’t appreciated.

Maintaining some sort of narrative purity is not worth inflicting misery on a player. If some aspect of your story is lost, _nothing of value has been lost._


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> But, assuming the DM is acting in good faith and isn't presenting the X-causing scenario in a deliberate attempt to trigger the player, the question becomes simply one of what that player's best course of action is:
> 
> A - silently hit the X card (and, in effect, veto the scene or (an) element(s) thereof)
> B - leave the table (with or without explaining why)
> ...



the problem with equating A and B is B is disruptive as hell. if someone just leaves the table without explanation, people get upset that they're down a player. if someone leaves the table with an explanation, people will still get upset that they're down a player AND they'll start a debate over the veracity of this player's content issues. having the X-button can allow a player to say something without causing an even bigger disruption, and is a much more elegant solution than the long content warning lists people seem to love to groan about. also if someone sees the X-button is being used they can just choose not to play that game 



Son of the Serpent said:


> I never deliberately use a scene with the intent to trigger anyone.  There are certainly dms who do.  That being said, the highest potential for a quality game or story is when the dm deliberately casts aside such concerns as they would constrain him.  I do this.  My favorite dms do this.  It only works in a group of people who go in knowing that they have no protection from such events occuring.  That being said some people just cant handle that, and thats ok.  That's why its still good to have dms authors and other artists who do consider these things.  I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge.  While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity.  Definitely a place for it though.  But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session.  Pretty simple.  Flexible.  And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.



so apparently the best campaigns:
-are incredibly scripted and immutable
-can only be great if they are open to all potential content (even if the vast majority of all possible content won't be used in a single campaign)
-cannot be by authors who consider content issues because of these constraints
-are somehow diminished because of the sudden exclusion of a certain theme or situation
-are written by GMs who can't handle having to change something in their game on the fly

seriously, sometimes I wonder how you guys would handle something as innocent as the party going down the wrong hallway.



Son of the Serpent said:


> You can't make tom sawyer without prejudices (or other unsavory things) anymore than you can make a good omelet without cracking a few eggs.  Powdered eggs are revolting fake food.  Cant make a good sparticus without voluntary martyrdom and a slave rebellion.  Cant make dantes inferno without purgatory (where babies go to exist for a while in pain and bees chase people around incessantly for years or centuries).  And when these things are able to just go poof and disappear, you may still get a taste of the literary idea but its less visceral less grand less engrossing and less urgency is felt.  Powdered eggs are but immitations of the real deal.  An aspect of tge story is lost.  Some of its vigor is suppressed.  So too is a story with constraints other than those which directly serve the purpose of the story's potential.



are these somehow the only good stories in existence? how can sparticus be good? it doesn't contain graphic rape scenes and limb dismemberment. how can tom sawyer be good? it doesn't feature lynching, nor does it give a fair portrayal of the adversity faced by native americans at the time. I thought the best stories are unconstrained. that all sounds like a lot of uncracked eggs if you ask me :/



Lanefan said:


> Following on from this, another option is to allow or encourage note-passing during sessions - the DM passes a note to a player regarding something only that PC would know, or a player passes a note to the DM regarding an action the other PCs don't know about, that sort of thing; such that note-passing becomes commonplace.
> 
> Then, with this now an ordinary fact of life at the table, a player passing a note to the DM that says "Hey, sorry, but these spiders are settin' me off" can raise that concern even more anonymously than having to reach out and hit an X card.  The DM can then pass a note back - might say "sorry, there won't be any more" or "sorry, but there's a reason that these have to be spiders, and there'll be a few more before we're done with 'em - maybe sit this one out", or whatever.
> 
> But the DM is now aware, and the ball's in her court.  Further, the time taken in writing the note back to the player is time the DM can also use to think of how to fix the situation.



okay, but sometimes the entire table should know if a player has a certain issue with some content, that way they too don't bring it up. GMs aren't the only ones who bring story to the table.



Arduis de Gispard said:


> For the Weird Tales covers: The portraying of women in the mentioned way was certainly not up to everybody's taste, and I can imagine, that they also contributed for such magazines as being considered trash by a many regardless of the actual content. But for how long where these kinds of covers published and openly sold? Why wasn´t there a landwide outrage from the first day? Now I am not an expert on this matter, but why did it take so long until that changed? It took a long way until such things were widely considered offensive and society in general was different back then. I would certainly be interested in reading more on this subject, since I can imagine, that the publication of magazines like Weird Tales for example rose more than just one eyebrow even back then. But the prolonged publication implies, that it was somehow tolerated for women being portrayed like the said way.



it's a lot harder to bring up an issue when you're in the minority 



> @Panda-s1
> I am old fashioned, when it comes to portray the different races IG. So, and I may be wrong, Orcs were always the bad guys. I don´t know if Tolkien invented them this way at first or he took inspiration from some myths and legends, but in the current MM they are also portrayed as "savage raiders and pillagers ", "satiesfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging  a settlement... etc.etc." (p. 244). And on page 245 under the section _Orc_ _Crossbreeds _is stated: "Luthic,..., wife of gruumsh , demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races." So these two descriptions alone imply for me, that according to the basic standard orcs are not the good guys (but I may be wrong) and my remark "pretty obvious" should be backed by this and explained.
> And without reading or quoting past editions of the MM, orcs are IIRC presented more or less the same.
> Now that doesn´t imply, that all individual campaigns at every table are or should be played that way, and everybody is free to do otherwise, but at least the basic implication is there saying, that orcs are the baddies (for whatever reason). Perhaps a bit narrow minded from me since more modern games and takes on the game handle orcs different, but at least I see it that way.



first of all I don't have to follow what the MM says. this includes the 5e version, and even WotC has to come up with contrived reasons why all orcs are just evil.
also, the answer is basically racism. they're literally portraying an entire race as entirely evil, I don't know how else to put it.



> IIRC somehwhere in 1E (Greyhawk setting?) there were percentile beakdowns of half-orc populations for each city. Now that is justified, when they are treated as a normal playable race. But already in 1E the question comes up, how half-orcs fit into societies where orcs are hated by elves and dwarves and vice versa. One of the controversal points of 1E for me.
> The question for how humans come into existence? Well a very provocative question (which I like in a good discussion). As an example I amassuming, that a player may decide that his or her PC was born "illegitimate". The reasons for that may be manyfold and everyone in deciding for this path has to be answered for the player himself or herself. Otherwise I assume, and I think perhaps others too, normal RL ways apply in an RPG also with all its different aspects.



right, because it's impossible for a DM to conceive that a half-orc came about in any way other than rape.



> Why I don´t want a discussion about the racism aspect towards the handling of goblinoid specimen? A perhaps one sided, very subjective answer from me:
> Real life racism is an everyday all present problem that is affecting our lives in one way or the other. It is an ongoing daily struggle to eradicate it. Unfortunately I believe, that although we as a society came a good way forward, it will take still a long time until all people realize the equality of men.
> 
> And since I play for recreation and entertainment, do I have to carry all RL problems into my game? Is it necessary to be "true to reality" even in my free time? The answer for me is simply no.



okay, then what's stopping you from being racist? I'm not perfect, but come on. 
also what does being "true to reality" even have to do with it? these are games with unicorns and spaceships, you can make up whatever you want.



> And a question from my side: What does your remark "or maybe people are starting to question what is and isn't "obvious" and what actually makes sense in a fantasy setting. people don't shy away from all orcs being evil because they're "offended', it's because they know that idea is based in some weird ideology that turns out is not actually true." imply? Do I understand it right, that people start rethinking the handling of orcs? Well they can certainly do so, but implying that the handling/presentation of orcs always as the bad guys "based in some weird ideology" gives me the impression, that orcs are generally currently unfair treated as a kind of sub-race which needs to be totally terminated and eradicated for some obscure ideological reasons. I may be wrong in this point, but sorry that sounds for me like connecting a fantasy RPG directly to the Shoah. Or how is this to be understood, when you say it´s "actually not true"? What is the truth behind the nature of the orcs I wonder then.



in the last campaign I was in we met various orc npcs. one of them was a cheesemonger. he was affluent and fed us and let us use his bathhouse after eating. he talked a lot about trying to find a bride. way later we got a letter from him saying he finally got married to a lovely orc woman, and we all felt glad.

also in this campaign we came to a snowy town in the middle of nowhere that had been conquered by orc tribe following some orc cult leader. we helped the resistance take back their land, and many orcs died in the process, there wasn't a lot of compromise. we eventually took back the town and even managed to kill the demon prince they accidentally summoned.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.
> 
> With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?
> 
> Because poof, problem doesn't go away.  All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.




If necessary, you can discuss it later. The point is to end whatever is making you uncomfortable without bringing the game to an immediate halt.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.
> 
> With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?
> 
> ...



y'know I'm pretty sure inter-party romance has always been one of those things you'd have to talk to the GM about and then discuss with the rest of the party, and honestly any GM who agrees to help one player without discussing with the entire party sounds skeevy as hell, and if someone does this in a public game I'd be appalled at any GM who doesn't just flat out stop it unless the game description explicitly said inter-party romance was okay.

also are you honestly telling me you've never run into the issue of having to stop something in story and rewinding to do something over again? really? is it that arduous to stop a scene and move on? (now I'm imagining a GM tapping the x-button in response to a player tapping it lmao)



> I've had a player in the past (but not any more!) who would now and then show up to the session upset, project it on to the rest of us all night with no explanation even if asked, and then leave.  No fun for anyone, but none of us had the balls to simply tell this person to get lost - it'd be like kicking a puppy - and so we just put up with it.
> 
> In a different type of situation, where a fellow player's discomfort is obviously due to that person's prejudices being offended (be it their racism, sexism, anti-LGBTetc.-ism, or similar) then I WILL poke that bear.  I'll poke it deliberately, I'll poke it with malice, I'll keep on poking it until I get a response, and then I'll poke it some more.   And if all that poking ends up in a screaming argument I'm more than cool with that: I've no problem with making an idiot look and sound like an idiot; and the person's either going to end up looking in the mirror afterwards and realizing the problem lies there, or - far more likely - not want to game with me any more, or both.  Either way: problem solved.
> 
> As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!



did the GM just do nothing? that player might've wanted to discuss something but was afraid to bring it up, and yes I do believe as GM it's your responsibility to bring these discussions up.

the latter situation is best handled by telling that player they're no longer welcome if they keep bringing up their prejudices. like honestly, I thought we were supposed to avoid disrupting the game, but I guess it's okay if the results are invoking rage and not trying to respect someone's spaces.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> y'know I'm pretty sure inter-party romance has always been one of those things you'd have to talk to the GM about and then discuss with the rest of the party




I think you mean intra-party romance?

I've noticed that players IMCs basically never have their PCs get romantic with other PCs, at least in tabletop RPG play (1990s PBEMs were another matter!), but I've never seen anyone raise it as an issue either, it just seems to be an unspoken social contract thing. It's a big deviation from the typical adventure-fantasy source material, where male & female protagonists very frequently do fall in love.  The rule seems to be PC-NPC only.

Oh, one exception in my Red Hand of Doom game; a married couple joined the campaign playing as a married couple.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!




Which is perfectly fair.  If the table typically has romance as a thing, yeah, I'm going to recuse myself from the table.  I'd say that it's not typically the thing though.  I'm like @S'mon where PCC romance is almost never something that happens.  

So, @S'mon, if you don't mind if I use you as an example, would you have a terrible problem if I X-carded romance at your table?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I think you mean intra-party romance?
> 
> I've noticed that players IMCs basically never have their PCs get romantic with other PCs, at least in tabletop RPG play (1990s PBEMs were another matter!), but I've never seen anyone raise it as an issue either, it just seems to be an unspoken social contract thing. It's a big deviation from the typical adventure-fantasy source material, where male & female protagonists very frequently do fall in love.  The rule seems to be PC-NPC only.
> 
> Oh, one exception in my Red Hand of Doom game; a married couple joined the campaign playing as a married couple.



that all seems par for the course, but something involving 2 PCs should definitely involve some sort of consent. I'm pretty sure that married couple discussed being married in game beforehand, and again someone trying to unilaterally get with another PC is just creepy.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> someone trying to unilaterally get with another PC is just creepy.




That seems to me much too much of an absolutist statement IME it's not something that happens in a D&D game, but there's certainly no reason why it must always be creepy. It depends on various factors including the table social contract and the player interaction. It's certainly less likely to be a problem if the players are already in a relationship (in my Princes of the Apocalypse game last Saturday, of the 8 players there were 3 couples, the son of one couple, and my son, so 6/8 were couples) but it won't _necessarily_ be a problem even if they're not.

Edit: Conversely it's not necesssarily not a problem if the GM has an NPC hit on a PC - it's much more common IME but depending on various factors that could come across as creepy too. Whereas I think a PC hitting on an NPC is much less likely to seem creepy, because of the power dynamic - in a normal TTRPG the GM has a lot more power than a player, and usually has much less identification with any NPC than the player has with their PC.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

S'mon said:


> That seems to me much too much of an absolutist statement IME it's not something that happens in a D&D game, but there's certainly no reason why it must always be creepy. It depends on various factors including the table social contract and the player interaction. It's certainly less likely to be a problem if the players are already in a relationship (in my Princes of the Apocalypse game last Saturday, of the 8 players there were 3 couples, the son of one couple, and my son, so 6/8 were couples) but it won't _necessarily_ be a problem even if they're not.
> 
> Edit: Conversely it's not necesssarily not a problem if the GM has an NPC hit on a PC - it's much more common IME but depending on various factors that could come across as creepy too. Whereas I think a PC hitting on an NPC is much less likely to seem creepy, because of the power dynamic - in a normal TTRPG the GM has a lot more power than a player, and usually has much less identification with any NPC than the player has with their PC.



I'm not sure if you missed the part where I said "unilaterally" so I'll just assume you missed it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> also are you honestly telling me you've never run into the issue of having to stop something in story and rewinding to do something over again?




Is this something people do? Have do overs? I can't recall this happening in games I've been in. When would you do something like this?


----------



## S'mon (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> I'm not sure if you missed the part where I said "unilaterally" so I'll just assume you missed it.




Unilaterally - one person takes the initiative without previous bilateral discussion.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.
> 
> With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?
> 
> Because poof, problem doesn't go away. All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.




Actually, no, you are wrong.  The problem has gone away.  If someone else engages in romance with another PC (as in not me) and I don't hit the X card, then, well, it's pretty obvious that it's only when I'm involved in the romance that it's a problem.  

So, would I still be unwelcome at your table?  Just because I don't want to play out romance between PC's, even though it's not a problem if other players engage in it?  

Like I said, people are making far more out of this than it needs to be.  I mean, heck, if this is romance between two PC's, the DM isn't even involved.  It has nothing to do with you or your campaign.

On the other hand if it's any romance at all, well, then maybe it's time to look for another table if this table sees a lot of romance.  But, again, which is more important?  Taking romance off the table for this session and then having a conversation later on after things have cooled down, or insisting that romance stay on the table despite knowing that you are making one of the players very uncomfortable and they are hating the experience?


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 1, 2019)

What? I can't pretend to rape the PCs of the  strangers with whom I play DnD anymore?!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2019)

Kramodlog said:


> What? I can't pretend to rape the PCs of the  strangers with whom I play DnD anymore?!



Careful of the Rule of Goats.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Given the pushback, that seems to be about the temperature of the gaming community... or at least some segments of it.



It's a tragedy that your experience of gaming is bad enough that scaring new players away is preferable to welcoming them.  Because Consent in Gaming (the manuscript by SKR and Germaine) is a scare manual, not an "inclusion toolkit".





Hussar said:


> Funny thing is, the whole X card thing is hardly a new discussion.  I mean, I was hearing about this when I used to listen to Fear the Boot.   That was back in 2016.  This has been around for quite a few years now.



Three whole years?  Man... this thing has some real depth of history to it...  

I don't listen to/watch/experience 'Fear The Boot', so my first exposure to "X cards" was Consent in Gaming.



> If you're not going to use it, and it doesn't apply to you or your group, there are ten thousand other threads on the boards to enjoy.  Why does it bother you in the slightest that other people are finding this useful? How is it some sort of thing that you need to "defend" against?



I'm here to fight against it's enforced inclusion in public spaces.



> IOW, if it's not applying to you, then why are you here talking about it?  What benefit are you getting trying to force the conversation away from how to apply this stuff to "we shouldn't even be talking about this at all"?



No, no, we should definitely be talking about, shouting about it from the mountain.  This needs to be discussed to death until the side pushing this realizes it's not normal and it's disruptive to healthy socialized gaming.






Umbran said:


> Have you ever been in a convention gaming hall?   Have you not seen the discussions of harassment?



I haven't been to a con in 10 years, so unless it's turned into a den of rapists in that time... most of this is really unnecessary.  Is someone being actively harassed?  Then step in, alert the authorities, etc.  Is the mere mention of a topic 'harassment'?  No.  But as you know, that is literally the level this is being hyperbolically inflated to.





Hussar said:


> One of the players reaches out and touches the X card during a scene.  Do you:
> 
> A)  Respect the feelings of that player, gloss over things and keep the game going so that everyone at the table is having fun, or



Gloss over what?  The entire scene?  The set piece battle that the last four hours of play has lead up to?  Just... "Okay, so... and games over, the characters somehow triumph over evil...  yeah..."

Because as you well know, the GM isn't even allowed to ask what the X Card was being thrown for.  Was it the monsters?  Was it the description of the BBEG?  Was it because the cave suddenly got dark?  Was it the BBEG's imminent monologue*?  Unknown and unknowable.

Just shut it down and 'move on'.  Somehow.



* Okay, I agree.  Toss a "No Monologue" Card.  That's perfectly understandable.



> B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?



If it means I can get the scene back on track successfully? YES!

But you know we're not allowed to do that.



> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves?



Absolutely.  And that means no X Cards at my table.



> Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?



I wouldn't.  But hopefully they'd either discuss the issue with me as a friend (or as their GM at the very least) so we could find a middle ground to stand on or find another group that is more amicable to their gaming needs.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Good to know that people still put their game ahead of the people at the table.  Keep fighting the good fight.  I'm out.  Done.  This is the same checklist garbage that gets trotted out every single time anyone says, "Hey, you know what?  We should maybe be nicer to each other".  

It's boring now.  

Like I said before, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of history EVERY single time.  Every time anything like this comes up - harrassment of women in the hobby, minorities, treatment of various issues - the same tired old crap gets trotted out to "defend" the hobby from "progressives" (must just chap folk's bottoms to not be able to use the standard epithets that generally get used in these discussions).

Same tired old broken record.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> 1.  As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?  Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?  What if it's never used?  Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?  Why?




It's mere existence doesn't reduce my enjoyment.  




> B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?




I contend that the player who touches the X card is the one who is stopping the game in the middle not the DM.  So that ship has sailed.  Nor do I need to spend the next ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes tracking down the source of the player's discomfort.  All I need to do is spend a brief few minutes tracking the source of the problem down and moving on from there.  The player doesn't need to go into detail about why something is a problem I just need to know what specifically is bothering them so I can make a judgment call.  Does the source of this player's anxiety show up later in the adventure?  If so, is it something I can easily change?  



> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves?  I guess I just don't see the issue here.  It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM.  It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.




Does it make sense for one person at the table to be able to change a scenario everyone else is having fun with?  



> I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't see how this is a problem.  Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?




Why would a player want to interrupt a game everyone else is having fun playing?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> It's a tragedy that your experience of gaming is bad enough that scaring new players away is preferable to welcoming them.  Because Consent in Gaming (the manuscript by SKR and Germaine) is a scare manual, not an "inclusion toolkit".




You know, it wasn't that bad until the internet came along and revealed just how reactionary a cesspit it can actually be. Consent in Gaming has, at least to me, been revealed as increasing necessary.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Oct 1, 2019)

@Panda-s1 

I agree with you, that neither of the officially published books is something like a in stone chiseled text that has to be followed by the point at all costs. IIRC Gygax once said that the game can be changed in any way you like (more or less quoted from memory). But I hope I made that clear that individual presentations/interpretattions are okay. What I don´t really like is the remark, that is some kind of neglected/forgotten fact and defining a certain presentation of an imagined species as being rasicm. Now it may be true, that not every encounter with "monsters" even back in OD&D had to end in combat (reaction rolls modifiers existed back then already IIRC). But what are we talking about here? The result of somebody's imagination and for me that is rooted in Tolkien. Like said other older and this picture contradicting definitions/descriptions might exist, so it´s fine if you play along that. Even if these don´t exist, then it´s still okay to change the overall evil to a more diversified approach. All fine, your table, your game. 
I understand, that it is complicated to label such things properly, but putting the racism hammer on something (a species of humanoids in a fantasy game!) and letting it look like some unfair real life treatment to some real existing beings is for me way over the top. And does it tell anything about a persons actual views and attitudes, if orcs are presented that old fashioned way? Not in my small world of understanding, sorry. So any discussion on that matter is simply nonsense for me.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Does it make sense for one person at the table to be able to change a scenario everyone else is having fun with?




If they're in distress, yes. Absolutely. 



MGibster said:


> Why would a player want to interrupt a game everyone else is having fun playing?




Because they naughty word *have to* in order to protect themselves. Why is that so hard for you to understand?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Because they naughty word *have to* in order to protect themselves. Why is that so hard for you to understand?




I've modified my games to accommodate another player's fear of spiders in the past.  I have no objections to the concept of making reasonable accommodations for players but I specifically object to the way the X card works.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Someone can dislike the X card and still be fine with accommodations.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

All I want to say is that I'm happy I never played with people who couldn't talk out if there was a problem.

Also, I can't even remember a time, where there were a "problem" even.

Honestly, I think this whole thing is another facet of the hypersensitivity and infantilism that haunts the culture nowadays. Sure, there are people with serious traumas that could come up during play, but it's not like that 99.9% of the cases. Even then, we could talk it out.

I can see some use for things like the the x-card in situations, like a con, or organized play. _Even then_, whenever I played with complete strangers, we were, you know, just _respectful and polite_ toward each other and didn't go all-out, like we would in a home game. Also, if someone was a jerk, I just won't play with that person in the future and that's it. I don't see the need fot it in a home game among friends at all. Even if a new person comes into an established group, we'd be just more reserved until we get to know them a bit more.

I have slight suspicion that this whole thing stems from the LARP side, where, with all due respect, the prevalence of drama queens/kings is just a lot bigger and things are lot more visceral and you generally play with a lot of people. Seriously, I couldn't believe some of the stories I've heard about the biggest ongoing VtM LARP around here, it's practically like the bad stereotypes of stupid high-school drama between cliques and individuals.

I just think these tools are largely substitutions and cop-outs instead of just talking to each other and learning to act in a mature way, which is always preferable. Even among these tools, a checklist is among the most inadequate things I've ever seen.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I've modified my games to accommodate another player's fear of spiders in the past.  I have no objections to the concept of making reasonable accommodations for players but I specifically object to the way the X card works.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Someone can dislike the X card and still be fine with accommodations.




You may not know you need to make an accommodation until the topic comes up - particularly in a convention or other public space game. The X card allows the player to put on the brakes.


----------



## AriochQ (Oct 1, 2019)

Dire Bare said:


> Awesome man, for being thoughtful towards your blind player.
> 
> However, consider this . . . avoiding including characters or situations in our stories that mirror real life issues can have the opposite effect than intended, it can create a fantasy world where there are no blind people, or folks with limited mobility (crutches, paralyzed, etc), or folks who fit into other categories (cultural, racial, religious, gender/preference). Your blind player might not have been offended in the least with a pirate captain blind in one eye. In fact, he might have been tickled that there are folks in your fantasy world like him to some degree! If I had a blind AL player in one of my games, I wouldn't skip past issues of blindness in the game, but I probably would check in with him afterwards to see how he felt about things. I'd definitely want to have that conversation with a regular player, and hopefully include normal, everyday NPC's who are blind, in addition to some blind villains and heroes too!
> 
> _EDIT: The word I'm looking for is "representation". If I were blind, I might want to have people like me represented in our shared fantasy world, blind commoners, blind heroes, blind villains. Overdo it and I'll think you're pandering to me, but a reminder every now and then would be awesome._




I had thought of that.  But in this case the blind NPC was more of the cartoon-like characterization of a blind person, rather than an NPC who also happened to be blind.  The difference is significant.  For that reason, I excluded it.  I would have had no issues if they had presented the NPC differently.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

PMárk said:


> Honestly, I think this whole thing is another facet of the hypersensitivity and infantilism that haunts the culture nowadays. Sure, there are people with serious traumas that could come up during play, but it's not like that 99.9% of the cases. Even then, we could talk it out.




It's easy to call sensitivity "hypersensitivity" when you're not the person who needs the accommodation. It's good to be privileged when you have it, but it sure does exaggerate the cost when it has to extend it.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 1, 2019)

I think there's a thing here where accommodation and being considerate has been reified as the X-card.  This results in any disagreement with the X-card being assumed as a rejection of being considerate.  This appears to be an increasingly common thing in many discussions lately -- the oversimplification of complex and nuanced interactions into a black and white preferred policy outcome.  It does a disservice to everyone.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> It's easy to call sensitivity "hypersensitivity" when you're not the person who needs the accommodation. It's good to be privileged when you have it, but it sure does exaggerate the cost when it has to extend it.




Nice try. 

I have issues, I have to deal with panic attacks. Everyone I've ever played showed understanding and good behaviour and I never felt the need for these tools. 

You just can't devise tools that could (or, IMO should) replace communication between players, general good behaviour and being a bit more thoughtful and reserved if you play with strangers. 

I just think, if someone is in an environment, where these tools are absolutely needed, because they can't handle gaming and the occasional problems otherwise, that's already a sign of things going south on the level of how people handle each other and the game round there.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I think there's a thing here where accommodation and being considerate has been reified as the X-card.  This results in any disagreement with the X-card being assumed as a rejection of being considerate.  This appears to be an increasingly common thing in many discussions lately -- the oversimplification of complex and nuanced interactions into a black and white preferred policy outcome.  It does a disservice to everyone.




Wholeheartedly agree. Not being a fan of these tools is no way equals to not wanting to be considerate toward my fellow players.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

PMárk said:


> Nice try.
> 
> I have issues, I have to deal with panic attacks. Everyone I've ever played showed understanding and good behaviour and I never felt the need for these tools.
> 
> ...




Do you realize how dismissive this is?  "I don't have this problem, so, no one else should have it"?  Really, THAT'S where you draw the line?  

Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?

--------

What do people think is going to happen?  Imagine you are at a con where X-cards are standard at every table.  What are the odds, do you think that anyone is going to use it at your particular table?  Are you seriously envisioning a situation where this is going to explode across the con with players at every table vetoing every little thing their heart's whim dictates?  

Or, is this a tool, just like any other tool, and it will be used when someone feels necessary, probably at a tiny minority of tables where the odds of it directly impacting you are somewhere between slim and none?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> You may not know you need to make an accommodation until the topic comes up - particularly in a convention or other public space game. The X card allows the player to put on the brakes.




And allows them to put the brakes on in a way that brooks no conversation leaving it unclear why they were applied in the first place.  The X card (safe word) is great for situations that inherently present a significant risk of harm through miscommunications.  RPGs are not one of those situations.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?




Do you honestly think an X card makes that less likely to happen, discourages pushing boundaries, or prevents this problem?  



> What do people think is going to happen?




Quite obviously, not what you are imagining.



> Imagine you are at a con where X-cards are standard at every table.




Sounds very unsafe to me.



> What are the odds, do you think that anyone is going to use it at your particular table?




Oh no. Almost everyone I've heard advocate this have said that they've been using them for years and no one ever touched them. I'm not sure whether that's proof that they are unnecessary, or proof that they don't actually facilitate communication. 



> Are you seriously envisioning a situation where this is going to explode across the con with players at every table vetoing every little thing their heart's whim dictates?




No, some people envision that, but that's not how people actually work, nor is it that sort of person that I imagine is advocating for this 'tool.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> And allows them to put the brakes on in a way that brooks no conversation leaving it unclear why they were applied in the first place.  The X card (safe word) is great for situations that inherently present a significant risk of harm through miscommunications.  RPGs are not one of those situations.




Anything that is a tool for facilitating a conversation, I could probably get behind. But that is increasingly and unsurprisingly not what is being pushed. When they first started they were sort of touch this and we can have a conversation, use them only if you feel they are needed. Now they are increasingly, touch this and any further conversation is wrong, and they are or should be mandatory. 

And the people that think that they are a tool of "being nice" really don't get human psychology, any more than the people who honestly fear that they are a tool of censorship. I don't think that they are either thing. I ask instead the question, "Who most benefits from a device that provides the appearance of safety while giving none, that provides for a "safe space" to push boundaries and a get out of jail card for having done so, and who would most want excuse for shutting down the conversation around that and pushing forward? What is the environment and background and goals of play like for the people that need X cards and safe words?"

There are parts of the X card that I think aren't a bad thing, but they are pretty much everything but the X card. For example even the creator seems to realize that the best thing about the X card is the speech about the X card where the person moderating the game encourages everyone to speak up and communicate and that it is ok to stop something in the game they feel uncomfortable about, and that everyone should follow a golden rule to try to make this the most enjoyable game possible for everyone present. That's all fine and good. That's communication and there might be times with groups of strangers that sort of speech would be helpful. 

But as soon as someone pulls out an X card, I'm going to think, "What have I gotten myself into, and do I need to come up with an excuse to find the door?"


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 1, 2019)

I find it amusing that people still argue about this because no one has any choice in the matter.  Those places that want to use X-cards or any other techniques to allow uncomfortable situations that come up to be moved passed with a minimum of disruption are going to use them.  Regardless of how many people come here onto ENWorld to complain about them.  As a result, each person has to decide when they either have a Session Zero or an X-card is present, or some other thing just whether or not they want to sit at the table.

You know what my guess is?  At the time it occurs, very few of any of us is going to actually put up a fuss.  Even those who think they are bad ideas.  Because quite frankly people are right in that they actually get used rather infrequently because 99% of all of us actually know how to play games with other people with a modicum of respect.

So at that point when we sit down at a table at a con, 99% of the time the game is going to go off without a hitch... with or without a card with an X on it sitting in the middle.  And we all know this.  So the question is... do you cut off your nose to spite your face and get up and leave that table at the con just because a note card is there?  I would be 99.9% certain that no... none of us would get up (if we really wished to play that game we signed up for.)  Because that X-card really just ends up as much a part of the table background as a DM screen or a dice tower.  You see it, you think 'Hmm'... and then you sit down and play the game.

So yeah, if people want to expound on the philosophy of X-cards and the like, more power to you.  But enough people are seeing the value in them that they aren't just going to up and disappear no matter how much some people might say they should.  And all of us will just have to deal with that truth.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Do you realize how dismissive this is?  "I don't have this problem, so, no one else should have it"?  Really, THAT'S where you draw the line?
> 
> Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?
> 
> ...




You're missig the point deliberately and/or skipped my earlier comment altogether. 

And yes, I do think trying to replace communication and caring about the reactions of the other people around the table with safe buttons is a certain kind of infantilism and not a good direction. Also, feeling some uncomfort about something is not equals to a trauma.  

Ultimately, the whole argument around these things are more than overblown, as 99.9 percent of tables and players won't need them. If one absolutely feels that they can't trust themselves, or the others to play without it, sure, use it, but then, it's already not what I'd call "good gaming environment". 

As for that con thing: that was a serious miscommunication between the GM and the players. The GM wanted to play a certain kind of game and the players sit down, expecting another kind. It sucks, but the problem wasn't with the presence, or absence of any consent tools, but with the GM failing to advertise their game adequately.  

Anyway, I have better things to do, cheers!


----------



## JustinCase (Oct 1, 2019)

Great article! 

_not going into the discussion going on in the comments though_


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Thog the Mighty may not have an issue with, say, spiders, but Sam the Player might get nightmares from the scene you're about to put Thog in.




Yep. That one goes right to the heart of my phobias. I remember one gaming session when the GM threw spiders at us, and I responded in-character-but-not-really-in-character, and the GM said, "that wasn't a character reaction, that was a Scott reaction1"


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 1, 2019)

Never had a bleed issue sure as a player I've gotten angry when may brilliant plan failed, the typical outcome, or or rolled 5 1s in a row, etc.  I have one player who gets whiny and tries to use RPG sessions as a crutch for his self made dodgy life situation, but I don't run RPG as a therapy session so I don't worry about that very much other than to get annoyed.  But mostly any bleed is my players getting angry for a few when they screw up or roll poorly. 

Well there was that one time when I was a kid.  

We were playing a homebrew post apocalyptic game, Endless Hell.  It was 1e made into a modern game.  My PC decked out in his paper plate armor was with a NPC, who was a high charisma hot chick in the game world, Blackie.  She had a sweet car too.  Well she got smoked and I was upset over it.  Poor Blackie shouldn't have gone like that!  Then I said to myself, "Flexor...what is up?  She is just an NPC and you can find another one!"  And all was right again in the world. Plus I got her car after she got shot.  Didn't even take time to bury her...


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I find it amusing that people still argue about this because no one has any choice in the matter.




Props for your refreshing honesty.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I've modified my games to accommodate another player's fear of spiders in the past.  I have no objections to the concept of making reasonable accommodations for players but I specifically object to the way the X card works.  Why is that so hard to understand?  Someone can dislike the X card and still be fine with accommodations.




Okay - so how do you find out you need to make accommodations?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Okay - so how do you find out you need to make accommodations?




The player tells me.


----------



## jasper (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The player tells me.



You mean you have players with problems actually talk with you.  What type of freaky dm are you?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

jasper said:


> You mean you have players with problems actually talk with you.  What type of freaky dm are you?




The type that has been playing for decades.

Next, the way this is going to go is we are going to get challenged by the presence of a hypothetical player that is in that moment so traumatized that they aren't going to be able to verbalize, and the only thing that they can do in this situation while they are experiencing their psychotic episode is reach over and touch that X card.

And we are going to be told we are really bad people for not accommodating that because this a thing. 

And then we're going to be told that not only it is a thing, but that we actually have repressed memories where this was happening at our tables, and we just need to struggle to recover them.


----------



## jasper (Oct 1, 2019)

Hmm random comments

The pizza ordering comment is Bull. Even back in 80s people who had food concerns generally brought their own, or got us on schedule where we made allowances. I have too many teeth marks on my squire chain gathered because cooks HAD to prep around 10+ food allegories. Now days bring your own food. I take that back, back in the 70s the old farts and sickly people brought their own dishes to the family gathering. Now I am old fart and have to cook around my spouse’s issues.

X Card I had no problems with this at cons. You don’t know who you going to sit. I triggered a person even before I got to the x card speech. I have a bag of zombie figures which I give away as minis at cons. Poor kid threw up in the garbage can and then dash to the bathroom. I swapped out his mini with a zombie and he was comfortable with the rest of the group using their zombies. I did run other tables at the con and no one used the card.

However the X Card at the local open table. We DMS have agreed to keep everything between PG and PG-13 and keep our players in line. We also tell people to talk with us if we are getting into a no go area. We want open communication from the involved player not the bystanders. I lost two players at my table. One I trashed talk the Air Force vet since I was an Army bet. Second a bystander was not happy with how a treated a couple. One who was transitioning.

StacieGMGirl bravo bravo You summed up my problems with Consent in Gaming doc.

Lanefan does bring up the problem with the wording around the X card. To be snarky how the beep do I as DM know that Lanefan is objecting to the spiders I describing or the off-hand comment I made about his sucky sports team. Maybe the wording around the x card needs to state something to the effect. “Touch the x card and give the dm a clue about what bother you.”



Players with major issues In my xp come in three types. 1. People getting professional help. I had 3 in my homebrew over the years. One just forgave me when I step on the landmine topic. The other two got the message across to avoid those landmines. 2. Those who need help and were jerks because they needed help. One got help and was understanding if I threw out the verbal landmine. The others, I quit playing with and it did filter back to me they needed help. 3. Have issues, using the issue to be a jerk. I was jerk to this person thinking they were just a jerk. When I discover they had issues I was still a jerk because they not only been an beeping jerk at the house, they had damage my other personal hobby equipment and used their issue not to pay for the repair.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

Since when did disagreement over some points equate to “crudding” up a conversation?  If you invite discussion on a forum you will often have participants who disagree on some points.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yet some people** find it necessary to crud up this discussion; in fact, many of these are the same tired points that were gone through last time before the last thread had to close.




I cannot speak to particular people. But, there's some things known about human behavior.

When we start talking about making changes in social arrangements or behavior (like, say, using an X-card when we didn't do so before), we run into a basic implication: Doing something like this is better than what we used to do.

Which means, quite simply, that we were doing something that wasn't very good before.  Perhaps, we were actually doing something bad.  So, now folks have a choice - push back and make it completely, utterly clear that there's nothing wrong with what we were doing, or face the possibility that they may bear some responsibility for things that weren't good.  

And... lots of folks take the route of getting angry and pushing back, rather than the route of introspection, acceptance of responsibility, and adjustment of behavior.  This is primarily an emotional reaction, not a rational one - so the response is not terribly well-vetted for logical content - this leads to the repetition you see.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don't mind most marine animals, but sea lions? I can do without sea lions.




It’s difficult to have a good faith discussion these days.  I’m only vaguely familiar with the concept of sea lion thing.  If you want to accuse me of acting in bad faith please have enough faith to speak plainly rather than hide behind euphemisms.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> My opinion on the subject is fairly well known at this time. Given that I believe that people put in time and effort to create a free tool, and it's an inarguable good to the community that it's being distributed for free, I think that people who invade these threads to "just ask questions"  (the same ones that got the last discussion shut down, and the same questions that they know were debunked in the last threads) or have a "good faith discussion" should probably interrogate themselves as to what they really want to accomplish.




Who is invading this thread?  And who is just “asking questions?”  I’ve voiced my reasonings for disliking the X card directly.  And what I’d like to accomplish is the creation of an atmosphere where everyone can sit down and have fun gaming.  By posting on a forum like ENWorld we’re all invited to participate in the discussion.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## MGibster (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> MGIBSTER: You made a statement in public for all to hear. Are you unable to defend the statements you make? Or simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion?
> 
> Lowkey: Told you, dude. Sea lions.




At this point I’m just confused.  So I shall bow out.  You win.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

PMárk said:


> I have issues, I have to deal with panic attacks. Everyone I've ever played showed understanding and good behaviour and I never felt the need for these tools.





Hussar said:


> Do you realize how dismissive this is? "I don't have this problem, so, no one else should have it"? Really, THAT'S where you draw the line?




I sometimes wonder about people's reading comprehension. How does "I have a problem but people have been understanding without the need for tools." become I don't have a problem?

And other people have repeated made the strawman that arguement that if you are against the X-Card you don't care for other peoples well-being. Each time people have made clear the existing methods of actually talking have worked well enough in the past for them. It isn't about a lack of caring it is about a preference for methods.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Oct 1, 2019)

Try not to disturb, not only for the good manners but also because offending is really a very, very bad strategy when the true goal is to convince. 

You should remember some things from the past now are offensive or politically incorrect, for example Herge's comic "Tintin in the Congo" or two Disney movies, "Our dinosaur is missing" and "Song of the south", or a scene from "Lady and the trump" where two Siamese cats are the antagonists. 

In the last year there was a new movie of Robin Hood where the antagonist was the Church, in a scene Robin to practice archery shot arrows to images of saints.  Isn't there a double standard about the limits of politically correct? If the teleserie "the maid's tale" was set in a Islamic or Communist regime then the criticism would say the work is propagandistic cabarge.   

Now we can't produce a movie about the battle of Lepanto where Spain saves Europe against Ottoman imperialism because Erdogan (Turkish president) &Co would be offended. Today Jan Lööf's children book "My grandpa is a pirate" is politically incorrect because the antagonist is an arab pirate. Today Enid Blyton's "the famous five" is erased the part about the children going to church on Sunday. Why anything is allowed or censored? The teleserie "Duke of Hazards" is now banned because the car of the main characters had got a flag of the South Confederation. This was forbidden, censured, and you can imagine the troubles for videogames set in American civil war.  

Reporting racism, homophobia or machism ( = male chauvinism) isn't enough. If you rebel against authority but you don't defend the respect for the human dignity, the base of our rights, then you aren't fixing the problem really, but only replacing the tyrant. (Do you know the movies "the blind's land" or "Viva Zapata"?).  Robespierre and the Jabobisnists for the French Terror weren't only a black sheep, but all the family is rotten to the core. The rebel and the revolutionary may become a new tyrant, the former oppressed may become a new oppressor, as in Frank Herbert's Dune saga the Honored Matres against the tleitlaxu, or Magneto and the evil mutants brotherhood, the archenemy of X-Men, or the monkeys from the planet of the apes.

I say it again. 7th Sea is one of the best examples about how the speculative fiction can be used as propaganda weapon. It is not only annoying, it may become dangerous. In the real life anti-Christian hate causing fires in churches isn't science-fiction.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

macd21 said:


> All of which I would happily sacrifice to avoid shoving eggs down the throat of someone with an egg allergy - or hell, someone who just hates eggs.
> 
> Yes, an aspect of the story may be lost. Some of the ‘vigor is suppressed.’ That’s because someone at the table had a problem with that aspect of the story, that your ‘vigor’ wasn’t appreciated.
> 
> Maintaining some sort of narrative purity is not worth inflicting misery on a player. If some aspect of your story is lost, _nothing of value has been lost._



I must disagree.  I think a lot of people do and a lot of people don't.  Definitely people of both opinion sets exist.  Like i said.  There are other dms.  If a person with an egg allergy cant eat my cake, i have not lost a customer of value (because its not my target player.  Again.  Other dms are available.  We have different methods so that there is something for everyone.) and the potential for how good of a cake can be made is still unrestricted.  Which means for those who dont have difficulties with egg the cake can still be enjoyed.  This is why i think we need dms who pay attention to the problem AND ones that ignore it.  So that normal cakes, egg free cakes, and sugar free cakes can all be enjoyed.  But not restricting the ingredients list is an absolute must for a lot of roleplayers as its whats required for the game which has the fewest limitations.  Not all customers care about an egg allergy (yes im continuing the placeholder's use) and some may even be annoyed by consideration from it affecting the realistic scope of the game.  Avoiding the egg allergy for one player is not worth driving other players away in my opinion.  Its why we have multiple different kinds of dm.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I must disagree.  I think a lot of people do and a lot of people don't.  Definitely people of both opinion sets exist.  Like i said.  There are other dms.  If a person with an egg allergy cant eat my cake, i have notblost a customer of value and the potential for how good of a cake can be made is still unrestricted.  Which means for those who dont have difficulties with egg the cake can still be enjoyed.  This is why i think we need dms who pay attention to the problem AND ones that ignore it.  So that normal cakes, egg free cakes, and sugar free cakes can all be enjoyed.  But not restricting the ingredients list is an absolute must for a lot of roleplayers as its whats required for the game which has the fewest limitations.  Not all customers care about an egg allergy (yes im continuing the placeholder's use) and some may even be annoyed by consideration from it affecting the realistic scope of the game.  Avoiding the egg allergy for one player is not worth driving other players away in my opinion.  Its why we have multiple different kinds of dm.



that's not the point, it's not about "cakes for everyone" it's your assertion that somehow the cake with the egg and sugar can only ever be the best because of its possibility of having everything in it.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> that's not the point, it's not about "cakes for everyone" it's your assertion that somehow the cake with the egg and sugar can only ever be the best because of its possibility of having everything in it.



Thas very obviously not my assertion.  My assertion is that limiting the scope of ingredients limits the potential scope of the cake.  And if you limit the ingredients enough you will probably end up with fewer and fewer ways to make exceptionally good cakes.  Eggs being only one potential area for this problem to be contributed to by.

Gordan ramsay would shame you for missing my point right now.  Lol.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> I sometimes wonder about people's reading comprehension. How does "I have a problem but people have been understanding without the need for tools." become I don't have a problem?
> 
> And other people have repeated made the strawman that arguement that if you are against the X-Card you don't care for other peoples well-being. Each time people have made clear the existing methods of actually talking have worked well enough in the past for them. It isn't about a lack of caring it is about a preference for methods.




Thank you, yes, exactly.

It's not wanting to be inconsiderate. It's that I believe the X-card and similar tools (especially a checklist...) is just not a good tool to address personal issues around the table. They might be necessary in certain environments, but again, if so, I would already question the general gaming culture and even the bigger social environment the game takes place in. Because yeah, commom courtesy and caring about the people you play with , even if you play together the first time goes a long way. As well as having, to be frank, a bit tougher skin and not treating every discomfort as the end of the world. That's _obviously _ not the same as vividly describing sexual assault in a group you know contains a victim of one and expecting them to just toughen up. Just use common sense.

Anyway, I believe, if there's no healthy gaming environment, there's no x-card that would make up for it.

Also, some of the arguments around the x-card is just too reminiscent to the bigger social debates of recent years and I don't like the assumptions it implies frequently in these arguments.


On the other hand, one place I totally see the reason for having some kind of equivalent of an x-card is LARPS, where bodily contact is allowed, especially if the game is about things like vampires. That just has too many pitfalls and could (and likely would) go very wrong very fast without some kind of safety measure.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

I once had a player whos grandma (this is not to say there arent grandmas who have no problem with gore.  I have a grandma who used to hunt every single year with my grandpa and they took a deer each every season until he passed away.  Butchered them themselves too) wanted to play.  But she didnt realize there was violence.  When she realized this she realized my campaign wasnt for her.  She wasnt offendes by this realization and everything was cool.  Some games arent for everyone.  Some campaigns arent either (when the issue isnt something as limiting as "OH NO!  I HAVE TO FIGHT?").  This is why we need as many dms as possible.  And for those dma there are lots of great methods for avoiding triggering players.  But you sound irrational when you say all dms should play by that standard.

On a side note:  I think the idea i saw a few posts back of making note passing common place to make the existance if x cards less ever present feeling is a good idea btw.  Obviously this will still not work for some campaigns and some situations cant neatly be resolved immediately but that was a good idea.  Masking it by group specific social norm.  Clever.

Ps:  after checking back to find the name again thankyou @Lanefan .  the idea of making note passing a conspicuous social norm was yours.  Good idea.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Thas very obviously not my assertion.  My assertion is that limiting the scope of ingredients limits the potential scope of the cake.  And if you limit the ingredients enough you will probably end up with fewer and fewer ways to make exceptionally good cakes.  Eggs being only one potential area for this problem to be contributed to by.
> 
> Gordan ramsay would shame you for missing my point right now.  Lol.



okay so the best cake is the one that could possibly have an entire bottle of rubbing alcohol soaking in it.

if you can't possibly get around having to alter something in your game on the fly, you really aren't as great a GM as you might make yourself out to be. this really shouldn't be an argument.


Son of the Serpent said:


> I once had a player whos grandma (this is not to say there arent grandmas who have no problem with gore.  I have a grandma who used to hunt every single year with my grandpa and they took a deer each every season until he passed away.  Butchered them themselves too) wanted to play.  But she didnt realize there was violence.  When she realized this she realized my campaign wasnt for her.  She wasnt offendes by this realization and everything was cool.  Some games arent for everyone.  Some campaigns arent either (when the issue isnt something as limiting as "OH NO!  I HAVE TO FIGHT?").  This is why we need as many dms as possible.  And for those dma there are lots of great methods for avoiding triggering players.  But you sound irrational when you say all dms should play by that standard.



yes, because people going to a gaming convention won't possibly think that a D&D game might involve violence lol. it's reasonable to believe that any average player will think this, and also obvious that bill's tomb of the vampires adventure is probably gonna involve vampires and tombs, but there's no actual way for me to know this adventure will have a torture scene in it. hell, the adventure might be valley of the unicorns and obviously involve unicorns and valleys,  but still no way for me to know there's going to be a torture scene in it (that apparently is so intrinsic to the story that removing it will somehow diminish the experience for people who enjoy torture).


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

PMárk said:


> Thank you, yes, exactly.
> 
> It's not wanting to be inconsiderate. It's that I believe the X-card and similar tools (especially a checklist...) is just not a good tool to address personal issues around the table. They might be necessary in certain environments, but again, if so, I would already question the general gaming culture and even the bigger social environment the game takes place in. Because yeah, commom courtesy and caring about the people you play with , even if you play together the first time goes a long way. As well as having, to be frank, a bit tougher skin and not treating every discomfort as the end of the world. That's _obviously _ not the same as vividly describing sexual assault in a group you know contains a victim of one and expecting them to just toughen up. Just use common sense.
> 
> ...



I just laughed myself silly when i realized the hilarious but also soul crushingly awful potential of a dm having to derail and entire campaign he lovingly spent a year or two crafting when he discovers someone has an irrational feer of blood and just cannot go on because its 5 sessions in, the campaign is planned out for 40+ sessions easily and its a massively undead involved campaign with the bbeg at the end being a vampire.  This sounds silly but in recent years i could see it happening.  Also i love vampires.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I just laughed myself silly when i realized the hilarious but also soul crushingly awful potential of a dm having to derail and entire campaign he lovingly spent a year or two crafting when he discovers someone has an irrational feer of blood and just cannot go on.  This sounds silly but in recent years i could see it happening.  Also i love vampires.



why wouldn't he be able to go on?


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> okay so the best cake is the one that could possibly have an entire bottle of rubbing alcohol soaking in it.
> 
> if you can't possibly get around having to alter something in your game on the fly, you really aren't as great a GM as you might make yourself out to be. this really shouldn't be an argument.
> 
> yes, because people going to a gaming convention won't possibly think that a D&D game might involve violence lol. it's reasonable to believe that any average player will think this, and also obvious that bill's tomb of the vampires adventure is probably gonna involve vampires and tombs, but there's no actual way for me to know this adventure will have a torture scene in it. hell, the adventure might be valley of the unicorns and obviously involve unicorns and valleys,  but still no way for me to know there's going to be a torture scene in it (that apparently is so intrinsic to the story that removing it will somehow diminish the experience for people who enjoy torture).



rubbing alcohol.  Hah.  Probably not.  And your post could probably be considered a strawman at this point, but therr could be an application for it in some way, even though you are talking about something highly toxic to humans.  Stranger things have happened.

Ah.  One can certainly alter something on the fly.  But they shouldnt necessarily gave to.  Also depending on how major it is you may not be a very great dm BECAUSE you are too wilking to just change it because someone flashed an x card.  And thats actually way more likely than the other way around as you positioned it.

The grandma who had no idea there was violence was obviously not at a convention.  Do not be absurd.  She just had a grandson with some interests that were outside het wheel house so to speak.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I love Gordon Ramsay as much as the next person (his Hell's Kitchen restaurant at the Caesar in Las Vegas? Surprisingly good!), but I am not sure that he is the best person to invoke in a conversation about mutual respect and compassion. Jus' sayin'.
> 
> Since it's necessary-
> 
> ...



For that particular part of the conversation mutual respect and compassion was pretty explicitly irrelevant as what was beung talked about was not that.  It wasnt my point in that exact moment.  I was addressing various things including mutual respect and compassion.  But not mutual respect and conpassion with that exact point.

The gordan ramsay point seems ti stand pretty well if you acknowledge that.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> why wouldn't he be able to go on?



Ah.  Part of that got deleted.  Let me fix it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The player tells me.




Okay.  So, here's the thing that may have gotten missed - if a player tells you to stop something, an extremely common response is to ask, "Why?"  and enter into a dialog.

A major point of the X-card is to _avoid that question_.  After all, this was not designed for someone with a mild dislike of a thing to edit content.  It was designed to give you a way to get feedback from people for whom the issue is extremely personal, traumatizing, outright terrifying, or the like, in addition to those details not actually being any of our business. 

Asking a person on the verge of, say, an actual and honest panic attack to verbalize the details of their issue is usually contraindicated.  It forces them to continue to face the concepts that are causing them extreme distress, and is apt to drive them deeper into the problem, rather than give them an escape hatch.

There are a few out there these days who have decided that they are goig to be 100% open about their issues, and you can have a conversation like this:

"Please stop."
"Why?  What's the problem?"
"Right now, you, playing this NPC, happen to have an uncanny resemblance to my rapist."

But a lot of GMs are not ready to handle conversations like that, and how to handle them is outside the purview of an RPG supplement.  Nor is this a conversation that could reasonably be expected to be avoided by prior discussion - nobody would be able to know what you'd remind the player of until that moment.


----------



## Deleted member 7015506 (Oct 1, 2019)

So again I experience something, that has hit me for several times while being active on forums.:

People twist words, rip a sentence out of its content and shape it to the meaning they want to have for their own point of view, that is only serving one purpose:

To insult, start trouble and at the same time trying to impose their views as the only legitimate.

Sorry I thought, that it is possible to discuss even controversial subjects besides what is the best class combination, if skills, feats etc. are overpowered and anything directly game related on this forum.

But again it turns out, that such discussions are basically not possible and therefore the best way is to step back and try to delet that account. Thanks all for this flashback into memory lane and have a nice and healthy life.

Thank you for your attention.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> why wouldn't he be able to go on?



i fixed it.  Somehow a part in the middle must have been highlighted and deleted by accident.  It should make a lot more sense now.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Lowkey: Told you, dude. Sea lions.




Hey, lowkey?  When you think someone is arguing in bad faith, being accusatory to the point where they have to bow out of the conversation... is bullying.  Please don't do that.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> At this point I’m just confused.  So I shall bow out.  You win.




So the term "sea lion" is a way to shut down conversation sort of like the term "social justice warrior", only well, more so.   You see, all these people who are really just trying to practice niceness, don't want to have a conversation.   The point of the term is that anyone who doesn't see thing there way is actually a "sea lion" and once they've been corrected by them pointing out to you how good and noble their intentions are - like for example that this is intended to support "inclusivity" - if you refuse to agree with the plan, no matter how civil you are, no matter what reasons you offer, it's because your intentions are ignoble and you may be dismissed as a, well, a "sea lion".   Clear now?

Now, for my part, I've made it perfectly clear I'm willing to discuss...

a) Emotional spillover, how to watch for it, what we should do about it, and so forth. It's not a new thing, it's a relevant topic of conversation, and we may have finally reached the point where we can talk about it without the majority of people claiming that I'm allied with B.A.D.D. and denying that there was anything to talk about because they could always separate fiction from reality. That would be great. Some times I feel like that advocate for the comic book code who has always been called a prude and now people are actually going, "Well, maybe he had a point." in a way that they would never actually come out and say. But if the a priori terms of that discussion have to be that I accept terms like "bleed", "alibi", and "magic circle" as constructive ways to think about emotional spillover and over identification and how to handle it, then you are definitely going to get pushback. In particular, there are some statements in the essay on "bleed" about "alibi" that strike me as just flat out validating the old sow about "I was just doing what my character would do" as if your person wasn't involved in that decision making. And ironically, the people insisting that I engage with emotional spillover in terms of "bleed" and "alibi" just a few months or years ago, came down far harder against "I was just doing what my character would do" as an alibi for bad behavior than even I do. But no, if the group has declared "bleed" and "alibi" protect the group, then all their former beliefs get tossed out the window and any critical thinking is me being a "sea lion". Because niceness. Or something.

b) Accommodating players feelings at the table, especially when there might be difficult topics at the table. Great topic. But if the in order to discuss it I first must publically profess that "X-Cards" and check lists of negative and affirmative consent are a great idea, and that we engage with that topic through veto and not communicating, and if you are not doing it that way you are some sort of heartless Nazi, then yes I'll push back and you'll just have to keep calling me a Nazi or a Sea Lion or whatever you think the nice thing to do is.

c) Social contracts, formal and informal, and whether it's always a good idea to formalize them and when and why. That might be a good conversation as well.

Again, the reason the "Sea Lion" thing has come out though is we aren't supposed to discuss this. We aren't supposed to push back against the group. The group, defined as the ones that matter and who get to make choices, have voted and this is the way we are doing things. And if you don't like it, and if you think it is a bad idea, then understand there is nothing you can do about it anyway. Because niceness.

You notice, we aren't actually having a discussion about those things. Ever. We are always arguing particulars with an unspoken eye on politics. Because this isn't about niceness or solving problems, it's about power and putting it to use. No body really wants to start with some first principles, stick to things that have to do with gaming, ask what your experiences are, find out if these things have been a problem for you, whether you've dealt with them in the past, find out what you think, whether they effect you or not, and what might be some common sense guidelines around gaming which there could be widespread agreement on. Introducing these topics in a controversial way as a fait accompli is what is done, because any discussion is "sea lioning" and they well know that if they dissent they'll be the next shouted down.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> So the term "sea lion" is a way to shut down conversation sort of like the term "social justice warrior", only well, more so.   You see, all these people who are really just trying to practice niceness, don't want to have a conversation.   The point of the term is that anyone who doesn't see thing there way is actually a "sea lion" and once they've been corrected by them pointing out to you how good and noble their intentions are - like for example that this is intended to support "inclusivity" - if you refuse to agree with the plan, no matter how civil you are, no matter what reasons you offer, it's because your intentions are ignoble and you may be dismissed as a, well, a "sea lion".   Clear now?
> 
> Now, for my part, I've made it perfectly clear I'm willing to discuss...
> 
> ...



Wow.  Thankyou for going to the trouble of this post.  I was JUST about to ask if sea lion was a code word for something.  It stuck out like a sore thumb and i suspected it might but i couldnt tell exactly what it was used for.  Very helpful post as it goes on too.  Thankyou.  This is unfortunate.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

@Panda-s1 : There are two things you should be aware of.  First, that I never report anyone to the mods, so you are free to continue to be as insulting to me as you like.   Secondly, that I see you there using the laugh button to express disapproval and mockery.  Just out of curiosity, does this ever cause you to question where you are the nice one?  I mean is it really a good look?


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> just cannot go on because its 5 sessions in, the campaign is planned out for 40+ sessions easily and its a massively undead involved campaign with the bbeg at the end being a vampire. This sounds silly but in recent years i could see it happening.



and somehow the only way this planned 40+ session campaign can be derailed is if someone can't handle blood. like, change the bbeg to a lich or skeleton or something if the inclusion of this player is so intrinsic to the campaign happening.

again, I can't begin to comprehend how this hypothetical DM would handle something as innocent as players going down the wrong hallway.



Son of the Serpent said:


> rubbing alcohol.  Hah.  Probably not.  And your post could probably be considered a strawman at this point, but therr could be an application for it in some way, even though you are talking about something highly toxic to humans.  Stranger things have happened.



you're the one who said the best cake is only possible when they are unconstrained, but okay a cake with a jar full of pickles. no, not mixed into the batter and baked, like I made a hole in the cake and literally just dump a jar of pickles into it and put frosting on it like a typical cake.


> Ah.  One can certainly alter something on the fly.  But they shouldnt necessarily gave to.  Also depending on how major it is you may not be a very great dm BECAUSE you are too wilking to just change it because someone flashed an x card.  And thats actually way more likely than the other way around as you positioned it.



so the DM who can think on the fly and create a scenario that makes everyone happy is somehow not as good as the one who demands their story goes exactly as planned and will drop the game at the slightest possibility of altering something in the adventure, got it.


> The grandma who had no idea there was violence was obviously not at a convention.  Do not be absurd.  She just had a grandson with some interests that were outside het wheel house so to speak.



I mean if you want to ignore the rest of what I said that's fine, but the point is the grandma not being okay with violence in the game is not analogous to a player at a convention not being okay with something like torture. reasonable expectations vs. unknowable surprises.


----------



## jayoungr (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I was JUST about to ask if sea lion was a code word for something.  It stuck out like a sore thumb and i suspected it might but i couldnt tell exactly what it was used for.



Based on a quick skim of this thread, I don't think anyone has linked the cartoon that coined the phrase yet.  It's here:









						#1062; The Terrible Sea Lion
					

(Click to read the whole comic)



					wondermark.com


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> @Panda-s1 : There are two things you should be aware of.  First, that I never report anyone to the mods, so you are free to continue to be as insulting to me as you like.   Secondly, that I see you there using the laugh button to express disapproval and mockery.  Just out of curiosity, does this ever cause you to question where you are the nice one?  I mean is it really a good look?



I mean, not a better look than ignoring questions and avoiding a conversation. you said this push for x-cards made you leery about the motivations behind it. after you didn't respond I brought it up again. though as far as I can tell you seem to think there's some group trying to ruin gaming as you know it forever, which seems a little silly.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> It's like "Four score and seven years ago," or "Aw, man, I shot Marvin in the face," or "You're going to need a bigger boat."
> 
> Does it require explanation?



Yes.

Also "Aw, man, I shot Marvin in the face,"

You lost me


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> and somehow the only way this planned 40+ session campaign can be derailed is if someone can't handle blood. like, change the bbeg to a lich or skeleton or something if the inclusion of this player is so intrinsic to the campaign happening.
> 
> again, I can't begin to comprehend how this hypothetical DM would handle something as innocent as players going down the wrong hallway.
> 
> ...



actually you misunderstand.  I was talking about the player feeling as if they just cannot go on.  Not the dm.  If everyone else WANTS a gore filled campaign and the player cant handle gore im not going to change that.  They can leave.  Could i change it?  Yes.  It would be easy.  But it would be a betrayal to the rest of the players.  Simple.

"you're the one who said the best cake is only possible when they are unconstrained, but okay a cake with a jar full of pickles. no, not mixed into the batter and baked, like I made a hole in the cake and literally just dump a jar of pickles into it and put frosting on it like a typical cake."

I feel like ive convinced anyone who can be of my points involving this fairly adequately.  Not gonna waste my time on it further.  I think you also see the point but its getting tiresome.  So im dropping the cake thing as you are now approaching beating dead horse territory.

"so the DM who can think on the fly and create a scenario that makes everyone happy is somehow not as good as the one who demands their story goes exactly as planned and will drop the game at the slightest possibility of altering something in the adventure, got it."

Never said that one dm is better or worse.  Though i did allude to favorites.  Personal preference in dms.

That said, the dm who can make the changes on the fly but doesnt NECESSARAILY do it if it would be a poor decision to do so is probably the superiorly skilled dm as they could change at the drop of the hat but have the wisdom not to if it wouod cheapen the story.  This is assuming you have players who dont want a sterilized game in some capacity.  Saying "NO" and maintaining player satisfaction is a skill in itself.

"I mean if you want to ignore the rest of what I said that's fine, but the point is the grandma not being okay with violence in the game is not analogous to a player at a convention not being okay with something like torture. reasonable expectations vs. unknowable surprises."

It sure is relevant if you are at an X rated con of some kind and someone doesnt read the disclaimer at your table.

Can you stop hassling me please?  I dont think you have been trying to see my side of things at all.  Im getting triggered you could say.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

jayoungr said:


> Based on a quick skim of this thread, I don't think anyone has linked the cartoon that coined the phrase yet.  It's here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> I mean, not a better look than ignoring questions and avoiding a conversation.




You are going to have to work on your technique in baiting me. You aren't very good at it yet.



> you said this push for x-cards made you leery about the motivations behind it.




Indeed. I've been trying to find a way to answer the question without being overly provocative. But in general, I think I've hinted around enough that I think that the desired upshot is to make gaming more unsafe and not less. Still working on a way to express that in ways that won't lock the thread or cause you to claim I'm being "silly" without actually stopping to think about it.



> after you didn't respond I brought it up again. though as far as I can tell you seem to think there's some group trying to ruin gaming as you know it forever, which seems a little silly.




First of all, I don't owe you are response. And secondly, I can protect my own tables just fine, but in general I do believe that there are groups trying to ruin gaming forever, just as there are some that believe any pushback is solely from people who want to keep gaming ruined forever. I mean, surely you've noticed that some are suggesting that gaming is presently and historically pervasively toxic, and that this is essential to reforming that toxic culture? So which is sillier?

I'm not sure I'm actually aligned with either side of this larger argument.  Like Treebeard, I'm not sure I'm entirely on either side because I'm not sure either side is entirely on mine.   But one thing I'm sure of, I don't trust our newly self-appointed Moral Betters.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

@Panda-s1 you do realize i was joking about being triggered right?  If you do and i legitimately made you laugh good.  Im glad.  Everyone benefits from a good laugh.

I just think you are a dishonest man or woman who shows little shame.  My points are clear.

Also you totally do traffic in mockery and twisting of words entirely too much.  For instance, everyone sees the way you use the laughing emoticon and the way you converse.  Its obvious.  You do this when you think you are losing some kind of an argument (which this isnt supposed to be.  Its supposed to be a discussion.  But you needle people a lot.).  Im not trying to mock you back which is what i think you want.

Like i said.  My points are made.  You can take them, leave them, or mock them.  But mockery is no stand in for reason.


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> It's a tool. If you put an X card in the middle of the table and no one uses it, that single card is not impacting your game at all. Should be no biggie, right? If it gets tapped then the player is in distress. Why would I ignore that? Same with a social contract. It's information. It's good to know.
> 
> Scenario 1
> The PC who snuck ahead in villain's lair gets overwhelmed by thugs, and is about to be locked in a small dark closet.  This PC has faced far worse, but player taps the X card. I'm surprised, but can easily shift the  scenario. I don't need to know details. Game isn't interrupted, and player doesn't have to leave session.
> ...




Because while its just a game, there are lessons to be learn't from the experience of gaming which could actually have long term benefits for a very short term amount of discomfort. I help run a club (literally called Nerd club) and I have ran sessions that have been intense emotionally (NPC's dying who were loved/ surprise attacks when people think they are in a safe space such as a town/ betrayal in general). For some of the younger players they had never even considered certain concepts that were presented and afterwards we had a discussion; a good number of these players went on to thank me in some various way in the future for these talks and sessions a few have stated they view me as a mentor.

Because life is harsh, cruel and will come at you from the left field and turn what you know upside down; there is no X card. At times you have to face your dragon, so why not begin facing that dragon in game labelled as such?


----------



## jasper (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Yes.
> 
> Also "Aw, man, I shot Marvin in the face,"
> 
> You lost me



Will you guys um people quit throwing shade! I don't understand. Jasper looks at weather. Beep I in Alabama throw me some shade.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> Because while its just a game, there are lessons to be learn't from the experience of gaming which could actually have long term benefits for a very short term amount of discomfort. I help run a club (literally called Nerd club) and I have ran sessions that have been intense emotionally (NPC's dying who were loved/ surprise attacks when people think they are in a safe space such as a town/ betrayal in general). For some of the younger players they had never even considered certain concepts that were presented and afterwards we had a discussion; a good number of these players went on to thank me in some various way in the future for these talks and sessions a few have stated they view me as a mentor.
> 
> Because life is harsh, cruel and will come at you from the left field and turn what you know upside down; there is no X card. At times you have to face your dragon, so why not begin facing that dragon in game labelled as such?



I second this.  It really happens often that a player is prepared for something in life because they got their feet wet in a game.  The world doesnt have a dm to protect you.  (No offense to religious folk.  Also i think most of you will agree that most of your religions also have examples of a dm (your god) in the game of life who in fact sometimes allows you to be beset by dangers.  Perhaps with a purpose but none the less some dangers so this applies to you too.  Im not leaving you out.  I thought about you too.)  In the real world pain hurts.  Hearts break.  What better place to strengthen than in a place like d&d (provided it fits the style of the dm and group)?


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

jasper said:


> Will you guys um people quit throwing shade! I don't understand. Jasper looks at weather. Beep I in Alabama throw me some shade.



the funny thing is.  They really did lose me.  I still have no idea what that quote means.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> But in general, I think I've hinted around enough that I think that the desired upshot is to make gaming more unsafe and not less.



haha.


> Still working on a way to express that in ways that won't lock the thread or cause you to claim I'm being "silly" without actually stopping to think about it.
> 
> First of all, I don't owe you are response. And secondly, I can protect my own tables just fine, but in general I do believe that there are groups trying to ruin gaming forever, just as there are some that believe any pushback is solely from people who want to keep gaming ruined forever. I mean, surely you've noticed that some are suggesting that gaming is presently and historically pervasively toxic, and that this is essential to reforming that toxic culture? So which is sillier?
> [...]
> But one thing I'm sure of, I don't trust our newly self-appointed Moral Betters.



see this is why it's hard to take your argument seriously. everyone else is talking about how this affects them locally, or how this might affect their own game. there's even some discussion of the broader issues this system might cause. but so far you're the only person implying there's an ulterior motive to this argument, that _somehow _people are actually trying to make gaming less safe. what? no one arguing in favor of the x-cards is saying there's a conspiracy to make gamers feel uncomfortable all the time, unless you're conflating that with people saying gaming culture up until recently has been toxic, but it's hard to call that a conspiracy when there's a long history of stories about harassment and worse in gaming communities.

considering some of the things already said in this thread, the only things I can think of that could possibly lock this thread at this point is either 1) something angry against the mods or this website or 2) you honestly and unabashedly believe in some pretty horrid or bigoted stuff that informs your argument, which again does not help your case in my book.



Phion said:


> For some of the younger players they had never even considered certain concepts that were presented and afterwards we had a discussion; a good number of these players went on to thank me in some various way in the future for these talks and sessions a few have stated they view me as a mentor.
> 
> Because life is harsh, cruel and will come at you from the left field and turn what you know upside down; there is no X card. At times you have to face your dragon, so why not begin facing that dragon in game labelled as such?



yeah, hello? the x-card is not for these young players who "had never even considered certain concepts". the x-card is for players who have considered certain disturbing concepts in a _very intense manner _that they may not want to revisit when they sit down to enjoy a game for the next few hours. they've already had life come at them from left field and turned what they knew upside down, and you can bet there was no x-card. they faced a dragon, and it definitely wasn't in game. 

maybe you're cool for helping these young players out, but you're never a hero for making someone have a panic attack.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> Because while its just a game, there are lessons to be learn't from the experience of gaming which could actually have long term benefits for a very short term amount of discomfort. I help run a club (literally called Nerd club) and I have ran sessions that have been intense emotionally (NPC's dying who were loved/ surprise attacks when people think they are in a safe space such as a town/ betrayal in general). For some of the younger players they had never even considered certain concepts that were presented and afterwards we had a discussion; a good number of these players went on to thank me in some various way in the future for these talks and sessions a few have stated they view me as a mentor.
> 
> Because life is harsh, cruel and will come at you from the left field and turn what you know upside down; there is no X card. At times you have to face your dragon, so why not begin facing that dragon in game labelled as such?




Because the X card is for extreme reactions, where the player might shut down or have to escape. Because, while I fully agree gaming can have psychological benefits and personally has helped me feel more confident, they are not therapy sessions. RPGs are games and entertainment. 

Life does throw nastiness at us. What has that got to do with giving someone a break at the table? If someone has a broken leg, we don't tell them to shake it off. We need to give the same consideration for emotional injuries as well. It's not coddling. That person may be struggling daily to overcome a challenge. We need to trust that people know when things get too painful, and show some basic courtesy and compassion.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> 2. The response I received to this  ("By posting on a forum like ENWorld we're all invited to participate in the discussion") happens to exactly match the last panel of the fairly famous comic .... the first panel of which I quoted earlier.




Yeah but that panel the sea lion has invaded the woman's bedroom to carry on the discussion, here we are still in the public forum where the contentionous statement was made. It's not like the person is hounding you into other threads or onto facebook?

The other thing that annoys me about that comic is the woman makes effectively a racist statement at the start, "I don't mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions." I think if you make a racist statement in a public forum you should be asked to back it up with some evidence, which is what the sea lion in the comic asks for.

Comic for reference #1062; The Terrible Sea Lion


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I second this.  It really happens often that a player is prepared for something in life because they got their feet wet in a game.  The world doesnt have a dm to protect you.  (No offense to religious folk.  Also i think most of you will agree that most of your religions also have examples of a dm (your god) in the game of life who in fact sometimes allows you to be beset by dangers.  Perhaps with a purpose but none the less some dangers so this applies to you too.  Im not leaving you out.  I thought about you too.)  In the real world pain hurts.  Hearts break.  What better place to strengthen than in a place like d&d (provided it fits the style of the dm and group)?



yeah, that's not what people are arguing against. this isn't about preparing people for certain situations, this is about not having people relive past trauma.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Yeah but that panel the sea lion has invaded the woman's bedroom to carry on the discussion, here we are still in the public forum where the contentionous statement was made. It's not like the person is hounding you into other threads or onto facebook?
> 
> The other thing that annoys me about that comic is the woman makes effectively a racist statement at the start, "I don't mind most marine mammals. But sea lions? I could do without sea lions." I think if you make a racist statement in a public forum you should be asked to back it up with some evidence, which is what the sea lion in the comic asks for.



since you're not going to go digging in a link in the very description of that comic: 


> *#1062; The Terrible Sea Lion*
> It has been suggested that the couple in this comic, and the woman in particular, are bigots for making a pejorative statement about a species of animal, and then refusing to justify their statements. It has been further suggested that they be read as overly privileged, because they are dressed fancily, have a house, a motor-car, etc. This is, I suppose, a valid read of the comic, if taken as written.
> 
> But often, in satire such as this, elements are employed to stand in for other, different objects or concepts. Using animals for this purpose has the effect of allowing the point (which usually is about behavior) to stand unencumbered by the connotations that might be suggested if a person is portrayed in that role — because all people are members of some social group or other, even if said group identity is not germane to the point being made.
> ...


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

maybe you're cool for helping these young players out, but you're never a hero for making someone have a panic attack

Well...actually yeah.  You are.  Or at least you are closer than the person who does enable people to rely on trigger warnings.  Granted going either way can cause harm.  Most working theory in psychology is actually against the idea of trigger warnings being useful.  But its not currently popular theory.  One of the two areas my academic background is in is psychology.  Trigger warnings wont be recommended practice for long.  Its fine to use them to make people more comfortable.  But actually the bulk of how they are currently used goes directly against science.  Exposure therapy in a controlled environment is actually the "HERO" method.  Not trigger warnings.  They actually tend to make patients worsen in their condition.

Disclaimer.  None of this is given as advice in any capacity medical or otherwise.  It is merely a statement on the state of current scientific thought and long standing theory.  Do not rely on it.  I abdicate all responsibility.  Your actions are your own.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> since you're not going to go digging in a link in the very description of that comic:




Which kind of is the point that comic it is a bad metaphor, because it is much easier to see it as about race than behaviour. Also considering the statements that attract response are contentious ones.

So if take out "sealions" as a metaphor what is the woman really saying?

"I don't mind most people, but I could do without people that disagree with me."


----------



## Kramodlog (Oct 1, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Careful of the Rule of Goats.



Nope. That is just something some guy on the net invented. It is meaningless and not representative of reality. Unless you're not neurotypical...


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> yeah, that's not what people are arguing against. this isn't about preparing people for certain situations, this is about not having people relive past trauma.



fair point.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> maybe you're cool for helping these young players out, but you're never a hero for making someone have a panic attack
> 
> Well...actually yeah.  You are.  Or at least you are closer than the person who does enable people to rely on trigger warnings.  Granted going either way can cause harm.  Most working theory in psychology is actually against the idea of trigger warnings being useful.  But its not currently popular theory.  One of the two areas my academic background is in is psychology.  Trigger warnings wont be recommended practice for long.  Its fine to use them to make people more comfortable.  But actually the bulk of how they are currently used goes directly against science.  Exposure therapy in a controlled environment is actually the "HERO" method.  Not trigger warnings.  They actually tend to make patients worsen in their condition.
> 
> Disclaimer.  None of this is given as advice in any capacity medical or otherwise.  It is merely a statement on the state of current scientific thought and long standing theory.  Do not rely on it.  I abdicate all responsibility.  Your actions are your own.



...okay, this is the point where I just ignore you entirely. I'm already at contention with dealing with you, but encouraging people to actually harm others, even with supposedly good intentions, is the goddamn line. I will say though your average con GM is not a psychiatric professional and I wouldn't trust them to administer exposure therapy.

as others have said on either side of the argument: con games are not therapy sessions, and it's absolutely bonkers to suggest what's supposed to be a fun session is a reasonable time to cause someone to have a panic attack.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> "I don't mind most people, but I could do without people that disagree with me."



no, the point of that comic is people who exhibit the behavior of the sea lion aren't being sincere and really just trying to harass and supress people that disagree with them. going into your home notwithstanding, but invading your private spaces isn't necessary for that behavior to be a problem, the point is constantly pestering others in a supposedly civilized manner.


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> haha.
> 
> see this is why it's hard to take your argument seriously. everyone else is talking about how this affects them locally, or how this might affect their own game. there's even some discussion of the broader issues this system might cause. but so far you're the only person implying there's an ulterior motive to this argument, that _somehow _people are actually trying to make gaming less safe. what? no one arguing in favor of the x-cards is saying there's a conspiracy to make gamers feel uncomfortable all the time, unless you're conflating that with people saying gaming culture up until recently has been toxic, but it's hard to call that a conspiracy when there's a long history of stories about harassment and worse in gaming communities.




I find it hard to take your argument seriously when you are trying to tackle the matter so globally; if nothing else I have the common sense to state what has formed my views so you may retort to my position. What is it that you possess that makes every point of view you have right? omniscient?


Panda-s1 said:


> considering some of the things already said in this thread, the only things I can think of that could possibly lock this thread at this point is either 1) something angry against the mods or this website or 2) you honestly and unabashedly believe in some pretty horrid or bigoted stuff that informs your argument, which again does not help your case in my book.




In one post you have decided to brush all my opinions worth and branded me a bigot. Ironic. You truly are a bastion of empathy.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> no, the point of that comic is people who exhibit the behavior of the sea lion aren't being sincere and really just trying to harass and supress people that disagree with them. going into your home notwithstanding, but invading your private spaces isn't necessary for that behavior to be a problem, the point is constantly pestering others in a supposedly civilized manner.




Again still a bad metaphor since the woman never makes any attempt to back up her claim how can we tell the sealion is being insincere? We have to be prejudice towards the sealion and assume they are insincere for it to even work.

These seems to say ignoring all requests to back up your opinion is fine. It effective says you should ignore any challenges to you world view.

Although I better be careful I might be accussed of sealioning for disagreeing with you on multiple occasions (although I'm happy to leave it here, I've made my view clear) accusations of "sealioning" are generally used because people are unwilling (or more often unable) to defend their point of view. The whole concept is as flawed as the comic's metaphor.


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Because the X card is for extreme reactions, where the player might shut down or have to escape. Because, while I fully agree gaming can have psychological benefits and personally has helped me feel more confident, they are not therapy sessions. RPGs are games and entertainment.
> 
> Life does throw nastiness at us. What has that got to do with giving someone a break at the table? If someone has a broken leg, we don't tell them to shake it off. We need to give the same consideration for emotional injuries as well. It's not coddling. That person may be struggling daily to overcome a challenge. We need to trust that people know when things get too painful, and show some basic courtesy and compassion.




I appreciate your response (especially having just read Panda-s1's). You point out yourself however that gaming are not therapy sessions, ergo at what point does implementing tools related to therapy sessions become excessive? I am a social worker with 5 years experience and play regularly with a diverse group of people (Aspergers/ young children/ elderly/ troubled youth) and at no point was a X card needed for said individuals because whilst they had issues of their own (some horrendous) they have developed coping techniques to at least a RP setting. At a certain point the question must be asked of who exactly is it you think is sitting at your tables and if it so severe they need an X card is it kinder to inform them the reality that the game may just be too problematic for them?


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I cannot speak to particular people. But, there's some things known about human behavior.
> 
> When we start talking about making changes in social arrangements or behavior (like, say, using an X-card when we didn't do so before), we run into a basic implication: Doing something like this is better than what we used to do.




And sometimes that implication is just false.


----------



## PMárk (Oct 1, 2019)

MGibster said:


> It’s difficult to have a good faith discussion these days.  I’m only vaguely familiar with the concept of sea lion thing.  If you want to accuse me of acting in bad faith please have enough faith to speak plainly rather than hide behind euphemisms.




Never mind, the whole "sea-lioning", in my oppinion, is an excuse for not having to actually defend your oppinion and also in my oppinion, one of the most toxic tropes people use un discussions nowadays.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Here we are discussing sea lions and the effectiveness of cake analogies.

Is there any possibility we could start a thread discussing one of these topics that doesn't insist on the terms of the discussion ahead of time, and is actually interested in a discussion? I mean maybe it would be too much to ask for the people to discuss this in good faith, but I would be happy to go with the rest of the "sea lions" and discuss problems of emotional spillover and inquire politely into how it has effected your own gaming. We can leave the rest of the thread to discuss how they are saving the world from us bad people or whatever it is that makes them feel good about themselves.


----------



## generic (Oct 1, 2019)

On ENWorld, we tend to argue more about someone's analogy than the argument itself.  It's really rather miraculous.  Imagine if all arguments were conducted in this manner.  No one would ever use analogies unless they had been carefully considered.  Can't we stop discussing Sea Lions, and actually talk about Bleeding.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> ...okay, this is the point where I just ignore you entirely. I'm already at contention with dealing with you, but encouraging people to actually harm others, even with supposedly good intentions, is the goddamn line. I will say though your average con GM is not a psychiatric professional and I wouldn't trust them to administer exposure therapy.
> 
> as others have said on either side of the argument: con games are not therapy sessions, and it's absolutely bonkers to suggest what's supposed to be a fun session is a reasonable time to cause someone to have a panic attack.



You've gotta own a lotta straw fields man.  What are you the straw king?  I do not advocate the harming of anyone in this thread.  If you pearl clutch any harder you may end up needing to see a chiropractor.  And again.  No advice or opinions in this post should shape the medicinal decisions of people in the future.  Just gonna drive that point home a little more.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> On ENWorld, we tend to argue more about someone's analogy than the argument itself.  It's really rather miraculous.  Imagine if all arguments were conducted in this manner.  No one would ever use analogies unless they had been carefully considered.




I've tried hard to stop using them myself after realizing that they almost always harmed clarity rather than aided it.



> Can't we stop discussing Sea Lions, and actually talk about Bleeding.




Speaking of analogies I'm not fond of, can we not call it "bleeding"?


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Can't we stop discussing Sea Lions, and actually talk about Bleeding.




Are we talking about actually stabbing people then if we are getting away from analogy and metaphors?


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Are we talking about actually stabbing people then if we are getting away from analogy and metaphors?



R/murdered by words just popped into my head.

This is a strange thread we got here indeed at this point.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> I appreciate your response (especially having just read Panda-s1's). You point out yourself however that gaming are not therapy sessions, ergo at what point does implementing tools related to therapy sessions become excessive. I am a social worker with 5 years experience and play regularly with a diverse group of people (Aspergers/ young children/ elderly/ troubled youth) and at no point was a X card needed for said individuals because whilst they had issues of their own (some horrendous) they have developed coping techniques to at least a RP setting. At a certain point the question must be asked of who exactly do you think are sitting at your tables and if it so severe they need an X card is it kinder to inform them the reality that the game may just be too problematic for them?




Well, this is assuming the whole game will be too much? That's an unfair assumption. You're making it sound like people who need to tap an X card over an issue can't differentiate reality from fiction, and maybe shouldn't be playing? Not very welcoming.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> y'know I'm pretty sure inter-party romance has always been one of those things you'd have to talk to the GM about and then discuss with the rest of the party,



Sorry, but if I bring this quote (above) to our weekend games and read it out I know full well it'll be met with a mix of incredulity and (probably) laughter.

PC-PC romance is every bit as much a part of the game as PC-PC rivalry - it all comes under the heading of "what would the character do".



> and honestly any GM who agrees to help one player without discussing with the entire party sounds skeevy as hell, and if someone does this in a public game I'd be appalled at any GM who doesn't just flat out stop it unless the game description explicitly said inter-party romance was okay.



And I'd be just as appalled at a GM who smacked it down; and I'd happily start the argument that would immediately follow.



> also are you honestly telling me you've never run into the issue of having to stop something in story and rewinding to do something over again? really? is it that arduous to stop a scene and move on? (now I'm imagining a GM tapping the x-button in response to a player tapping it lmao)



Well, I suppose the X-card is technically there for the GM too; if the players veer into sketchy territory on their own. 

Hmmmm...though it corrupts the intent, I wonder if I could use a similar table mechanic to shut down out-of-game chatter?



> did the GM just do nothing? that player might've wanted to discuss something but was afraid to bring it up, and yes I do believe as GM it's your responsibility to bring these discussions up.



I was the GM; and I didn't feel like kicking the puppy any more than anyone else did.  The person also had problems out-of-game and that was a morass into which I really didn't want to tread.



> the latter situation is best handled by telling that player they're no longer welcome if they keep bringing up their prejudices. like honestly, I thought we were supposed to avoid disrupting the game, but I guess it's okay if the results are invoking rage and not trying to respect someone's spaces.



Heh - ironically enough, given the other trend of this discussion, my own experience with this came through having my PC try to start a PC-PC romance (straight in-character - my PC was female - but two male players at the table); it brought out some real under-the-surface anti-gay sentiments from the other player, thus painting a target which I was all too happy to keep on shootin' at.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Well, this is assuming the whole game will be too much? That's an unfair assumption. You're making it sound like people who need to tap an X card over an issue can't differentiate reality from fiction, and maybe shouldn't be playing? Not very welcoming.




But isn't the entire topic of "Bleed" about the difficulty players have emotionally separating fiction from reality, and isn't that why it was connected (unfortunately in my opinion) to the topic of "consent" in the first place?

Did you understand what this topic was about? I'm not making it sound like people can't differentiate reality from fiction. The people advocating for the X card are suggesting that one of the primary reasons for it is an inability to separate reality from fiction.  Isn't that what the whole phobia argument is about?


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Well, this is assuming the whole game will be too much? That's an unfair assumption. You're making it sound like people who need to tap an X card over an issue can't differentiate reality from fiction, and maybe shouldn't be playing? Not very welcoming.




I get your position on this and I wholly respect you are coming from a direction of trying to make everyone happy and get people involved; I just think it must be considered that there is likely a lot more issues with someone who is not able to self-regulate at a certain level. And I am taking this angle from a social worker perspective; YES we 100% have to overcome a persons barrier and adapt where we can to help participation BUT we have a duty of care to consider their limits as well and therefore we make experience for people that are truly person centred.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> I find it hard to take your argument seriously when you are trying to tackle the matter so globally; if nothing else I have the common sense to state what has formed my views so you may retort to my position. What is it that you possess that makes every point of view you have right? omniscient?
> 
> 
> In one post you have decided to brush all my opinions worth and branded me a bigot. Ironic. You truly are a bastion of empathy.



yo dog, the majority of that post was not for you. only the last part _*where I actually quoted you*_. I never branded you a bigot.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Are we talking about actually stabbing people then if we are getting away from analogy and metaphors?




Well, at least that would be an interesting topic.

Is fictionally stabbing something an analogy for stabbing or a metaphor for stabbing, or is the sort of unreality that it has a completely different thing than analogy?


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> yo dog, the majority of that post was not for you. only the last part _*where I actually quoted you*_. I never branded you a bigot.




Ah in that case my apologies


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Is fictionally stabbing something an analogy for stabbing or a metaphor for stabbing, or is the sort of unreality that it has a completely different thing than analogy?




Now you see the violence inherent in the system!


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Speaking of analogies I'm not fond of, can we not call it "bleeding"?




"What does not kill me only makes me stronger." XD


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Actually, no, you are wrong.  The problem has gone away.  If someone else engages in romance with another PC (as in not me) and I don't hit the X card, then, well, it's pretty obvious that it's only when I'm involved in the romance that it's a problem.



That's just it, though - unless you explain your reasons for hitting the X, the other players have no way of knowing what the borders are: you've effectively just chilled all PC-PC romance in that game as the other players (assuming a modicum of sensitivity) aren't going to want to risk offending you.



> So, would I still be unwelcome at your table?  Just because I don't want to play out romance between PC's, even though it's not a problem if other players engage in it?



I-as-DM would welcome you, though with a serious warning that your lack of desire for your PCs to be romantically involved is likely to lead to some rather merciless treatment at the hands of some of the other players to whom such an attitude just doesn't make sense...and then ask you if you still want to join. 



> Like I said, people are making far more out of this than it needs to be.  I mean, heck, if this is romance between two PC's, the DM isn't even involved.  It has nothing to do with you or your campaign.



Not sure how you can say this - it's like saying a fight between two hockey players has nothing to do with the referee.  Anything that happens in the campaign affects the campaign in some way, even if those events are entirely player-driven.



> On the other hand if it's any romance at all, well, then maybe it's time to look for another table if this table sees a lot of romance.  But, again, which is more important?  Taking romance off the table for this session and then having a conversation later on after things have cooled down, or insisting that romance stay on the table despite knowing that you are making one of the players very uncomfortable and they are hating the experience?



You keep coming back to the idea of later conversations...but what's that going to lead to other than at the next session - or in an email during the week - the DM having to state to the table "Your characters are banned from romantic involvement with Creon (Hussar's PC)".  Other PC-PC romances remain in play."

And an even worse situation arises when (hypothetically) a player taps X regarding romance with player A's character but does not tap vs romance with player B's character...yeah, I wouldn't want to have to referee that.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> "What does not kill me only makes me stronger." XD



"What doesnt kill me makes me stronger".  Thats not an anology.  Thats a literal observation about many things (though not all) in life.  Quite literal and quite accurate.

I still like what you did there even if it didnt work perfectly.  It was still funny.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 1, 2019)

PMárk said:


> And sometimes that implication is just false.




Perhaps.  How would you know?

The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on _MY_ freedom", 2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues, or 3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.  While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.

Meanwhile, the folks who actually have trauma or phobias or similar issues, or folks who run/play games with them, seem to like the thing.   They note that it is no panacea, but see it as helpful.

We can think of this as a bit of assistive technology.  Like, say, a wheelchair - if you don't use a wheelchair, don't assist someone who is in a wheelchair, and don't have the skills to design or build wheelchairs... how much should anyone listen to your opinion on wheelchairs?

Especially,  if your basic argument is "I shouldn't see handicapped parking in lots I park in, because those are spaces _I_ could have used," well, your opinon's probably right out, isn't it?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Speaking of analogies I'm not fond of, can we not call it "bleeding"?




Why? It's like ink or dye that expands beyond its intended space. 

Alternatives:
Seepage?
Smudging?
Osmosis?
Diffusion?


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Because the X card is for extreme reactions, where the player might shut down or have to escape.



That's the theory, and at that level it's fine.

But what's the practice?

I've had various players over the years who, were there an X-card on the table, ironclad guaranteed would one or more of:

Not hit the X when they really ought to
Hit the X solely to gain an in-game advantage (e.g. to avoid a PC death)
Hit the X to avoid character discomfort rather than player discomfort (i.e. use the X as a game mechanic)
Hit the X just for laughs, or as part of a joke
Hit the X for no other reason than to get attention (i.e. untriggered but bored and wants the spotlight)
Hit the X to shut down something non-triggering (e.g. out-of-game chatter - this would have been me!)

Given all this, it wouldn't take long before the whole concept lost any practical value.


----------



## jasper (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.  How would you know?
> 
> The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on _MY_ freedom", 2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues, or 3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.  While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.
> 
> ...



4. People who think the X-card text is BADLY WORDED and needs expansion. 
But people ignore this option.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

jasper said:


> 4. People who think the X-card text is BADLY WORDED and needs expansion.
> But people ignore this option.




Oh believe me, they already have.  There is an O card, an N card, and a ? card out there already.


----------



## jasper (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> 4. People who think the X-card text is BADLY WORDED and needs expansion.
> But people ignore this option.
> Oh believe me, they already have.  There is an O card, an N card, and a ? card out there already.



NONONONONONONO! I just mean the text supporting the xcard needs some wor.
O card
N card
? card 
oh my. jasper pounds his head against the desk and jumps out the window.
OH. Forgot the wife planted a rose bush under that one.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Why? It's like ink or dye that expands beyond its intended space.
> 
> Alternatives:
> Seepage?
> ...




Emotional diffusion is fine. Nice clinical word. I'm OK with emotional spillover as well, which is actually how she more or less defined "bleed". But I don't see a point in coining a term for something that is better described as "emotional spillover". There isn't a good reason for that sort of short hand. 

And personal preference, if the definition runs to an essay, then I prefer you strict neologism over repurposing words, since your repurposed words will encourage the reader to try to understand your jargon without referencing your technical definition, which will invariably lead to "common sense" definitions at odds with your intended meaning.

I am aware that the intended metaphor is with an ink or dye that blends into an adjacent area.   But when you take that metaphor and say is something happening to a person, then that person bleeds.   And I don't think the idea of a person bleeding, or experiencing bleeding is nice and clinical.   It's a powerful metaphor, but maybe really too powerful.   And it is negative.  Bleeding doesn't sound on the surface like something you want to do, and if the author intends to say that bleeding isn't always negative - which she does - then I think "bleed" is a poor choice of academic jargon.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Sorry, but if I bring this quote (above) to our weekend games and read it out I know full well it'll be met with a mix of incredulity and (probably) laughter.
> 
> PC-PC romance is every bit as much a part of the game as PC-PC rivalry - it all comes under the heading of "what would the character do".



okay, it sounds like you and your group have an agreement that intra-PC romance is okay. good for you and your group. not every group is the same, and assuming so makes no sense.



> And I'd be just as appalled at a GM who smacked it down; and I'd happily start the argument that would immediately follow.



immediately may be a bit much, especially if its something like the player says their character is a known philanderer, but if the player at the receiving end of the advances looks uncomfortable and the GM does nothing that's a red flag.

if I were GM'ing I'd probably say something like "let's keep your philandering to NPCs only". if you're unaware, people will romance other player's characters as a means of hitting on that player.



> Well, I suppose the X-card is technically there for the GM too; if the players veer into sketchy territory on their own.
> 
> Hmmmm...though it corrupts the intent, I wonder if I could use a similar table mechanic to shut down out-of-game chatter?



I don't see how the GM using the card is a huge issue, some players veer into weird territory themselves.

also those mechanics already exist. a lot of them. most of them are passive aggressive.



> I was the GM; and I didn't feel like kicking the puppy any more than anyone else did.  The person also had problems out-of-game and that was a morass into which I really didn't want to tread.
> 
> Heh - ironically enough, given the other trend of this discussion, my own experience with this came through having my PC try to start a PC-PC romance (straight in-character - my PC was female - but two male players at the table); it brought out some real under-the-surface anti-gay sentiments from the other player, thus painting a target which I was all too happy to keep on shootin' at.



having a serious conversation isn't "kicking the puppy", it's dealing with the problem in a controlled manner.

what's not in a serious and controlled manner is sexually harassing a character in game. you could talk to the GM and have them talk to the other player if it's actually a problem.



Lanefan said:


> That's just it, though - unless you explain your reasons for hitting the X, the other players have no way of knowing what the borders are: you've effectively just chilled all PC-PC romance in that game as the other players (assuming a modicum of sensitivity) aren't going to want to risk offending you.



if the person getting hit on taps the x-button then just don't hit on that player's character? I don't understand how this "chills all PC-PC romance" unless they tap it when romantic interaction happens between other characters, and even then I'd probably imagine said advances seemed coercive or invasive.



> I-as-DM would welcome you, though with a serious warning that your lack of desire for your PCs to be romantically involved is likely to lead to some rather merciless treatment at the hands of some of the other players to whom such an attitude just doesn't make sense...and then ask you if you still want to join.
> 
> Not sure how you can say this - it's like saying a fight between two hockey players has nothing to do with the referee.  Anything that happens in the campaign affects the campaign in some way, even if those events are entirely player-driven.
> 
> You keep coming back to the idea of later conversations...but what's that going to lead to other than at the next session - or in an email during the week - the DM having to state to the table "Your characters are banned from romantic involvement with Creon (Hussar's PC)".  Other PC-PC romances remain in play."



okay if I can be honest it just sounds like you're somehow not okay with confronting issues between players, or believe that doing so is going to ruin the game. having a discussion with all the players that someone doesn't want their own character being romanced by other players should be okay? all the players being cool with that should also be okay? like do the players only value each other's characters as a means to carry out romantic fantasies or something?



> And an even worse situation arises when (hypothetically) a player taps X regarding romance with player A's character but does not tap vs romance with player B's character...yeah, I wouldn't want to have to referee that.



this is worse, but why wouldn't you want to referee that? maybe that player is uncomfortable with player A, but not player B. maybe they have a history that you don't know about. or maybe player B makes advances that are way less creepy. this isn't "X player only finds player B attractive and that's awkward" like it seems you're suggesting.

but that's all in the context of a public game, if you're just playing with an established group you have the luxury of being able to talk to the player about their issues and figure something out. the x-card is not as useful a tool in this environment as you literally have the time to have a discussion with players.



Celebrim said:


> But isn't the entire topic of "Bleed" about the difficulty players have emotionally separating fiction from reality, and isn't that why it was connected (unfortunately in my opinion) to the topic of "consent" in the first place?
> 
> Did you understand what this topic was about? I'm not making it sound like people can't differentiate reality from fiction. The people advocating for the X card are suggesting that one of the primary reasons for it is an inability to separate reality from fiction.  Isn't that what the whole phobia argument is about?



I don't think separating fiction from reality is the issue here. I'm not sure you understand the concept of empathy?

like say my mother died and it was traumatic for me, and it took me a long time to figure that out. a year later my friend says their mother died and suddenly I feel the same way when my own mother died. is it because I think her mother was my own? no, it's because it reminded me of the time my own mother died. if I'm in a game where I'm pretending to be someone else and a mother dies I might feel the same way. this isn't being unable to separate reality from fiction, that's just how emotions work.

this has been the case since RPGs have existed. I knew one couple who said their characters got into an argument in game and they carried that spat out into real life for the following day. it's not because they thought they were actually their characters, it's because that emotion carried on after the game ended.

it goes both ways too, people enjoy beating the bad guy at the end of the adventure because it reminds them of previous times where they overcame a challenge, not because they actually believe they're a sword-wielding warrior in a fantasy world, lest we say that Mazes and Monsters is an accurate portrayal of D&D.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Emotional diffusion is fine. Nice clinical word. I'm OK with emotional spillover as well, which is actually how she more or less defined "bleed". But I don't see a point in coining a term for something that is better described as "emotional spillover". There isn't a good reason for that sort of short hand.
> 
> And personal preference, if the definition runs to an essay, then I prefer you strict neologism over repurposing words, since your repurposed words will encourage the reader to try to understand your jargon without referencing your technical definition, which will invariably lead to "common sense" definitions at odds with your intended meaning.
> 
> I am aware that the intended metaphor is with an ink or dye that blends into an adjacent area.   But when you take that metaphor and say is something happening to a person, then that person bleeds.   And I don't think the idea of a person bleeding, or experiencing bleeding is nice and clinical.   It's a powerful metaphor, but maybe really too powerful.   And it is negative.  Bleeding doesn't sound on the surface like something you want to do, and if the author intends to say that bleeding isn't always negative - which she does - then I think "bleed" is a poor choice of academic jargon.




I rather like the term bleed, in no small part because it *is* emotional. It's messy. It's unintentional. I doubt you're going to get agreement on "nice and clinical".


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

jasper said:


> ? card




To be honest, I'm a little bit inclined to like the ? card, except that the last thing my table needs is a bunch of clutter sitting in the middle of the table where I might like a battle map. Still, my current table isn't sophisticated enough to need a ? card, and my old tables that could have used it were pretty good at sense motive checks and working out the issues it was trying to address through cues, verbal and otherwise. (For the record, the ? card asks whether apparent distress is IC or OOC, that is, are you just acting?)

I guess I can say I get what issue(s) that the 'cards' are trying to address, but I consider them ultimately counter productive in a lot of ways. To the extent that they facilitate communication, and especially healthy communication, I'm all for whatever it is. I just don't think that they do, and suspect that they are going to end up being more tools of coersion and non-communication. The agenda is stated as safety, but the argument made on their behalf is that given that you've put this safety object out on the table, that people then feel more free to push boundaries that they might have refrained from pushing, because everyone knows that there is an X card. Which is such a bad argument that I'd laugh if it wasn't so earnest and serious.

I can see a LARP developing hand signs for coming in and out of character, although again thinking about that I'm still not sure a verbal cue like, "OOC" or "IC", wouldn't just serve the same purpose.

I mean seriously, it's ultimately a verbal form of interaction.  Talk.  Communicate.   Empathize.  Share.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I rather like the term bleed, in no small part because it *is* emotional. It's messy. It's unintentional. I doubt you're going to get agreement on "nice and clinical".




Because we get so much agreement through appeals to emotion? Because appeals like, "Use the X card, it's what a progressive would do!" are so helpful to the community, and don't muck up the message?

If we aren't going to get agreement to discuss these issues in a neutral and clinical manner, then we aren't going to get agreement to discuss them.  They are going to be emotional enough as it without using (wait for it) _trigger_ words.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> "Use the X card, it's what a progressive would do!"



where did anyone say this? 



> If we aren't going to get agreement to discuss these issues in a neutral and clinical manner, then we aren't going to get agreement to discuss them.  They are going to be emotional enough as it without using (wait for it) _trigger_ words.



uh, you're the one hung up on the term "bleed"? if it honestly makes you uncomfortable okay, but so far most of what you've said makes me believe that this concern is insincere. that or you don't believe in other people's problems.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> I've tried hard to stop using them myself after realizing that they almost always harmed clarity rather than aided it.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of analogies I'm not fond of, can we not call it "bleeding"?




ROTFLMAO.  Wow, talk about irony.

Using a word in it's dictionary definition is now metaphor?  Sorry, but, "to bleed" as in to spread outside of a certain area, is the actual definition of the word "bleed".  It's not metaphor. 

But, I have a pretty strong feeling that you know that, but, instead of actually discussing the issue, you'd rather simply derail into semantic babble in order to not actually have to defend your point, all the while pretending to "help" the discussion.  It's pretty much the same as the "sea lions" discussion.  Everyone understands the point.  The point is 100% clear.  But, instead of moving on with the point that everyone understands, we'll spend pages on pedantic minutia examining the comic.

Standard.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Oct 1, 2019)

I posted my opinions in the other thread from last week or so. Not gonna repeat it all again here.  Let's just say that while I'm generally supportive of the idea behind this, I can't get past the red flags of someone who is not a professional therapist telling others how they should engage in therapy for someone else at the table.  I don't think that's gonna end well in a lot of groups.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ROTFLMAO.  Wow, talk about irony.
> 
> Using a word in it's dictionary definition is now metaphor?  Sorry, but, "to bleed" as in to spread outside of a certain area, is the actual definition of the word "bleed".  It's not metaphor.
> 
> ...



as someone whose educational background is linguistics I want to argue about metaphorical language, but well you're not wrong


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Phion (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.  How would you know?
> 
> The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on _MY_ freedom", 2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues, or 3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.  While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.
> 
> ...




Again I see the angle that you guys are coming from but there is a point where assistant technology is either excessive or simply not effective enough. Could you provide me quotes where people are suggesting they simply just don't want to be dealing with people with phobias and disabilities? I have not read the whole thread and from what I did see nothing implied that.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> okay, it sounds like you and your group have an agreement that intra-PC romance is okay. good for you and your group. not every group is the same, and assuming so makes no sense.



To say "we have an agreement" makes it far more formal than it really is: more like we've always just seen it as a fact of life that PCs in a party are inevitably going to interact with each other much like people in real life would: some will fall in love, some will become fast friends, some will become rivals or even bitter enemies - and all of this is fair game to play out.

Characters, like people, have emotions.



> immediately may be a bit much, especially if its something like the player says their character is a known philanderer, but if the player at the receiving end of the advances looks uncomfortable and the GM does nothing that's a red flag.
> 
> if I were GM'ing I'd probably say something like "let's keep your philandering to NPCs only". if you're unaware, people will romance other player's characters as a means of hitting on that player.



Been there, seen that, and have also seen some perfectly well-played in-character responses.

I've also seen players have in-character romances and flings even though there's no way in hell they'd ever get involved in real life!



> having a serious conversation isn't "kicking the puppy", it's dealing with the problem in a controlled manner.



Believe me, in this case any serious conversation would have been puppy-kicking.  I ain't no therapist.



> if the person getting hit on taps the x-button then just don't hit on that player's character? I don't understand how this "chills all PC-PC romance" unless they tap it when romantic interaction happens between other characters, and even then I'd probably imagine said advances seemed coercive or invasive.



Picture this: new-ish campaign, party still kinda getting to know each other, someone's PC tries to strike up a romance with mine, and I hit the X.

Given no more information than that (because, with the X mechanic as presented, no more is required), what borders am I trying to set?



> okay if I can be honest it just sounds like you're somehow not okay with confronting issues between players, or believe that doing so is going to ruin the game. having a discussion with all the players that someone doesn't want their own character being romanced by other players should be okay? all the players being cool with that should also be okay? like do the players only value each other's characters as a means to carry out romantic fantasies or something?



Much of your position seem to stem from a foundational assumption that players cannot or will not separate themselves from their characters.

My baseline expectation is that they will.  What happens in character stays in character, and whatever's happening between players in real life is left at the door on arrival to the session.



> this is worse, but why wouldn't you want to referee that? maybe that player is uncomfortable with player A, but not player B. maybe they have a history that you don't know about. or maybe player B makes advances that are way less creepy. this isn't "X player only finds player B attractive and that's awkward" like it seems you're suggesting.



If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character.  If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction my expectation is that it stays out of the game.



> but that's all in the context of a public game, if you're just playing with an established group you have the luxury of being able to talk to the player about their issues and figure something out. the x-card is not as useful a tool in this environment as you literally have the time to have a discussion with players.



Home games with friends are pretty much all I play, other than the very occasional con game where I'm (usually) on my best behavior. 



> I don't think separating fiction from reality is the issue here.



I think it's a very large part of the issue here.



> I'm not sure you understand the concept of empathy?



I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it.  Harsh though it may sound, I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 1, 2019)

Now, for the record, Hussar is someone that knows how to bait me.



Hussar said:


> Using a word in it's dictionary definition is now metaphor?  Sorry, but, "to bleed" as in to spread outside of a certain area, is the actual definition of the word "bleed".  It's not metaphor.




This is wrong in so many different ways that it took me a while to realize you were serious. How people can say things like this with a straight face is absolutely beyond me.

Let's start with two facts before we turn to one of my favorite subjects, Lexicography.

First, the definition provided for the non-dictionary jargon term bleed by the author was:

"Experiencing moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa."

You will note that this is not the literal definition bleed from the dictionary, both by your own cited evidence and that of Panda down below you. Neither of you actually showed the dictionary to contain this term. So we are already dealing with your inability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Secondly, the definition of "bleed" that was being discussed by billd91 was "an ink or dye that expands beyond its intended space" This is an actual normal dictionary definition of "bleed" albeit it is in my dictionary definition #4.  

Now if you don't know much about dictionaries, the more usual and more literal definitions tend to be listed first, while the less common and more metaphorical definitions tended to be listed further down.

Definition #1 in my my dictionary is "To lose blood from the body as a result of injury or illness".

Definition #2 is "To draw blood from someone, as in the once common method of treatment in medicine"

Definition #3 is "To allow a gas or liquid to escape from a closed system through a valve."

You'd note that definition #3 since it doesn't involve literal blood is a metaphorical definition that has become such a common metaphor as to warrant it's own entry.  Bleeding literally involves blood - not say carbon dioxide or methane build up in a pipe.   To call that "bleeding" is a metaphor.

Definition #4 with the ink or dye getting out of its intended space is also a metaphor.   So a definition of emotions doing that is a metaphor of a metaphor.   We are comparing emotions to ink in a way that was originally suggested by how inks behavior could be compared to blood.

Panda-s1 adds his own screen shot just to prove you wrong as well, but then bizarrely and in defiance of what his eyes are actually showing him, claims it proves you right.

Now I don't deny that "bleed" could be chosen as a metaphor to express something, including emotions, "that seeps out of its intended space." That would be a valid metaphor. But it would be a metaphor and not literal.  My argument is not that such a metaphor couldn't be made, or even that it isn't apt.  My argument is that it isn't useful.  I fully agree with Billd91's claim that it is a graphic metaphor.  Yes it is.

And as a point of inarguable and objective fact, the definition, "Experiencing moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa." is not a literal dictionary definition of bleed, much less one that involves literal blood unless somehow the fantasy wounds are drawing literal blood.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Let's start with two facts before we turn to one of my favorite subjects, Lexicography.



yeah that's cute, let me start with one of my favorite degrees I've earned, a BA in linguistics.


> Panda-s1 adds his own screen shot just to prove you wrong as well, but then bizarrely and in defiance of what his eyes are actually showing him, claims it proves you right.



first of all, I said I wanted to argue with him over the nature of metaphorical language. "bleed" as we are using is based off a metaphorical understanding of blood and liquids, but I was still sure such a definition existed in a dictionary. me posting a screenshot was more about backing up his claim more than anything.

also both definitions 2 and 3b according to Merriam-Webster very much fall in line with the way we're using "bleed" to describe this phenomenon. we're using bleed as defined by a dictionary. they even provide an example: "foreign policy bleeds into economic policy — J. B. Judis" unless you want to argue that policy is literally a kind of liquid.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> To say "we have an agreement" makes it far more formal than it really is: more like we've always just seen it as a fact of life that PCs in a party are inevitably going to interact with each other much like people in real life would: some will fall in love, some will become fast friends, some will become rivals or even bitter enemies - and all of this is fair game to play out.
> 
> Characters, like people, have emotions.



that's nice, but that doesn't change what I said.



> Been there, seen that, and have also seen some perfectly well-played in-character responses.
> 
> I've also seen players have in-character romances and flings even though there's no way in hell they'd ever get involved in real life!



that's nice, but that doesn't change what I said.



> Believe me, in this case any serious conversation would have been puppy-kicking.  I ain't no therapist.



you don't have to be a therapist to have a serious conversation. you can talk about a problem without needing to do a diagnosis on someone's mental health, I do it all the time with friends.



> Picture this: new-ish campaign, party still kinda getting to know each other, someone's PC tries to strike up a romance with mine, and I hit the X.
> 
> Given no more information than that (because, with the X mechanic as presented, no more is required), what borders am I trying to set?



"tries to strike up a romance" is ambiguous since there's more than one way to try and strike up a "romance" but assuming they didn't do it in a creepy or weird way then it's simple: that you don't want your character to be romanced. if it's specific to the character that's hitting on you you'd probably reject them in character instead of using the x-card.



> Much of your position seem to stem from a foundational assumption that players cannot or will not separate themselves from their characters.
> 
> My baseline expectation is that they will.  What happens in character stays in character, and whatever's happening between players in real life is left at the door on arrival to the session.



no? my foundational assumption is that players are generally good at separating themselves from their characters. but we're all still sitting down to play a game of pretend, and part of playing pretend is carrying out fantasies we can't irl. this includes things like romance. 

also, some people very much take advantage of certain social situations to make something happen. tabletop games are one of them, and like the very subject of this thread people can very easily take their emotions in and out of the game and try and make that happen to other players.



> If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character.  If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction my expectation is that it stays out of the game.



your expectation isn't always going to be met. honestly it's kinda skeevy to not take these things into account when playing a game. 



> Home games with friends are pretty much all I play, other than the very occasional con game where I'm (usually) on my best behavior.



then it doesn't sound like you need an x-card 'cause you have the luxury of talking to players one on one.



> I think it's a very large part of the issue here.



this wasn't meant for you, but okay.



> I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it.  Harsh though it may sound, I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs



.
people can't just decide to not have past trauma for a few hours, that's not how that works. believe me, plenty of people would love to be able to do that.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.  How would you know?




The same could be asked for the arguement for.



> The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on _MY_ freedom",




Not so much, "MY" as everyone else's at the table.



> 2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues,




So all the people arguing for it a mental health professionals? I'm not sure they are.



> 3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.




Not seen many of those, I've seen people say they would use a different method to handle such issues.



> While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.




Same could be said of the arguement for.



> Meanwhile, the folks who actually have trauma or phobias or similar issues, or folks who run/play games with them, seem to like the thing.




We've had at least one person in this thread that didn't like it. And who's to say what issues other people arguing against it have.



> We can think of this as a bit of assistive technology.  Like, say, a wheelchair - if you don't use a wheelchair, don't assist someone who is in a wheelchair, and don't have the skills to design or build wheelchairs... how much should anyone listen to your opinion on wheelchairs?




I thought we were getting away from bad analogies?



> Especially,  if your basic argument is "I shouldn't see handicapped parking in lots I park in, because those are spaces _I_ could have used," well, your opinon's probably right out, isn't it?




That's a real strawman, the vast majority of the people with issues with many of these tools aren't lacking empathy just don't agree this is necessarily the best solution.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Phion said:


> Again I see the angle that you guys are coming from but there is a point where assistant technology is either excessive or simply not effective enough. Could you provide me quotes where people are suggesting they simply just don't want to be dealing with people with phobias and disabilities? I have not read the whole thread and from what I did see nothing implied that.




I mean there's one on this page



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character.  If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction _my expectation is that it stays out of the game._






> I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it.  Harsh though it may sound, _I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs._


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 1, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> I mean there's one on this page




That's not about not wanting to dealing with the people, but not wanting to deal with the people's problems. 

The problems stay out of the games not the people.

Try again.


----------



## S'mon (Oct 1, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> MGIBSTER: You made a statement in public for all to hear. Are you unable to defend the statements you make? Or simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion?




You're Sea Lioning him?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 1, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> That's not about not wanting to dealing with the people, but not wanting to deal with the people's problems.
> 
> The problems stay out of the games not the people.
> 
> Try again.



oh man I can actually read :U


			
				Phion said:
			
		

> Could you provide me quotes where people are suggesting they simply just don't want to be dealing with _people with phobias and disabilities_? I have not read the whole thread and from what I did see nothing implied that.



that, or I'm not gonna argue petty semantics. sorry.


S'mon said:


> You're Sea Lioning him?



yes, questioning someone's motives once when they're being dodgy is exactly what sea lioning is lol.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 1, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.  How would you know?
> 
> The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on _MY_ freedom", 2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues, or 3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.  While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.
> 
> ...



I wouldnt use "wheel chair".  I would use the term "assistive technology" though. Specifically akin to a pain blocker or pain killer.  It functions similarly to morphine.  Over use or use for too long actually tends to have a negative effect for the majority of users.  It kills the pain.  Literally a pain killer or pain blocker.  I do recognize it as useful for people in the right circumstance though.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 2, 2019)

billd91 said:


> I rather like the term bleed, in no small part because it *is* emotional. It's messy. It's unintentional. I doubt you're going to get agreement on "nice and clinical".



Well.  Its usually unintentional.  Some people do WANT to bleed after all.  Some dms therefore intentionally cause it.  Sometimes the intense emotions and even potentially disgust or fear are actually desired.  For some people this "really gets them into the game world" so to speak.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> When we start talking about making changes in social arrangements or behavior (like, say, using an X-card when we didn't do so before), we run into a basic implication: Doing something like this is better than what we used to do.



That's not an implication, it's an opinion.  And it's one I disagree with.  I feel that implementing 'X Cards' _as they are presented in Consent in Gaming_ is not only a social ill, but a disservice to the people that most need it.



> And... lots of folks take the route of getting angry and pushing back, rather than the route of introspection, acceptance of responsibility, and adjustment of behavior.



The only anger I see is coming from the side that is one step away from claiming their ideological foes are nazis.




Umbran said:


> Okay.  So, here's the thing that may have gotten missed - if a player tells you to stop something, an extremely common response is to ask, "Why?"  and enter into a dialog.



Yes.  So we can know what is needed to be avoided.  And actually quite often the question is "Stop what?"

An X Card is blanket no go.  It shuts everything down and removes the capacity to meaningfully move beyond what situation the X Card was thrown over.  Because you have no idea what the X Card was tossed for.

[/QUOTE]But a lot of GMs are not ready to handle conversations like that, and how to handle them is outside the purview of an RPG supplement.[/QUOTE]
So, every one might just have to learn how to have a conversation.  It's what growing up and adulting is about.




Umbran said:


> We can think of this as a bit of assistive technology.  Like, say, a wheelchair - if you don't use a wheelchair, don't assist someone who is in a wheelchair, and don't have the skills to design or build wheelchairs... how much should anyone listen to your opinion on wheelchairs?



Which is fine until someone throws the Wheelchair Card which shuts down all travel that isn't in a wheelchair.

Because that's what the X Card is.  It's a stoppage to everything except whatever the thrower wants to allow to continue.  And if they are a nice, decent sort, they'll even tell you what that is.

But if they don't, you're not allowed to ask.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Because that's what the X Card is. It's a stoppage to everything except whatever the thrower wants to allow to continue. And if they are a nice, decent sort, they'll even tell you what that is.




No, it's a stoppage of ONE THING.  That's it.  One thing.  Not everything.  Not all play.  Just this one thing.  

Funny how I am only a decent, nice sort if I justify myself to you satisfactorily.  The fact that I say, "I don't want to do this" apparently isn't good enough to get you to stop doing whatever it is.  I need to also tell you why I don't want to do this, because, apparently, my feelings on the matter aren't justification enough.    If I don't justify myself apparently, I'm not a nice or decent sort.  

If the DM is so oblivious to the situation that he or she cannot possibly parse why someone might be feeling really bad about whatever situation the group finds themselves in, then perhaps some empathy training might be in order?


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, it's a stoppage of ONE THING.  That's it.  One thing.  Not everything.  Not all play.  Just this one thing.
> 
> Funny how I am only a decent, nice sort if I justify myself to you satisfactorily.  The fact that I say, "I don't want to do this" apparently isn't good enough to get you to stop doing whatever it is.  I need to also tell you why I don't want to do this, because, apparently, my feelings on the matter aren't justification enough.    If I don't justify myself apparently, I'm not a nice or decent sort.
> 
> If the DM is so oblivious to the situation that he or she cannot possibly parse why someone might be feeling really bad about whatever situation the group finds themselves in, then perhaps some empathy training might be in order?




What if that one thing is actually pivotal to the rest of session or in extreme cases campaign? Suddenly you have a great number of changes you need to make or you deprive the rest of your players an experience that they are perfectly comfortable with and they now have a diluted experience at the table.

Also you are not only moral and decent if you agree with the rest at table. This is not a matter of moral integrity, its a discussion of the methodology. A person still has a range of options before, during and after d&d. Talking is key, what I mostly find unappealing about the X card is its function of replacing actual communication between people to establish true bonds amongst the play group which can develop through such small struggles. The X card is merely a shallow replacement of productive communication and deprives the player of confronting their issue AND the GM of a point of view they had not considered before writing something that was inappropriate for certain people.

The way things are going empathy training will be required because you people are so willing to replace perfectly fine systems in play to develop people.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> The fact that I say, "I don't want to do this" ...



Do what?  Did you read Consent in Gaming?  You don't have to even talk about what "this thing" is, and no one is allowed to ask.

Hussar:  [Setting the scene, the BBEG and it's minions sweep in, descriptions flow, BBEG starts to monologue...]
Player X:  /touches X Card.  Says nothing.

What do you Hussar?  Is Player X being emotionally shattered by your lurid description of the twisted deformed minions (maybe they have body horror issues)?  Do they feel uncomfortable by your description of the flamboyant Tim Curryesque scenery chewing BBEG (maybe they're in the closet with their deeply bigoted family and such depictions cause them extreme panic as well as your casting the flamboyant gay as the villain)?  Do they hate villain monologues (agree, X Card that right out!)?  Or has Player Z been staring at them and breathing heavily just a little to long and now they're feeling very unsafe at the very table?

You don't know Hussar, Player X doesn't have to tell you, and you aren't allowed to ask.


And no, not being a mind reader doesn't make us mere mortal and imperfect GMs "oblivious".  So pack your moralizing sidewise.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 2, 2019)

GENCON VIII... As observed by myself as Convention Chairman...

Reporter for TV Channel 12, Milwaukee (to Gary Gygax):  "Do you really believe that you're a wizard when playing this game?"

Gary Gygax:  "Do you believe that you're a slum lord when playing Monopoly?"


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Do what?  Did you read Consent in Gaming?  You don't have to even talk about what "this thing" is, and no one is allowed to ask.
> 
> Hussar:  [Setting the scene, the BBEG and it's minions sweep in, descriptions flow, BBEG starts to monologue...]
> Player X:  /touches X Card.  Says nothing.
> ...




No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.




_Reads comment. Taps X_


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> What if that one thing is actually pivotal to the rest of session or in extreme cases campaign? Suddenly you have a great number of changes you need to make or you deprive the rest of your players an experience that they are perfectly comfortable with and they now have a diluted experience at the table.




If it’s that central to the session or campaign, you should end the session right then and consider your options. I would have thought that was obvious. You may need to completely rewrite your campaign, or else tell your player that it’s going to feature heavily going forward, and so he may need to drop out. Personally, I’d probably just cancel the campaign and run something else.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If it’s that central to the session or campaign, you should end the session right then and consider your options. I would have thought that was obvious. You may need to completely rewrite your campaign, or else tell your player that it’s going to feature heavily going forward, and so he may need to drop out. Personally, I’d probably just cancel the campaign and run something else.




A fellow Englishman? The sarcasm/ trolling is strong with this one, I almost took you seriously XD


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> A fellow Englishman? The sarcasm/ trolling is strong with this one, I almost took you seriously XD




? No, not English. And completely serious.

Edit: I find the idea that there’d be an alternative bizarre. If one of my friends is uncomfortable with the central premise of my campaign that they can’t play, then I’ll either change it, or run something else. I could run it without them, but as I like running games with my friends, I’d rather play something they’re happy to be involved in.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Do what?  Did you read Consent in Gaming?  You don't have to even talk about what "this thing" is, and no one is allowed to ask.
> 
> Hussar:  [Setting the scene, the BBEG and it's minions sweep in, descriptions flow, BBEG starts to monologue...]
> Player X:  /touches X Card.  Says nothing.
> ...




FINALLY.  Someone actually wants to talk about how this actually works at the table instead of pontificating how it destroys things.

What would I do?  Given your example?  Move on.  

Hussars sees player tap the X card and realizes that something in this scene has set off the player.  "Ok... err, sorry guys.  Can we take a five minute smoke break while I reorganize my notes?  Thanks."  Players come back in 5.  "Ok, having defeated Timus Currius, you proceed further into the temple, and find yourselves past the main chapel and in the back portion of the temple.  It looks like X, and you see painting of Y.  There are two doors at the end of the hall."

Seems pretty simple to me.  No mind reading necessary, and nothing to pack sideways.  I dunno.  I guess acting like a decent human being to other people has never really seemed all that difficult to me.  Apparently it's far more challenging than I thought though.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> ? No, not English. And completely serious.
> 
> Edit: I find the idea that there’d be an alternative bizarre. If one of my friends is uncomfortable with the central premise of my campaign that they can’t play, then I’ll either change it, or run something else. I could run it without them, but as I like running games with my friends, I’d rather play something they’re happy to be involved in.




So in your once monthly meet up for a D&D campaign, your players are psyched up to progress the story; some have booked time off work or sacrificed another event/ occasion for this night. You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.
...
...
...
Well that's all folks pack your stuff up. I guess we have a few beers now or maybe play MTG. What? SHUT UP MIKE!!! Don't ask him why!? You awful person! Nobody cares that you missed out on a £50 shift enhancement! What if he taps X again to the next revised session? Well you will have to miss out on another £50 won't you Mike.

You know what fellows, do as you will.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.



Let's take this as a given.  What happens next? If the GM is uncertain what caused the issue, how can/does play progress without discussion?

The x-card strongly resembles a safe word in execution.  The problem isn't one of protection, that's good, but of context.  A safe word categorically withdraws consent such that all consesual activity must immeduately stop.  Thus, it protects from causing harm.  A discussion must then take place before consensual activity can resume.  The one who utters tge safe word has both the power and duty to define abd conduct this discussion.

In that the X-card halts consesual play befire harm occurs is good.  The problem I have is that statenent that, after stopping play, there's no duty to converse so that play can continue.  This turns the X-card  from a possible tool to prevent harm in fraught situations (which most tables don't do) and a start point for continued discussion into a blunt instrument that impedes play.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> So in your once monthly meet up for a D&D campaign, your players are psyched up to progress the story; some have booked time off work or sacrificed another event/ occasion for this night. You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...




Yes? If it was central to the session, yes, of course. And yeah, I would tell ‘Mike’ to leave it alone if he tried pushing it.

Edit: avoiding the above situation is why the checklist is a good idea - it reduces the likelihood you’ll be surprised mid-session. But it can still happen.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's take this as a given.  What happens next? If the GM is uncertain what caused the issue, how can/does play progress without discussion?
> 
> The x-card strongly resembles a safe word in execution.  The problem isn't one of protection, that's good, but of context.  A safe word categorically withdraws consent such that all consesual activity must immeduately stop.  Thus, it protects from causing harm.  A discussion must then take place before consensual activity can resume.  The one who utters tge safe word has both the power and duty to define abd conduct this discussion.
> 
> In that the X-card halts consesual play befire harm occurs is good.  The problem I have is that statenent that, after stopping play, there's no duty to converse so that play can continue.  This turns the X-card  from a possible tool to prevent harm in fraught situations (which most tables don't do) and a start point for continued discussion into a blunt instrument that impedes play.




Yes, it can impede play. That’s unfortunate, but necessary. Your game just isn’t that important. If the player is comfortable talking about the problem, great! But assuming there should be a ‘duty’ to converse is nonsense. If the player doesn’t want to talk about it, then you should accept that and move on. You are not entitled to that conversation.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes, it can impede play. That’s unfortunate, but necessary. Your game just isn’t that important. If the player is comfortable talking about the problem, great! But assuming there should be a ‘duty’ to converse is nonsense. If the player doesn’t want to talk about it, then you should accept that and move on. You are not entitled to that conversation.




The problem here is that what you're suggesting is that asking the player, even once, why something is bothering them, is equivalent to harassment.  Of course, most of us, as DMs, are not going to force a player to explain what's bothering them (I certainly wouldn't), but, can we not even ask them once? 

Replacing conversation and even a simple inquiry with an 'X card' seems thoroughly inhuman to me, the opposite of what is intended.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> The problem here is that what you're suggesting is that asking the player, even once, why something is bothering them, is equivalent to harassment.  Of course, most of us, as DMs, are not going to force a player to explain what's bothering them (I certainly wouldn't), but, can we not even ask them once?
> 
> Replacing conversation and even a simple inquiry with an 'X card' seems thoroughly inhuman to me, the opposite of what is intended.




Hang on a tick though.  Context is important.  Someone touching the X card isn't doing it just because he's feeling a bit off.  This is something that is seriously impacting that person.  

And it's not replacing conversation.  It's replacing conversation in the heat of the moment when someone's feelings are really high and a conversation is probably the last thing they want to have right now because they're two steps away from vomiting on your shoes due to an impending panic attack.

So, we skip this scene now.  Move on.  And, maybe later, when we're not in the middle of a game with five or six people sitting around, some of whom that person may not know very well, maybe then try to have a conversation.

But, in the middle of a con with ten thousand people around is perhaps not the best venue to try to have a real heart felt conversation with someone.  

No one is saying you can NEVER ask.  What's being said is you don't ask RIGHT NOW.


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.



double taps the x card


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick though.  Context is important.  Someone touching the X card isn't doing it just because he's feeling a bit off.  This is something that is seriously impacting that person.
> 
> And it's not replacing conversation.  It's replacing conversation in the heat of the moment when someone's feelings are really high and a conversation is probably the last thing they want to have right now because they're two steps away from vomiting on your shoes due to an impending panic attack.
> 
> ...




Hmm... I agree... somewhat.  It does, of course, depend on the context.  For example, it's patently obvious what may be upsetting someone in a horror game.  And, at a con, I suppose the 'X Card' is a decent way of postponing someone's panic attack. 

As for home games, I think you should make an effort to learn what the players dislike in a game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> So in your once monthly meet up for a D&D campaign, your players are psyched up to progress the story; some have booked time off work or sacrificed another event/ occasion for this night. You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.
> ...
> ...
> ...
> ...




I dunno.  My friends, or people I consider friends, are a trifle more supportive when a friend is obviously in distress.  Guess being a fully paid up human being is more difficult that it appears.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> The problem here is that what you're suggesting is that asking the player, even once, why something is bothering them, is equivalent to harassment.  Of course, most of us, as DMs, are not going to force a player to explain what's bothering them (I certainly wouldn't), but, can we not even ask them once?
> 
> Replacing conversation and even a simple inquiry with an 'X card' seems thoroughly inhuman to me, the opposite of what is intended.




I think asking ‘do you want to talk about it?’ would be ok, but that’s it. And doing it in the middle of a session? No.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick though.  Context is important.  Someone touching the X card isn't doing it just because he's feeling a bit off.  This is something that is seriously impacting that person.
> 
> And it's not replacing conversation.  It's replacing conversation in the heat of the moment when someone's feelings are really high and a conversation is probably the last thing they want to have right now because they're two steps away from vomiting on your shoes due to an impending panic attack.
> 
> ...




I will accept the X card having benefits in a convention environment where you might have a group of people you do not know and some new players with a number of potential mental health problems or disabilities. And I suppose in the context of a convention you are going off a adventure handbook so simple adaptions to scenarios can be made. So fair play, all up for a X card in a convention environment.


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

Oh goody I found some Con notes.  I got this from the organizers about the x-card.  I am just posting what I think is important to the discussion.
"........ The idea is that the player flashes the x-card to the DM, and the DM can quickly understand this is making the player uncomfortable and change what is going on. You might have to ask a question or two to understand what is going on, but you can shift the encounter to something less problematic for that player........"


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  My friends, or people I consider friends, are a trifle more supportive when a friend is obviously in distress.  Guess being a fully paid up human being is more difficult that it appears.



Don't you just love how all of our arguments here on ENWorld end when someone insults the humanity of another poster, or assaults their character?


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I dunno.  My friends, or people I consider friends, are a trifle more supportive when a friend is obviously in distress.  Guess being a fully paid up human being is more difficult that it appears.




As friends we would all talk it out as we would want to fully support our friend and historically our friends have talked about it and benefitted from it. I guess as just a human being I like to support my friends with humanity and not some new model set up by a corporation.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Fundamentally, I think, the X Card is perfect for a convention situation.  But, if you're playing in a convention, it's your responsibility to leave the table, and not ruin an experience that other people may have paid for.

I, of course, want to support people, but, you have to consider this logically.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

What is the idea, after all?

[Convention DM]: The horrible, lurching abominations drool as they lick the bones of your Dwarf friend clean.

[Player]: _Raises X Card_

[Convention DM]: Okay everyone, session's over.  Pack up, and remember, you're not getting the 50 euro refund that you should.


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Don't you just love how all of our arguments here on ENWorld end when someone insults the humanity of another poster, or assaults their character?



Yes but I am dragon. My humans are just partners in crime until I need some snackage.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

jasper said:


> Yes but I am dragon. My humans are just partners in crime until I need some snackage.



And I am an Elder God.  Puny mortals bow to me, for I walk between the 4th and 5th dimensional spaces.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> What is the idea, after all?
> 
> [Convention DM]: The horrible, lurching abominations drool as they lick the bones of your Dwarf friend clean.
> 
> ...




The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire _why_ it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes, it can impede play. That’s unfortunate, but necessary. Your game just isn’t that important. If the player is comfortable talking about the problem, great! But assuming there should be a ‘duty’ to converse is nonsense. If the player doesn’t want to talk about it, then you should accept that and move on. You are not entitled to that conversation.



I think there's a missing part here.  I asked how you move on after an x-card use where the GM doesn't know what prompted it.  You say you just move on, no conversation needed.  I don't follow. What procedure is followed to move on in this case, esoecially if the affected person employs their right to not say anything?

This is what keeps getting skipped, and tge part I don't follow.  Clearly, you think it's obvious and there's a clear path forward.  I'm not seeing it, or maybe, I'm missing something about the path forward?  Are you saying that the rest if the table should immeduately abandon the scenario/scebe/game, reset and start something new, still unaware of the trigger?  I don't see hiw that's functional or respectful of the other participants.  Let's agree that we should be mindful and compassionate about player (or GM) issues and act in ways that prevent harm.  Should we employ a method to do this that also acts to disregard others at the table? Again, agreed we should take steps to prevent harm in an immediate way.  But, if tge solution to preventing harm causes harm to other, what's the balancing test?

And, if the counter to this is that the game has no value so nothing is lost, does this not cut both ways?  Doesn't this also say that removal of the person from the gane cists them nothing of value?   I believe it's a non-starter to claim that the game has no value given we're talking about oersonal choices on how to spend our time.  On that axis alone there's strongly imputed value to the game.  The statement, I believe, is a personal value statement that providing a safe space is paramount to other values of the game ir participants.  I think this is a debatable valuation like all social interactions, and is best resolved by communication.  The X-card could be a valuable first step in that comminucation as a non-negotiated hard pause in consensual play to prevent imminent ir ongoing harm, but it cannot also be the end.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire _why_ it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.



Okay, cross-posted.  You do agree the player using the X-card has a duty to start a conversation so play can continue, even if that conversational duty is only the identification of the vector of harm.

Do you believe that, in all cases, the outcome must be that the table accommodates the player, ir might there be a further discussion where the group agrees the player might find a better fit elsewhere?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire _why_ it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.




Speaking as a DM, sometimes this is easy and sometimes this is not. Under the pressure of running a public game at a convention, I'm not always going to be able to promptly rewrite the scenario. Many times sure. And if the X card is raised over some other player's behavior, then great, I can do something about that. But a convention is probably the time you should least expect a GM to reasonably be able to accommodate every request, simply because of the constraints of time and the need to be fair to all the other players from whom you are also asking accommodation.

And in any event, the X card does not handle the problem of a jerk GM that is refusing to follow convention guidelines such as inserting content that explicitly against convention guidelines. Nor does it handle the problem of having inserted content which in the opinion of one or more players more distasteful than should be expected from the games advertised rating. 

In short, it just doesn't solve a lot of problems for me.  The only thing it solves is a player that for some reason can't verbally communicate but can touch the card, and that if and only if the player is then able with some coaching to verbalize exactly _what_ (though not _why_) caused the card to be touched.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> ...You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.






Aebir-Toril said:


> [Convention DM]: The horrible, lurching abominations drool as they lick the bones of your Dwarf friend clean.
> 
> [Player]: _Raises X Card_
> 
> [Convention DM]: Okay everyone, session's over.  Pack up, and remember, you're not getting the 50 euro refund that you should.




Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice.  It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*.  This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.

I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right?  The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in _exactly this case_... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be used at all, much less in the climax moment of the adventure.

For folks who admit that maybe, just maybe, the card might be called for - do you run games where your climatic scenes are _not at all thematically linked_ to the previous elements of the game?  Like, if your boss fight at the end is a huge gorram spider... you'd have been putting in loads of spidery stuff beforehand, right?  There would have been little spiders, and egg sacs, and webs all over the place, right?  And the player would have carded out earlier, not at the climax scene. 

Surprise carding out at the climax scene is just as likely as surprise spider as the climax scene.  You are unlikely to hit the issue only at the end.  You'll have the ability to adjust, or let the player know that if the spider-stuff is an issue, this won't be a game for them, and the thing goes on without that player.




* Anyone can do it - especially among imaginative game-players.  F'rex:  You don't use an X-card.  You freak out a player with PTSD so bad, they dissociate right there at the table.  From your perspective they spend 10 or 15 minutes staring into space, not responding to you at all.  You continue with the game, with them just sitting there.  They eventually come out of it, and abrupltly leave the table.  They are so humiliated by the experience that, combined with the depression that often accompanies PTSD, they commit suicide.  Clearly, not using an X-card will KILL PEOPLE!!!1!!ONE!!

See how horrible that is?  The fact is that this is so incredibly unlikely, that we shouldn't consider it an issue, or bring it up for discussion.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 2, 2019)

The X card has been in use for a few years. If it was bringing games to a screeching halt, then the concept would have been abandoned in favour of a different approach. I haven't heard a single story of  a GM feeling forced to stop their session or feeling at a total loss as how to proceed.

If this method of consent and/or X cards proves to be a detriment as they are more widely adopted at cons, then we will adjust, come up with a new strategy, etc. It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware. Let's give it a try, gather evidence and proceed from there.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice.  It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*.  This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.
> 
> I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right?  The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in _exactly this case_... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be necessary.
> 
> ...




I'm not arguing that it's not needed.  In fact, I'm not even arguing that it has no use.  All I'm saying is that, in convention games, it may need to be reconsidered.  

I'm certainly not part of the 'never X' camp, quite the opposite.  

Also, if you're including intense gore or horror, I too believe that it should be fairly constant.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2019)

Also, folks, let's dispel something...

The person who uses the X-card is not some sort of alien or freak who has managed to get into your game, knows how to use an X-card, but somehow _has no sense of how games work and run, or the impact they and their action will have on play, and zero consideration for anyone else_. Folks who need this are not out to ruin your game. The point of the thing is actually to help your game continue smoothly, and the person using it is going to have a sense of how likely that is.

You're in a climax scene in a con game, and need to use it?  You probably tap it to indicate that there's a problem with the content, and need a pause, and say, "You folks finish up.  No fault on you, but I can't do this," and use the momentary pause to gather things and leave the table, without leaving people wondering so much why you had to go.

Stop talking like your fellow players don't know what they are doing.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice.  It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*.  This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.
> 
> I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right?  The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in _exactly this case_... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be used at all, much less in the climax moment of the adventure.
> 
> ...




As I admitted to Hussar I actually think the X card has a place in conventions but more likely than not in most other settings (so mostly does not need to Incorporated as standard practice/norm). As for what I have highlighted in bold for your quote you have basically agreed at a certain level that a player may not be suited for the game if they have a number of issues which seems to be what a lot of detractors have been trying to make clear. At a certain point the individual needs to self assess if they are able to self regulate themselves in the majority of scenarios and a d&d group is not a paid professional therapy session and therefore a level of tolerance of themes can be expected.

Essentially if a individual sits down in your session THEY have chose to be there ergo they have consented.


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> The X card has been in use for a few years. If it was bringing games to a screeching halt, then the concept would have been abandoned in favour of a different approach. I ...
> ....



I just heard of  X card here last year. So I would not be too sure the concept is super dooder totally good with no problems.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> The X card has been in use for a few years. If it was bringing games to a screeching halt, then the concept would have been abandoned in favour of a different approach. I haven't heard a single story of  a GM feeling forced to stop their session or feeling at a total loss as how to proceed.
> 
> If this method of consent and/or X cards proves to be a detriment as they are more widely adopted at cons, then we will adjust, come up with a new strategy, etc. It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware. Let's give it a try, gather evidence and proceed from there.




I think you keep cutting to the pithy heart of this, and I think you've just convinced me that there will never be any agreement about this.

There are two basic ways of looking at problems. One is that if there is a problem, then you should introduce a change and the burden of proof exists on the people who don't want the change. Those people have to argue why you shouldn't change, and there inclination is to assume that the people doing the argument are either part of the problem or the cause of it, and they should get out of the way or be forcefully removed. After all, there is a problem, so there should be a change.

The other way to look at problems is to assume that problems are complex solutions are difficult. An almost infinite number of solutions could be proposed, but most of them will likely be ineffectual or even counter-productive. So when someone proposes a solution, the burden of proof is on those people to prove that the proposed solution not only makes things better in some narrow way, but won't in fact make things worse in other ways. They have to show a cost benefit analysis, and then if their presentation is impressive the proposed solution should be tried on a rational basis. If they don't want to or can't show this cost benefit analysis, then the typical assumption is that the people are either ignorant or malicious.

Neither approach is entirely wrong, but people with the two different outlooks can end up completely talking past each other.

For my part, I hear a statement like, "It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware.", and I wonder why in the world would anyone believe anything like that. And when this topic came up, I went on the internet and read literally scores of comments and essays about the document from people who were saying that very much like what you just stated. And all of them just sort of took it for granted and offered up no compelling evidence to make me think that would actually work any of the miracles they were subscribing to an index card. But I eventually developed what I think is a pretty sound theory for why everyone was saying that it was going to do things like "make the hobby welcoming and a little more aware".

Because they'd been told that that it would.

That is to say, a large number of people believe that it makes the hobby welcoming and a little more aware, and because they believe it, when they see the card, for them it does. It's a matter of, not to put to fine a point on it, faith. For them this is a real thing. They see the card, they think, "That's a safe and welcoming place.", and for them that makes the feeling of being welcomed real.

I think the whole thing reminds me of those home owner alarm systems that you see advertised. They don't provide any security what so ever, but the home owner alarm systems aren't selling security - they are selling what the X card sells: "peace of mind". What they are selling is feelings of security which, for most homeowners in the USA, is as good as selling feelings of security since home invasion is so rare in the USA. The ads for those systems are in my opinion predatory, in as much as they aren't selling a service of real utility and they always have these unintentionally comic ads where these burglars see that the home has a home security system and on that alone are terrified and run away, but presumably for some people the "peace of mind" is enough.

Now personally, I don't think the cards are going to do a lot to help anything. I think that they are useless 99.99% of the time, and I think that they set a bad precedent for encouraging emotional and illogical thinking. However, I also think that they aren't going to do a lot of harm most of the time, and the degree that they make me feel unsafe and uncomfortable is trivial. But I do also think that not only will they not fix problems, problems are going to go up by a small but measurable degree, because I don't think they actually create a safe place in any place that wasn't already safe, but rather just the dangerous illusion of one in places that are not.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 2, 2019)

jasper said:


> I just heard of  X card here last year. So I would not be too sure the concept is super dooder totally good with no problems.



But people who have been using it have not seen any problems. Yes, it's a small sample, which is why I stated that collecting evidence at cons will give us the information we need to move forward. New procedures often need tinkering with. We can't change things if we don't make a start.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> But people who have been using it have not seen any problems. Yes, it's a small sample, which is why I stated that collecting evidence at cons will give us the information we need to move forward. New procedures often need tinkering with. We can't change things if we don't make a start.




But they are not actually going to collect evidence. I mean, bad things happening at cons are already black swans as it is. For most con goers, most of the time, they see no black swans, so they would logically assume "no black swans" or "this isn't a big problem". It's only for the people it happens to that this is a big deal.

So what you are going to have is the adoption of X cards, and problems will still be black swans. Since the cards do nothing 99.99% of the time, and the odds of black swans are low anyway, the general impression everyone will have is exactly the same as before "this isn't a big problem". The results are therefore guaranteed to be perceived as a success no matter what. It could takes years to shake out in real problems in a way anyone questions the model, and then since this was a matter of faith in the first place, initially no one will believe it.

So yeah, the point is that there aren't actually going to be any scientific trials gathering meaningful data.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay, cross-posted.  You do agree the player using the X-card has a duty to start a conversation so play can continue, even if that conversational duty is only the identification of the vector of harm.
> 
> Do you believe that, in all cases, the outcome must be that the table accommodates the player, ir might there be a further discussion where the group agrees the player might find a better fit elsewhere?




I don’t think ‘conversation’ is the right word. The player states what the problem is, that’s that.

I think the table should accommodate the player, but it will vary depending on circumstances. In general, asking the player to leave is going to be a dick move, but I can think of some circumstances (such as at a con) where it might be necessary. That would be a pretty extreme case, however.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> As I admitted to Hussar I actually think the X card has a place in conventions but more likely than not in most other settings (so mostly does not need to Incorporated as standard practice/norm). As for what I have highlighted in bold for your quote you have basically agreed at a certain level that a player may not be suited for the game if they have a number of issues which seems to be what a lot of detractors have been trying to make clear. At a certain point the individual needs to self assess if they are able to self regulate themselves in the majority of scenarios and a d&d group is not a paid professional therapy session and therefore a level of tolerance of themes can be expected.
> 
> Essentially if a individual sits down in your session THEY have chose to be there ergo they have consented.




And they are free to withdraw that consent at any time - say by tapping an X card.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> I don’t think ‘conversation’ is the right word. The player states what the problem is, that’s that.
> 
> I think the table should accommodate the player, but it will vary depending on circumstances. In general, asking the player to leave is going to be a dick move, but I can think of some circumstances (such as at a con) where it might be necessary. That would be a pretty extreme case, however.




I never run con games.  But, if I ran a con game, and someone was tapping their X-card, assuming I was obeying the age restriction guidelines, abiding by con rules, and had been approved to run the content that I was running, I would have to ask the player to remove themselves from the session.  

I've never had this problem in a home game, but it would be different then.  In a home game, I might be able to discuss the problem with the player.

I still oppose the idea of an X-card on the basis of its uselessness.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And they are free to withdraw that consent at any time - say by tapping an X card.



 So, if I warn you that the game features intense gore and horror themes, and I present scenes of blood, brains, and organs strewn about, the player is free to suspend the session by tapping their X-card?

Furthermore, I, along with the majority of DMs, I would suspect, do not have experience in psychotherapy or psychiatry.  I can help you with math, physics, or engineering, but I can't help you with your psychological issues.

Is game time therapy time, and, should all responsibility be transferred to the DM?


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Also, folks, let's dispel something...
> 
> The person who uses the X-card is not some sort of alien or freak who has managed to get into your game, knows how to use an X-card, but somehow _has no sense of how games work and run, or the impact they and their action will have on play, and zero consideration for anyone else_. Folks who need this are not out to ruin your game. The point of the thing is actually to help your game continue smoothly, and the person using it is going to have a sense of how likely that is.
> 
> ...



Yes, exactly. This needs repeating. No one is going to sign up for a horror game if they can't tolerate the theme. No one is going to join a D&D game if swords bother them. Or if they do for some reason, I think they will pull themselves out and not insist everyone switch to an entirely different genre.

There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games. Or expect the GM to act as a therapist. Honestly, gaming is not being threatened by an index card. 

I don't usually engage much in these types of threads. That was a wise decision, I'm thinking.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Yes, exactly. This needs repeating. No one is going to sign up for a horror game if they can't tolerate the theme. No one is going to join a D&D game if swords bother them. Or if they do for some reason, I think they will pull themselves out and not insist everyone switch to an entirely different genre.




I'm of the opinion that the best approach is to always assume that if something can go wrong it will.  I'm sure that all the thing that you insist no one is going to the do someone will do.  The only reason I don't consider that a valid argument against the X card is I assume all of that already is going on quite without the X card.  I'm skeptical that the X card will meaningfully increase incidents of this sort of dysfunctionality above and beyond what it already does, though in may meaingfully increase the percentage of cases which aren't successfully resolved.   However, those are rare cases and we are talking fractions of fractions.

Which are weighed against the fractions of fractions where it actually helps in some small way.   



> There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games. Or expect the GM to act as a therapist.




Oh, those things will happen too. Again, the only reason I don't consider them actual arguments against the X card is I'm sure that those things are already happening.



> Honestly, gaming is not being threatened by an index card.




No of course not.  It's not the card that gaming is being threatened by.



> I don't usually engage much in these types of threads. That was a wise decision, I'm thinking.




I've learned that the mark of wisdom is often silence.  Unfortunately, I haven't yet earned much wisdom beyond that.


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And they are free to withdraw that consent at any time - say by tapping an X card.



If it has been deemed appropriate to have said x card, then yes. Otherwise there is every other form of noncompliance that is typically available.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> What if that one thing is actually pivotal to the rest of session or in extreme cases campaign?



this reply is for everyone: you know what? I'm tired of people throwing around this edge case scenario of a an entire campaign being derailed because of x-card usage as if it's going to run rampant throughout the gaming community without bringing up an actual hypothetical scenario.

like I'm curious, what is a campaign where a major theme is both:
-so intrinsic to the campaign that it can't continue without it
-but also so important that the players haven't been informed about it beforehand?

the only scenarios I can think of off the top of my head are "the BBEG is actually X!", which like Umbran brought up with the spider boss in a single adventure, you should be dropping hints about the actual nature of the BBEG leading up to their reveal. that's not about "hurting people's feelings", that's just generally accepted storytelling advice when dealing with surprises.

the other scenario is the "bait and switch" type of campaign, which can cause a lot of headaches outside of dealing with people's phobias and other issues. if you want to run this sort of campaign then you need to at least kind of tell your players beforehand the campaign isn't gonna be what they think it is, or just spoil the basic premise of the campaign.

ANY decent GM guide will tell you that level of rigidity is just not conducive for running an adventure or campaign, and given how many experienced GMs are here I'm wondering if they just railroad their players for years or just draw the line at compromising for a player's personal problems.



> Suddenly you have a great number of changes you need to make or you deprive the rest of your players an experience that they are perfectly comfortable with and they now have a diluted experience at the table.



and that's the other thing [again this is for everyone], why is it that skipping over a certain scene "diluting" or "ruining" the experience for other players? that sounds like some people here are projecting. if I'm at a game someone taps the x-card when wolves show up I'm not gonna think "ugh, I couldn't fight wolves this game is terrible!" or if it gets tapped when torture comes up "man I REALLY wanted to see torture!". I have other things about the game to enjoy, not fighting wolves or seeing torture is not going to make the game any less fun, don't rope your players into this they might not actually care if something gets glossed over.

here's a scenario no one has brought up: what if you're running a game with 4 players and tell them there's blood splatters all over the room and _three players _tap the x-card? do you feel like the entire game is ruined for the one player didn't tap the card? are you going to feel bad because the majority of players don't want to deal with something in your adventure?

@Phion  I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but you did bring up two things that have been bothering me the entire thread in one paragraph and I want to bring these issues up.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> I never run con games.  But, if I ran a con game, and someone was tapping their X-card, assuming I was obeying the age restriction guidelines, abiding by con rules, and had been approved to run the content that I was running, I would have to ask the player to remove themselves from the session.




And you really don't see how that, in this example, you're the problem?


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

Bravo Bravo @Celebrim Like the “Black swan”. I have supported a few cons as Adventure League Person and general staff. And I helped out in various fashions for SCA, Church, and other events. If we held, and that is a big If, an after action gripe session it generally went this way. 90% of the time if the black swan was fixed, handle, etc during the event, the black swan was not brought up. If the black swan was brought up, it was treated like a rare unicorn discussed quickly and shoved out the door. A few times the black swan was reported up the chain. So I would say only 1% chance will the black swan be reported to people who need to know.

@ Arilyn I have two people in my AL group which have stated if they see a “X” card at an event they will tap it just to provoke a reaction. And I don’t think they are kidding.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And you really don't see how that, in this example, you're the problem?



No, I don't.  Or, I really don't see that it is a simple question.

If I'm running a public game and someone X cards me, I have to do a mental calculation. Is there a cost associated with this? If the answer is, "No.", great things are easy. I breathe a sigh of relief and try to keep things on track.

But if there is a cost, then now I'm being asked to trade the enjoyment of one player against that of everyone else at the table, some of whom may be legitimately annoyed to have their experience altered - an experience that in some cases that they paid for. And there will be times that there is a cost.

As a trivial example, this could be what I have prepared to play when they X card spiders:









						Iintesting ideas/monsters found in a Giant Spider Lair?
					

In my hex-crawl campaign, the party ran across a Giant Black Widow Lair. Next game, They're delving down in there to hopefully save someone who was cocooned and dragged in (and come across some fantastic treasure). I'm trying to create an interesting and multi-layered battle, but can't think of...




					www.enworld.org
				




If a Con thinks that X cards are a good thing and universally X card usage should always be respected without negotiation, then they should put their money where their mouth is and refund the money of everyone else at the table as a show of good faith in the system.   The person using the X card can still pay for the experience they want, but refund everyone else.   Since we are assured no one will ever abuse this system, what do they have to lose?


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

@Panda-s1 
(sorry only got access to phone so detail not going to be so great from here)

I did note that the scenario would be very extreme to derail a campaign HOWEVER its very possible that the change could a) effect the session b) cause a change in story element that dilutes the experience for everyone else at the table with half baked solutions 

I have a number of sessions I DMed myself that could have caused offence to a fringe amount of people but has lead to great stories and evenings for all I did this for (I could give examples when not on phone, tomorrow if you care so much).

I grow tired of the point of view that some of you (Hussar) feel the need to point out that their stance somehow makes them a better person than me. My professional life involves the risk of bodily excrement being thrown/smeared at me, bites, thrown objects, taking said individuals out in the community to improve their quality of life, helping to learn their form of communication as many are none verbal and thats just a small tip of the iceberg without even going into my voluntary work. So have a bit more tac please.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> If a Con thinks that X cards are a good thing and universally X card usage should always be respected without negotiation, then they should put their money where their mouth is and refund the money of everyone else at the table as a show of good faith in the system.   The person using the X card can still pay for the experience they want, but refund everyone else.   Since we are assured no one will ever abuse this system, what do they have to lose?



this is disingenuous. 
1) a gaming convention isn't just a single table with one adventure being played. there are other things going on at the convention. unless your entire experience is ruined you don't deserve a full refund. 
2) you don't deserve a refund simply because someone tapped an x-card at your game. your game isn't ruined because an element was removed.
3) other people will be running games and if you feel compelled to leave one game there's gonna be at least a few others desperate for players.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 2, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> And when this topic came up, I went on the internet and read literally scores of comments and essays about the document from people who were saying that very much like what you just stated. And all of them just sort of took it for granted and offered up no compelling evidence to make me think that would actually work any of the miracles they were subscribing to an index card. But I eventually developed what I think is a pretty sound theory for why everyone was saying that it was going to do things like "make the hobby welcoming and a little more aware".
> 
> Because they'd been told that that it would.




And this cuts to the quick of it, and why you so often find yourself on this side of debates such as these.

You take it as a given that people with whom you disagree don't know what they're talking about/don't know what's actually best for _themselves_.

Did it not occur to you that the people behind conventions such as these (as, in at least one particular case, Shanna Germain *is*) would actually have done the research, and studied best practices that have mountains of clinical data behind them? The gaming community, and I see this on both sides of this argument, like to take the view that because they've never encountered trauma-informed practices that it must be some grand experiment that we think will work "just because we've told it will" and the evidence will bear out whether it succeeds or fails.

Except, that they're not that at all. They're well studied, researched, tested, understood, and supported.

Shanna Germain is studied, and has done research on this topic. She's also had _plenty _of personal experience with this issue as well, as have many who are saying "this will help _specifically me_ and _the specific experiences I've encountered_." And yet, your base assumption is that these people are just talking out of their asses. Which is why your immediate next step is...:



Celebrim said:


> But they are not actually going to collect evidence. I mean, bad things happening at cons are already black swans as it is. For most con goers, most of the time, they see no black swans, so they would logically assume "no black swans" or "this isn't a big problem". It's only for the people it happens to that this is a big deal.
> 
> So what you are going to have is the adoption of X cards, and problems will still be black swans. Since the cards do nothing 99.99% of the time, and the odds of black swans are low anyway, the general impression everyone will have is exactly the same as before "this isn't a big problem". The results are therefore guaranteed to be perceived as a success no matter what. It could takes years to shake out in real problems in a way anyone questions the model, and then since this was a matter of faith in the first place, initially no one will believe it.
> 
> So yeah, the point is that there aren't actually going to be any scientific trials gathering meaningful data.




...to immediately fall back on the "few bad apples" defense. Because when the only horror stories to make big enough news that most people in the hobby hear about them are the handful of the most egregious examples, it's so very very easy to off-handedly dismiss them as rarities. But they're not. If you actually take the time to seek out, listen to, and _believe _the stories people tell, you find that it is depressingly common. And that's just from the people who are open and willing enough to share their bad experiences. In most cases involving trauma, that's usually just the tip of the iceberg.

The burden of proof that a problem large enough to warrant a solution to fix has already been met many, many times over. You've just chosen to interpret that evidence as being presented in bad faith.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> So, if I warn you that the game features intense gore and horror themes, and I present scenes of blood, brains, and organs strewn about, the player is free to suspend the session by tapping their X-card?




Intense gore and horror - OK. That's one thing and it's fairly abstract. Now, in the course of the adventure, it's made a bit more concrete in, say, the BBEG wearing a necklace of small babies strung together by their entrails. Or puppy dogs. Or whatever it is that gets people a lot more riled up than gore of all sorts of nameless adults. Knowing what something is in an abstract or generalized sense does not necessarily prepare you for the specifics that will be encountered.



Aebir-Toril said:


> Is game time therapy time, and, should all responsibility be transferred to the DM?




Nobody is saying this is therapy or a replacement for therapy. Can we dispense with that useless exaggeration?


----------



## billd91 (Oct 2, 2019)

jasper said:


> @ Arilyn I have two people in my AL group which have stated if they see a “X” card at an event they will tap it just to provoke a reaction. And I don’t think they are kidding.




Then they are the asshats who should be shown the door because they are the ones intending to be unnecessarily disruptive. They *are* the bad actors in this scenario, not the X-card or the people who may occasionally need to invoke it.


----------



## jasper (Oct 2, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Then they are the asshats who should be shown the door because they are the ones intending to be unnecessarily disruptive. They *are* the bad actors in this scenario, not the X-card or the people who may occasionally need to invoke it.



But I did not give you their names, addresses, bank account numbers, or pc names. So, how would you know the person tapping the x card is a bad actor. (Insert evil Vincent Price laugh)


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> this is disingenuous.




No it isn't.



> 1) a gaming convention isn't just a single table with one adventure being played. there are other things going on at the convention. unless your entire experience is ruined you don't deserve a full refund.




Playing at my table is a premium experience. It requires an extra fee. Also, extra fees for particular games aren't that uncommon.



> 2) you don't deserve a refund simply because someone tapped an x-card at your game. your game isn't ruined because an element was removed.




You don't get to decide that do you? Isn't that something for the person to decide? Are you saying that someone can unilaterally decide that there own experience is ruined to the point that I have to stop a 3 hour session for 20 minutes to replace it with a less well thought out improvised scenario that wasn't the one they paid for, but that those people have no say in whether their play experienced was ruined? You have unidirectional compassion.  As a GM I have a duty to all the players.  Always.  I have to decide what is good for the group and the game as a whole.   That means tossing the player who is hardest for the rest of the group to accommodate, whether that person is a jerk and deserves to get tossed, or that player just got triggered and it's a tragedy that they have to leave.   



> 3) other people will be running games and if you feel compelled to leave one game there's gonna be at least a few others desperate for players.




True.  And in some cases it will have to be the person who touched the X card who will have to go looking.  I would in this case endorse them receiving a refund if they were forced to leave the table.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> No, I don't.  Or, I really don't see that it is a simple question.
> 
> If I'm running a public game and someone X cards me, I have to do a mental calculation. Is there a cost associated with this? If the answer is, "No.", great things are easy. I breathe a sigh of relief and try to keep things on track.
> 
> ...




If everyone else at the table has a problem with the outcome, then yeah, they should refund everyone at the table. But the X-card isn't the problem in that situation. The problem there is either with the scenario, the player, or the GM.

But to be quite frank, what you're presenting is a ridiculous situation. Yes, sometimes the GM is going to have to adapt on the fly due to the X-card. And the game will move on, and the rest of the players will be fine with it, and nobody will even remember it by the end of the session.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> You don't get to decide that do you? Isn't that something for the person to decide? Are you saying that someone can unilaterally decide that there own experience is ruined to the point that I have to stop a 3 hour session for 20 minutes to replace it with a less well thought out improvised scenario that wasn't the one they paid for, but that those people have no say in whether their play experienced was ruined? You have unidirectional compassion.  As a GM I have a duty to all the players.  Always.  I have to decide what is good for the group and the game as a whole.   That means tossing the player who is hardest for the rest of the group to accommodate, whether that person is a jerk and deserves to get tossed, or that player just got triggered and it's a tragedy that they have to leave.




Yeah, the problem here is _definitely _the GM.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> If everyone else at the table has a problem with the outcome, then yeah, they should refund everyone at the table. But the X-card isn't the problem in that situation. The problem there is either with the scenario, the player, or the GM.




You might be surprised that I agree with you in pretty much every particular.   The problem is that the X card isn't the solution either.   If the X card is too weak to create regular negative situations, it's too weak to create regular positive situations as well.   At best (and at worst) most of the time it is just a replacement for verbal communication.  It doesn't harm much but it doesn't help much either.



> But to be quite frank, what you're presenting is a ridiculous situation.




I'm not sure it is ridiculous. I'm 100% certain it will happen. But if by 'ridiculous' you mean it's an extreme example that will rarely occur, then I fully agree with you. But equally, all the justifications for the X card are at least as ridiculous and involve at least as rare of situations. (And notably, the less rare the situations justifying the X card are, the less rare the disruptions will be as well.) I mean multiple people advocating for the utility of the X card admit that in 100's of games they've played with it _they've never once seen it touched. They just feel good about it being there even though no one ever uses it._ 

That was the essay (or video or whatever it was) that really raised my eyebrow and started me thinking hard about what was actually going on from a psychological perspective. 



> Yes, sometimes the GM is going to have to adapt on the fly due to the X-card. And the game will move on, and the rest of the players will be fine with it, and nobody will even remember it by the end of the session.




Maybe.  Maybe not.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Phion said:


> @Panda-s1
> (sorry only got access to phone so detail not going to be so great from here)
> 
> I did note that the scenario would be very extreme to derail a campaign HOWEVER its very possible that the change could a) effect the session b) cause a change in story element that dilutes the experience for everyone else at the table with half baked solutions



again, how is removing something "diluting the experience" for other players? considering all the elements that go into making an enjoyable gaming session I don't understand how removing something in an adventure can so impinge a player's overall experience.



> I grow tired of the point of view that some of you (Hussar) feel the need to point out that their stance somehow makes them a better person than me. My professional life involves the risk of bodily excrement being thrown/smeared at me, bites, thrown objects, taking said individuals out in the community to improve their quality of life, helping to learn their form of communication as many are none verbal and thats just a small tip of the iceberg without even going into my voluntary work. So have a bit more tac please.




excuse me, where did I say in my post that I'm a better person than you? people in this thread just love projecting, it seems. honestly I consider you one of the better people in the thread since you aren't trying to push weird ideas and at least agree on some points. 

you don't need to talk about what you do you in your personal life either. if anything you should understand that the issues people face in your line of work might also show up in your gaming sessions and you should take that into consideration.

also re: Hussar and others, it's not just this thread. there's a number of people in these forums who seem to take issue with anything that might "ruin" their game because they might need to change something in their campaign for X reason. apparently for some player input isn't as important as seeing their game run exactly how they want it, so of course they're gonna be riled up by something like this. I've seen Hussar argue with these sorts of people in other threads.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> For folks who admit that maybe, just maybe, the card might be called for - do you run games where your climatic scenes are _not at all thematically linked_ to the previous elements of the game?  Like, if your boss fight at the end is a huge gorram spider... you'd have been putting in loads of spidery stuff beforehand, right?  There would have been little spiders, and egg sacs, and webs all over the place, right?  And the player would have carded out earlier, not at the climax scene.
> 
> Surprise carding out at the climax scene is just as likely as surprise spider as the climax scene.  You are unlikely to hit the issue only at the end.  You'll have the ability to adjust, or let the player know that if the spider-stuff is an issue, this won't be a game for them, and the thing goes on without that player.




You never have surprise twist elements in a climax scene? No reveal that an NPC or BBEG is actually something different than everyone had been led to believe all along?

I can see doing a werewolf hunt but it turns out in the climax fight to actually be a vampire who made her kills look like a werewolf did it to cover her own tracks.

Ravenloft had the red widow, a beautiful woman who turns out to be a shapeshifting spider monster, the aranea from the core 3e MM can do the same thing. Surprise climax spider.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Voadam said:


> You never have surprise twist elements in a climax scene? No reveal that an NPC or BBEG is actually something different than everyone had been led to believe all along?
> 
> I can see doing a werewolf hunt but it turns out in the climax fight to actually be a vampire who made her kills look like a werewolf did it to cover her own tracks.



you never drop hints about twist elements? twists are generally considered good when there's some sort of buildup to them, especially when you either a) hint at it so when the twist does come it clicks in people's heads or (more rarely) b) set up a twist in a way that it makes perfect sense in retrospect. otherwise it just feels like a non-sequitur for no reason other than shock value—man, I brought this up in an earlier comment, too.

in your werewolf scenario, there would probably be clues that would lead players to believe it was actually a vampire, like why is every victim's neck horribly mangled or how come the murders only happen at night or a witness saw a bunch of bats after they heard screaming, what's up with that? otherwise the BBEG might as well be a mind flayer or rust monster at that point—WAIT hold up isn't this the entire premise of the adventure zone: dust? really?

in any case, without ANY clues, it turning out to be a single kobold the entire time is WAY more entertaining than it being a vampire



> Ravenloft had the red widow, a beautiful woman who turns out to be a shapeshifting spider monster, the aranea from the core 3e MM can do the same thing. Surprise climax spider.



yes, the red widow, a monster entirely themed around spiders, no one would ever realize she's actually a spider the entire time lol


----------



## macd21 (Oct 2, 2019)

Voadam said:


> Ravenloft had the red widow, a beautiful woman who turns out to be a shapeshifting spider monster, the aranea from the core 3e MM can do the same thing. Surprise climax spider.




And if a player is somehow naive enough not to see that coming, you change the surprise climax spider into a surprise climax octopus/bear/bunny rabbit, so that you can continue your game. Trust me, it won’t be the end of the world. Everyone will still have fun, everyone will laugh about it later.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> you never drop hints about twist elements? twists are generally considered good when there's some sort of buildup to them, especially when you either a) hint at it so when the twist does come it clicks in people's heads or (more rarely) b) set up a twist in a way that it makes perfect sense in retrospect. otherwise it just feels like a non-sequitur for no reason other than shock value—man, I brought this up in an earlier comment, too.
> 
> in your werewolf scenario, there would probably be clues that would lead players to believe it was actually a vampire, like why is every victim's neck horribly mangled or how come the murders only happen at night or a witness saw a bunch of bats after they heard screaming, what's up with that? otherwise the BBEG might as well be a mind flayer or rust monster at that point—WAIT hold up isn't this the entire premise of the adventure zone: dust? really?
> 
> in any case, without ANY clues, it turning out to be a single kobold the entire time is WAY more entertaining than it being a vampire




I've done it both ways and played in games both ways.

It is completely reasonable as a story element to have the bait and switch where the clever villain successfully covers their tracks for most of the time and it is only the reveal where you can look back and see what they have done in context to set it up and how there was no contrary clue at the time. This makes the reveal startling and a shock, not a bad thing in an RPG story.

It is also completely reasonable to have a scenario lay thematic clues throughout so the deception is revealed as you go and the PCs are Sherlocks who figure things out more and more before the big climax and the climax is not as shocking but is in thematic keeping with what has been built up over the investigation.

For the clever vampire with the shock reveal climax intent, she could deliberately be throwing off monster hunters by using her command of wolves and shapeshifting into a wolf herself, and timing her predations to a full moon so that people try and poison her with belladonna and use silver instead of garlic and holy water.

If storywise I wanted the climax confrontation to be the shocking reveal I would leave it at that and let the reveal be when she flashes fangs in the fight.

If RPG storywise I wanted it to be more open ended there might be vampire clues that PCs could pick up on or not so the campaign play and the PCs are more in the driver seat on the end result.

If RPG storywise I wanted the reveal to actually happen beforehand so they can appropriately prepare for a tough vampire fight, I might have the townspeople think it is a werewolf, but emphasize multiple clues about it actually being a vampire attack.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 2, 2019)

jasper said:


> But I did not give you their names, addresses, bank account numbers, or pc names. So, how would you know the person tapping the x card is a bad actor. (Insert evil Vincent Price laugh)




Which is going to make it hard to enforce if they actually pull it off. That doesn't exactly make their behavior non-disruptive or positive. It just makes them asshats who got away with it.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick though.  Context is important.  Someone touching the X card isn't doing it just because he's feeling a bit off.  This is something that is seriously impacting that person.



Or so the theory goes.

The practice?  Well, when someone hits the X in the middle of what would otherwise be a typical run of play for that group, who knows whether it's due to a legitimate and serious issue with proceedings or "just because he's feeling a bit off"?  We can't ask at the time, and while asking later might get some useful info it still doesn't sort anything out at the time so play can continue.

Or - and I say this because sometimes I'm a cynical SOB - in your Timus Currius example from earlier, who's to say the X wasn't hit as a metagame means of getting past what otherwise looked like an unwinnable combat?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Or - and I say this because sometimes I'm a cynical SOB - in your Timus Currius example from earlier, who's to say the X wasn't hit as a metagame means of getting past what otherwise looked like an unwinnable combat?



why would you need to stop combat entirely just because someone hit the x-button? really?

why is this hypothetical player just an issue in of themself? how is this any different than the player leaving the table in frustration? or making an obvious attempt at cheating? would they really hit the x-button if they knew you would stop the entire game because of it?


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And you really don't see how that, in this example, you're the problem?




It completely depends on the context of the situation.  If I have to trade the session enjoyment of an entire table of con-goers, at the cost of an irreversible and huge change in session content, for the session enjoyment of a single player, then, no, I don't see how I'm part of the problem.

I don't think you should trivialize situations like this, simplifying them to a base root that isn't applicable to all situations.

As I said above, it varies.  Things tend to be a bit more complex than they seem.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 2, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And if a player is somehow naive enough not to see that coming, you change the surprise climax spider into a surprise climax octopus/bear/bunny rabbit, so that you can continue your game. Trust me, it won’t be the end of the world. Everyone will still have fun, everyone will laugh about it later.



 Despite what you believe, it isn't always this easy.  Not everyone's games run this way.  Please stop assuming that your playgroup is supreme.

Actually, I agree with you on many points.  I don't really see what the argument is here.

I think that the X card is not a good way to make people feel comfortable at the table.

Otherwise, I mostly agree with you.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> If this method of consent and/or X cards proves to be a detriment as they are more widely adopted at cons, then we will adjust, come up with a new strategy, etc. It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware. Let's give it a try, gather evidence and proceed from there.



Well, that's just it though: does the presence of an X card make the hobby more welcoming to potential players; or does its presence cause those potential players to think "Whoah, what am I getting into here?" and maybe find something else to do instead?

Probably some of both; but you won't often hear from the latter group or even realize they exist.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> It completely depends on the context of the situation.  If I have to trade the session _*enjoyment of an entire table of con-goers*_, at the cost of an irreversible and huge change in session content, for the session enjoyment of a single player, then, no, I don't see how I'm part of the problem.



again, why does an alteration automatically mean players aren't going to enjoy it as much? what if the majority of your players decide they don't like what's going on, are you gonna hold out for those one or two players who probably have no problem either way?


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> again, why does an alteration automatically mean players aren't going to enjoy it as much? what if the majority of your players decide they don't like what's going on, are you gonna hold out for those one or two players who probably have no problem either way?



This is a reasonable point.  But, as I said earlier, it depends.  In my experience, most players would leave a session disappointed if the BBEG was suddenly ret-conned from a spider to an octopus.  It depends on your group, your playstyle, and the context of play.  You simply can't simplify (ha) things like this.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Well, that's just it though: does the presence of an X card make the hobby more welcoming to potential players; or does its presence cause those potential players to think "Whoah, what am I getting into here?" and maybe find something else to do instead?
> 
> Probably some of both; but you won't often hear from the latter group or even realize they exist.



I'm pretty sure if your average player saw an index card with an X on it on the table they'd just assume it's another gaming implement lol.



Aebir-Toril said:


> This is a reasonable point.  But, as I said earlier, it depends.  In my experience, most players would leave a session disappointed if the BBEG was suddenly ret-conned from a spider to an octopus.  It depends on your group, your playstyle, and the context of play.  You simply can't simplify (ha) things like this.



I honestly find it hard to believe your average con gamer is going to leave the table because the spider became an octopus. I'm pretty sure they'd have a laugh and continue on with the encounter as usual, especially if it's played off as something weird that happened in-game.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Yes, exactly. This needs repeating. No one is going to sign up for a horror game if they can't tolerate the theme. No one is going to join a D&D game if swords bother them. Or if they do for some reason, I think they will pull themselves out and not insist everyone switch to an entirely different genre.



Agreed.

However...



> There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games.



Yes there is, in my case; because I've had players in the past who were more than narcissistic enough to do exactly this - had the option been available - as often as they could get away with it.

And if in my relatively small sample size of some few dozens I've had 'em, then gawds know how many are out there in the greater community.  Either that, or I've just been woefully unlucky......


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> I honestly find it hard to believe your average con gamer is going to leave the table because the spider became an octopus. I'm pretty sure they'd have a laugh and continue on with the encounter as usual, especially if it's played off as something weird that happened in-game.



Um... That's your opinion, not a fact.  My assertion was the same thing, an opinion.  As I said before, I don't think a universal standard should be applied to something as individual as D&D.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Um... That's your opinion, not a fact.  My assertion was the same thing, an opinion.  As I said before, I don't think a universal standard should be applied to something as individual as D&D.



yes. it's my opinion. that's formed from having played many, and in a few cases run, con/public games in my time. this scenario of people leaving your table because an enemy changed isn't as common as you make it out to be. and honestly, those people who left are way more disruptive than the person who tapped the x-card.



Lanefan said:


> Yes there is, in my case; because I've had players in the past who were more than narcissistic enough to do exactly this - had the option been available - as often as they could get away with it.
> 
> And if in my relatively small sample size of some few dozens I've had 'em, then gawds know how many are out there in the greater community.  Either that, or I've just been woefully unlucky......



the x-card isn't a fast forward button. if someone taps it you can just rearrange what's going on in game, you don't have to remove the party from a difficult encounter because someone used it.

if people are treating it that way then that's abusing it and you can call people out if they're abusing something ("BUT I CAN'T QUESTION PEOPLE WHO USE IT!!!!!" doesn't apply in this scenario).


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> yes. it's my opinion. that's formed from having played many, and in a few cases run, con/public games in my time. this scenario of people leaving your table because an enemy changed isn't as common as you make it out to be. and honestly, those people who left are way more disruptive than the person who tapped the x-card.



I never said that people would leave the session.  I just said that I thought it was disruptive, and might ruin a session experience for someone.  Also, how can I possibly trust something that you just tell me?  I don't see any evidence.  No one has, as far as I know, done a statistical study on this.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> why would you need to stop combat entirely just because someone hit the x-button? really?



In the posts I was referring to, the proposed solution was that the scene causing the X-tap be skipped (in part because it wasn't 100% clear which element(s) of the scene had caused the tap), with narration resuming along the lines of "OK, you've defeated Timus Currius and moved deeper into the temple...".

So, not so much stopping combat as skipping it.



> why is this hypothetical player just an issue in of themself? how is this any different than the player leaving the table in frustration? or making an obvious attempt at cheating? would they really hit the x-button if they knew you would stop the entire game because of it?



A player making an obvious attempt at cheating gives me-as-DM an obvious reason to reduce my table count by one.

A player simply leaving in frustration - yeah, that's not very communicative either, in fact even less so than the X-card in that the rest of the table doesn't know if what's being expressed as frustration stems from scene elements, actions of other players, in-character issues (e.g. frustration with too much time spent planning), a bad run of dice rolls, or whatever.

And while someone hitting an X might not know whether it'll bring the game to a halt, they have to know it'll at the very least cause a more or less minor disruption while a) the DM sorts it out and b) the rest of the players wonder what's going on.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> I never said that people would leave the session.  I just said that I thought it was disruptive, and might ruin a session experience for someone.  Also, how can I possibly trust something that you just tell me?  I don't see any evidence.  No one has, as far as I know, done a statistical study on this.



someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.

also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.
> 
> also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.



That's your position.  I'm the one arguing that we shouldn't implement things that don't apply across broadly-recognized fields.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> In the posts I was referring to, the proposed solution was that the scene causing the X-tap be skipped (in part because it wasn't 100% clear which element(s) of the scene had caused the tap), with narration resuming along the lines of "OK, you've defeated Timus Currius and moved deeper into the temple...".
> 
> So, not so much stopping combat as skipping it.



so then just place a new combat scenario right after that? if player enjoyment somehow equals X number of combat encounters, then you can just add one additional encounter. 

again, what if the players did something as innocent as go down the wrong hallway and skip the encounter with Timus Currius entirely? I've had plenty of times where my DM said something like "oh man I had this fight set up for you guys, but you decided to do X instead", this isn't new or weird.



> And while someone hitting an X might not know whether it'll bring the game to a halt, they have to know it'll at the very least cause a more or less minor disruption while a) the DM sorts it out and b) the rest of the players wonder what's going on.



minor disruptions happen all the time in con games. I'd be a little less dismissive about all this skepticism if it weren't being talked about as if similar things haven't been an issue before.


----------



## generic (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.
> 
> also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.



Also, my note on statistics wasn't about people having a panic attack.  Stop being dishonest.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Also, my note on statistics wasn't about people having a panic attack.  Stop being dishonest.



I'm not being dishonest. but saying "there's no statistics" makes experiences meaningless. at that point I can say a moose might come and trample the table, therefore we need more moose prevention at cons. I'm just baffled at given how many different ways your game can be disrupted (that can be corroborated by the community in general) this one is getting a huge amount of push back.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> the x-card isn't a fast forward button. if someone taps it you can just rearrange what's going on in game, you don't have to remove the party from a difficult encounter because someone used it.
> 
> if people are treating it that way then that's abusing it and you can call people out if they're abusing something ("BUT I CAN'T QUESTION PEOPLE WHO USE IT!!!!!" doesn't apply in this scenario).



Ah, but doesn't this violate the rule-of-X; that says such conversations are at best inappropriate and at worst forbidden entirely?

Because as DM, I (quite likely) can't tell the difference.  Was the X tapped due to someone being triggered by the blatant sexualization of the Timus Currius monster, or because there's no way in hell the party's going to be able to defeat it when it inevitably tries to kill them.

Thing is, people are people; and should the X-card (or similar) become a widespread tool or utility not all of them are going to use it in the manner in which it is intended.  In fact, and rather sadly, I suspect the non-intended uses will come to outnumber the intended uses by such a wide margin as to render the tool useless for its originally-intended function.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 2, 2019)

Reminder: the argument that "bad players will abuse this to ruin the game" is easily debunked (said players will find other ways to capriciously ruin your games) and is only being pounded into the ground in bad faith to derail this conversation and get the thread shut down for looking too much like the last one.

Which is the point.

Which is to say, it's been addressed and is no longer worth addressing further.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> so then just place a new combat scenario right after that? if player enjoyment somehow equals X number of combat encounters, then you can just add one additional encounter.
> 
> again, what if the players did something as innocent as go down the wrong hallway and skip the encounter with Timus Currius entirely? I've had plenty of times where my DM said something like "oh man I had this fight set up for you guys, but you decided to do X instead", this isn't new or weird.



Of course.  What's "new or weird" here is that the scene's already laid out and only then a player forces a change, or skip.



> minor disruptions happen all the time in con games.



I know; they happen far too often already, and good discussion can and should be had around ways and means of reducing them.  This discussion, however, ain't that discussion.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Ah, but doesn't this violate the rule-of-X; that says such conversations are at best inappropriate and at worst forbidden entirely?
> 
> Because as DM, I (quite likely) can't tell the difference.  Was the X tapped due to someone being triggered by the blatant sexualization of the Timus Currius monster, or because there's no way in hell the party's going to be able to defeat it when it inevitably tries to kill them.



given what the x-card is for and how player expectations usually work, the former.

also a given player has no actual idea how you're going to handle someone hitting the x-card. they might get out of that encounter (and just face a different one entirely after that). or they tap it and instead get mauled to death by Barney the Dinosaur.



> Thing is, people are people; and should the X-card (or similar) become a widespread tool or utility not all of them are going to use it in the manner in which it is intended.  In fact, and rather sadly, I suspect the non-intended uses will come to outnumber the intended uses by such a wide margin as to render the tool useless for its originally-intended function.



yes, the vast majority of people who use disabled parking spots aren't actually disabled. I know this because I saw a news report of some people abusing this system and therefore the vast majority of people are abusing it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Yes there is, in my case; because I've had players in the past who were more than narcissistic enough to do exactly this - had the option been available - as often as they could get away with it.




"Look at this cool cat toy!"
"Oh, man, my dogs would destroy that in like, 30 seconds.  It is a lousy toy!  Nobody should get that toy!"

If you are playing with abusive narcissists who would abuse stuff, your problem isn't in the stuff, but in the abusive narcissists.  I mean, I know such players exist - I have encountered them myself.  But, once identified, they get dis-invited.

Have you considered the possibility that this tool could be a multi-tasker, and help you identify people who you probably don't really want to game with?  X-card as talking horse for toxic gamers....



> And if in my relatively small sample size of some few dozens I've had 'em, then gawds know how many are out there in the greater community.  Either that, or I've just been woefully unlucky......




That's.. not how statistics works.  You know that, statistically, that generalization step is extremely flawed, right?  The moment you say, "My small sample," alarm buzzers should have gone off in your head.  Small samples will almost always be far from the average of a large population in some way or other, unless you have been very, very careful to make sure it was very random.  

That's one of the biggest jobs in staticical sampling - making sure your small sample that is supposed to represent actually does.  And, no bad on you - but your way of finding a few dozen people over the years was probably focused on getting butts in chairs to play a game, not to get a representative sample of gamers in chairs.  Your goal wasn't statistical sampling, so you shouldn't think of it it as if it were a valid sample.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> at that point I can say a moose might come and trample the table, therefore we need more moose prevention at cons.



You've obviously never gone to a con in eastern Canada......


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> Of course.  What's "new or weird" here is that the scene's already laid out and only then a player forces a change, or skip.



man I just love the word "forces". you make it sound like the people who need x-cards are malevolent, or are changing the entire nature of the game. 

get back to me when someone x-cards their way to getting a +3 flame tongue (or turns your D&D session into a Star Wars game, idk man I'm sure some people will believe either is a likely scenario)


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Umbran said:


> "Look at this cool cat toy!"
> "Oh, man, my dogs would destroy that in like, 30 seconds.  It is a lousy toy!  Nobody should get that toy!"
> 
> If you are playing with abusive narcissists who would abuse stuff, your problem isn't in the stuff, but in the abusive narcissists.  I mean, I know such players exist - I have encountered them myself.  But, once identified, they get dis-invited.
> ...



In a home game, sure.  But at a con where you've only got a short time and probably don't know anyone else at the table, the expectation would be that every X-hit is treated as a serious issue.



> That's.. not how statistics works.  You know that, statistically, that generalization step is extremely flawed, right?  The moment you say, "My small sample," alarm buzzers should have gone off in your head.  Small samples will almost always be far from the average of a large population in some way or other



Of course.  But as there's no way of knowing in which direction that variance might be, the best one can do is assume the variance odds are also more or less 50-50 (i.e. there's an equal chance of the small-sample variance being higher or lower than the overall population, unless it just happens to match bang-on) and go from there.



> That's one of the biggest jobs in staticical sampling - making sure your small sample that is supposed to represent actually does.  And, no bad on you - but your way of finding a few dozen people over the years was probably focused on getting butts in chairs to play a game, not to get a representative sample of gamers in chairs.  Your goal wasn't statistical sampling, so you shouldn't think of it it as if it were a valid sample.



Regardless of what my goals might have been, the results remain.  Yes it's a small sample size and almost certainly biased toward the type of people I tend to hang out with...but it's not the only sample out there.  We've got dozens if not hundreds of DMs on this board, and other than those who share a playgroup each will have another small sample to provide; and putting all those small samples together gives a still-not-perfect-but-much-better overview.


----------



## Lanefan (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> man I just love the word "forces". you make it sound like the people who need x-cards are malevolent, or are changing the entire nature of the game.



The presence or absence of malevolence is irrelevant; the fact is that an X-hit *is* an attempt to change something about the nature of the game, because that something is disturbing that player beyond the point of being able to deal with it. Depending how intrinsic that something is to the campaign, it could well change things in the game beyond the simple here-and-now situation.



> get back to me when someone x-cards their way to getting a +3 flame tongue (or turns your D&D session into a Star Wars game, idk man I'm sure some people will believe either is a likely scenario)



Don't hold yer breath on that. 

The X-card idea does, however, assume a certain level of maturity among all involved...a level of maturity that we don't always see.  It also assumes that all involved will treat the X-card as seriously as its designers intend; and in some bands of jokers (mine included, at times) where nothing is sacred, this wouldn't be either.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 2, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> The presence or absence of malevolence is irrelevant; the fact is that an X-hit *is* an attempt to change something about the nature of the game, because that something is disturbing that player beyond the point of being able to deal with it. Depending how intrinsic that something is to the campaign, it could well change things in the game beyond the simple here-and-now situation.



again, if something is _*that *_intrinsic to the campaign, then either a) the players probably already knew about it or b) this is a poorly planned campaign.



> Don't hold yer breath on that.
> 
> The X-card idea does, however, assume a certain level of maturity among all involved...a level of maturity that we don't always see.  It also assumes that all involved will treat the X-card as seriously as its designers intend; and in some bands of jokers (mine included, at times) where nothing is sacred, this wouldn't be either.











						Perfect solution fallacy
					

by Tim Harding “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” — Voltaire “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.” – Edmund Burke The Per…




					yandoo.wordpress.com


----------



## Phion (Oct 2, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> again, how is removing something "diluting the experience" for other players? considering all the elements that go into making an enjoyable gaming session I don't understand how removing something in an adventure can so impinge a player's overall experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You are right it was petty what I said, I don't normally post in forums so I think I am overthinking some comments. As for the dilution of the experience I was talking to a fellow DM in our club who agrees with you guys and he pointed out that our experiences for a decade have been in house and we typically have good practices. I have no real idea about what other communties or countries typically see in a d&d game.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2019)

I'm sorry, did I offend some people's sensibilities?

I honestly don't really care at this point.  Look at what's being argued - one person is so distraught and upset that they, in front of five other people (or thereabouts), reach out and touch the X card, in order to stop whatever it is that is triggering their responses because their personal trauma is bleeding over into the events of the game.

And folks are worried about ass hats weaponizing this?  Or that the other five people at the table might have to spend ten or fifteen minutes being empathetic to a fellow human being while the DM rearranges his or her notes in order to proceed?  

The whole "well, the one person not having a good time should leave" is horrifying.  So, when those other players sexually harass that one player off the table, that's perfectly acceptable because the majority is having a good time?  Someone who has sat down at a table has signaled consent but is not allowed to remove that consent later?  :wow:  

Do you really not see the parallels of your arguments?  Seriously?

I'm being offensive and judgmental?  Good!  Anyone who thinks that their game of pretend elf is more important than the real life suffering of a fellow human being deserves to be negatively judged.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> What would I do?  Given your example?  Move on.



Move on to what?  Someone is upset enough to tap out, absent any knowledge of what is upsetting them, there is nothing to move on to.  I cannot in good conscience continue forward knowing something else in the next scene, or the scene after that could so easily upset them and continue causing harm.

It would be problematic and unsympathetic to do otherwise.





Phion said:


> _Reads comment. Taps X_





jasper said:


> double taps the x card



Two X Cards thrown and not a single person who is arguing for X Cards has stopped and moved on from this horrible conversation.  I'd feel shame over their behavior if I were capable of that emotion.





Arilyn said:


> The X card has been in use for a few years.



The X Card as presented outside of the context of Consent in Gaming, yes.  And as those other presentations make it imperative that the user reveal at the minimum what is distressing them, I'm with you.  Implement away.





Umbran said:


> You're in a climax scene in a con game, and need to use it?  You probably tap it to indicate that there's a problem with the content, and need a pause, and say, "You folks finish up.  No fault on you, but I can't do this," and use the momentary pause to gather things and leave the table, without leaving people wondering so much why you had to go.



That is not how it is presented in Consent in Gaming.  If you agree that that document needs to be consigned to the tire fire of bad ideas, I'm with you 100%.






Gradine said:


> Did it not occur to you that the people behind conventions such as these (as, in at least one particular case, Shanna Germain *is*) would actually have done the research, and studied best practices that have mountains of clinical data behind them?



After reading Consent in Gaming, I have zero trust in Reynold's and Germian's ability to write a social contract that is applicable or useful outside the most toxic and dangerous of BDSM groups.





Celebrim said:


> I mean multiple people advocating for the utility of the X card admit that in 100's of games they've played with it _they've never once seen it touched. They just feel good about it being there even though no one ever uses it._



That is also worrisome.  It tells me that those groups think that either gaming (in general) or their groups (in specific) are so emotionally dangerous that they only feel safe with an extra set of tools above and beyond conversation and the standard social contract.





Umbran said:


> Have you considered the possibility that this tool could be a multi-tasker, and help you identify people who you probably don't really want to game with?  X-card as talking horse for toxic gamers....



That's a hot take... the players most likely to use the X Card will be toxic to gaming.  Wow.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Well, I dunno.  If, upon informing someone (let alone two someones that I game with) of the X-card concept, their first reaction is, "Hey, I'm going to use this to screw with people", might I suggest a better quality of friends?  

This is like arguing that we should never have wheel chair parking because some people might abuse it.  

@evileeyore - I gave an example of how to move on.  If you actually want to talk about the practicalities, and possible strategies, of how this works at the table, let's do that.  

But, so far, all I've seen is people jumping up and down about how this will make gaming less fun, will hurt other people's enjoyment and should never be implemented at all.  Or, at best, only implemented at con games (like there would be some sort of gaming police that would show up at your home game to make sure you had an x-card in play  )

IOW, if folks actually want to discuss HOW this can work, rather than endlessly derail into "we don't need it", then fine.   Let's talk about that.  Otherwise, it's just a pointless conversation of endless pedantry with zero value because we can never actually discuss how this actually works.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Phion said:


> You are right it was petty what I said, I don't normally post in forums so I think I am overthinking some comments. As for the dilution of the experience I was talking to a fellow DM in our club who agrees with you guys and he pointed out that our experiences for a decade have been in house and we typically have good practices. I have no real idea about what other communties or countries typically see in a d&d game.



I get that other groups are different, sure. what bothers me most when people say "diluting the game for other players" is the "other players" part. maybe if your group is one that you know well, but for con games that's just pure projection, and shifts responsibility away from the GM. 

really, I personally feel like as long as we all have fun changing a game to help a player out isn't bad, and most players would be okay with that. a player who will up and quit the game because something got changed or had a short interruption isn't one that you want to be playing with anyway, and this is generally considered bad player behavior. 

ymmv, just keep in mind different players might have different wants and needs, part of being a GM is trying to balance that out.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 3, 2019)

As far as I understand what used to be considered the unspoken social contract in gaming and such matters it kinda worked similar to the employer<>employee contract:  leave your personal problems at the door.  Otherwise, in the context of the gaming , the social contract would be for all parties to recognize that they are gathering to have fun and play games.  It is fluid, flowing amongst themselves as a group; and thus if one felt triggered by something happening, or for some reason related to an external circumstance which boiled over during play, perhaps, would not the social contract--which involves all forms of understood responsibility as shared by and among the group as individuals--also extend to the person, then, to just say, "Hey, I have X issues that I don't feel will allow me to play" without interrupting the understood reason for the gathering and thus facing his or her own social responsibility in kind? No sympathy or empathy is lost here with this scenario, all contracts and dignities are maintained through the shared responsibility of each individual.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Oct 3, 2019)

The satanic panic....the collapse of TSR....the stereotype of gamers as basement dwelling troglodytes....all pale in comparison to the dreaded X-Card!!! 

Muhu haha hah hah gaming, your days are numbered!!!


----------



## Derren (Oct 3, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> That is also worrisome.  It tells me that those groups think that either gaming (in general) or their groups (in specific) are so emotionally dangerous that they only feel safe with an extra set of tools above and beyond conversation and the standard social contract.



If someone can be put into "deep psychological distress" by make believe they shouldn't play make believe games anyway and instead spend their time and money with psychiatrists.
But the X-card system does fit into the pattern of generation trigger warning.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Ok, let's see if I can practice what I preach.  Let's use a scene from an actual adventure and see if we can find some resolution strategies when someone uses an X card.

Presumption:  There are 6 people at the table, DM +5 players.  For the sake of argument, let's put it at a con and everyone is a stranger.  ((feel free to post your own example if you don't like this one))

Scene:  Ghosts of Saltmarsh - The Final Enemy

In the module, there is a drug known as Rapture Weed:



			
				Ghosts of Saltmarsh said:
			
		

> Rapture Weed:  These rare plants grow along isolated stony... A creature that consumes the fronds... becomes poisoned for 6 hours, during which time it experiences occasional hallucinations and a feeling of euphoria.  ...
> 
> Any creature that consumes rapture weed has a 1 percent chance of instead becoming incapacitated for the duration of the plant's effect.  During this time it experiences terrifying visions of an enormous shark devouring great amounts of prey.
> 
> When the effect wears off... the creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be afflicted wit ha form of long-term madness (see Madness in Chapter 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide)




((Note, any typos are mine))

Now, here's something that might trigger someone.  It's a drug with a pretty wild negative effect.  I can see how this might be an issue and I'm sure you can too.  So, PC takes the drug (maybe unwillingly) and rolls the 1%.  DM begins describing the horrifying visions.  

Player taps the X card.

Now, what do you do?  Me, I just go, oh, ok, and say, "Ok, after x hours of nightmares, you wake up".   And then move on with the rest of the adventure.

----

Before anyone accuses me of cherry picking, I was just flipping through the module and that sidebar caught my eye as something that might come up.  Again, if you want to discuss real situations from actual adventures, then, let's do that.  If you want to continue down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals, well, I certainly can't stop you.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2019)

In an attempt to rerail a bit, here's a positive use case for the X-card idea.

There are more games that D&D, and some pointedly involve transgressive or challenging themes.  The point of these games is to explore these themes in the process of play.  These game also tend to be much more interactive, requiring players to expose themselves more in the process of roleplaying, and tend to use narrative techniques to build play.  As such, they don't follow a planned arc, but instead present a challenge and extend play along the lines of what players try to do, using mechanics to determine the outcomes and thus further the story.

Since these games can lead to some dark places rather rapidly, the X-card is a good safety valve to pause the play, step back, and assess.  In this regard, it is a physical manifestation of a safe word.  I see a lot of value in using X-cards in this kind of play.

As a possible negative in this, though, the presence of the safety valve X-card may actually increase the odds of things going darker than they otherwise would.  The x-card represents an unspoken consent to delve darker because it exists as a safe out, meaning play might actually become more toxic than it would absent such a valve.  This isn't a given, clearly there's lots of confounders, but it's a known part of human psychology that if you have a safety valve you can push the limits harder.  Something to be aware of.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> As a possible negative in this, though, the presence of the safety valve X-card may actually increase the odds of things going darker than they otherwise would. The x-card represents an unspoken consent to delve darker because it exists as a safe out, meaning play might actually become more toxic than it would absent such a valve. This isn't a given, clearly there's lots of confounders, but it's a known part of human psychology that if you have a safety valve you can push the limits harder. Something to be aware of.




Kind of like in the NFL, players are hitting much, much harder today than they were in the past because the padding is so much better.  Which results in more serious injuries even though the players are technically "safer".  I can see that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2019)

So, I see a lot of arguing for the X-card that follows a certain pattern.  There are the following assumptions:

a) there are people that will suffer distress in some gaming situations that is harmful to their psyche
b) it is proper to prevent harm to these people

And this fact:

c) The X-card is a mechanic that is intended to help people in distress in gaming from suffering harm to their psyche.

These form the set of premises for the following conclusions:

1.  The X-card should be used to prevent harm.


I think this is a bit flawed, in that there's a bit of ignoring that there are also other methods to prevent harm (assuming the premises are valid), and there's no examination of any harms that the X-card does.  Further, I think there's a lot of fuzziness in c), as far as how the X-card mechanic is employed and works.  If you read the pamphlet, the results are a bit different from many of the arguments in this thread about how the X-card should work.  There's also the bit where there's no cost/benefit evaluation in the employment of the X-card with regard to other players -- this seems to be a large point of contention, with sides either dismissing it as a useful consideration or coming up with doomsday scenarios where employment of the X-card ruins entire campaigns.  Absent hyperbole on both sides, though, there is a good question of the cost/benefit to the other players in some situations such that I think the all-or-nothing nature of the X-card is a poor fit for the rare times it will be used.

I also see a second conclusion that roughly follows the above:

2.  Anyone that doesn't agree with 1. must also disagree with premises a or b or both.

I, personally, find this to be the most toxic conclusion in the thread. I'm sure I'll be told that people really do disagree with a or b, but I've seen little evidence aside from a general disagreement with conclusion 1.  There've been recent exhortations to treat those that would use the X-card as rational humans not unaware or looking to disrupt but in genuine distress and need of consideration, but this same argument is denied to anyone disagreeing with the X-card as a mechanic.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Rob Kuntz said:


> As far as I understand what used to be considered the unspoken social contract in gaming and such matters it kinda worked similar to the employer<>employee contract:  leave your personal problems at the door.  Otherwise, in the context of the gaming , the social contract would be for all parties to recognize that they are gathering to have fun and play games.  It is fluid, flowing amongst themselves as a group; and thus if one felt triggered by something happening, or for some reason related to an external circumstance which boiled over during play, perhaps, would not the social contract--which involves all forms of understood responsibility as shared by and among the group as individuals--also extend to the person, then, to just say, "Hey, I have X issues that I don't feel will allow me to play" without interrupting the understood reason for the gathering and thus facing his or her own social responsibility in kind? No sympathy or empathy is lost here with this scenario, all contracts and dignities are maintained through the shared responsibility of each individual.



so okay, having the expectation that someone should just quit because they might have a panic attack is the best scenario? let's think about this for a second.
the scenario you describe would go like this:
one player feels like they might have a panic attack. since it is something expected of them, they tell the DM (who, while we're on the subject of social responsibilities, has the main responsibility of ensuring the players have a good time) they can't play anymore then leave. suddenly the game is down a player. the group is going to have to wait for another player to show up (which can be a long time depending what time of day it is). in the end one player got half an adventure, and 3(-ish) players and the DM had to wait a while between losing a player and having to get a new one situated (this also implies time doesn't run out or players get impatient and leave anyway).

scenario 2 is like scenario 1 except the DM takes time to adjust things for 3 players, which takes up time (even more so if it started like the first scenario and the DM got impatient). you get 3 supposedly satisfied players and one DM who had to spend extra time changing the adventure so he doesn't tpk the party.

so somehow, these both are better scenarios than one player indicating they aren't okay with something, the DM takes a minute or two to change something in the game (or gloss over a scene because it wasn't an actual challenge to the players thereby actually saving precious time???), and ending with all 4 players having gotten a full adventure and one DM who did a little extra work?

inb4 someone says "the other players got a diminished experience", how? how did they get a lesser experience? they got a game that had a minor alteration.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> @evileeyore - I gave an example of how to move on.  If you actually want to talk about the practicalities, and possible strategies, of how this works at the table, let's do that.



My problem is with your blithely moving on.  Are really saying you're fine continuing, knowing you're going to cause someone more discomfort because you actually have no idea what caused them discomfort in the first place?

It might not have been you.  It might not have been the scene.  It might have been another player at the table, but absent your cherry picked "and I know exactly what caused this" examples, you have no idea.

This is what I object to with the X Card as presented in Consent to Gaming.  And I will never allow that version at my table when I running a game.  If someone asks to bring in the X Card and presents it as the prior variants?  Where they (all the players) understand that invoking brings the responsibility of, at the minimum (and no other questions asked), responding to "What is causing the distress/What needs to glossed over", then absolutely fine.  Bring it.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> My problem is with your blithely moving on.  Are really saying you're fine continuing, knowing your going to cause someone more discomfort because you actually have no idea what caused them discomfort in the first place?
> 
> It might not have been you.  It might not have been the scene.  It might have been another player at the table, but absent your cherry picked "and I know exactly what caused this" examples, you have no idea.
> 
> This is what I object to with the X Card as presented in Consent to Gaming.  And I will never allow that version at my table when I running a game.  If someone asks to bring in the X Card and presents it as the prior variants?  Where they (all the players) understand that invoking brings the responsibility of, at the minimum (and no other questions asked), responding to "What is causing the distress/What needs to glossed over", then absolutely fine.  Bring it.



so like, do you question the motivations and feelings of every person you meet? I'm really not sure why you're presenting this as some sort of puzzle when the x-card is usually going to be used in an obvious scenario. it's also possible to use deduction, like "okay, it can't be the orc I already talked about orcs" or "it can't be another player, they all already interacted with this one player". 

and as I and others have said before, one bad hypothetical example does not mean the entire system is a failure.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> so okay, having the expectation that someone should just quit because they might have a panic attack is the best scenario? let's think about this for a second.
> the scenario you describe would go like this:
> one player feels like they might have a panic attack. since it is something expected of them, they tell the DM (who, while we're on the subject of social responsibilities, has the main responsibility of ensuring the players have a good time) they can't play anymore then leave. suddenly the game is down a player. the group is going to have to wait for another player to show up (which can be a long time depending what time of day it is). in the end one player got half an adventure, and 3(-ish) players and the DM had to wait a while between losing a player and having to get a new one situated (this also implies time doesn't run out or players get impatient and leave anyway).
> 
> ...




I was of course posing a general rather than specific instance.  It is up to the player/person to decide upon the extremes of such and as warranted, which includes them making their own responsible decisions and personal  assessment regarding forthcoming actions in relation to their thoughts and in concert with the responsibility of the shared contract.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> so like, do you question the motivations and feelings of every person you meet? I'm really not sure why you're presenting this as some sort of puzzle when the x-card is usually going to be used in an obvious scenario. it's also possible to use deduction, like "okay, it can't be the orc I already talked about orcs" or "it can't be another player, they all already interacted with this one player".
> 
> and as I and others have said before, one bad hypothetical example does not mean the entire system is a failure.



I'm actually a bit taken aback that the suggestion is that guessing is sufficient or that GMs should be trusted to just know.  It seems that the purpose of the X-card to begin with is because the GM can't know, but now we're okay leaving it up to the GM to guess what the specific problem is and push on with that assumption?  I don't know about you, but that sounds like a perfect recipe for actual harm continuing to occur.  If the person in distress has no duty to identify the source of the distress, then my best move to protect them from harm is to ask them to leave the table.  It's the only 100% method of preventing further harm.

Now, are there cases where a GM will be able to adequately gleen information without any other communication -- yes, of course.  I don't think that perfect executions of a mechanic meant to deal with messy situations is a useful metric, though.  If you tap the card, you have the duty to identify the vector of harm.  You don't have to explain, you don't have to talk about it, but you have to identify the problem.  And, even if I could guess accurately, I'm going to want that confirmation so _that I do not accidentally continue to cause harm_.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> so like, do you question the motivations and feelings of every person you meet?



Since I didn't mention motivations or feelings, no.



> I'm really not sure why you're presenting this as some sort of puzzle when the x-card is usually going to be used in an obvious scenario. it's also possible to use deduction, like "okay, it can't be the orc I already talked about orcs" or "it can't be another player, they all already interacted with this one player".



It absolutely could be something that has been present for the entire game, but the Player has simply reached the end of their rope with it.

It can be _anything_.  And absent them telling you, you have no actual way of knowing.  It can even be something that hasn't happened, but they suspect is about to happen, so they are stopping it before the scenario is presented.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm sorry, did I offend some people's sensibilities?
> 
> I honestly don't really care at this point.




I love it when people are finally getting honest.   Let's take a look again at what you are actually saying to see if it holds together.



> Look at what's being argued - one person is so distraught and upset that they, in front of five other people (or thereabouts), reach out and touch the X card, in order to stop whatever it is that is triggering their responses because their personal trauma is bleeding over into the events of the game.




Ok, sure.  I've been in this situation.  I had a typical mysterious parentage plotline requested via a player back story that I was playing out, when one night the player central to that whose backstory it was said to me, "Can we just not play through this?  My dad just died and I'm having a hard time processing this right now."

So I said....????

(You seem happy to insert speech on behalf of others. So go ahead now and project on to me what you think I said. Done?)

Ok, what I actually said was, "I'm sorry to hear that. Of course we can lay off this. Not a problem. Take your time. And if you ever want to pick it up again, just talk to me, but for now it's on indefinite hold."

Easy. No X cards were required. Someone just respected me by communicating and I respected him, but I would have still respected him had he blown up or broke down into tears or anything else, because my treatment of other people doesn't really depend on how they treat me.

Now, I can imagine theoretical requests in different situations that would not have been so easy to accommodate. Fortunately, a long running multiplot campaign that I'm authoring myself is the easiest to accommodate any vetos on play. If someone vetos me in a long running multiplot self-authored campaign I can pretty much always recover in the long run. So in a game among friends, an X card or any other sort of veto is not particularly disruptive. And naturally it is also the situation where the tool is the least necessary, because it's a game among friends.

But let's take a big notice of the bait and switch you pull here, and think about that for while in depth.



> So, when those other players sexually harass that one player off the table, that's perfectly acceptable because the majority is having a good time? Someone who has sat down at a table has signaled consent but is not allowed to remove that consent later? :wow




Think about this a second. You ask us to imagine now a situation were 5 people are sexually harassing someone. But you didn't. If you had thought through you example instead of having a good cathartic rant where you accuse everyone else of being subhuman and you vent your outrage, you would realize that a situation where 5 people are sexually harassing another one is not a situation where an X card will do any good. Because the sort of people that would adhere to an X card aren't the sort of people who would sexually harass someone in the first place. If you ever find that you are surrounded by 5 people sexually harassing you, get out of there for your own safety immediately. Because tapping an X card is not going to see to your safety in that situation. So situations of actual danger, the X card is useless. It does nothing.

What we have here is what's called a "toy solution". It pretends to be a solution. But it only helps in easy situations where it isn't needed, like someone who doesn't want to experience rapture weed. The more serious the situation, the less helpful the thing actually is. Which is of course the point. The point is to create an illusion of safety so that people can be gradually manipulated out of their comfort zones for the gratification of the manipulator. Don't tell date rapists about the X card, or they'll start putting them in their cars. Every sociopathic SOB is going to want one.

We can go through all the hypotheticals you want, but this pattern of being a "toy solution" will occur in all of them. The more you might want an X card, the less it actually helps.



> The whole "well, the one person not having a good time should leave" is horrifying.




If there is five people sexually harassing someone that is horrifying.  But if that person leaves, the angels rejoice that the harm didn't get worse.   Leaving that situation is exactly the right thing to do.



> Do you really not see the parallels of your arguments?  Seriously?
> 
> I'm being offensive and judgmental?  Good!  Anyone who thinks that their game of pretend elf is more important than the real life suffering of a fellow human being deserves to be negatively judged.




I see perfectly clearly thank you. You are the one that doesn't see anything. You don't even see your own words. The rest of us can see perfectly clearly that the X card doesn't stop sexual harassment from happening and isn't a solution to that.

Now what I think isn't something anyone else is seeing, is If anything, it enables it, because it gives the harasser a negotiation methodology by which he can apologize, reset, and work a different angle while give the mark a sense of security. But it doesn't make anyone safe. But it does make them feel safer. It's lets an manipulative person get people to ignore red flags. That's the purpose.  You see having an X card out there indicates a desire to be transgressive by whomever put it out there. Normal social conventions might cause people to hesitate to breach certain subjects, but with an X card they can trial those waters safely. With a list of affirmative consents, they have been given an attack plan. You see, I'm the sort of person who runs PG games maybe PG-13 games because I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. I'm not interested in transgressing into "unsafe" spaces. I have nothing to lose here. I'm never going to run an X rated game. I'm never going to need to try to push into anyone's trauma or get some sort of thrill by getting someone to bleed all over the place. I don't run games to sexually titillate myself or others, and I left several RPG scenes when I realized that 80% of what was going on was elaborate flirtation and social dominance games and that for better or worse that was the main attraction - the main aesthetic of play - for most gamers in that scene. Maybe you ought to stop and think about who does want to do that, because they sure as heck need an X card. The need it to not scare people away, and to deescalate when things start getting creepy.

You didn't think before you posted Hussar. Or you might have realized just how much you were really revealing. You see there is a huge jump between someone not wanting to deal with a normal element of game play and someone being sexually harassed. And you crossed that bridge without hesitation, conflating the two willfully and with malice.

Your acting like I'm the one that isn't safe to game with. By why would anyone reading this thread think you were safe to game with?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> You didn't think before you posted Hussar. Or you might have realized just how much you were really revealing. You see there is a huge jump between someone not wanting to deal with a normal element of game play and someone being sexually harassed. And you crossed that bridge without hesitation, conflating the two willfully and with malice.
> 
> Your acting like I'm the one that isn't safe to game with. By why would anyone reading this thread think you were safe to game with?



okay, you know someone's gone completely off the rails when their tone of voice reminds you of Bubble Bass from goddamn Spongebob Squarepants. I think I've ignored everyone that isn't actually interested in discussing the subject, so good luck, and I hope you find people for your con table that aren't the same 4 friends you have every time.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Rob Kuntz said:


> I was of course posing a general rather than specific instance.  It is up to the player/person to decide upon the extremes of such and as warranted, which includes them making their own responsible decisions and personal  assessment regarding forthcoming actions in relation to their thoughts and in concert with the responsibility of the shared contract.



okay, I guess I misunderstood what you were trying to get at. it doesn't help that people are trying to push that the other players are the real victim if someone uses the x-card (when in reality most players at a con game are there to just have fun and not take things seriously) and not as openly admitting they feel that their own fun might be diminished. 

it also seems like for some people here the existence of the x-card means a player leaving due to a bad experience is somehow off the table. I feel pretty certain if a DM can't accommodate a player in the end that player might leave in good faith instead. I don't have much experience with this myself, but people with such issues, myself included, are usually used to that sort of thing.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> okay, you know someone's gone completely off the rails when their tone of voice reminds you of Bubble Bass from goddamn Spongebob SquarePants.




I think this reveals a lot more about what is going on in your head than what is going on in mine. 

There are an awful lot of people in this thread assuring me that while they are being jerks it is only for a good cause.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Aw well. I tried to get folks to actually engage specifics instead of hypotheticals. I did actually try. 

But unfortunately it’s easier to win arguments when you don’t ever bother actually discussing the issue but constantly derail. 

Heck @Celebrim’s example of the player who had just lost his father. How would that have played out any differently had the player used an X-card? It would get exactly the same result. 

But of course folks are going to argue that too. 

Yeah. Time for me to unwatch the thread. Just too depressing.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Aw well. I tried to get folks to actually engage specifics instead of hypotheticals. I did actually try.
> 
> But unfortunately it’s easier to win arguments when you don’t ever bother actually discussing the issue but constantly derail.
> 
> ...



man, it's probably best to ignore the concern trolls. not everyone here is going to agree with us, but it was never really worth giving any attention to those who actually have no interest in an actual discussion.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heck @Celebrim’s example of the player who had just lost his father. How would that have played out any differently had the player used an X-card? It would get exactly the same result.




Are you trying to argue my point for me?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Are you trying to argue my point for me?




If it gets the same result, then what’s the problem with the X card? Why not have both options? The player could volunteer the information if he or she wanted or the player may not. Either way the problem is resolved. 

What’s wrong with adding more tools to the box?


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> If it gets the same result, then what’s the problem with the X card?




If it gets the same result, then why do you need an X card?  



> What’s wrong with adding more tools to the box?




Well, for one thing, if they aren't useful, they are clutter, physically, emotionally, and mentally. For another, I think that they discourage verbal communication.

For the rest, you'll have to review the argument I've been developing over the entire course of the thread, namely, that no only do they not serve a useful purpose, but they are likely to serve a bad one.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Why do we need to encourage verbal communication?  What if the person just doesn't want to talk, or, perhaps, is emotional enough, that verbalizing is more difficult?  

IOW, why are you forcing every person who might be having issues to conform to your level of comfort and your personal need for verbal interaction?  If I have two methods with which people can communicate to me that they are in distress, that's better than one method.

Or, to put it another way, did you actually need to know that your player's father had passed away recently?  Or would it have been good enough for the player to just say, "Hey, you mind if we don't play through this?"  And, if "Hey, you mind if we don't play through this" is good enough, then touching a card is as well.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Why do we need to encourage verbal communication?  What if the person just doesn't want to talk, or, perhaps, is emotional enough, that verbalizing is more difficult?




You really think you need an X-Card to notice when that is the case?


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> You really think you need an X-Card to notice when that is the case?





			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> *What if the person just doesn't want to talk*



also, being "emotional" isn't just being angry/upset looking, and a GM might not immediately notice. if it helps more people get their point across, then yes.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 3, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> You really think you need an X-Card to notice when that is the case?




Yes.

Years ago I was running a game in which one aspect of the play was making one player miserable. She didn’t feel she could talk about it, mostly because she felt she’d get exactly the kind of reaction some people here are insisting on - that they’d demand a ‘conversation,’ that they’d try to convince her she was wrong, that they’d tell her that the gaming table wasn’t a therapy session, that they’d tell her to leave.

Eventually it made her so miserable that she left anyway. I didn’t find out until years later why. I had no idea that aspect of the game made her uncomfortable. And had there been an X-card at the table, I would have easily excised that part of the game and moved on.

You can’t always tell what is going on with the people at your table. People don’t like admitting that they’re not happy with that scene of torture, or murder, or the beating, or the one where the child is trapped in a box, or standing in the sun for hours wondering if you’re going to die, or rape, or... do I go on? And one of the reasons they don’t like bringing it up is because they know that almost without fail, the immediate response is a question that they really don’t want to answer at a table with their friends (or worse, strangers). The X-card gives them a safe way to let raise the issue. And s vital part of it is the fact that they can do so without the fear of that follow up question.

And when you get down to it, the GM’s desire to have a spider-monster attack the PCs just isn’t that important.


----------



## Phion (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Aw well. I tried to get folks to actually engage specifics instead of hypotheticals. I did actually try.
> 
> But unfortunately it’s easier to win arguments when you don’t ever bother actually discussing.




Is there academic studies on the use of x card? Is there unbiased quantative or qualitative surveys? From what I know the answer is no. Someone came up with the x card because it would hypothetically help to prevent "bleed" (a understandable cause) with a list of guidelines and explanations as to why they think it would help. Detractors of this method have provided hypothetical reasons to the short comings and impacts this will have for EVERYONE at the table through an attempt of mixing personal experience while cross referencing real world scenarios that have similar features. The detractors of the detractors have gone on to say that detractors of x card are wrong because hypothetically their hypothetics would never happen hypothetically they must just be bad people or atleast ignorant. 

EVERYONE is going off hypothetics here, because thats what happens when you try to norm a model that is not scientifically measured. If we decide to develop a new rule were if you write something in a forum causing someone distress and they can type "x" in response to you meaning you would have to change the way you are writing or just stop with the failure of doing so leading to a possible ban, based off your thousands of posts hypothetically you might be against this? You dismiss issues with nothing but hypothetics with no intention of adapting your world view.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

@Phion - I'd point out that this isn't new to gaming.  I heard about this four years ago from the Fear the Boot Podcast and when they talked about it, they certainly weren't all that surprised about it, as if it had sprung out of nowhere.  This isn't just being pulled out of someone's posterior.  This is an ongoing practice that has been used in con's and in games for some time. 

Is it "scientifically studied"?  Probably not.  But, again, I'm arguing against endless hypothesizing.  Let's actually use some real examples here.  Pull out a module, look for something that you think might run into an X card situation and let's discuss possible strategies for how to make this work.

Dueling made up scenarios where everyone simply creates a situation that best fits their argument in order to "prove" their points is useless.

I'd point out that there is a pretty lengthy list of behavior that is verbotten on the site.  Keep it grandma friendly, no swearing, no politics or religion (although that one gets bent a few times), that sort of thing.  I could just imagine the ENORMOUS outcry from the free speech folks if a con tried to be even half as controlling over your speech as this site is.  

We don't have an "x-button" because we have active moderators, anonymity, and a shopping list of bannable offenses.  

But, hey, why not just toss yet another side bar conversation on the fire instead of actually discussing the issue.  Keep it up and eventually it will go away right?  No need to actually engage, we can just bafflegab our way around, just like every freaking time anything like this comes up. 

I'm so bloody sick of it.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

I'll probably be lambasted for this.  But, to make an argument from *statistics*, how many people are suffering panic attacks during the middle of a session on average?  Is this actually a problem?  Have you seen it happen?  This entire argument is a pointless hypothetical, and one side thinks that the opposing side is made up of emotionless sociopaths.  I can deal with being called an asshat, even when I, for the most part, agree with users like @Panda-s1 and @Hussar, but what I can't abide the poisonous vitriol being thrown.  No one knows if this is a problem or not, and no one knows if these debated hypotheticals actually make sense in context.  At least be civil.

Once again, this may be an immense problem in gaming that I simply haven't seen happen, but you can't pretend that your ideological foes are equivalent to misanthropic sociopaths simply because they don't agree with you.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I'm being offensive and judgmental?  Good!  Anyone who thinks that their game of pretend elf is more important than the real life suffering of a fellow human being deserves to be negatively judged.




That doesn't seem to be my or @Celebrim 's argument.  Instead, we have both expressed the belief that the X card is inhuman (me) or that it isn't necessary, and causes more harm than good (both of us).  I never said that my game of Elves and Dwarves is more important than someone's mental breakdown.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Again, I'll point out, when confronted with someone having a panic attack, and your (not you specifically, but, the general your) first reaction is "oh, no, how is this going to impact my game?" then, yes, misanthropic I think really does apply.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Again, I'll point out, when confronted with someone having a panic attack, and your (not you specifically, but, the general your) first reaction is "oh, no, how is this going to impact my game?" then, yes, misanthropic I think really does apply.



You seem to be utterly incapable of understanding my argument that the X card doesn't seem like a good way to help people feel safe at the table.  Good day, and stop name-calling.  Calling people misanthropic doesn't accomplish anything.  In fact, do you know where I think misanthropic applies?  Perhaps, it applies to people incapable of looking at others as human beings, only able to rage against them with righteous anger, as if they were nazis.


----------



## Phion (Oct 3, 2019)

@Hussar 

100% agree that in the end all a dueling of scenarios is cause an endless discussion and people more keen on percieved winning than reaching an actual truth. I guess the reality of the game is that unless you take an interest in podcasts and staying up to date with regional/ global events it would be very easy to conclude that topics such as "bleed" or the x card model as nonsense if such topics are not relevant (at face value) in there own sphere of play. I can appreciate that you feel that you are just going in circles after years of experience on similar matters. But for what its worth I am leaving this subject from an attitude of complete dismissal of the topic to a attitude of at best a way to avoid bad feelings for some who need the support to at worst a tool that is not needed for a portion of the gaming population; so perhaps these discussions have worth.

On the matter of the x button, its not very far fetched if you think about it.A moderator can not identify my feelings for me, site rules can not possibly make rules that follows everyones emotional needs or act out on them consistently and lastly regardless of the language or intended meaning used by a user they have no control on how I will recieve their message. If I am so upset by a forum, the expectation would be I would be able to stop/ remove myself from the discussion; but then why should I be excluded when all they have to do is adapt to my needs? And why should you be deprived of your preferred means to communicate to suit mine, you have feelings and preferences as well. I think the basis of the detractors comments is simply wanting to know where we end up following the change and how the future looks with the ever changing position markers, when something is introduced to them with no hard evidence all they are left to work with is the hypotheticals.

It would be nice if in a few years time there was research conducted to give us some kind of way to identify if such methods are actually working; but of course this would be insanly hard to pull off and would be questioned regardless.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Ok, let's see if I can practice what I preach.  Let's use a scene from an actual adventure and see if we can find some resolution strategies when someone uses an X card.
> 
> Presumption:  There are 6 people at the table, DM +5 players.  For the sake of argument, let's put it at a con and everyone is a stranger.  ((feel free to post your own example if you don't like this one))
> 
> ...




It needs to be a bit more specific on context than that though to actually judge or discuss meaningfully.

Did the PC just unwillingly take a drug in downtime so skipping forward has no big effect on the story? Did they think it was a combat potion and unwittingly incapacitate themselves in the middle of a fight and you short circuited everyone from the rest of the fight and fast forwarded to a future time later? Did this interrupt an important scene of the con game such as a climax?

Is it the lurid nightmare description that disturbs them or the fact that they were unwillingly drugged? Would you alter how you handled it knowing it was one or the other?


----------



## Plissken (Oct 3, 2019)

Wow, just found this crazy thread. What happened to just killing monsters and taking their treasure?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 3, 2019)

Voadam said:


> It needs to be a bit more specific on context than that though to actually judge or discuss meaningfully.
> 
> Did the PC just unwillingly take a drug in downtime so skipping forward has no big effect on the story? Did they think it was a combat potion and unwittingly incapacitate themselves in the middle of a fight and you short circuited everyone from the rest of the fight and fast forwarded to a future time later? Did this interrupt an important scene of the con game such as a climax?
> 
> Is it the lurid nightmare description that disturbs them or the fact that they were unwillingly drugged? Would you alter how you handled it knowing it was one or the other?




Me?  Personally?   No, I wouldn't.  The player has touched the X-card/indicated that they are distressed by what's going on.  I don't care when this is coming up, frankly.  

IMO, no scene in a game is more important than that.  It just isn't.  

Does it actually matter?  Are you actually comfortable with the notion that someone's distress is less important than what's going on during a game, to the point where the context will ever matter?

But, no, I wouldn't handle it particularly differently, I don't think.  I'd simply skip over the drug part and get on with the next bit of the adventure.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Me?  Personally?   No, I wouldn't.  The player has touched the X-card/indicated that they are distressed by what's going on.  I don't care when this is coming up, frankly.
> 
> IMO, no scene in a game is more important than that.  It just isn't.
> 
> ...



So, I see that you've chosen not respond to my earlier post, and have continued to characterize others as caring more about the game than the emotions and suffering of others.  Well played, hypocrite.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> So, I see that you've chosen not respond to my earlier post, and have continued to characterize others as caring more about the game than the emotions and suffering of others.  Well played, hypocrite.




Don't give in to the dark side.  Once you give in to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.   You will know you are not on the dark side when you are at peace, calm, filled with compassion even for those you must rhetorically battle.   Remember, a Jedi's true strength flows not from anger or detachment, but empathy.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Don't give in to the dark side.  Once you give in to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.   You will know you are not on the dark side when you are at peace, calm, filled with compassion even for those you must rhetorically battle.   Remember, a Jedi's true strength flows not from anger or detachment, but empathy.



True, very true master Celebrim.  I shall spend a few moments meditating on what I have done.


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 3, 2019)

Plissken said:


> Wow, just found this crazy thread. What happened to just killing monsters and taking their treasure?




I think it disappears somewhere between being a theater patron reacting for the first time to Texas Chainsaw Massacre and fleeing home to read Bambi, only to be doubly dissappointed. /sarc


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2019)

*Mod note:*
People,

Where did you get the idea that calling people misanthropes and hypocrites was acceptable?  

It isn't.  And no, playful, "I will meditate on what I have done," does not show any actual regret or recognition that what you did was not appropriate.

Let us remember that this is a discussion about a _completely optional tool_. I don't care which side you are on - if you stoop to name-calling and personal attacks in this context, you are demonstrating that you care more about winning an argument then about the people you are dealing with in the moment, and that's not cool, and unfortunately ironic in this context.

This thread seems to be displaying mostly head-butting behavior, with sides dug in, and little actual exchange of ideas at this time.  That means it is apt to be closed soon, just so you are aware.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Me?  Personally?   No, I wouldn't.  The player has touched the X-card/indicated that they are distressed by what's going on.  I don't care when this is coming up, frankly.
> 
> IMO, no scene in a game is more important than that.  It just isn't.
> 
> ...




But it seems the context matters for what the tapper wants you to do.

For example if they were disturbed by the lurid nightmare description and not the incapacitation it can change what they want. If it was in, say, a fight where they unwittingly thought they were drinking a potion they could have just wanted you to stop grinding on their shark phobia instead of ending the fight for everybody.


----------



## jasper (Oct 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Don't give in to the dark side.  Once you give in to the dark side, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will.   You will know you are not on the dark side when you are at peace, calm, filled with compassion even for those you must rhetorically battle.   Remember, a Jedi's true strength flows not from anger or detachment, but empathy.



Shut up green puppet or at least let your pappy wand get a paper route to buy his mummy out of slavery from that blue flying thingy.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

@Gradine: No footnotes.  The document doesn't have footnotes.

Besides, I was too long in and around academia for that sort of argument from authority to carry much weight with me. I know how the sausage gets made. It's bad enough in the hard sciences, and it's even worse in the soft studies.

I can't think of a worse way to represent our hobby to the general public than saying it is something that requires "aftercare" or giving bullet points like "The default for consent is "No"" that divorced from context could easily be a tract about sexual assault. Remember the occult scare happened in large part because of the careless inclusion of a lot of unnecessarily provocative art and names derived from real world esoteric/occult religious practice. In short, it wierded people out. The vast majority of the public, especially the ones with children, do not think it is "cool" when the game is associated with pornography (see the community's falling in and out of love with ZacS), and are likely to interpret documents like this very very differently than you are. They are going to go with their gut, and there gut is not going to say, "Oh this makes me feel safe. This makes me feel like this is an activity where my daughter will be safe."  

So even from the perspective of "inclusivity" this is going to fail.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Voadam said:


> ending the fight for everybody.



"but what if they do it to end the fight and not die?"
"you don't have to end the fight"
"but what about the other players? they'll never be okay with this!"
"I think most players are fine if the game changes"
"but what if they do it to end the the fight and not die?"
"..."


----------



## Rob Kuntz (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> "but what if they do it to end the fight and not die?"
> "you don't have to end the fight"
> "but what about the other players? they'll never be okay with this!"
> "I think most players are fine if the game changes"
> ...




*“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”*

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> So, I see that you've chosen not respond to my earlier post, and have continued to characterize others as caring more about the game than the emotions and suffering of others.  Well played, hypocrite.



idk people seem intent on ignoring me when I question the idea of "not using the x-card for the sake of the other players". what a way to make your point seem selfless! even though your average player might not actually care either way. the most I've gotten is "but I always get players like that!", but no one wants to admit this point is an edge case at best and not really a good argument against the x-card.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Rob Kuntz said:


> *“Our life is what our thoughts make it.”*
> 
> ― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations







__





						Nirvana fallacy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Phion said:


> Is there academic studies on the use of x card? Is there unbiased quantative or qualitative surveys? From what I know the answer is no.



are there academic studies of whether or not D&D will harm your brain? are there unbiased surveys? man, even if there are I'm fairly certain you haven't read any, and even if you did they didn't lead to your decision to play D&D. same with the x-card.

"but I play D&D and know it's not bad!" exactly.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> "but what if they do it to end the fight and not die?"
> "you don't have to end the fight"
> "but what about the other players? they'll never be okay with this!"
> "I think most players are fine if the game changes"
> ...




Hussar's solution for his example drug situation x-card tapping was to advance to the next scene regardless of variations in context, I was saying that the appropriateness of advancing to the next scene or cutting short the description and continuing the scene are context dependent.

This is taking as a given the good faith of the tapper and the DM and the rest of the party.


----------



## Phion (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> are there academic studies of whether or not D&D will harm your brain? are there unbiased surveys? man, even if there are I'm fairly certain you haven't read any, and even if you did they didn't lead to your decision to play D&D. same with the x-card.




Yeah fair point, it has been quite a while since I have bothered to look into academic research; a lot could happen in 3 years. Way too busy to be keeping up with all that.


----------



## Panda-s1 (Oct 3, 2019)

Voadam said:


> Hussar's solution for his example drug situation x-card tapping was to advance to the next scene regardless of variations in context, I was saying that the appropriateness of advancing to the next scene or cutting short the description and continuing the scene are context dependent.
> 
> This is taking as a given the good faith of the tapper and the DM and the rest of the party.



okay fair. but I am tired of people steering the conversation toward "the other players" as if all players are going to be upset that the game changed at all. like I am _very_ tempted to photoshop the meme of Helen Lovejoy to say "Won't somebody please think of the [players]?!" but I'm pretty sure replying with memes is frowned upon. 

for once I would like to see someone simply say they'd be upset they didn't get to run the game as planned because someone tapped the x-card apropos of nothing other than their own feelings.


----------



## Phion (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> for once I would like to see someone simply say they'd be upset they didn't get to run the game as planned because someone tapped the x-card apropos of nothing other than their own feelings.




Oh yeah there is definitely that as well, I can imagine myself getting pretty annoyed if I'd spent about 4-5 hours planning a custom campaign during a week for perhaps a portion of it not going as I had intended if I felt like the others would enjoy it. When I talked about everyone I meant everyone. If one person can "bleed" then everyone can "bleed". I mean sure you could argue the GM should be more than willing to adapt on the fly as they have a duty of care; but again lets be real here for a second, its would only be human for the GM or other players who wanted the original raw version of a session to feel frustrated if things went as far as major adaptions to the session.


----------



## talien (Oct 3, 2019)

In light of the possibility of this thread being closed, I thought I'd add why I wrote the article. It pivots on three points:

The game industry is changing in both how the game is played (the level of possible immersion) and the players who are playing it (new players who come from very different experiences with their own traumas).
We've swung from RPGs being a highly tactical, strategic game to voice actors acting out their characters in video streams, which makes the topic of bleed all the more relevant. It is entirely possible to play RPGs without experiencing much bleed, but acknowledgement that it exists is an important part of understanding how other players (who may not play like existing players) interact with the game.
Putting 1 and 2 together, these new players experience RPGs differently than established players. Tools like the x-card are attempts to renegotiate the assumed social contracts that were established when you just played D&D with friends. The fact that they're your friends means the social contracts have already been set down. X-cards are most certainly for new players in new settings with people they don't know  -- conventions are a possible example, but not the only one. You can now just run a meet-up and find a bunch of players you've never met before. We're both more social and more uncertain in our interpersonal interactions than ever before. 
If you do not believe in bleed -- that your real life experiences can affect your in-game play and vice-versa -- x-cards won't make much sense. If you do not acknowledge that an influx of new players with new experiences -- some of them traumatic and different from our own -- are joining tabletop gaming, you probably don't see a need for x-cards. And if you lived through the Satanic Panic as I did, the very discussion of bleed feels like a concession to so many detractors who were coming after us because "evil is as evil does."

We've swung from RPGs being a fun, harmless experience to one that can be deeply engaging -- even traumatic -- for some. As I think this very long thread has demonstrated, it can be both.


----------



## Celebrim (Oct 3, 2019)

talien said:


> In light of the possibility of this thread being closed, I thought I'd add why I wrote the article.




Since no one has been more critical than me, I feel you are owed an explanation.

First of all, I think these are important topics, but that your journalistic style while appropriate in some contexts does you no favor in this case. The distance that it puts you from the topic is off-putting given the relative informality of the setting.  Secondly, I don't think anyone* wanted to discuss the topics, with the possible exception of myself. You were derailed as soon as you brought 'Consent in Gaming' into the topic, complicating what would have already been a complex discussion. I think you would have been better off sticking to what is (IMO) being unfortunately labeled as "bleed" and not complicating the topic with issues of "consent" that are not closely related, much less referring to the "Consent in Gaming" document.



> The game industry is changing in both how the game is played (the level of possible immersion) and the players who are playing it (new players who come from very different experiences with their own traumas).




No it isn't. At the risk of being that guy shaking the cane going, "You kids get off my lawn", the trouble with young gamers is that they really lack perspective. The level of immersion I was putting into games in the early 90's back when I had time for it because I didn't have a family, a career, a spouse, and other adult responsibilities makes what I do now seem like kid's stuff. And there is nothing new under the sun here. This generation didn't invent the LARP or the dramatic RPG. I know for a fact that the same sort of stuff existed as far back as at least 1983 when I was too young to experience it, and that this isn't the first generation with black gamers, or female gamers, or gamers with diverse sexual habits. We got there a good 30 years before you.

There is nothing new about "bleed". I wrote a paper on the topic for my Communication class in college. I didn't call it "bleed" then, and I don't think I've kept that paper through all the moves, but this isn't a new topic or a new topic of concern. Again, I know for a fact it goes back to at least 1983, and I remember talking about this with people and them thinking that I was suggesting, by suggesting that it was possible for gaming to be unhealthy, that I was suggesting it was unhealthy and I was some sort of B.A.D.D. actor.

Again, we weren't all just doing glorified war gaming 30 or 40 years ago, so don't try to tell me that the kids are experiencing things differently than the established players.

This thread has nothing to do with what I think of "bleed" because no one has been willing to discuss it.   I have 4000 words of a partial essay sitting on my home computer as to what I do actually think of "bleed", and maybe in between all my other work and writing I'll finish that and start what I hope won't be as dysfunctional of a thread as this one by starting in a much less provocative place than you did.



> We've swung from RPGs being a fun, harmless experience to one that can be deeply engaging -- even traumatic -- for some. As I think this very long thread has demonstrated, it can be both.




This isn't a change.

*And by 'anyone' I mean the people complaining about 'sea lions' and that the people who disagreed with them didn't really want to have a discussion were the ones that least wanted to have a discussion, because by 'discussion' they meant 'I only want to hear from people who affirm and validate what I've already chosen to believe'.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 3, 2019)

I'm going to stop following this thread, it's not all that interesting anymore.  Before I go, I just want to say that products like this are rare and excellent, and we should be happy that there are people out there in the gaming community who give thought to stuff like this.  I mean, someone took the time to think carefully about their friends and fellow gamers, and they crafted a tool that might improve everyone's enjoyment of the game.  Then they released it to the gaming community _as a gift_, free of charge and completely optional.  We need more stuff like this, and I hope to see more in the future.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> Secondly, I don't think anyone* wanted to discuss the topics, with the possible exception of myself.
> 
> ...
> 
> *And by 'anyone' I mean the people complaining about 'sea lions' and that the people who disagreed with them didn't really want to have a discussion were the ones that least wanted to have a discussion, because by 'discussion' they meant 'I only want to hear from people who affirm and validate what I've already chosen to believe'.




*Mod Note:*
Right.  "I will besmirch everyone else as arguing in bad faith, but I, I am the one true person who wanted to discuss it!"  Did you not note that, in order to say that, you had to discard the statements of people who didn't affirm and validate what _YOU_ have already chosen to believe?

You are done in this thread.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Oct 3, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Years ago I was running a game in which one aspect of the play was making one player miserable. She didn’t feel she could talk about it, mostly because she felt she’d get exactly the kind of reaction some people here are insisting on - that they’d demand a ‘conversation,’ that they’d try to convince her she was wrong, that they’d tell her that the gaming table wasn’t a therapy session, that they’d tell her to leave.
> 
> ...




Things like this are probably the biggest reason I may implement the X-Card at my home game even though I'm confident it will never be used.

I don't think it's supposed to be a tool for the majority of tables. The majority will take care of themselves.

But I will gladly bend over backwards to keep a player from leaving the game based on something I could have easily steered away from had I only known. It seems like this could help me know.


----------



## jasper (Oct 3, 2019)

@tailen hahaaha

“…We've swung from RPGs being a fun, harmless experience to one that can be deeply engaging -- even traumatic -- for some. As I think this very long thread has demonstrated, it can be both…..”

holy BADWRONGFUN you mean when Bill gave me a wedgie back in Jan 1981 when I laughed at his pc dying it was a harmless experience? Hello some gamers had traumatic experiences in the 1960s which they brought to table in the 70s and 80s. Some people who had traumatic experiences from 1970s are bring their issues to table today.

1. I knew people who got upset in 1983 when they lost their pcs. Some the other weirdoes in 1980 wrote costumes but they were from a different high school and we knew they were crazy. So the possible level of immersion has not changed but as a whole the players are more aware of the possibility of different levels of immersion.

2. Highly tactical to VOICE actors. Did you ever play with a group of grunts, arty, a medic and army cook? Or 3 drama students and a choir member? Since I started, how tactical the game was depended on the group make up or the unofficial boss. No. Even today at my open Adventure League table how tactical a table can be, depends on who is gaming.

How about changing 2. ? To “The public at large and new players are used to voice actors showing how the game is played. This leads to different view point on how the game should be played.”

3 should be change to “1. Today, people are more aware RPGs bring people from various lifestyles, personal experience (some with traumatic and different from our own), and expectations to the table. The X card is a method for new players to your group to renegotiate the assumed social contracts that were established when you just played D&D with friends. “


----------



## talien (Oct 3, 2019)

I like all your edits Jasper. 

For the record, I don't think recognizing any one person's trauma invalidates or minimizes anybody else's.


----------



## generic (Oct 3, 2019)

Panda-s1 said:


> are there academic studies of whether or not D&D will harm your brain? are there unbiased surveys? man, even if there are I'm fairly certain you haven't read any, and even if you did they didn't lead to your decision to play D&D. same with the x-card.
> 
> "but I play D&D and know it's not bad!" exactly.



I have to admit, this is a good point.  Bravo, Panda-s1.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 4, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> For another, I think that they discourage verbal communication.



And that has been my objection to the X Card from CiG from jump.  It's repeatedly hammered home in that document that you don't need to and shouldn't explain anything, not even a "this thing is upsetting to me".  It's entire purpose is to shut down the social aspect of a social activity.





Hussar said:


> Why do we need to encourage verbal communication?



Because social activities are how you learn to communicate.  Fostering an environment where communication is actively discouraged is counter-productive.



> What if the person just doesn't want to talk, or, perhaps, is emotional enough, that verbalizing is more difficult?



Because if they are encouraged to never mention what the problem is, it can never be solved or even moved past.  If they shut down game for the night, and then because a document said it's okay to never ever actually articulate even in the smallest what the problem is, I will not invite them back.


I don't care what their motivations are, or why they are traumatized, all I need to know is what is causing the problem right there at the table so it can either be avoided or alleviated in the future.



> Or, to put it another way, did you actually need to know that your player's father had passed away recently?  Or would it have been good enough for the player to just say, "Hey, you mind if we don't play through this?"



If I've gone through the trouble of crafting a plotline for someone and am told "Um, I really don't want to deal with the plot now, sorry" and that's it?  I'll never bother crafting another personalized plotline for them.  Not worth the effort.  However, if they give me a reason*?  Sure, I can see setting it aside, or even completely dropping all that work right into the circular filing cabinet and be fine with it.

But that's just my two cents.


* And mean a real reason, not just "Eh, I'm not interested anymore" or "I decided to change my backstory, so there is no estranged father".






macd21 said:


> Years ago I was running a game in which one aspect of the play was making one player miserable. She didn’t feel she could talk about it, mostly because she felt she’d get exactly the kind of reaction some people here are insisting on - that they’d demand a ‘conversation,’ that they’d try to convince her she was wrong, that they’d tell her that the gaming table wasn’t a therapy session, that they’d tell her to leave.
> 
> Eventually it made her so miserable that she left anyway. I didn’t find out until years later why. I had no idea that aspect of the game made her uncomfortable. And had there been an X-card at the table, I would have easily excised that part of the game and moved on.



Are you saying the problem was so obvious that you'ld instantly intuit it  if the X Card were tapped but somehow, absent the X Card it was also simultaneously subtle and beyond knowing?

Does the X Card somehow give you and Hussar telepathy?

[/QUOTE]You can’t always tell what is going on with the people at your table.







> Which is why you need to have conversations with people.  Absent good communication, of course no one will trust you enough to ever mention the problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Does the X Card somehow give you and Hussar telepathy?




No, it really doesn't.

Which is why I keep trying to suggest possible strategies that a DM could use to move forward.  

For example, if we're in the middle of that drug thing I posted earlier, and someone taps the X card, I'm going to avoid using that drug in the future.  Now whether the person was triggered because of sharks, or drug use, or whatever, I don't care.  I have the evidence, right in front of me, that _something _about that drug made a player feel very, very uncomfortable.

So, skip the drug.  Easy.

Now, later on down the road, over a coffee after the session, or perhaps even later, when the player has calmed down, THEN I might ask what the issue was.  Or, better yet, ask if they want to talk about about it.  But, confronting the player right then and there?  "Why are you stopping the game?  What's wrong?"  when that player is already distressed and unhappy?  

Yeah, that's not a conversation that's going to go well.  Either the player is going to lash out, because they're already feeling very upset and you're not helping, or they're going to clam up.  Or, worse, you're just justifying their guilty feelings because now you're in their face (even with the best of intentions) forcing them to talk about something they don't want to talk about.  At least, not right now.

See, you keep insisting that this shuts down communication.  No, it doesn't.  It gives another avenue for communication that does not force anyone to expose their personal trauma at this time.  Demanding someone explain themselves, to the point where you would eject them from the group if they don't explain themselves, when they are three seconds from a full blown panic attack is just NOT the correct response.  It really, really, isn't.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 4, 2019)

This threads gonna end well.

Solution drink more beer


----------



## S'mon (Oct 4, 2019)

Celebrim said:


> But they are not actually going to collect evidence. I mean, bad things happening at cons are already black swans as it is. For most con goers, most of the time, they see no black swans, so they would logically assume "no black swans" or "this isn't a big problem". It's only for the people it happens to that this is a big deal.
> 
> So what you are going to have is the adoption of X cards, and problems will still be black swans. Since the cards do nothing 99.99% of the time, and the odds of black swans are low anyway, the general impression everyone will have is exactly the same as before "this isn't a big problem". The results are therefore guaranteed to be perceived as a success no matter what. It could takes years to shake out in real problems in a way anyone questions the model, and then since this was a matter of faith in the first place, initially no one will believe it.
> 
> So yeah, the point is that there aren't actually going to be any scientific trials gathering meaningful data.




I'm sympathetic to your argument, but the implication seems to be that the X-card like the home alarm system can make anxious people feel safer, which could be a good thing in itself. If the card isn't used - thus no disruption - and its presence on the table makes people happier, that would be an argument in favour of it.

Personally though I suffer from pretty severe anxiety, enough to be on citalopram, and as GM I would find an X card on the table 'triggering' - it would make me anxious about its potential use and I wouldn't be able to GM, so it would have the opposite effect.


----------



## Derren (Oct 4, 2019)

Just how many RPG gamers who can be traumatized by make believe so that they can't even speak about it do you think are out there?

Seriously, to me it sounds like the people you seem to wish to aid with the X card are barely functional and have much worse problems to worry about than playing an RPG at a con.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2019)

Derren said:


> Just how many RPG gamers who can be traumatized by make believe so that they can't even speak about it do you think are out there?
> 
> Seriously, to me it sounds like the people you seem to wish to aid with the X card are barely functional and have much worse problems to worry about than playing an RPG at a con.




Well, I'm one of them.

As I mentioned before, the notion of romance in the game made me very, very uncomfortable.  And, I did exactly what folks suggested - I tried to be a good player and play through it, I didn't want to make waves, I didn't want to disrupt the game.

And it kept going on and on.  I wound up blowing up on the poor woman who was playing the other character, and, frankly, acting like a real ass hat.  (Yeah, what a shock.  Hussar being an ass hat.    )  I actually dropped out of the game, though, to be fair, there were other reasons besides this one, but, this did play a part in my dropping out of a group that I had played with for quite a few years (the issue had never come up previously).

Now, I could not articulate at the time what was bothering me, and, wanting to be a "good player" I figured I could just gut my way through it and everything would be fine.  But, it kept coming back up, session after session.  And the longer it went on, the more difficult it was for me to say anything, until, well, it came to a head, I acted very poorly, lashed out at this poor woman who was doing absolutely nothing wrong, and pretty much taking a very large dump in the middle of the session.

So, yeah, having a way that I could just have touched a card, knowing that I wouldn't have to explain myself, because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure what all was bothering me that much and, well, I had zero interest in dissecting my brain in front of my gaming group, would have saved a ton of problems.  I would have continued with the group quite happily (maybe - there were some other things that were bugging me, but, probably I would have continued) and everything would have been hunky dory.

Maybe you feel comfortable exposing your anxieties in front of a group of people, but, I, for one, certainly don't.  So, @Derren, you tell me, what should I have done?  How could I have communicated to the group that I had zero interest in playing out a romance with another player and it was making me so extremely uncomfortable that I was hating the session?  How do I communicate that to the group in such a way that I don't have to justify my anxieties to anyone else, but, rather, know beforehand that my anxieties will be respected and every effort will be made to just move on, rather than trying to psychoanalyze me?


----------



## macd21 (Oct 4, 2019)

Derren said:


> Just how many RPG gamers who can be traumatized by make believe so that they can't even speak about it do you think are out there?
> 
> Seriously, to me it sounds like the people you seem to wish to aid with the X card are barely functional and have much worse problems to worry about than playing an RPG at a con.




Those people exist, but the X-card isn’t just for them. You don’t have to be ‘barely functional’ to not want to talk about it at the table. Which results in players keeping their mouths shut and being miserable, then quite possibly taking it out on someone else (as in Hussar’s case) or leaving the group (as my player did).

I’ve heard plenty of horror stories from cons, of GMs who ran something someone was unhappy with, but they sat there and took it, because they couldn’t see a way to raise the issue and just waited it out (though in one case an arachnophobe did raise it, then left the table after the GM started throwing plastic spider minis at him). This naughty word happens, and more than you think.


----------



## pemerton (Oct 4, 2019)

I'm not really following this thread, but I don't get what the problem with the X-card is meant to be.

If you're playing at home and don't like it, don't use it.

If you're GMing at a convention there are presumably already convention rules and expectations you're meant to abide by - is this the one that's going to break the metaphorical back?

If you're playing at a convention with the X-card on the table, how likely do you think it is that someone will use it? And suppose they do, what are you worried about as the consequences? I would think that playing with strangers is already a bit of a gamble, and again it seems strange to me to see the X-card as the last straw.

And finally, if others are using it and you're not at their tables what's the big deal?


----------



## generic (Oct 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, it really doesn't.
> 
> Which is why I keep trying to suggest possible strategies that a DM could use to move forward.
> 
> ...



I really do sympathize with your position Hussar.  I'm the type of DM who, unless we've all agreed to play an intense horror game (which my group is actually doing now), never wants to force the players to feel uncomfortable in a game session.

It does, however, sound like what you're saying is that the X-card does give you telepathy.  In your example, how am I supposed to know what's bothering the player if I can't simply ask them what's bothering them?  I don't even need to ask why it's bothering them, but can I not ask what is bothering them?

Maybe this is more obvious for people who have better social skills than I.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 4, 2019)

How is it that every thread vaguely related to this topic zeroes in on and hyper-focuses solely on X-cards, over and over again? I mean, I know they were mentioned in the article, but so was a lot of other stuff, and we keep having this exact same conversation with the same participants again and again.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Oct 4, 2019)

Morrus said:


> How is it that every thread vaguely related to this topic zeroes in on and hyper-focuses solely on X-cards, over and over again? I mean, I know they were mentioned in the article, but so was a lot of other stuff, and we keep having this exact same conversation with the same participants again and again.



When nerds get angry they hyperfixate on the source of their anger. Which may not be rational. They want everyone else to know they have OPINIONS. And by golly they will give their opinions.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> No, it really doesn't.



Then why keep glossing over the very real fact that you don't know and keep acting like it's 'super easy, barely an inconvenience'?

You don't know what the X Card was thrown over.  Therefore, you can't know what is the cause.  So to continue forward and force that player to face those traumas again, because you don;t know what the X Card was thrown over is very problematic as a GM.



> Which is why I keep trying to suggest possible strategies that a DM could use to move forward.



There are only two strategies:  1 - Shut down the game and do something else.  However since you're not allowed to ask the X Card thrower questions, what that something else is is beyond me.  I mean they could then suggest a new activity, if they are up to making a suggestion unasked.  2 - Stop everything that is happening in scene _and at the table_, and do something else "safe in your perfect knowledge" that whatever else you move on to can't possibly further traumatize the X Card thrower.



> For example, if we're in the middle of that drug thing I posted earlier, and someone taps the X card, I'm going to avoid using that drug in the future.



Why?  In what way do you even know that the scene is what is causing the problem?

Real example:  New player came into our group.  Ten sessions in and we're all pretty on edge, the theme of the campaign this time around (albeit the Players did not know this) was 'managing failure'.  So everything was stacked against us to the point of repeated and constant failure with our PCs barely escaping and scraping by.  The GM had expected we'd get a few small marginal "least worst failures" here and there, but no, we exceeded expectations and had failed spectacularly in every endeavor.  So, there we have it, the tableau is set:

Mid way in session ten during a downtime (the entirety of this session was our PCs dealing with 'downtime' stuff, trying to figure out how to continue even surviving, let alone figuring out how to deal with our enemies) new Player blows a fuse and starts yelling and then storms out.

Now, we knew why the Player got upset (they were quite vocal about it), but if they'd have had an X Card, we'd have never known.  There was no scene to 'reset' or move beyond.  No other Player was acting any differently (except a few us were way more listless and tuned out due to "bloody depressing game").

So Hussar, absent the actual knowledge the Player presented, had they instead _silently_ tapped the X Card, how would you as GM have proceeded?  And no, "I would have read the room and not presented so much failure" isn't the actual answer.  _The problem the Player finally decided they couldn't take had nothing to do with the campaign, but one of the other Players._



> Now, later on down the road, over a coffee after the session, or perhaps even later, when the player has calmed down, THEN I might ask what the issue was.



Okay, so you are admitting that CiG is a terrible method of dealing with these problems, _as it's response is to never ask the Player anything._



> See, you keep insisting that this shuts down communication.  No, it doesn't.  It gives another avenue for communication that does not force anyone to expose their personal trauma at this time.



No it doesn't.  As I keep repeating, all it tells you is that _something_ is wrong.  You don't know what that something is.  To press forward happy in your perfect knowledge that just skipping this scene and never bringing up [SITUATION] again has solved this is farcical.  If the problem is the normal behavior of another Player, you have done nothing to solve the problem.  In fact, you may have just made it worse.



> Demanding someone explain themselves...



When have I said I would _demand_ anything?  I would ask.  If they do not wish to answer, that's fine, then knowing that I have no way to address the problem, there are two options; we take a break until the Player can at least mention what the problem is, so it can be avoided (or if it's the behavior of another Player it can be stopped/explained/interceded), or the Player needs to go (presumably somewhere where they will feel safer).

There are no other non-problematic options.  If you continue forward in your _perfect knowledge_ and present that trauma again because you don't know what it is, then it is you that are being deliberately toxic.





Derren said:


> Just how many RPG gamers who can be traumatized by make believe so that they can't even speak about it do you think are out there?



Less that 100% but greater than 0%.





Morrus said:


> How is it that every thread vaguely related to this topic zeroes in on and hyper-focuses solely on X-cards, over and over again?



In my case it's less "the X Card" and more "the X Card _and_ Consent in Gaming _and how it is presented therein_".



> I mean, I know they were mentioned in the article, but so was a lot of other stuff, and we keep having this exact same conversation with the same participants again and again.



Clearly there is something about the X Card that we few find exceptionally problematic.  It's even possible that we few have mentioned this over and over and over again and that problem keeps being ignored, hyperbolically inflated, or twisted into a straw man.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Phion (Oct 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> As I mentioned before, *(1.)* *the notion of romance in the game made me very, very uncomfortable*.  And, I did exactly what folks suggested - I tried to be a good player and play through it, I didn't want to make waves, I didn't want to disrupt the game.
> 
> Now, I could not articulate at the time what was bothering me, and, wanting to be a "good player"*(2.)* *I figured I could just gut my way through it* and everything would be fine.  But, it kept coming back up, (*3.)session after session.*  And the longer it went on, the more difficult it was for me to say anything, until, well, it came to a head,* (4.) I acted very poorly, lashed out at this poor woman who was doing absolutely nothing wrong, and pretty much taking a very large dump in the middle of the session.*
> 
> ...




Okay you see we have something to work with here, I have put comments in bold and a number to make it easier to bounce between points.
1.) You have told us what makes you uncomfortable, essentially your bleed. The group seem to not have an issue with it (I too find romance at the table distasteful).
2.) YOU decided you could deal with it. You were not forced. You knew what was making you uncomfortable with as shown in 1.). You of your own understanding of self thought you could get through it. Like a website or any content you click the "I agree" terms and conditions, you have consented to this.
3) "session after session". The group has made it clear that this is for better or worse what they do in their game. Whenever you show up to that table you are consenting to it like 2.). You knew that you were getting upset numerous times during sessions and yet like a moth to the flame you kept returning.
4) Taking the first 3 points to face value that is on you friend. You kept coming back to your trigger and as a consequence you caused that which you wanted to avoid. At no point you stated your group made it clear that a "good player" to them is one that just gets on with it. I am sure they would have respected you leaving the group more because their genre of play was not to your tastes instead of the alternative of you causing mass "bleed" because of you ignoring the first 3 points.
5.) And this is what the detractors dislike. If the detractors are selfish for not wanting the card to keep the play raw and true to their vision, then supporters are irresponsible for not wanting to take true ownership of their own actions with the context you provided.
6.) Incorrect. 1.) Shows romance was your trigger, 2.) shows YOU mentally decided you could manage and 3.) shows that historically your triggers were not going away.
7.) Tapping an X card is still revealing your anxiety, the group will not be blind to you tapping your card ergo they will still know you are anxious about something. Its just been expressed very inefficiently. " You keep tapping the X. Why? We are doing what we have done from the start, what is different now? (they thought in their heads because apparently they can not even truly state how they feel (do you not think this will cause bleed as negative feeling well up in frustration due to 1 player who will not express themselves openly?))
8) By this point no model set up by a corporation is going to stop a human passively psychoanalyze To deny the why is to deny the humanity.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, I'm one of them.
> 
> As I mentioned before, the notion of romance in the game made me very, very uncomfortable.






> But, it kept coming back up, session after session.






> So, yeah, having a way that I could just have touched a card, knowing that I wouldn't have to explain myself, because, honestly, I'm not entirely sure what all was bothering me that much and, well, I had zero interest in dissecting my brain in front of my gaming group, would have saved a ton of problems.




And do you think it wouldn't come up again when you tap the X-Card the first time, when no one not even yourself knew what actually bothered you? How do you expect everyone else round the table to pick up what part of the scene bothered you?



> I would have continued with the group quite happily (maybe - there were some other things that were bugging me, but, probably I would have continued) and everything would have been hunky dory.




Until it came up again, you touched the X-Card again and people had to try and figure out what was similar in these scene that matched with the last scene you touched it, but not in other scenes when you didn't. "Was there a cat? I can't remember."



> How could I have communicated to the group that I had zero interest in playing out a romance with another player and it was making me so extremely uncomfortable that I was hating the session?




How about "Sorry, I'm not interested." said in character? Then made clear by saying it out of character if it continues to be an issue. You don't have to mention anything that exposes anxieties.



> How do I communicate that to the group in such a way that I don't have to justify my anxieties to anyone else, but, rather, know beforehand that my anxieties will be respected and every effort will be made to just move on, rather than trying to psychoanalyze me?




With words.


----------



## Gradine (Oct 4, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I liked things better when we had OPINIONS about ISSUES like "Kirk v. Picard"or "Star Trek v. Star Wars" or "Who is the best Doctor?"
> 
> The more recent OPINIONS about ISSUES make me uncomfortable and very unhappy about a certain toxic undercurrent in our community. Light, disinfectant, and all that, but still.
> 
> (This is supposed to be fun! You know, dragons and star ships and elves, oh my!)




Yeah, it's always the same handful of people who feel like they speak for an entire host of silent majority behind them. Turns out most people are actually reasonable. Of course, being reasonable means they are likely to stay far away from threads like these.

PS: Picard, Wars, and 9, obviously.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2019)

Derren said:


> Just how many RPG gamers who can be traumatized by make believe so that they can't even speak about it do you think are out there?




I think you have failed to understand much about this.  Let us try an example...

15% to 20% of women in the US have experienced rape at least once in their lives so far.  90% or more of those who experience rape have symptoms of PTSD afterwards.  33% of those survivors contemplate suicide afterwards.  This last statistic is there to drive home that the issues after trauma are serious.

So, basically 15% to 20% of women at your table are apt to have trauma in their past bad enough to cause great distress if you remind them of it.

_It is not that they are traumatized by make believe._  It is that they have been traumatized in real life, and other things they experience can make them recall this in really horrible ways.

I suggest that unless you drop the dismissive language, you will continue to not understand.  Your focus on continuing to express your personal disbelief will probably strengthen your disbelief.  So long as your basic stance is to disprove the need, you will continue to express your disbelief - and your position becomes armored against information given to you.


----------



## dragoner (Oct 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> ... and 9, obviously.




What!?!


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Oct 4, 2019)

dragoner said:


> What!?!
> 
> View attachment 114529




4 is too obvious?

And 11, Lowkey? Really?

Actually no that explains a lot.


----------



## dragoner (Oct 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> 4 is too obvious?




Obviously the best.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2019)

Gradine said:


> And 11, Lowkey? Really?




Oh, come on.  Name just one of them that is so bad that it does not deserve to be _somebody's_ favorite.  I double-dog-dare you.


----------



## lowkey13 (Oct 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Hussar (Oct 4, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> And do you think it wouldn't come up again when you tap the X-Card the first time, when no one not even yourself knew what actually bothered you? How do you expect everyone else round the table to pick up what part of the scene bothered you?




So, let's say, three minutes into the first time the romance thing comes up between my character and another PC, I tap the X card.

You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots?  That I'd have to repeatedly do it because the players are, again, so completely oblivious, that they continue to pursue a romantic plot line with my character?  That even after the second or even third time, they STILL wouldn't get it?

I know that the stereotype of gamers is that we're an insensitive bunch, but, seriously?



> How about "Sorry, I'm not interested." said in character? Then made clear by saying it out of character if it continues to be an issue. You don't have to mention anything that exposes anxieties.




Because, now, I'm a bad player.  I've seen repeatedly on these boards that players are NEVER allowed to say that.  That any player who would refuse to engage something, particularly if that something was brought in by the DM, should be ejected from the group because they are being disruptive.  The notion that as soon as I sit down at the table, I'm giving consent to whatever happens at that table and I can never take that consent away unless I get up and leave that table.

THAT'S the toxic element that no one seems to want to acknowledge.  I mean, @Phion flat out states it:



> 1.) You have told us what makes you uncomfortable, essentially your bleed. The group seem to not have an issue with it (I too find romance at the table distasteful).
> 2.) YOU decided you could deal with it. *You were not forced*. You knew what was making you uncomfortable with as shown in 1.). You of your own understanding of self thought you could get through it. Like a website or any content you click the "I agree" terms and conditions, you have consented to this.
> 3) "session after session". The group has made it clear that this is for better or worse what they do in their game. Whenever you show up to that table you are consenting to it like 2.). You knew that you were getting upset numerous times during sessions and *yet like a moth to the flame you kept returning.*
> 4) Taking the first 3 points to face value *that is on you friend*.




Why did you wear those clothes?  Why did you go to that party?  Why did you agree to have a drink with him?  Why did you stay with your abuser?  What's wrong with you?  

Is that clear enough?  Is that enough examples to show why I might not want to actually have to talk about my issues but, rather, have an out that lets me bypass them without comment?


----------



## Phion (Oct 5, 2019)

@Hussar 
Its enough examples to show that if thats what you focus on when your argument is broken down to such an extent and thats what you come away with, then there is literally no discussion left to be had. To prevent any further bad feelings I will be removing myself from this thread.


----------



## Bagpuss (Oct 5, 2019)

Hussar said:


> You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots?




Well considering in your post you said even you yourself weren't sure what was making you uncomfortable until later, yeah I think other people would have a bit of difficulty.



Hussar said:


> Because, now, I'm a bad player.




Erm no, how would responding in character to unwanted advances make you a bad player?

Seriously you think you have to accept everything thrown at your character? We're currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and there is this NPC clearly written to romance female characters in the party. I'm playing the only female character, only she's a very young rogue who is small and nimble a female Artful Dodger, a character when I considered her sexuality was very much "no thanks". So she told him "Keep your smutty little ideas to yourself granddad." Never come up again. 

Was I just meant to roll over and accept the idea of a significantly older sugar daddy, just because the DM put it forward? I don't think he meant to be creepy, just forgot how young the character I was playing was meant to look.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Morrus said:


> How is it that every thread vaguely related to this topic zeroes in on and hyper-focuses solely on X-cards, over and over again? I mean, I know they were mentioned in the article, but so was a lot of other stuff, and we keep having this exact same conversation with the same participants again and again.




For two reasons:  _Consent in Gaming_ was brought up in the article as a document containing tools to "define the social contract" and emphasizes the use of X-Cards as a way to mitigate the risk of "misunderstandings and hurt feelings" during game play.  The second reason people focus on the X-Card is likely because we're largely in agreement about Bleed, and in the case of _Consent_ we were all okay with the idea of making some sort of accommodation (even if we didn't all agree on what was reasonable) when necessary, so we're focusing on the one thing that divides us.  Because how long can a discussion go on where we're just all agreeing with one another?  

And as happens very often, we draw lines in the sand and make assumptions about those who disagree with us.  "People who use the X-Card might do so in bad faith!"  "People who oppose the X-Cards care more about the game than they do about people!"  Which is unfortunate.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> Real example: New player came into our group. Ten sessions in and we're all pretty on edge, the theme of the campaign this time around (albeit the Players did not know this) was 'managing failure'. So everything was stacked against us to the point of repeated and constant failure with our PCs barely escaping and scraping by. The GM had expected we'd get a few small marginal "least worst failures" here and there, but no, we exceeded expectations and had failed spectacularly in every endeavor. So, there we have it, the tableau is set:
> 
> Mid way in session ten during a downtime (the entirety of this session was our PCs dealing with 'downtime' stuff, trying to figure out how to continue even surviving, let alone figuring out how to deal with our enemies) new Player blows a fuse and starts yelling and then storms out.
> 
> Now, we knew why the Player got upset (they were quite vocal about it), but if they'd have had an X Card, we'd have never known. There was no scene to 'reset' or move beyond. No other Player was acting any differently (except a few us were way more listless and tuned out due to "bloody depressing game").




Y'know what?  You're absolutely right.  An X card in this situation would solve nothing.  

But, you're missing the obvious question - why not?  Why wouldn't it help?  Well, because the situation you outline has nothing to do with  the X-Card or consent in gaming or the notion of bleed.  the player wasn't unhappy because of some outside emotional issue bleeding into the game because of events in the game.  

No.  He was unhappy with the game itself.  No amount of consent is going to fix that problem.  If you don't like the game, you don't like the game.  But, again, and this is the key point the reason the player didn't like the game had nothing whatsoever to do with emotional bleed.  So, of course an X-card or the notion of consent in gaming will help in this situation.  It's entirely the wrong tool.

The failure, as you rightly note, is that the player was not informed of the major elements of the game and sat there frustrated because he was fundamentally playing a different game than the rest of you.  

So, why would you apply the notion of emotional bleed and x-cards to this situation?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Hussar said:


> You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots?  That I'd have to repeatedly do it because the players are, again, so completely oblivious, that they continue to pursue a romantic plot line with my character?  That even after the second or even third time, they STILL wouldn't get it?




The biggest problem with each of us coming up with examples is that it's so easy for us to cherry pick the ones that make our case look good.  When it comes to accommodations it's not bad to have general guidelines but in the real world, where the rubber meets the road, you often have to look at things on a case-by-case basis to make a good decision.  So in your case, great, let's say the X-Card is played and everyone is crystal clear on what the problematic content is and it's a trivial matter to make sure it doesn't show up in the game later.  

But it's not always going to be that clear.  And I think any assessment of the X-Card, pro or con, needs to acknowledge that the problematic element may not be readily obvious to all involved.  



> I know that the stereotype of gamers is that we're an insensitive bunch, but, seriously?




I don't know that particular stereotype of gamers.  Many of my friends are gamers and I think they're decent people.  You're a gamer and based on everything I've seen you post I think you're a decent person too.  In reality I haven't noticed gamers to be any worse than the population at large.  In fact, in recent years I've even seen fewer socially awkward people in gaming spaces as compared to 15-25 years ago.  



> Because, now, I'm a bad player.  I've seen repeatedly on these boards that players are NEVER allowed to say that.  That any player who would refuse to engage something, particularly if that something was brought in by the DM, should be ejected from the group because they are being disruptive.  The notion that as soon as I sit down at the table, I'm giving consent to whatever happens at that table and I can never take that consent away unless I get up and leave that table.




You're not a bad player and anyone who would suggest that is being grossly unfair.  It's okay for players to decide what they're comfortable or uncomfortable with and everyone at the table should respect that.  I had a player once tell me she was uncomfortable with the playing cards we were using for the game (Savage Worlds).  I immediately stopped using them and switched to a different deck.  I didn't need to ask why, didn't razz her about it (as a group we razz one another quite often), and didn't question why she was okay with graphic descriptions of violence but not these cards with zombies on them.  It was enough to know they bothered her so I stopped using them.  But had she tapped the X-Card I honestly wouldn't have known what the problem was.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2019)

Bagpuss said:


> Well considering in your post you said even you yourself weren't sure what was making you uncomfortable until later, yeah I think other people would have a bit of difficulty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Who said it was unwanted?  I made it perfectly clear at the outset that NO ONE DID ANYTHING WRONG.  

That's the whole point of emotional bleed.  Everyone wants to point fingers and find blame.  It's not about blame or responsibility.  It's not like anyone is doing this intentionally.  I didn't intentionally do anything, nor did the woman who was playing next to me.  

But, because of my own emotional bleed, I was having a miserable time and hating this part of the game.  Note, the group had been playing together for a number of years, so, it's not like we didn't know each other.  This had just never come up for me before.  At first it was kinda funny and I played along.  The longer it went on, the more uncomfortable I got.  That's the point with emotional bleed - it's not rational, it's not intentional.  

Everyone seems to be acting like everyone in an emotional bleed situation is being 100% rational and logical.  That's NOT how it works.  And, frankly, my personal hangups are pretty bloody minor on the grand scale of things.  It's not like I'm dealing with major personal trauma or anything like that.  It was a fairly corner case event that had never come up before (or after) that I didn't know how to deal with because my emotions were too high and frankly I had no real experience in dealing with before.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2019)

MGibster said:


> But it's not always going to be that clear.  And I think any assessment of the X-Card, pro or con, needs to acknowledge that the problematic element may not be readily obvious to all involved.




We should note two things here:

1)  The idea is that if someone invokes the card, they do not have to clarify why.  They _CAN_, though.  They are allowed to do so, if they feel okay about it  Often, it will be clear in context what they are reacting to.  Other times, they may well give you some basics, like your player with the cards did.  The point is that they are not _obligated_ to do so; that as the person in distress it is their choice, not yours. 

The less a big deal you make of it, the more easygoing you are about it, the more comfortable you'll make the player, and the more likely you will be to get more information.  

The X-card isn't intended as the first line of defense for folks who have a problem.  It is, instead, one of the last.  So, we are talking about the case where someone has fallen through the cracks on other measures, _and_ the issue is so distressing or personal that they don't want to discuss it.  This isn't going to happen to you every game.  It is, quite frankly, an edge case.  And the failure mode is, oops, your game doesn't go as well as you wanted.  The world is not ending for that.

2) No tool is perfect, and nobody claims the X-card cures all ills - if you read the works from some of the early proponents of its use, they were clear that it is not a panacea or silver bullet, nor a replacement for a conversation before play, and so on.  The fact of the matter is that if a person has trauma impinging on their lives... perfection really isn't a possibility!  If you happen to trigger someone's phobia, it isn't like you can't make it un-happen.  You can, at best, dodge the worst of it at the last moment.

So, yes, maybe you'll not have as much information as you want.  Have you not caught on that, in this situation, _you're the one who is in good shape_?  The person who has invoked the card is in a seriously bad place.  Yes, you're being asked to muddle through a bit, because hopefully you are in a reasonable position to be able to take on that extra labor - they aren't.  You've got spoons, they don't.  Maybe the fact that they can't just give you more spoons... shouldn't be your major concern.



> Many of my friends are gamers and I think they're decent people.




"Decent" is not equivalent to "sensitive".  Being a basically good person does not naturally give you the skills and understanding to note the emotional states of others.  You can be insensitive by not caring, or by obliviousness or ignorance.



> In fact, in recent years I've even seen fewer socially awkward people in gaming spaces as compared to 15-25 years ago.




And, "we are better than we used to be" doesn't actually mean, "We are good now."


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 5, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Y'know what?  You're absolutely right.  An X card in this situation would solve nothing.
> 
> But, you're missing the obvious question - why not?  Why wouldn't it help?  Well, because the situation you outline has nothing to do with  the X-Card or consent in gaming or the notion of bleed.  the player wasn't unhappy because of some outside emotional issue bleeding into the game because of events in the game.
> 
> No.  He was unhappy with the game itself.



So, I'm guessing the quote above is all you read of what I wrote and you completely missed this:

"_The problem the Player finally decided they couldn't take had nothing to do with the campaign, but one of the other Players._"

One of the other Players behavior drove the new Player to flip out, scream at them, and storm out.  Behavior that we took as completely normal as we'd all been gaming as a group for a year, but the new Player did not know and misconstrued.  The exact sort of thing an X Card would have gotten played over.



> The failure, as you rightly note, is that the player was not informed of the major elements of the game and sat there frustrated because he was fundamentally playing a different game than the rest of you.



Actually, we all were trying to play a different game _than the GM_, the Player who had a meltdown over _other issues at the table_ wasn't upset over the game any more than the rest of us*.  I set the stage to exemplify that their mood was worsening session after session, but went unnoticed as all of our moods were souring game after game.  So had they played the X Card to get the other Player to stop their behavior, why wouldn't have been at all obvious.


* And probably a bit less than myself, as they stayed while I left a month later.  Constant overtime and being depressed at a game on my only day off wasn't conducive to being in a good mood for me.



> So, why would you apply the notion of emotional bleed and x-cards to this situation?



Who mentioned bleed?  Not I.  However it would be the very concept to have explored in this example.  Everyone was on edge due to the game.  It's even possible the Player who had the trouble might have been amenable to initiating a discussion about the problem, before it became a problem, had we not all been a bit depressed and grouchy.  And likely the Player whose behavior 'caused' the problem might not have been as 'disruptive' if they weren't so checked out as well.

So, yeah, bleed is perfectly in line for discussion with this example.  As for the X Card, if you can't play it stop a fellow Players actions, how in the world would it have ever been of use to yourself in your experience?


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 5, 2019)

Umbran said:


> 1)  The idea is that if someone invokes the card, they do not have to clarify why.



I find this entire notion very toxic.  Any GM who would continue forward to set another scene absent the knowledge of what caused the emotional turbulence is _deliberately_ setting forward into the unknown to cause more trauma.



> The X-card isn't intended as the first line of defense for folks who have a problem.



And I quote:

"By using the X-Card frequently, you demystify it. You normalize it. It becomes second nature. Thus increasing the chances it will actually be used when it is needed."

So... yeah. No, the very idea is to use it as frequently as possible.

Granted... that write up has literally no _good_ advice on how to continue forward if the X Carder is relcantrant over why the Card was deployed.  They break their own "no one needs to answer" rules by suggesting you call for a break and question them.  Tre problematic.



> Yes, you're being asked to muddle through a bit, because hopefully you are in a reasonable position to be able to take on that extra labor - they aren't.



'Muddle through'?  Is that what you call deliberately recommencing unaware of what the danger words are?


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Umbran said:


> 1)  The idea is that if someone invokes the card, they do not have to clarify why.  They _CAN_, though.  They are allowed to do so, if they feel okay about it  Often, it will be clear in context what they are reacting to.  Other times, they may well give you some basics, like your player with the cards did.  The point is that they are not _obligated_ to do so; that as the person in distress it is their choice, not yours.




Let's get something out of the way; I understand how the X-Card functions.  There isn't any significant disagreement between you and I regarding how the X-Card works in play though we certainly don't see eye-to-eye on whether it should be used at all.  This isn't one of those times where the person who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand how it's supposed to work.  What you view as a feature of the X-Card I view as a terrible flaw.  The fact that someone can tap it and there's no expectation on their part to communicate to the GM what the problem might be is the very reason I so vehemently oppose it. 




> And, "we are better than we used to be" doesn't actually mean, "We are good now."




How sad that you seem to think so little of those who share your hobby.  One of the problems I have with _Consent in Gaming _is that the author's are approaching gaming as if it's an inherently dangerous activity. And if you view gamers are not good it really starts to make sense why they would approach gaming as though there were a reasonable risk of serious harm. We might not be perfect, and there are certainly serious problems, but most gamers are good. Most gamers were good back in the 80s and most of them are still good today.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 5, 2019)

"So, let's say, three minutes into the first time the romance thing comes up between my character and another PC, I tap the X card.

You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots? That I'd have to repeatedly do it because the players are, again, so completely oblivious, that they continue to pursue a romantic plot line with my character? That even after the second or even third time, they STILL wouldn't get it?"

The following assumes that the person giving the x card and the reason for it are both not in anyway specified/indicated as that seems to be rampantly common in this thread from watching said thread for quite a while at this point.

Yes.  its delusional to believe the majority of people would inerringly know exactly what during 3 minutes occurred (or what part occurred) that precisely was the thing that caused an x-card.  Find someone who has a trigger you know nothing of and ask them to tell you next time its set off a random amount of time between 0 min 0 secs and 3 min 0 secs after its set off.  Hopefully they are up to the task and forgive you.  You likely wont guess it.  When yoi inevitably fall on your face (figuratively) and fail imagine multiplying the difficulty in discerning what the trigger was by about 5 because lacking the context of a specific person (one of your only and very small aids in this ridiculous task) and having to use theory of mind on 5 people (this is a task for emulation not empathy.  People keep getting that wrong) all at once because everyone is different will be 100% necessary.

I mean all of this with respect but factually most people who believe this is reasonably something that will unerringly be discerned without anyone giving prior specification of the triggers that are had are experiencing a delusion.  It is inarguably unrealistic.  The vast majority of the time in such a scenario (x card given for something undeclared that happened some time in the last 3 minutes) it is solely the fault of one who will not say what the trigger is if people fail to avoid it in the future.  They and only they can ensure that the trigger is avoid with near 100% a majority of occasions.

None of this is meant as insulting but im correcting the ridiculous notion that this is standardly possible.  Far too many people in this thread have vastly unrealistic expectations.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The fact that someone can tap it and there's no expectation on their part to communicate to the GM what the problem might be is the very reason I so vehemently oppose it.




Well, then we do have a difference in understanding of how it works - you are equating "no expectation" with "no _promise_".    In practice, you'll likely get some communication.  You should be prepared for the case where you don't get any, but that isn't the common operation of the thing.  You seem to have glommed onto one aspect of the thing, and blown it up until it looms over consideration of the thing.

And, again - you do realize that the case we are dealing with is one in which the player is near crisis, right? You actually expect this person to engage with you at such a moment?  That's not realistic, or good for them.  What would you prefer they do, then?



> How sad that you seem to think so little of those who share your hobby.




Um, dude.  You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people _in the same sentence_ where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine.  Because, you know, insulting and _ad hominem _is... really sensitive?

I think you prove my point.


----------



## generic (Oct 5, 2019)

I think that, among posters, there's a fundamental disagreement on the circumstances.  Some are assuming that the person tapping the card will look calm, other than their tapping of the X card, and that it will be difficult to see what's wrong.

I think, the idea is that the X card is better for use when someone is obviously upset.  If someone at my table looked obviously upset, it would be pretty reasonable to pause the game without interrogating them.

It all depends on context.


----------



## dragoner (Oct 5, 2019)

I want to hear actual situations, I hate the war of the hypotheticals. Personally I haven't dealt with any of these, though I would be more than open to trying it. I know that inclusiveness is important so the community doesn't wind up like the hex and chit wargame crowd, lonely old men grousing about what went wrong. The community is so toxic that Richard Berg died recently and it was embarrassing the lack of _nil nisi bonum_ I mean people had to fire off one last angry missive? STFU idiots.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 5, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Um, dude.  You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people _in the same sentence_ where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine.  Because, you know, insulting and _ad hominem _is... really sensitive?



No, he's making a case that gaming and gamers aren't horrible cretins into whose midst one most tread with care and all the tools of protection at your disposal, which is the case made by CiG (and a few other sources) and that you seem to be upholding.






Aebir-Toril said:


> I think, the idea is that the X card is better for use when someone is obviously upset.



If they are visibly upset, I don't require an X Card.

And I would not game with someone who _required_ an X Card be used before they'd call a break when a Player at their table was visibly upset.



> If someone at my table looked obviously upset, it would be pretty reasonable to pause the game without interrogating them.



Agreed.

However, I consider it unreasonable to continue forward with the game absent the knowledge of how to avoid causing more upset.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 5, 2019)

evileeyore said:


> No, he's making a case that gaming and gamers aren't horrible cretins into whose midst one most tread with care and all the tools of protection at your disposal, which is the case made by CiG (and a few other sources) and that you seem to be upholding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The consent in gaming is not to paint gamers as horrible people. It's not a document that will scare off potential new players, because they are going to assume stepping into the hobby is fraught with peril. This is a ridiculous asertion, and absolutely not what the document writers had in mind. 

Consent in gaming is just a social contract, which may help avoid misunderstandings. You an use it, not use it, or create your own. The X card is a backup tool. May not be perfect, but a better chance of helping than hurting. In fact, I really don't see how it would wreck a game.

This whole, "but we don't know what's upsetting the person means the game will grind to a halt, or we can't fix what we don't understand" is a futile argument. It's more information than what gamers knew before the card was tapped. It's a useful signal.

Social contracts are really common in all kinds of situations where people, especially strangers, get together for a common purpose. Gamers are not being singled out here.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And, again - you do realize that the case we are dealing with is one in which the player is near crisis, right? You actually expect this person to engage with you at such a moment?  That's not realistic, or good for them.  What would you prefer they do, then?




That the X-Card tapper is a player in near crisis is an assumption on your part.  The _Consent in Gaming_ pamphlet does not say the X-Card is to be used when a player is in near crisis.  In fact, the pamphlet doesn't generally describe anyone as being in crisis or panicking it typically uses terms like comfortable when it talks of consent.  The X-Card could be played because the player finds something mildly uncomfortable.  Which is fine.  Someone doesn't have to wait until they're close to  panic attack before they opt out of something.  

If someone's close to a panic attack the game is over.  I personally won't be in the right headspace to continue the game even if I know exactly what the problem might be.  And I wouldn't be upset at the player at all.  It's not like they can help that they're having a crisis.  



> Um, dude.  You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people _in the same sentence_ where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine.  Because, you know, insulting and _ad hominem _is... really sensitive?




Um, guy?  You went out of your way to tell me the follwing:  "And, 'we are better than we used to be' doesn't actually mean, 'We are good now.'"  How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than you thinking gamers as a whole aren't good?  



> I think you prove my point.




Ditto.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Social contracts are really common in all kinds of situations where people, especially strangers, get together for a common purpose. Gamers are not being singled out here.




Can you please elaborate on what other group social situations you engage in regularly that uses an opt-in system of consent combined with safe words?  Because that is not the norm I've seen nor heard of anywhere besides a very specific sub-culture.


----------



## jasper (Oct 5, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> The consent in gaming is not to paint gamers as horrible people. It's not a document that will scare off potential new players, because they are going to assume stepping into the hobby is fraught with peril. This is a ridiculous asertion, and absolutely not what the document writers had in mind.
> 
> ...



Hey we can't Know what in their minds. I read the thing and it is BADLY written if it is for new players. Here are some of my initial thoughts when reading the CIG.
1. Some Freshman in his 3rd  quarter of school for a pysch degree borrowed their lovers BSDM consent manual and cut and pasting in gaming jargon.
2. This is manual I would be handed in the mental health clinic after the assault.
3. Did either of these authors share the document to people not connected with mental health/gaming? Because it reads they have their blinders on and there is a PROBLEM and by the power of their degrees! They will solve it. 3 needs work but it is the best I can do. 

Note My manager has my written works go through two editors (coworkers) to filter if I use too much program/system jargon. And the other to make sure I put in ALL the words in my head to the page and in good English. 
The posters who read me know I don't communicate clearly most of the time.


----------



## jasper (Oct 5, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Can you please elaborate on what other group social situations you engage in regularly that uses an opt-in system of consent combined with safe words?  Because that is not the norm I've seen nor heard of anywhere besides a very specific sub-culture.



Burying bodies. Because if op out, you are pushing up next year's corn.


----------



## jasper (Oct 5, 2019)

dragoner said:


> I want to hear actual situations, I hate the war of the hypotheticals. .



WELLL OKAY THEN.  DragonCon this year. I didn't even get to the x card speech. I pulled out the bag of zombies minis I keep to give out. Had a young guy barf in the trash can then dash for the bathroom. He made it. He did get out he had a physical reaction to zombies just before he barfed. I swapped out his mini with a pawn piece I had. He was okay after a few minutes and said the other players having zombies minis was okay.


----------



## dragoner (Oct 5, 2019)

As a firefighter, you learn things about burn patients, often they are given the task of washing their faces, because with 3rd degree burns, their nose comes off; it's not unusual. Sometimes the strangest things can trigger memories of the time a little kid died in my arms coming out of a trailer fire, or the unconscious screams of injured motorists in the twisted wreck of their vehicle during the rain in the middle of the night. Sometimes not, there is no telling when.


----------



## Arilyn (Oct 5, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Can you please elaborate on what other group social situations you engage in regularly that uses an opt-in system of consent combined with safe words?  Because that is not the norm I've seen nor heard of anywhere besides a very specific sub-culture.




Sure. As an elementary teacher, I went to a lot of workshops, where I'd find myself with a group of strangers. Before working together, the facilitators would have each group create a social contract. 

I am now at a college, teaching adults who are training to become education assistants. Sometimes, some of the conversations can get intense, or a subject in child psychology can trigger someone. I don't have an X card, but have implemented a signal. Students can let me know through the signal that class needs to back off a little on a particular subject. No questions asked. It comes up rarely, but it's a great safeguard. Before I implemented this, I had a student in tears over what on the surface was pretty innocuous. I felt awful. A signal would have given me a heads up, before we reached this point. 

Business people attending weekend retreats, marriage counselling or self help retreats often use similar strategies.


----------



## jasper (Oct 5, 2019)

WELL OKAY THEN. Actual situation. I Didn't punch an old lady a few weeks ago. I just drop $1100 on a dental bill and was griping to my wife about it. Old fart said, 'It not blue cross blue shield, it...."
"That what is says on my dental card...."
Old fart, " well actually it is your employer...."
" I just mention that Bc/BS  ....
Old fart, " I used to work at Blue Cross Blue shield and....."
I got up and walked away,.(I was also having a bad week at work.) Have you ever been so mad and upset you could not remember the rules to solitiary game on your phone. (Discovered I had solitary on my phone.)


----------



## MGibster (Oct 5, 2019)

Arilyn said:


> Sure. As an elementary teacher, I went to a lot of workshops, where I'd find myself with a group of strangers. Before working together, the facilitators would have each group create a social contract.




Do these workshops include an opt-in consent forms and a safe word?  



> I am now at a college, teaching adults who are training to become education assistants. Sometimes, some of the conversations can get intense, or a subject in child psychology can trigger someone. I don't have an X card, but have implemented a signal. Students can let me know through the signal that class needs to back off a little on a particular subject. No questions asked. It comes up rarely, but it's a great safeguard. Before I implemented this, I had a student in tears over what on the surface was pretty innocuous. I felt awful. A signal would have given me a heads up, before we reached this point.




I see the safe word in use here but do they practice opt-in consent?  



> Business people attending weekend retreats, marriage counselling or self help retreats often use similar strategies.




I'm a business person who attends conferences where we discuss hostile work environments, racism, sexual harassment, bullying, etc., etc. and I've never been given a form so I could consent to each topic nor has anyone provided me with a safe word.  Marriage counseling I could see given that it's a volatile situation where emotions are running high so it makes sense in that context.  

It doesn't make sense in the context of recreational role playing though.  




I attend many business meetings often dealing with racism, sexual harassment, and other unpleasant workplace topics.  We've never used an opt-in consent form and we don't have safe words.  Maybe it's just a matter of time?


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2019)

Ah, sorry @evileeyore, I did actually miss that line.  My bad.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> It doesn't make sense in the context of recreational role playing though.




Why not?


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Can you please elaborate on what other group social situations you engage in regularly that uses an opt-in system of consent combined with safe words?  Because that is not the norm I've seen nor heard of anywhere besides a very specific sub-culture.



To be fair, LARPing has taken to it.  But then, also to be fair, there is a surprising amount of Venn overlap between LARPers and BDSMers.






Hussar said:


> Ah, sorry @evileeyore, I did actually miss that line.  My bad.



Fair enough.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 6, 2019)

macd21 said:


> Why not?




Because participating in a table top role playing game isn't an inherently dangerous activity.  And the day I feel the need to implement the X-Card or an opt-in consent form to romp around the Forgotten Realms is the day I bust out my Ouiji board and summon Pat Pulling to let her know she was right to be bothered about Dungeons & Dragons all along.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Because participating in a table top role playing game isn't an inherently dangerous activity.  And the day I feel the need to implement the X-Card or an opt-in consent form to romp around the Forgotten Realms is the day I bust out my Ouiji board and summon Pat Pulling to let her know she was right to be bothered about Dungeons & Dragons all along.



It also makes 0 sense to require greater restriction on individuals like dms than megacorporation like the companies involved in cable television.  Asking a lot.  Some might call the need for an x card selfish and naive.  No reason individuals cant choose to use it.  Really dumb saying that the restriction makes any sense as a requirement.  Dm's dont have the resources of multi million or even billion dollar corporations behind them and dont employ thousands of staff to parse all those requests (yes i know there arent millions of requests (x cards) thrown at a given dm but there would still be likely more than a couple and its a seperate job on top of what they already do, slows down the campaign for even the most competant dm, is asking a lot and asking the dm to weigh everyone else down for one person possibly unnecessarily as they couod just go to a different campaign, and unlike cabke this is happening in real time which has an extreme multiplying effect on just how inconvenient and innefficient this is).  Cable tv does and still even they dont generally have something like an individualized x card.  They have channel ratings (which is already coddling people but its fine.  Doesnt get in anyones way and allows people with actual problems and emotional trauma to navigate well enough for the most part).

Tl/dr

Optional x card=fine/acceptable and on rare occasion maybe even signifficantly good.

Mandatory x card=idiocy and slow game progression that will irritate players at eachother once they figure out who keeps doing it (they arent stupid.  Doesnt matter how the dm handles it eventually the players will figure out whos doing it if they are doing it excessively) or put them to sleep and also alert them to one person they will not want to hang out with in the future.  The player using the x cards.

Ps

So u see its also a flawed tool in that it makes those who use it be viewed as a pain to most people playing with them.  It depersonalizes things so much that it actually reduces the likelyhood other playrrs with be empathetic.  They may still be.  But it will be in spite of and not because of the delivery method.  In the long run i see (and have seen) this tool as mostly destructive to everyone involved.

Use with great caution is all i can really say.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Do these workshops include an opt-in consent forms and a safe word?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes.  Speaking from my nowadays depressing background in psych the way things are going and the models that are being popularized in spite of being scientifically bankrupt it is only a matter of time.  Actually, it already happens occasionally.  Business meeting being required in some companoes to have all kinds of consent forms and warnings about potentially traumatizing topics is a thing albeit currently still uncommon.  Its on the rise though an will spread.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 6, 2019)

As someone involved in indie scene I have been part of groups that have used the X-Card since it was like a thing. I have never seen players use it as a weapon to force things to go their way. In the context of deeply immersive play where we have explored darker themes in games like Apocalypse World and Vampire : The Requiem emotions can run hot. I have found that having a reminder that you can speak if you feel uncomfortable with the expectation that everyone else will respect your feelings has been deeply useful. 

I do feel the actual implementation is flawed not because a player can raise it with the expectation of being heard (that's a good thing by the way), but because it proscribes a solution that might not always be the best solution. It's not always best just to do a quick edit and move on. Sometimes taking a 10-15 minute breather and playing out the scene works best. Sometimes talking things over works best. Sometimes it might be better just to end it there and make some adjustments for next time. Often times what gets X-ed is not something the GM does, but something another player does and two players need to work it out. The GM should not need to act as a parent to the players.

I also have experience with groups where no attention is paid to emotional safety where we tried to do the same sort of things. I have had absolutely horrible experiences with Vampire : The Masquerade in groups where players did not feel comfortable expressing the fact that they had an unexpected emotional response to something in play. I have left groups where the emotional spillover from in game events started effecting real relationships.

Just last week we ran into an issue in a Dungeons and Dragons game I am a player in where the player of one of our characters did something which really impacted another player. I had a phone conversation where I talked to the inciting player later that night because they were upset that a game could cause these sorts of issues to happen. I let that player know they did not do anything wrong because we had never really discussed expectations and we probably should before our next game.

I do not think the X-Card or any particular technique is like necessary. We do not need any particular thing to role play including big thick books of rules and GMs. 

In the right context it can be useful, especially the part where people are reminded that if they do not feel comfortable they can speak up without fear of reprisal. That kind of welcoming and inclusive environment also means that when people do not speak up we can feel more confident that we are not affecting each other. Had more attention been paid to this kind of stuff we might have averted some hurt feelings that affected a personal relationship in my Dungeons and Dragons group.

I do feel that in the context of less immersive play or where most of content comes from a GM who knows their group well or is careful not to delve too deeply into darker themes these techniques will see less use. I think they can still be somewhat useful. Overall it is much more important to make sure everyone feels comfortable speaking up as issues arise and that we all respect each rather than to embrace any specific technique.


----------



## macd21 (Oct 6, 2019)

MGibster said:


> Because participating in a table top role playing game isn't an inherently dangerous activity.  And the day I feel the need to implement the X-Card or an opt-in consent form to romp around the Forgotten Realms is the day I bust out my Ouiji board and summon Pat Pulling to let her know she was right to be bothered about Dungeons & Dragons all along.




And yet we have people providing examples from their own experience explaining how the use of the X-cards or other techniques would have been of benefit at their gaming table. You keep on insisting that the X-card is inappropriate for the gaming table, despite plenty of testimonials to the contrary. You may not have had these problems at your table, but I put it to you that that’s down to nothing more than luck.

You’re arguing against it because you’ve never needed it, which is just like someone complaining about seat belts because they’ve never been in a car accident. Meanwhile people are telling you they wish they’d had a seat belt instead of crashing through their windscreen, and you’re dismissing their experiences.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And yet we have people providing examples from their own experience explaining how the use of the X-cards or other techniques would have been of benefit at their gaming table. You keep on insisting that the X-card is inappropriate for the gaming table, despite plenty of testimonials to the contrary. You may not have had these problems at your table, but I put it to you that that’s down to nothing more than luck.
> 
> You’re arguing against it because you’ve never needed it, which is just like someone complaining about seat belts because they’ve never been in a car accident. Meanwhile people are telling you they wish they’d had a seat belt instead of crashing through their windscreen, and you’re dismissing their experiences.



ive seen examples of it causing far more problems than it solves too though.  Hows that for a testimonial?  I explained some ways that this happens too.  Slowing down the game and campaign for instance.  I dont care how competant the dm is, if its used enough it will do that.  Which can then cause one of the other several problems i mentioned.  Players being more irate with other players than they would have been if more intelligent  (i know this is blunt but actually saying it is not just more efficient, its smarter.  It may also be slightly more uncomfortable but it is more likely to net a positive response due to people knowing why something is an issue as they now feel like one player isnt holding them hostage and instead they can do something to help) means of conveying a problem had been used.  Yes.  I know that x cards are meant to reduce knowledge of who has an issue.  But it really isnt a great trade off.  Its better for the person to just say it.  Because they are less likely to burn bridges with others.  You dont have to like it.  But it is true.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

Campbell said:


> As someone involved in indie scene I have been part of groups that have used the X-Card since it was like a thing. I have never seen players use it as a weapon to force things to go their way. In the context of deeply immersive play where we have explored darker themes in games like Apocalypse World and Vampire : The Requiem emotions can run hot. I have found that having a reminder that you can speak if you feel uncomfortable with the expectation that everyone else will respect your feelings has been deeply useful.
> 
> I do feel the actual implementation is flawed not because a player can raise it with the expectation of being heard (that's a good thing by the way), but because it proscribes a solution that might not always be the best solution. It's not always best just to do a quick edit and move on. Sometimes taking a 10-15 minute breather and playing out the scene works best. Sometimes talking things over works best. Sometimes it might be better just to end it there and make some adjustments for next time. Often times what gets X-ed is not something the GM does, but something another player does and two players need to work it out. The GM should not need to act as a parent to the players.
> 
> ...



Imo and ime the more immersion the more damaging the x card is.  And the more likely to cause a problem.  I have seen it cause issues.  Not everyone will see that because every group is different.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 6, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Imo and ime the more immersion the more damaging the x card is.  And the more likely to cause a problem.  I have seen it cause issues.  Not everyone will see that because every group is different.



I have a feeling your talking about D&D whereas @Campbell is talking about other games.   Immersion in D&D games is inherently safer, because you're playing as the heroes fighting off the horrors, in a fantasy game that features heroic tropes.  Immersion in some ither games (Monsterhearts, Vampire, etc.) Is riskier because you're playing as the horrors, on a game set closer to reality often with pscyological horror tropes.

Immersion is an imprecise term because it means rather different things depending on what your trying to immerse in.

I agree with @Campbell that D&D doesn't benefit from tools like the X-card like some other games/situations might.  I think that the push for global usefulness is about as useful as any other zero-tolerance rule.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I have a feeling your talking about D&D whereas @Campbell is talking about other games.   Immersion in D&D games is inherently safer, because you're playing as the heroes fighting off the horrors, in a fantasy game that features heroic tropes.  Immersion in some ither games (Monsterhearts, Vampire, etc.) Is riskier because you're playing as the horrors, on a game set closer to reality often with pscyological horror tropes.
> 
> Immersion is an imprecise term because it means rather different things depending on what your trying to immerse in.
> 
> I agree with @Campbell that D&D doesn't benefit from tools like the X-card like some other games/situations might.  I think that the push for global usefulness is about as useful as any other zero-tolerance rule.



Never played a d&d game with high character death rate, high chance of the villain getting their way, or an evil/nongood aligned party campaign in which you may not be the hero, may be against the hero, or there may in fact be no clear hero whatsoever?  Looks like i need to do some clarifying.

Actually it sounds like you are actually talking about one type of d&d game.  Im talking about all types of d&d games.  D&d in no way shape or form is limited to heroic tropes.  Thats only in some groups.  Plenty of people play games completely divorced of this a fairly frequent amount of the time.  Myself included.  Besides, ever play the good guys who fail to save the day as a frequent theme in a hopeless world?  It can be very fun.  Lots of different types of campaigns can be played.  And yes, when you are playing as the evil person doing dastardly things in d&d the x card gets used.  But you are wrong.  It happens way less.  It happens way more in the campaign where no one in the party is evil aligned at all.  It happens most often when the villain (someone a player has no control over) does something.  Your assumption is opposite of correct.  When the party is evil, when the party is raping, pillaging, burning, enslaving, eating the newborns, and doing all manner of depraved acts its actually much much less likely to be used.  Because there is control over evil more often.  Because acts chosen are less likely to have been ones the party hasnt consistantly done by choice for months.  When the evil is you, the evil is likely to be in a form you were comfortable choosing to see.  And an x card will break the immersion in either case as well as cause many many other problems.  You have it backward though.  It would in fact be used more often in a good aligned party.  I honestly thought it was obvious.  Although its fine as an optional thing that dms can choose to ignore and leave out of their game it is definitely damaging to any game in which people find it unnecessary.  Ill expand this statement too.  This statement im making applies to all roleplay games.  All.  In the case of larps where the possibility of real harm is present a signal that someone is or may be about to get hurt is reasonable but thats not similar to the x card.  X cards are great as an option.  But if possible the game (any rp game) is in superior form without it.  As well as nearly (keyword) all things in existance (where none of the default primary functions of the object in question is protection with the exception being when added safety limits potential functioning level none) being better without the training wheels.

Example of "nearly all things":  bicycle.
Example of the exception due to intended function:  plate armor (literally armor)
Example of the rare exception that doesnt qualify the way armor does:  a disease.  Obviously vaccines are good.
Example of an exception due to safety feature not reducing function:  a gun (unless its one of the annoying types of safety)


----------



## MGibster (Oct 6, 2019)

macd21 said:


> And yet we have people providing examples from their own experience explaining how the use of the X-cards or other techniques would have been of benefit at their gaming table. You keep on insisting that the X-card is inappropriate for the gaming table, despite plenty of testimonials to the contrary. You may not have had these problems at your table, but I put it to you that that’s down to nothing more than luck.




It's a long thread so I can understand how easy it is to miss some posts.  But I've given two separate examples of situations where one of my players had difficulty with an aspect of the game and I was able to make accommodations.  I do not believe the X-Card was necessary, and, if the rules of the X-Card were followed, it's use could have made things more difficult.  



> You’re arguing against it because you’ve never needed it, which is just like someone complaining about seat belts because they’ve never been in a car accident. Meanwhile people are telling you they wish they’d had a seat belt instead of crashing through their windscreen, and you’re dismissing their experiences.




That's not why I'm arguing against it.  I've explained why in multiple posts so I don't think there's any reason to rehash it at this point.  Communication does not always end in agreement and I fear this is one of those cases.  Such is life.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 6, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Never played a d&d game with high character death rate, high chance of the villain getting their way, or an evil/nongood aligned party campaign in which you may not be the hero, may be against the hero, or there may in fact be no clear hero whatsoever?  Looks like i need to do some clarifying.
> 
> Actually it sounds like you are actually talking about one type of d&d game.  Im talking about all types of d&d games.  D&d in no way shape or form is limited to heroic tropes.  Thats only in some groups.  Plenty of people play games completely divorced of this a fairly frequent amount of the time.  Myself included.  Besides, ever play the good guys who fail to save the day as a frequent theme in a hopeless world?  It can be very fun.  Lots of different types of campaigns can be played.  And yes, when you are playing as the evil person doing dastardly things in d&d the x card gets used.  But you are wrong.  It happens way less.  It happens way more in the campaign where no one in the party is evil aligned at all.  It happens most often when the villain (someone a player has no control over) does something.  Your assumption is opposite of correct.  When the party is evil, when the party is raping, pillaging, burning, enslaving, eating the newborns, and doing all manner of depraved acts its actually much much less likely to be used.  Because there is control over evil more often.  Because acts chosen are less likely to have been ones the party hasnt consistantly done by choice for months.  When the evil is you, the evil is likely to be in a form you were comfortable choosing to see.  And an x card will break the immersion in either case as well as cause many many other problems.  You have it backward though.  It would in fact be used more often in a good aligned party.  I honestly thought it was obvious.  Although its fine as an optional thing that dms can choose to ignore and leave out of their game it is definitely damaging to any game in which people find it unnecessary.  Ill expand this statement too.  This statement im making applies to all roleplay games.  All.  In the case of larps where the possibility of real harm is present a signal that someone is or may be about to get hurt is reasonable but thats not similar to the x card.  X cards are great as an option.  But if possible the game (any rp game) is in superior form without it.  As well as nearly (keyword) all things in existance (where none of the default primary functions of the object in question is protection with the exception being when added safety limits potential functioning level none) being better without the training wheels.
> 
> ...




Firstly, let me say that I'm a big fan of D&D -- played since 1e, every edition, and am currently running and loving a 5e campaign -- my fourth in this system.

That said, the above really, really, reads like someone that's only ever played D&D, or similar in play games like d20 games.  It exposes the usual belief that D&D is actually a broad play experience that does well exploring a wide range of themes.  It's not.  I love it, but it's not.  The things you've posted above as representative of transgressive D&D play are all moustache-twirly and are really just subversions of the very heroic tropes that D&D is built on.  In other words, the examples you posted are the same heroic tropes D&D is built on, just reversed.  They aren't terribly transgressive because you're not actually immersing into the murder of orphans -- it's played for a lark.

Your run-on paragraph then switches topics to the use of the X-card as inherently immersion breaking.  It's not.  This is like saying that having brakes on your bike distracts from how fast you can ride.  The point of the X-card is to provide a brake on play if you go too fast -- it doesn't detract in and of itself.  That said, I'll agree to your point with the way it's being strongly presented by some -- as a discussion about play.  And I'll also agree that you usually won't need one in a D&D game -- they don't transgress enough.  So, here, they don't do anything for immersion at all, as problems that arise aren't going to be because play has gone too far but because a hidden trigger has been found or the players themselves have become toxic.  I question the utility of the X-card as a ward against suddenly triggering hidden problems (I think there are better ways), but I see good value in games where play itself is likely to be transgressive in nature (ie, not D&D, even in "evil" mode).

However, saying that an X-card is not like a signal in a LARP to halt play is -- odd?  I'm not sure what you think the X-card is doing but it's pretty much exactly the same as a hand signal in a LARP to halt play.  It's helpful to think of the X-card as a safe word -- something that immediately removes all consent to continue in play.  One of the difficulties in this thread is the confusion of what happens next.  And that some seem to want to claim all outcomes as good -- no talking, talking, no play, play continues, etc..   

Finally, I can't make heads or tales of your last bits.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Firstly, let me say that I'm a big fan of D&D -- played since 1e, every edition, and am currently running and loving a 5e campaign -- my fourth in this system.
> 
> That said, the above really, really, reads like someone that's only ever played D&D, or similar in play games like d20 games.  It exposes the usual belief that D&D is actually a broad play experience that does well exploring a wide range of themes.  It's not.  I love it, but it's not.  The things you've posted above as representative of transgressive D&D play are all moustache-twirly and are really just subversions of the very heroic tropes that D&D is built on.  In other words, the examples you posted are the same heroic tropes D&D is built on, just reversed.  They aren't terribly transgressive because you're not actually immersing into the murder of orphans -- it's played for a lark.
> 
> ...



Well that was pretty disingenous and dismissive.  I think this is where i just say "you win" because this isnt going to go anywhere.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 6, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Well that was pretty disingenous and dismissive.  I think this is where i just say "you win" because this isnt going to go anywhere.



It wasn't disingenuous at all.  It was, unfortunately, a tad dismissive, and for that I apologize.  It's rather hard to point out that someone might have a limited set of experiences without doing that.  I considered not responding but I think the point is one that needs to be stressed:  D&D has a specific set of tropes and expectations that make it not a good example of a game that needs something like an X-card to protect the play.  D&D is pretty locked into the fantasy heroic tropes.  As I noted, your examples of "evil" games are just perverting those tropes, they aren't striking out for new ground.  If you lack the experience with other games, saying this seems like it's attacking D&D, or the players of such.  It isn't.  It's like saying that Monopoly delivers a different experience entirely than does Pandemic, despite both being boardgames.

And, to be fair, a game like Monsterhearts is even narrower that D&D.  But the things a game of Monsterhearts explores is not something you can do in a D&D game.  It isn't.  And I can't easily explain how that is without describing how the very mechanics of Monsterhearts drive towards completely different ends than D&D, or that D&D mechanics cannot replicate that play.  Not "do it badly" but cannot.  You could hack D&D to do it badly, though, which is often misconstrued for actually being D&D rather than a hack that still does a poor job of it.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> It wasn't disingenuous at all.  It was, unfortunately, a tad dismissive, and for that I apologize.  It's rather hard to point out that someone might have a limited set of experiences without doing that.  I considered not responding but I think the point is one that needs to be stressed:  D&D has a specific set of tropes and expectations that make it not a good example of a game that needs something like an X-card to protect the play.  D&D is pretty locked into the fantasy heroic tropes.  As I noted, your examples of "evil" games are just perverting those tropes, they aren't striking out for new ground.  If you lack the experience with other games, saying this seems like it's attacking D&D, or the players of such.  It isn't.  It's like saying that Monopoly delivers a different experience entirely than does Pandemic, despite both being boardgames.
> 
> And, to be fair, a game like Monsterhearts is even narrower that D&D.  But the things a game of Monsterhearts explores is not something you can do in a D&D game.  It isn't.  And I can't easily explain how that is without describing how the very mechanics of Monsterhearts drive towards completely different ends than D&D, or that D&D mechanics cannot replicate that play.  Not "do it badly" but cannot.  You could hack D&D to do it badly, though, which is often misconstrued for actually being D&D rather than a hack that still does a poor job of it.



If you read my post and practiced intellectual charity (as is necessary for unbiased discussion) you would have found that i already statee ive played plenty of other games.  So im not really falling into the fallacies you mention relevant to gaming experience as i dont lack said experience.  Further if you paid close attention you would have found that was no where near the only thing you missed (or didnt take into account.  Ill go with missed.)

Also mustache twirly examples.  You listed among other things vampire the masquerade and stated a difference betwixt it and d&d of playing "the horrors" instead of being preyed upon by them.  I gave the examples i gave due to the way you presented your supposed contrast.  If what you were looking for was a specific other sort of despicableness and you were specific about it im fairly confident i easily could show you examples that flew right under your radar.  And there are other glaring holes in your examination of what i said.  Besides, the truth is, d&d is far less limited than you think.  Im pretty sure if vampire the masquerade is what you are saying is less limited in this way.  Honestly, i think of vampire the masquerade as a little stifling.  And while i would agree the average game of vampire is more an example of what we are talking about its extreme end is actually more tame than d&d's extreme end.  Gotta find the right dm though.  It can in fact get highly immersive depending on method and FAR darker than vampire.  Its scope is less limited.  The style of play just has to be agreed upon prior to the campaign (for consistancy).  No mustache twirling necessary (though i could even conceive of a scenario in which thats the opposite of cartoonish.  Not appropriate to be stated here.  Certainly not the typical case either.  Normally thats just cartoonish strictly).  I think this is an example of force of stereotype and historic momentum awareness causing both the object of stereotype as a knock on the observer to think there is only one way to play a particular game when in fact its not due to the nature if the game that this happens but instead due to assumption that the most common method and style is the only common one and that the most common themes are the only common ones.

I mean, to mention a societal evil (as some would think of it.  But modern societies view on this and how many forms they believe there to be is often so narrow they dont realize they often are in a form of it presently (heh...reminds me of dante asking mephistopheles a certain something involving hell and location  )) slavery.  Easy as heck to portray viscerally in d&d and the finer subtle problems that arise from it.  Id wager easier than vampire the masquerade.  Because ive done it.  In meticulous, gritty, non mustache twirly, detail.  The mundaneity of the price of a breeding female.  And all the various other stuff ill spare the thread from.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 6, 2019)

Campbell said:


> As someone involved in indie scene I have been part of groups that have used the X-Card since it was like a thing. I have never seen players use it as a weapon to force things to go their way.




Even in the unlikely even that a manipulative individual weaponizes the X-Card, this isn't a flaw with the card.  Toxic individuals will often exploit social conventions for their own ends but we generally don't advocate getting rid of those conventions.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

@Ovinomancer btw.  There are farrrrrrr more things you missed with what ive said.  Other than what i just outlined.  But im going to leave it at that.  And again.  Ive definitely played my fair share of non d&d rp.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 6, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> D&D has a specific set of tropes and expectations that make it not a good example of a game that needs something like an X-card to protect the play.  D&D is pretty locked into the fantasy heroic tropes.  As I noted, your examples of "evil" games are just perverting those tropes, they aren't striking out for new ground.  If you lack the experience with other games, saying this seems like it's attacking D&D, or the players of such.  It isn't.  It's like saying that Monopoly delivers a different experience entirely than does Pandemic, despite both being boardgames.




But D&D contains numerous elements that _Consent in Gaming_ says it is necessary for players to consent to before game play starts.  Remember, if the DM doens't get consent from his players to specifically bring something up the answer is a no. 

Bugs
Demons
Eyeballs (beholders)
Rats
Spiders
Racism (some of the D&D races are supremacist)
Freezing to death (spells/weather effects)
Gaslighting (Charm person?)
Heatstroke (spells/weather effects)
Natural Disaster (spells/weather effects)
Paralysis/Physical Restraint (Hold Person, grapples, creature effects)
Severe Weather (spells/weather effects)

It seems like D&D needs an  X-Card just as much as any other game.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

The far wider scope of politics in d&d than say vampire the masquerade also means far more offensive political ideologies and a much more complex and subtle fabric of high society corruption if we are talking just sheer potential levels if not on average definitely at extremes...ironic.  Quite a lot for people scared of certain ideologies to throw an x card at.  People thing this game cant trigger people...plenty of ideological scary people to worry about getting a paper cut while reading about...totally just mustache twirly cartoonish and never the crawling horror of despicableness at your own hand in high detail though im sure.  It is a game with vast capacity to meet the supposedly reasonable qualifications yet thays actually why the x card can be quite damaging.  Like i keep saying.  Some dms may wanna use the x cards.  The ones who want to deal in dark themes should probably not offer their use at all though if he wants his plot and game to proceed with maximum quality though.  Yes.  There is a lot of sarcasm in this post.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Oct 6, 2019)

I sort of followed the original, and now locked, thread about the Consent in Gaming pdf and have mostly skimmed through this thread, and one thing I am still trying to figure out. What has happened in the 25+ years since White Wolf originally released Vampire, and all the subsequent dark and disturbing books to go with it? They pushed boundaries and were quite graphic in some cases. I played a lot of their games in the 90s and early 2000s and I do not remember people needing anything like this back then. But now, 25 years later, gamers are suddenly so sensitive and unbalanced, whether they know it or not, that something like this is put out? Now yes, there are always some people that this kind of stuff is relevant for, but this conversation and pdf make it seem like it is an epidemic now.

And on a side note that I am not sure if I am being silly or serious, or both, but I sure hope that everyone going to see the new Joker movie got a consent form and a safe word/x-card before going into the theater.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

Joker movie will be amazeballs.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 6, 2019)

White wolf and wotc should not be officially endorsing mandated (key word, mandated) x card use at any point if they want to avoid being sued in the future.  A paradigm shift is soon coming.  Optional is fine.  Mandated is a great way to get sued far enough down the line though after enough of the inevitable political shifts coming happen.  They might get lucky and not be though.  I hear gen z really hates this kind of thing.  Could be gen z.  Could be the gen after z.  Who knows?  But soon.


----------



## evileeyore (Oct 7, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> What has happened in the 25+ years since White Wolf originally released Vampire, and all the subsequent dark and disturbing books to go with it?



Social-Political things that we're not allowed to discuss honestly on these forums.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> White wolf and wotc should not be officially endorsing mandated (key word, mandated) x card use at any point if they want to avoid being sued in the future.




Well, given that the only professionally published product that even discusses it wasn't from either of those companies... I don't think you have anything to worry about on that front.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Well, given that the only professionally published product that even discusses it wasn't from either of those companies... I don't think you have anything to worry about on that front.



I never actually said that they did have any officially published works regarding it.

Im just saying they probably should be careful never to promote it.  If they do, in officially published content, after enough years, it'll be bad.  This is a powder keg and i can tell you its gonna blow sometime.  What direction the brunt of the blast goes is less certain but it will blow.  At some point.  Gen z's a comin' down the shoot toward adulthood and they already show signs of hating the current paradigm on matters such as these.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> played a lot of their games in the 90s and early 2000s and I do not remember people needing anything like this back then



I'd point out that in the 90's and early 2000s, openly admitting you had any sort of mental issues was tantamount to social suicide in most circles.  We have come some way towards being a tad more understanding than we were back then.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2019)

I know that I've taken a lot of flak for being too agressive here, but, do people _really _not see the parallels in the verbiage?



> Mandatory x card=idiocy and slow game progression that will irritate players at eachother once they figure out who keeps doing it (they arent stupid.  Doesnt matter how the dm handles it eventually the players will figure out whos doing it if they are doing it excessively) or put them to sleep and also alert them to one person they will not want to hang out with in the future.  The player using the x cards.




"Oh, noes, supporting someone's mental health is going to slow down my game!"



> Slowing down the game and campaign for instance.  I dont care how competant the dm is, if its used enough it will do that.  Which can then cause one of the other several problems i mentioned.  Players being more irate with other players than they would have been if more intelligent  (i know this is blunt but actually saying it is not just more efficient, its smarter.




"Someone who uses an X card is too stupid to figure out a more productive way of dealing with their issues".



> .plenty of ideological scary people to worry about getting a paper cut while reading about..




Ah, the standard ad hominem.  How we've missed you...

On and on and on.  Am I really off base here?  I mean, I got told, directly, that it was entirely my fault for going back to a game that was making me uncomfortable.  People have been dismissing the notion all over the place. 

So, yeah, again, I'm going to repeat this, if, at any time you think your game is more important than the mental health of the person sitting at your table, you need to take a REALLY hard look at your priorities.  If your first reaction to an X-card, or consent in gaming is "Wow, this is going to hurt my game", then you are the problem.  YOU are the reason we need these things.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

I dont think thats the reason.  Cortisol blood serum levels and most other other physically measurable metrics for stress and general mental illness are generally higher now than they were then.  Ie there are literally more mentally ill people now than then.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Like obesity


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> Like obesity



That will hold true for almost any major physically trackable marker of mental illness rates in a population you could look at btw.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

So...there were literally fewer mentally ill people then than there is now.

The reason?  People will just have to ponder that.  Educating people on that particular one could possibky get me banned.  So I'll refrain.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 7, 2019)

X cards an online joke, virtually no one IRL has even heard of it. 

 It'll be about as relevent as the Book of Erotic Deeds in a few months.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> X cards an online joke, virtually no one IRL has even heard of it.
> 
> It'll be about as relevent as the Book of Erotic Deeds in a few months.



The powder keg i was speaking of was the general sort of thing they are being pushed on people and then people suing for reasons relating to what is essentially one day going to be viewed as the recommendation of an experimental sociological therapy tool without a psuch or soc cert.  And other similar issues.  I wasnt really just talking about x cards.  I was more talking about the overall type of thing bleeding into irl culture practices (which it has started to).  If we are talking about x cards specifically and not just x cards as a place holder for all similar bad ideas then yes.  It will lose steam and people forget about it.  But the general type of thing is gonna continue to grow for a while.  I dont think this ends well.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> The powder keg i was speaking of was the general sort of thing they are being pushed on people and then people suing for reasons relating to what is essentially one day going to be viewed as the recommendation of an experimental sociological therapy tool without a psuch or soc cert.  And other similar issues.  I wasnt really just talking about x cards.  I was more talking about the overall type of thing bleeding into irl culture practices (which it has started to).  If we are talking about x cards specifically and not just x cards as a place holder for all similar bad ideas then yes.  It will lose steam and people forget about it.  But the general type of thing is gonna continue to grow for a while.  I dont think this ends well.




It'll probably end when people get sick of the extremists on both sides.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2019)

"Don't use it because one day someone might sue you" is a rather bizarre twist on this discussion.  Gotta give it props for originality though.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Hussar said:


> "Don't use it because one day someone might sue you" is a rather bizarre twist on this discussion.  Gotta give it props for originality though.



Its heart felt too
Call me crazy if you want
I see it coming


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> It'll probably end when people get sick of the extremists on both sides.



That's certainly the normal pattern.  
Very usually relevant.
Usually.
Totally nothing strikingly abnormal about the health, culture, and psyche of society at the moment.
Totally not affecting how people socialize.  Im not pointing any fingers and im not disclosing any specific groups.  Suffice it to say there are many on all sides AND the middle.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> That's certainly the normal pattern.
> Very usually relevant.
> Usually.
> Totally nothing strikingly abnormal about the health, culture, and psyche of society at the moment.
> Totally not affecting how people socialize.  Im not pointing any fingers and im not disclosing any specific groups.  Suffice it to say there are many on all sides AND the middle.




I suspect one side will crash and burn around November 2020, something to do with Christmas I'm sure.

Otherside will crash and burn when they annoy everyone else or people stop paying attention.

I recommend self medicating. Instead of walk like an Egyptian drink like one. Beer.

Beer. Beer. Beer.

Worldwide boycott of Twitter could also work. Nothing good has come from Twitter.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> I suspect one side will crash and burn around November 2020, something to do with Christmas I'm sure.
> 
> Otherside will crash and burn when they annoy everyone else or people stop paying attention.
> 
> ...



I cant wait for the three extremes to just go back into their holes for a couple decades again.  The peace and quiet will be nice.  Yes i said three.  There is such a thing as an extreme centrist.  They are weird.  All three are annoying and i cant wait for them to go bye bye.  I think your time table is shorter then it ought to be though.  There will be a minor crash around that time but the general build of tension is nowhere near done.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2019)

MGibster said:


> But D&D contains numerous elements that _Consent in Gaming_ says it is necessary for players to consent to before game play starts.  Remember, if the DM doens't get consent from his players to specifically bring something up the answer is a no.
> 
> Bugs
> Demons
> ...



You might have noticed I didn't agree with Consent in Gaming's approach to the x-card either as used or as a generally useful tool, so I'm a tad uncertain what you think you've dunked on, here.

X-cards are useless without follow-on discussion.  They are useful in emotionally fraught situations.  They are not very useful to prevent/mitigate accidental triggers.  I said all of this above. I then said D&D is not a game that is emotionally fraught in ways that x-cards could help.  Having your PC die or face demons is not like the kinds of sudden emotionally fraught situations I'm discussing.

This list of things to get consent for in CiG is ridiculous.  Almost all of it is covered in "fantasy," and certainly in "D&D." If you're sitting down to a table with a problem on that list, you have the duty to check.  It's akin to having a food allergy -- you have to ask, the waiter isn't going to review all possibly allergies with you.   It's your health, don't offload it onto strangers.


----------



## MGibster (Oct 7, 2019)

I'm not sure who these "extremist" are some might want to see pushed out of the gaming arena.  Personally I'm very happy people have pushed for greater inclusion in games.  I like that a lot of cons now have harassment policies, that artwork is a bit more inclusive, and that we have a wider diversity of gamers and gamers these days.  I think gaming today is better than it was a few decades ago.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> I dont think thats the reason.  Cortisol blood serum levels and most other other physically measurable metrics for stress and general mental illness are generally higher now than they were then.




Beware confounding bias - if we don't know the rates at which those tests were done in the past, and who usually received those tests, we can't really compare the results.  Comparing past medical practice to today is insanely complicated in that way - telling the difference between "there are more cases of X in the population" and "there are more diagnoses of X" across time is not for duffers.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Beware confounding bias - if we don't know the rates at which those tests were done in the past, and who usually received those tests, we can't really compare the results.  Comparing past medical practice to today is insanely complicated in that way - telling the difference between "there are more cases of X in the population" and "there are more diagnoses of X" across time is not for duffers.



This is a pretty unreasonable concern.  The rates for these indicators are conclusively higher and these indicators (cortisol levels and obesity (also plenty others but those two are great examples)) also have thoroughly demonstrated relationships to mental illness.

If we are talking about any time in the last 30 or so years then thats not an issue for blood cortisol serum levels, obesity, and many other broad physical indicators of mental health (and much further back for many other things).  There is more than adequate data, methodological analysis, demographic consideration, and corroboration.  We know (to far more than an adequate degree) how much the testing was done and who had it done.  There is no difficulty seeing that obesity has risen.  And with how ubiquitous taking blood fir various purposes has become cortisol is no problem either.

Yes.  We do know there are higher rates of most of these indicators.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> You might have noticed I didn't agree with Consent in Gaming's approach to the x-card either as used or as a generally useful tool, so I'm a tad uncertain what you think you've dunked on, here.
> 
> X-cards are useless without follow-on discussion.  They are useful in emotionally fraught situations.  They are not very useful to prevent/mitigate accidental triggers.  I said all of this above. I then said D&D is not a game that is emotionally fraught in ways that x-cards could help.  Having your PC die or face demons is not like the kinds of sudden emotionally fraught situations I'm discussing.
> 
> This list of things to get consent for in CiG is ridiculous.  Almost all of it is covered in "fantasy," and certainly in "D&D." If you're sitting down to a table with a problem on that list, you have the duty to check.  It's akin to having a food allergy -- you have to ask, the waiter isn't going to review all possibly allergies with you.   It's your health, don't offload it onto strangers.



What do you do when they say laying responsibility at their feet for having to ask is victim blaming?  This is a legitimate concern of mine.  Im being 100% serious.  There is no joke here.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> What do you do when they say laying responsibility at their feet for having to ask is victim blaming?  This is a legitimate concern of mine.  Im being 100% serious.  There is no joke here.



I recognize your ask to engage this counterfactual but respectfully decline the invitation.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

Thats fair rhetoric

Acceptable


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 7, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I'm not sure who these "extremist" are some might want to see pushed out of the gaming arena.  Personally I'm very happy people have pushed for greater inclusion in games.  I like that a lot of cons now have harassment policies, that artwork is a bit more inclusive, and that we have a wider diversity of gamers and gamers these days.  I think gaming today is better than it was a few decades ago.



I think i was unclear.  I dont wanna see anyone not play.  Which is why i said extremes.  Not extremists.  By "I'd like to see the extremes go back to their holes" i meant i would like to see censorious ideologies stop being pushed onto games.  My wording was pretty bad their.  Admittedly i was deleriously tired.  (Been having severe insomnia the last couple days.  Actually still pretty out of it right now)


----------



## Umbran (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> This is a pretty unreasonable concern.  The rates for these indicators are conclusively higher and these indicators (cortisol levels and obesity (also plenty others but those two are great examples)) also have thoroughly demonstrated relationships to mental illness.




Do you know how often folks got cortisol level tests 10 years ago?  30 years ago?  50 Years ago?  100 years ago?  And what populations were gettign those tests in the past as compared to the present (as in - we may be testing populations now for whom the historical data is poor).  If you don't know those rates, and the changing accuracy of the tests with time (as new methods become available, tests tend to get better), then making the determination is not really possible.

And, maybe those studies have been done.  But this is the internet - I do not trust someone to just say, "it is known that..." on science without backup, especially considering something as complicated as mental illness.  Cite a reliable source, and we may have something.  If it is not important enough to you to dig up a reference, that's fine, just realize that without support, it is just an assertion of some guy on the internet.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2019)

Son of the Serpent said:


> What do you do when they say laying responsibility at their feet for having to ask is victim blaming?  This is a legitimate concern of mine.  Im being 100% serious.  There is no joke here.




ROTFLMAO.  THAT'S what you're taking from this discussion?  

Sorry, no.  Victim blaming is telling me that it's my fault for going back to a game that was causing me distress "like a moth to a flame".  

And, I'm sorry @Son of the Serpent, I'm presuming that English is not your first language, but, may I suggest something like Grammerly?  Parsing your words is very, very difficult, and, in a conversation like this, precision is necessary.


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 8, 2019)

Hussar said:


> ROTFLMAO.  THAT'S what you're taking from this discussion?
> 
> Sorry, no.  Victim blaming is telling me that it's my fault for going back to a game that was causing me distress "like a moth to a flame".
> 
> And, I'm sorry @Son of the Serpent, I'm presuming that English is not your first language, but, may I suggest something like Grammerly?  Parsing your words is very, very difficult, and, in a conversation like this, precision is necessary.



Ive seen a person getting triggered and not saying why cause them to be more triggered.  When they become more triggered in this fashion ive seen the act of telling them that they should have made precisely clear the source of the triggering be called a form of victim blaming.  Of course its not (in that its completely waranted)


----------



## Son of the Serpent (Oct 8, 2019)

Oh, and im pretty lazy when i use my phone to post.  Which is usually.  I have excellent proficiency with this language but meh...i think people understand more than well enough.  Too well for me to bother.  Sorry if you missed something.  Tell me what the phrase you got lost on was and i can explain.


----------

