# X & O For More Fun



## ajchafe (Sep 6, 2018)

I have seen this a while back and loved the idea.  I am (hopefully) starting a D&D club at my local library soon and plan to use it there.


----------



## archmage_variel (Sep 6, 2018)

The x-card is definitely something I consider an important part of my table in the time I've begun to use it, and I'm definitely interested in expanding it using the o-card too.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 6, 2018)

I have a dynamic in my group where they simply state whether they are okay with something or not. But a topic that they are uncomfortable with has never come up during any campaign I've run, because of the way we do our session 0:

During our session 0, we discuss what themes will be in the campaign, and how controversial topics will be handled. If for example a player states upfront that they don't like sexual content, then I make sure it doesn't come up during the campaign.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 6, 2018)

What is the big advantage of an "X" Card versus just saying "this makes me unconfortable, lets skip this"?

I understand than in a Convention or a group with total strangers it might be easier to just tap a Card instead of speaking up (might be shy), but in such a Constellation I would never use problematic Elements anyway (torture, sex,..).  And in my home group I would like to talk about that so I understand the problem for future Adventures.


----------



## rknop (Sep 6, 2018)

(delete)


----------



## rknop (Sep 6, 2018)

I will walk away from any table that insists on using some sort of system like this.

This is feeding into forces in our society right now that encourages everybody to do everything they can to figure out why they should feel traumatized or victimized.

Do some people legitimately feel traumatized or victimized?  Yes, absolutely.  Should people at an RPG table have respect?  Yes, absolutely.

This system, however, <i>encourages</i> you to <i>find ways</i> to decide that you're traumatized or victimized.  (It suggests that the GM use the system early to "model the behavior" and normalize it.)  Nobody will ever get over the things that traumatize them -- or, let's face it, just irritate them -- if we systematize ways to make it so that anybody can at all times avoid thinking or talking about something they don't want to think or talk about.  And, yes, I know RPGs are for fun and escapism, not for therapy, so it's not the place to confront serious issues.  This, however, is a mechanism to take issues that probably aren't serious, and make them de facto serious.  It feeds into the unfortunate tendency in our society to insist that whenever anybody say something that makes you a little uncomfortable, it is an attack, and you have a right to silence that person.

I recommend reading this op ed by Arthur C. Brooks from 2015 in the New York Times about "victimhood culture", and whom it really endangers.

Easy tools of silencing and censorship in general tend to harm the marginalized more than the powerful.  The only topics that are OK for the discussion become the ones that maintain the consensus and the status quo, and speaking, or even thinking, blasphemy, becomes a powerful social taboo.  The long history of humankind shows that blasphemy laws, or social mores that dictate a wide range of things blasphemy that should not be discussed, not only do not end well, but also end up being much more in favor of those in power than anybody else.

Use this system if you like it.  But also feel free to say that you don't like it, and don't think that there's something morally wrong with you if this system makes you roll your eyes, or if it makes you feel like you hobby where you're just trying to have fun is being turned into a force for political and social normalization.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 6, 2018)

So...  In relative private, I have absolutely zero filter. For a game at home, or with those that I consider my friends, I would definitely not use this. Those who are sensitive to any subject at all are safer and will be better off if they simply avoid my company.

For a game in public (on the internet, in a game store, or at a convention), however, this sort of thing is super useful. Many people find some subject to be sensitive, and they should absolutely be able to go out and engage in their hobby of choice without being subjected to topics that they find objectionable.


----------



## Warpiglet (Sep 6, 2018)

rknop said:


> I will walk away from any table that insists on using some sort of system like this.
> 
> This is feeding into forces in our society right now that encourages everybody to do everything they can to figure out why they should feel traumatized or victimized.
> 
> ...





I would have a hard time using this with adults in that if we anticipate these sorts of issues, perhaps they should be dealt with prior to gaming on the part of the person with the issue.  If we are all hanging out and watching a film does the "triggered" person get to shut the projector or TV off?  

I trust my emotional intelligence too.  If kids are playing, we are going to avoid profanity or overly dark themes.  Mashing skeletons with a mace?  Sure.  People being impaled by invading orcs?  Nah, we can skip that.

But generally speaking if I am gaming with adults I would trust that they have the necessary coping skills to survive a PG-13 movie.  If not, perhaps they can form a group that avoids upsetting elements.  I don't however see value in making a game tame for the rest of the group.  They have rights too.


----------



## Jester David (Sep 6, 2018)

Baumi said:


> What is the big advantage of an "X" Card versus just saying "this makes me unconfortable, lets skip this"?
> 
> I understand than in a Convention or a group with total strangers it might be easier to just tap a Card instead of speaking up (might be shy), but in such a Constellation I would never use problematic Elements anyway (torture, sex,..).  And in my home group I would like to talk about that so I understand the problem for future Adventures.



1) They might not feel comfortable at the moment talking. 
2) Talking up derails the adventure. This is a simple, understood gesture. You move on.


----------



## machineelf (Sep 6, 2018)

What happens if someone O cards a room full of bugs, and then someone X cards it? 

In general, it seems to be too be a better idea to speak up in the moment if something makes you uncomfortable, or wait until the session is over to discuss the issue. And if no resolution can be achieved, then the person who is uncomfortable should probably no longer be a part of the group rather than forcing others to bend to a single person's wishes if the others do but feel the same way. The cards seem like a distraction and a little less adult than how I would want to approach it.

In my games we do sometimes address some adult and tough issues, like slavery, death, abuse. I stay away from having villains do things like rape, but there are very evil villains in my games, and they can do very bad things. I go for a dramatic story telling style, and some stories are difficult. I understand if some of those things could make people uncomfortable. I try to address these issues in Session 0 and let players know they may encounter these kinds of things, and tell them to talk to me after if there is a topic that they really found disturbing. But ultimately I try to play with people who know that this is a story and not real life, and that goodness of heroes sones brightest against a backdrop of real darkness. Still, if someone has gone through abuse, for example, and hearing a story about that is hard for them, I would want them to tell me after the session. If they are on all accounts a mature and respectful player, I would try to be considerate of them.


----------



## dguerrieri (Sep 6, 2018)

I had not heard of this before, I love the concept. I expect I will be trying it out at some of my upcoming Greyhawk Reborn tables, and will be discussing it with our author/GMs and admins.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Sep 6, 2018)

I have to agree that while this might appear to be a useful tool, it's actually creating more problems. I will caveat that statement with the main tool I use at my table: I keep my games "PG" and if I run a game for kids, or with kids, then I level it at a "G" unless the parents have indicated a higher threshold of tolerance. As a parent, I will run a game for my own child that he is comfortable with, and not put him in the position of feeling scared or unhappy to begin with.

The GM's job of showmanship is not self-indulgent story time for the speaker....it's an extension of the time honored tradition of the storyteller in general, and the purpose of tale telling is to both to entertain and to elucidate. I guess my position is, "Know your audience." So in general, I don't throw themes at the audience that they don't want.

It is also worth noting that one can not want unusual carnage (body horror, rape, other themes) in a game on principle, and not merely because of trigger warnings. I've never been comfortable with any game where someone might feature rape, but I'm an adult middle aged guy with no special issues....I just find the concept distasteful and not the sort of fiction I want to deal with. That said, since it is not a trigger warning for me, I have no issue with explaining to a GM why I won't continue to participate in his or her games if such subjects are rampant.

Second caveat: some games may clearly be "subject intense" and if I were to play Vampire, for example, I'd expect uncomfortable content to come up and not hold it against the game, players or referee since that's sort of the point of the game. A game like CoC though I might expect to have lots of body horror but no rape or other violence (at best hinted at or alluded to, as in the source material) so a CoC game which played like Vampire might surprise me, but if it sticks to the form of the fiction after which it was modelled I'd be less surprised. 

I guess the TL;DR would be:

1. Know your audience
2. Know the game you're playing
3. Inform anyone at the table if your expectations on content are different than might be expected
4. Especially if you are playing with minors or people you don't know


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 6, 2018)

I would use this.  Except I would keep both cards near the GM screen, and affix a long popsicle stick to the X card.  Whenever someone made a move on the X card, I would use the end of the popsicle stick, from behind the GM screen, to slide the X card away until the player's hand landed close enough to the O card that I could say, "oh, you like this?  Great, let's continue."

X & O cards aren't a bad idea; they're just a sign of the times.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2018)

machineelf said:


> What happens if someone O cards a room full of bugs, and then someone X cards it?




X card wins.  



> In general, it seems to be too be a better idea to speak up in the moment if something makes you uncomfortable, or wait until the session is over to discuss the issue.




"Wait until the session is over," means you have to put up with the problematic element for the rest of the session.  That's rather missing the point.  

Tapping the X-card *is speaking up* - taking an action to inform people of a problem. 

At the table, the GM launches into something that turns out to be problematic for a player.  If the player says, "Please stop," do you immediately know if they are speaking in character or out of character?  No.  Invoking the X-card gets past all confusion on the matter.  The X-card (at least as originally presented to me) is a no-discussion veto.  The player who invokes the X-card does not have to explain themselves. There is no simple English word for this.  You need, "I invoke the veto-without-discussion rule!"  The card is somatic shorthand.  I just tap it or show it around, and I'm done.

And, to be honest, making the indicator non-verbal supports it being a no-discussion item.  Invoking the card is explicitly *not* starting a conversation, where saying, "I don't feel comfortable," will be taken as starting a conversation by many:  "Why not?" and "Don't be a baby!" are going to be common responses.



> I try to address these issues in Session 0




And, if you are playing only among a group of people who know each other well, in a controlled environment, where there is a Session 0, maybe you don't need the card, and that's fine.  But your particular group isn't an indictment of the concept.

Consider other scenarios - say, at a convention, where you don't know the people, and there's no time to explore people's hot buttons?  Or in a large campaign setting, where there's 50+ people involved?  The card makes a whole lot of sense.



> and let players know they may encounter these kinds of things, and tell them to talk to me after if there is a topic that they really found disturbing.




Here's the thing - "uncomfortable" is probably not the right word.  Neither is "disturbing".  Try "offensive", "distressing", or "triggering" (in the original PTSD flashback sense).  If I step on a hot button that may launch a player into a full-on panic attack, or offend them in some deep way, as a mature adult I do *not* want them to have to sit and stew in it or an entire session.  I want to know I should stop *now* while we might still save the session for them.  I want to make it as simple and non-judgemental as possible for them to give me that information.  

Mature players should care about each other as people more than they care about the integrity of the RPG story, no?



> But ultimately I try to play with people who know that this is a story and not real life




Let us be clear - the implication that someone with an issue doesn't know the story is not real life is a major insult.  The response of the human mind is *not* dependent on the stimulus being real.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 6, 2018)

I'd have more problems with the O card than the X card.  Stopping something is simple.  Keeping something going when I think I've hit the natural limit feels much harder.


----------



## Vexorg (Sep 6, 2018)

Great idea, but it needs to be paired with a sticker chart so everyone knows if they get too many X cards, they have to sign a "pledge to think about my actions" form, and if they get no Xs they get a Skittle.


----------



## Dualazi (Sep 6, 2018)

brimmels said:


> Whether a GM is running a store-bought adventure or their own campaign, no GM is a mind reader. It's also impossible for other players to guess what will turn an exciting time into a major turn-off for their group. Instead of forcing a GM (or the other players) to guess what may or may not work as fun, a simple card with a big X on it is placed in the center of the game table. If something goes too far for someone's comfort threshold, they simply tap the card and the game moves on from that thing. If you're not clear what caused the X-Card to be tapped, a short break is called while the GM confers with the player. Because the player doesn't have to defend or justify the card being invoked, it avoids hurt feelings and increases fun and safety.




Or, instead, they could talk it over like adults, and if necessary the player in question can bow out. The X card only increases 'fun' for the perpetually sensitive, at the expense of literally everyone else at the table. If the group is having fun running a game leading into a body horror theme, better hope the DM has an amazing plan B if a player decides to shoot down the entire concept without even needing to justify or explain it.



brimmels said:


> While people assume using the X-Card stifles creativity, the opposite is true. A GM running a *Delta Green* or *World of Darkness* adventure is liberated to plan whatever scenario or evocative description they like, knowing that their players easily maintain their enjoyment. No mind reading is needed.




There are no situations where the X card enhances creativity. By its very nature it exists only to shut off potential topics and play options. I also find it hilarious that you picked those two games, which are definitely more likely to be negatively impacted by the X-card than more blase, wide audience RPGs like D&D.



brimmels said:


> While the X-Card is often associated with story games or indie RPGs, I've had them invoked the most in D&D games. While running *Tales of the Yawning Portal* last year a player of mine tapped the X-Card when the players hit a bug-infested area. Later he explained that while fixing some wiring earlier that day (he's an electrician) he had to go into a crawlspace that was infested with bugs, and it had skeeved him out. This was a guy I've GM'd for years. He had never indicated an issue with bugs before so I couldn't have guessed that on that particular day he'd be bothered. A month later, it wasn't an issue.




I like how you don't explain any of the fallout of this. Did you award xp/loot as normal? Was there anything plot relevant in this area? Is there now just a gaping hole in the session as you teleport somewhere else? It's also convenient that the guy was all better a month later. What do you recommend when it's never going to get better? Does a recovering gambler get to veto any session involving casinos in perpetuity?




brimmels said:


> During a game a few years ago, two players were arguing in character. One guy said, “That plan is suicide. You might want to die, but I don't.” Sounds like a typical argument, right? What none of us knew was that the other guy had had a family member commit suicide recently. By tapping the card and saying “no suicide comments” (so we'd understand the issue) the game and in-character argument continued with a pause of only a few seconds. He didn't have to feel embarrassed or awkward or explain more, though after the game I overheard him mentioning it to a casual friend in the same game.




Perhaps the only semi-salient point in the post, and only due to it being easy to adjust language use. If it was in a campaign or run where suicide was important to the plot/theme, then all of the above criticisms come right back.



brimmels said:


> On the flip side, Kira Scott created its counterpart, the O-Card. It works the same way as the X-Card except it signals “more of this, please.”
> 
> As a GM, have you ever wondered if players were enjoying a specific sequence or aspect of a game? By using the O-Card, you don't have to guess. If it's invoked, you know the banquet scene that is all role-playing doesn't have to be rushed or next time, add more word puzzles for the players to solve.




Or I could talk to my group like human beings and ask them what they enjoyed or didn't about a particular run. The O card is entirely useless, and in a worst-case scenario might send the message to the DM to artificially drag out the current favored topic to its detriment.



brimmels said:


> Safety tools provide an easy way to ensure everyone enjoys the game, and the GM doesn't to guess about what is and isn't working.




Let's get something 100% clear right here and now: no one was ever 'unsafe' as a result of topics brought up in a pen and paper RPG. Of all the modern word-twisting going around these days, "safety" has to be near the top of my pet peeves. It's invoked every time a person or organization wants to push for changes in another person or organization, because it plays into a convincing emotional plea that most people naturally agree with. I mean everyone wants to be safe, right? So why not start doing this thing we want that makes people "safer"? It's basically "Think of the Children" but with less focus and it should be ridiculed whenever it's attempted.

The X-card is not a new idea, and unfortunately it gets pushed in gaming spaces every couple of months, and thus far most of the replies have been thankfully that of sane repudiation of the idea. It's a garbage tool that puts undue work on the GM, enables a minority of players to grind the session to a halt on their whims, and proponents of the idea always make sure to remind you that you can't even inquire as to the reason or explanation. I can't really condemn this idea strongly enough, I consider it a poison to emotional maturity and it will absolutely never make its way to tables that I GM, and I would encourage others to do likewise.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 6, 2018)

Umbran said:


> X card wins.
> 
> "Wait until the session is over," means you have to put up with the problematic element for the rest of the session.  That's rather missing the point.
> 
> ...



No-discussion vetoes in any situation are a quick road to disaster.

In this particular instance it would not be due to those who might be legitimately triggered by something in the game but due to those who would abuse it in order to squash someone else's fun and-or as a spotlight diversion.

Example of what I mean: some players love in-character information gathering and planning, others find it tedious and boring.  Wouldn't take long before the bored ones realized they could shut down the info-gathering just by tapping the card...no thanks.

Another example: a player who taps the X card for the sole reason of drawing attention to him-herself. (I've had at least one player in the past who would fit this bill)  No discussion allowed, but the game grinds to a screeching halt...no thanks.

And a third: a player who taps the X card to stop some otherwise normal part of the game at the table from taking place, be it in-character PvP (arguing or worse) or out-of-character Monty Python references or bad puns; particularly if such is by precedent an already accepted element of play at that table.  And here, without discussion, it might not even be possible to figure out why the card was tapped at all - are we supposed to stop all Monty Python references or just the one about the black knight getting all his limbs chopped off?  No thanks.

If you're going to tap that card you'd better be good and ready to explain why, and - in examples like I give above - to be comprehensively overruled.



> And, if you are playing only among a group of people who know each other well, in a controlled environment, where there is a Session 0, maybe you don't need the card, and that's fine.  But your particular group isn't an indictment of the concept.
> 
> Consider other scenarios - say, at a convention, where you don't know the people, and there's no time to explore people's hot buttons?  Or in a large campaign setting, where there's 50+ people involved?  The card makes a whole lot of sense.



If you're DMing a group with over 50 players (and ye gods and little fishes why would anyone ever do this?!!!) and use this system you run a significant risk of getting nowhere at all, as with that many people the chances of story element A setting someone off are hugely greater than in a group of 5 or 6.

Lanefan


----------



## ikos (Sep 6, 2018)

I cant be the only one wondering if this advert was satire.


----------



## Pauper (Sep 6, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> Example of what I mean: some players love in-character information gathering and planning, others find it tedious and boring.  Wouldn't take long before the bored ones realized they could shut down the info-gathering just by tapping the card...no thanks.




I think you're missing the point of how this is meant to work.

Based on the original essay (and most of the other discussion I've read of the concept), the X card is meant to allow players to non-verbally express their distaste for the content of a given scene. The idea is that the tapping of the card is equivalent to saying, "This discussion makes me uncomfortable; let's please move on."

What you seem to be describing is a situation in which the X card is used as a game mechanic -- where the player touching the card is doing so to get a specific benefit or avoid a specific penalty in-game. That seems odd and likely to cause confusion.

As an example, let's use a scene where the party is speaking with the local ruler. The discussion is getting heated and the ruler threatens the party with imprisonment and torture, which provokes a player into touching the X card. That seems straightforward -- the card is being invoked because of the conversation, and thus the topic is problematic. Time to take a moment and direct the conversation down a different path. But let's say a character instead attempts to steal an ornate set of tableware and is caught, at which point the ruler calls for the guards to apprehend the character, and that character's player hits the X card. Is the player signalling a distaste for arrest or topics involving unequal use of power? Or is he just trying to avoid being punished for being caught stealing from the ruler?



> Another example: a player who taps the X card for the sole reason of drawing attention to him-herself. (I've had at least one player in the past who would fit this bill)  No discussion allowed, but the game grinds to a screeching halt...no thanks.




Again, it seems like you're using a different function to the card than is intended. In the intended use, there is no 'screeching halt'; the DM simply takes the scene/conversation/what-have-you in a different direction, away from whatever topic appeared to be problematic. In the mechanical example, however, then yes, you would see the game grinding to a halt, because it's not clear why the player invoked the card and thus what the player is trying to say by doing so.

This illustrates that it's just as important to explain what the card doesn't do -- it doesn't undo PC or NPC actions -- it simply allows a player to register discomfort with a topic or point of subject matter within the game so that the table can get past that topic without causing undue discomfort to the player.



> And a third: a player who taps the X card to stop some otherwise normal part of the game at the table from taking place, be it in-character PvP (arguing or worse) or out-of-character Monty Python references or bad puns; particularly if such is by precedent an already accepted element of play at that table.




And here I think we're kind of getting to your real problem with the system -- your presumption is that, if nobody at the table explicitly complains about a thing, then everyone tacitly agrees to that thing, even if later someone decides that, in fact, the thing is a problem. This leads to the only way that player can express a distaste for a given thing being walking away from the table.

Best example I can think of -- the game store table populated entirely by middle-aged dudes. A woman sits down at that table, since the table is advertised as 'open gaming'; the first night, one of the dudes refers to a female barmaid as a 'strumpet'. The woman isn't pleased about this, but nothing else bad happens that night, so she's inclined to think of it as a one-off. Then at the next session, a few more comments are made -- she didn't complain about 'strumpet', so clearly she's OK with it, and it's 'accepted at this table', right? Eventually, she leaves and doesn't come back, and the dudes are left to wonder why women don't seem to have the courage and desire to play TTRPGs.



> If you're going to tap that card you'd better be good and ready to explain why, and - in examples like I give above - to be comprehensively overruled.




If that's the way you'd be planning to use an X card, then I'd suggest you stick to your guns and not use them. The idea is that they're a way for a player to express non-verbal displeasure at a topic in a non-judgmental manner. The thought that a player will touch the X card and be suddenly subjected to something along the lines of "what's wrong with this thing we just did? Are you a weak player? What's your problem?" Well, that's not what the player was buying in for.

The X card is not a panacea; it's a tool, and its only as good a tool as the people who use it. With that said, I'd be as leery of a DM who expressed disdain for the tool as I would be a potential dating partner who expressed disdain over the use of protection in intimate situations; it's clearly a sign that that person prioritizes their interests and desires far above mine.

--
Pauper


----------



## neobolts (Sep 6, 2018)

(Quagmire voice)  Awwww yeah,  I'm tapping my O-card if you know what I mean. 

:: Other players frantically tap X-card ::


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 6, 2018)

I almost didn't post anything, but in a lot of cases, these kinds of ideas go without any kind of serious pushback because the people who don't like the ideas are afraid of the kind of outrage that will result from disagreement.  But that just breeds the kind of false consciousness that such ideas are popular (who knows, maybe they are...but we'll never know if half the people are unwilling to step up and argue the point). 

This is an absolutely terrible idea.   Everybody's fun becomes hostage to the person with the narrowest sense of propriety--instead of having a good time, everybody walks on eggshells to keep from blowing up the jerk with the shortest fuse. 
 Metaphorically speaking, this is giving everybody a gun and then pointing it at each others heads.  The winner is the one with the itchiest trigger finger.  

Gaming, like every group endeavor, is a series of compromises;  the "serious roleplayer" has to allow for the antics of the practical joker; the guy who likes humanocentric sword & sorcery has to accept the presence in the party of the anime inspired dragonborn monk; the min-maxer has to deal with the storygamer; and everybody sometimes has to deal with the squicky bits of action adventure stories--things die, and gentlebeings get their feelings hurt.  If they just can't handle their current group--they do what grown ups do, the put their differences aside, swallow their objections in order to not derail the fun of everybody else at the table, thanks everybody for a good game, and then finds another group.  

If something is actually so horrendous that you just can't adult through it, then you have an obligation to _actually say something_--to talk to your fellow human beings, and expose your problems for either the agreement or ridicule from your fellow players that your arguments deserve.  ADDENDUM:  Maybe everybody feels the way you do, and your arguments will persuade the group and the dm to take a different course.  Or maybe they'll all think you're being ridiculous and tell you so, but either way...you won't know until you actually _say something_.

Tapping an "X" card is a selfish act designed for people who think their feelings are more important than anyone else's.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 6, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> There are no situations where the X card enhances creativity. By its very nature it exists only to shut off potential topics and play options. I also find it hilarious that you picked those two games, which are definitely more likely to be negatively impacted by the X-card than more blase, wide audience RPGs like D&D.




What is more creative, describing a situation or having to think of a different situation?  By definition using an X card must be more creative.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 6, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> Tapping an "X" card is a selfish act designed for people who think their feelings are more important than anyone else's.




I dont get it.  Why would you want to run a game that people dont enjoy?


----------



## Nagol (Sep 6, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> I almost didn't post anything, but in a lot of cases, these kinds of ideas go without any kind of serious pushback because the people who don't like the ideas are afraid of the kind of outrage that will result from disagreement.  But that just breeds the kind of false consciousness that such ideas are popular (who knows, maybe they are...but we'll never know if half the people are unwilling to step up and argue the point).
> 
> This is an absolutely terrible idea.   Everybody's fun becomes hostage to the person with the narrowest sense of propriety--instead of having a good time, everybody walks on eggshells to keep from blowing up the jerk with the shortest fuse.
> Metaphorically speaking, this is giving everybody a gun and then pointing it at each others heads.  The winner is the one with the itchiest trigger finger.
> ...




Like other scenarios that provide immediate non-negotiable veto ability, it's primary purpose is to facilitate communication in situations where there are potentially layers of obfuscation so people don't have to double-check what the person "really meant".

Can it be misused?  Sure.  All the immediate non-negotiable vetoes run the risk of being used in ways other participants didn't expect.  If one is being used at all frequently, that's the time to reevaluate what the situation is and if the participants are a good fit.

Is it as strongly needed in a primarily verbal game as other situations?  Probably not, but if it makes people feel more secure, it isn't much of a imposition either.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 6, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I dont get it.  Why would you want to run a game that people dont enjoy?




What's to get?  Why would I want to hold a groups fun hostage to one person?


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 6, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> What's to get?  Why would I want to hold a groups fun hostage to one person?




So you are OK with one person holding a groups fun hostage as long as that person is the DM?

Fair enough.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 6, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Like other scenarios that provide immediate non-negotiable veto ability, it's primary purpose is to facilitate communication in situations where there are potentially layers of obfuscation so people don't have to double-check what the person "really meant".




If that is the case, it is the most obtuse, backwards logic I have ever heard since the last time I watched a congressional debate.  Providing someone with nonnegotiable power to stop something doesn't encourage communication; it actively _discourages_ it.  Why should the person with the power explain themselves?  Why should they do anything?  They have the power.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 6, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> If that is the case, it is the most obtuse, backwards logic I have ever heard since the last time I watched a congressional debate.  Providing someone with nonnegotiable power to stop something doesn't encourage communication; it actively _discourages_ it.  Why should the person with the power explain themselves?  Why should they do anything?  They have the power.




It's not meant to encourage communication; it's meant to guarantee one particular message is clearly received and understood.  "If this happens, we stop."

Generally all participants have the power and in most cases, no participant uses it.  It's purpose is that of a safety valve.  Making it work without requiring explanation is making any particular use of the ability non-judgemental.  Often, in the other scenarios, asking why it was used (after participation has stopped) helps prevent future uses.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 6, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So you are OK with one person holding a groups fun hostage as long as that person is the DM?
> 
> Fair enough.




Pretty much any time someone begins a response with "So you're saying" or "So you're okay with", what follows is almost universally an attempt to twist a persons words into a straw man that's easier to attack.

But taking you at face value, which is more than you are doing for me, if I understand you correctly, you appear to imply that, when the x card is played, the players would be in agreement with the x card tapper in offense at whatever the DM or other player is handling something in the game. 

 EDIT: I do appreciate the irony that I am doing what I just accused you of doing--restarting your argument.  However, in my defense, you didn't actually make an argument, you just restated my position as a straw man.

I guess that could be the case, sometimes.  I think a lot more often, it'll be 5 people at the table enjoying the scene that the DM is laying out, and then watching it get derailed because one person decides _their_ feelings are more important than the other people at the table.

This is why communication is way better than a card.  If everybody at the table is not enjoying what the DM is throwing down, the DM needs to know.  Maybe he or she should bow out and let someone else take the reins.   Or maybe the group should find someone else.  But no group should be held hostage to the outrage of one person...including the DM.  X-cards don't fix problem dms; they just create problem players.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 6, 2018)

Nagol said:


> It's not meant to encourage communication; it's meant to guarantee one particular message is clearly received and understood.  "If this happens, we stop."
> 
> Generally all participants have the power and in most cases, no participant uses it.  It's purpose is that of a safety valve.  Making it work without requiring explanation is making any particular use of the ability non-judgemental.  Often, in the other scenarios, asking why it was used (after participation has stopped) helps prevent future uses.




That makes a lot more sense--the idea that it promoted communication was the part that broke my brain a little.

Still think it's a bad idea--but glad we see eye to eye that this is _not_ a communication tool.


----------



## Wrathamon (Sep 6, 2018)

How do you know what the "thing" is the person is objecting to if you dont talk about it?  

Also, most of the time its the DM/GM who is getting the player's back on topic and avoiding tangent offensive humor/topics most of the time in my xp.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 7, 2018)

These kind of cards would never work with my group, they would immediately abuse them.


----------



## Wendigo_Bob (Sep 7, 2018)

*My take on this*

I can see the advantages of this in an open setting (IE, where the GM has no choice over players and does not know them) but myself I wouldn’t use it.
(I’m going to avoid the topics of abusive usage & various psychological issues and focus on my perception of how it affects gameplay).
Now, I tend to stick to PG stuff in my games, have yet to have a player express discomfort, and have generally good-natured players who aren’t likely to abuse such a system. Nonetheless, I have some issues with it.
*1)It reinforces the notion of “GM as entertainer/administrator”, rather than equal participant.*
This is a mindset that can be hard to deal with. It’s also the reason why I have avoided certain narrative focused games. Essentially, it supports the notion that the GM is present to service the player, rather than being an equal participant in the game. System like dungeon world & numenara (to name two I have played myself) tend to relegate GM-ing to an administrative role, there to solely absorb the player’s intent & ideas and generate a context that fits with it.
In an equal participation setup, the players play their characters, while the GM plays the world around them. If the player makes an action, the GM has no right to veto it; in the same way, players should not have a mechanism to veto GM actions.
*2) It forces sudden changes with little time for the GM to react.*
The bug example is very troublesome to me, in particular since I have used bugs as a theme before and having them removed from play would have required a complete re-creation of theme, story motivations and characters. I like to improvise, but I’m not so good I can pull an entire session together in half a second. I like to prepare my games, and they are usually much better for it. While this isn’t a universal problem (if it’s a single bug, changing it to a dog or a land squid aint hard) it is most problematic for GMs that prepare, or that try to work on a theme.

My overall point is that I object to any mechanic that gives players or the GM an absolute veto on something happening. These quibbles will be seen as minor or irrelevant by some, but they are meaningful to me. It’s also why I prefer simulationist systems, as it allows the player a specific, quantitative measurement of their ability, rather than a loose notion of what you are good at depending on GM whims.
Now, I am sensitive to the overall issue of dealing with discomfort in games. I approach it in a different fashion however.
*1) Ask players before the first game about major issues.*
If someone has a major phobia of insects, I will look for ideas other than an insect-filled dungeons. Same goes for what the player enjoys; combat, storytelling, character-building. These things MUST be determined before the first play sessions.
*2) Develop a culture of openness.*
This may be a no-brainer, but players need to know you will listen to them, both for praise, criticism and general comments. If they have issues, or major difficulties addressing a particular subject on that very day, having it shared before the beginning of the game allows the GM some time to react and adjust things that can be adjusted. As a last resort, the GM can also ask the player to sit this game out and come back for the next one; they aren’t the only player, and if the others do want to deal with the subject they should be allowed to.
*3) For difficult subjects, avoid flowery prose*
To return to the bug example, I have known a lot of GMs who LOVE flowery prose. Who will describe in tortuous detail how you disembowel an enemy, or the various terrible feature of the swarm of bugs about to assail you. That is not necessary. Stick to the essential elements (IE, there is a dangerous swarm of bugs on the floor) and avoid detail. While it will not completely remove the issue, this will allow it to pass as quickly and painlessly as possible.
*4) Not all player and GM styles are compatible*
I can see that this is not necessarily a point a lot of people can deal with. When you run a game where you have no choice of players, then the X/O can be useful, because as was said, we can’t read minds. However, I run highly thematic, sometimes high-concept games (current work: a conceptual/memetic maze). I have lost players on my premises alone, and the dominance of D&D (and related systems) has a lot of people focused on the traditional, combat-heavy standard medieval fantasy premise and they have little interest in anything else. I also tend to run story-heavy games, which I know will bore my dungeon-diving friends to tears.
*5) Know thyself; I know it’s hard, but you will get maximum fun by doing so.*
There are a number of game types I will pointedly avoid. Horror games make me paranoid, high-mortality games make me anxious and pure-narrativist systems leave me confused. I also avoid playing characters who resemble me too much, as I get too invested in the character emotionally. As a player (and a GM) you need to know what you are comfortable with, and be open about it.


----------



## jimmifett (Sep 7, 2018)

Nope, not at my table, no X, no O. The rare times children (teens) are at my table, they are either mature enough to play with adults or given a print out of the basic rules and encouraged to start a game with their friends after session.If a player doesn't like how something is going, they can talk to me after session, or quietly pack up and find another table. I'm not catering to anyone else's hangups. The only rule I have is fade to black and pick up next scene if things ever get naughty, bc I have no desire to roleplay half of some slash fanfic with others. This is as bad as paizo trying to force "social contract" obligations on me as a game master that i'm expected to oblige in the playtest. I'm not a therapist, I'm definitely not my player's therapists, I'm not payed to be anyone's therapists. Players: Leave your hangups elsewhere and play the game if you're at my table. We're here to have fun and have limited free time, and don't need these kinds of intrusions into game time when it's hard enough wrangling everyone together in the first place.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 7, 2018)

Sounds like some people, in bad faith, will use this to speed run an adventure/try to make some vague political point about society listening to minorities/women/etc.


----------



## epithet (Sep 7, 2018)

I think that saying "I have a phobia about spiders" or "I really can't deal with dead kids" isn't too much to ask. If you can't talk about your issues at least to the point of being able to establish some boundaries, then you might need to get your TTRPG action in a special "safe space" group. In a regular group-of-friends pizza and beer game night group, you need to communicate and not just "get triggered." Similarly, if someone in the group wants more puzzles, or more flirting at the tavern, or more combats with tons of minions to get to use a cleave feature, or whatever... freakin say so. No one has ever reacted badly to being told "I like what you did there, do more of that!"

Being a little bit uncomfortable from time to time in social situations is normal, and something that everyone I know just deals with as a part of life. I don't really know when this concept of constant affirmation and protection entered the mainstream, but it bears no similarity to my lived experience.


----------



## epithet (Sep 7, 2018)

jimmifett said:


> ... This is as bad as paizo trying to force "social contract" obligations on me as a game master that i'm expected to oblige in the playtest. ...




I am unfamiliar with this. What is Paizo's "social contract" thing?


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 7, 2018)

Pauper said:


> I think you're missing the point of how this is meant to work.



Not at all: I get the point of how this is in theory meant to work.

I can also clearly see how it most likely would work in practice; a much different and vastly worse outcome than the theory would suggest.

Theory: 







> Based on the original essay (and most of the other discussion I've read of the concept), the X card is meant to allow players to non-verbally express their distaste for the content of a given scene. The idea is that the tapping of the card is equivalent to saying, "This discussion makes me uncomfortable; let's please move on."




Practice: 







> What you seem to be describing is a situation in which the X card is used as a game mechanic -- where the player touching the card is doing so to get a specific benefit or avoid a specific penalty in-game. That seems odd and likely to cause confusion.



See the difference?



> As an example, let's use a scene where the party is speaking with the local ruler. The discussion is getting heated and the ruler threatens the party with imprisonment and torture, which provokes a player into touching the X card. That seems straightforward -- the card is being invoked because of the conversation, and thus the topic is problematic.



But is it?  Or is it being invoked because the party are losing the argument?

Without discussion, there's no way to tell.



> Time to take a moment and direct the conversation down a different path.



In this example, where is the DM supposed to go with this?  The party have annoyed the ruler to the point he's threatening torture; is the DM supposed to let the PCs go instead?  Or to let them win the argument?  Or for the ruler to find something else to threaten the PCs with (which, for all we know, could draw another X touch)?

Different if the DM is going into graphic and gory detail as to the tortures to be applied, and their effects...here an X touch should be able to make the DM back off on the detail, but not on the whole story or theme.  The PCs still might be tortured, but the DM can handwave it simply by saying how many hit points each PC loses in the process, and leave them manacled to a dungeon wall to ponder their next move.



> But let's say a character instead attempts to steal an ornate set of tableware and is caught, at which point the ruler calls for the guards to apprehend the character, and that character's player hits the X card. Is the player signalling a distaste for arrest or topics involving unequal use of power? Or is he just trying to avoid being punished for being caught stealing from the ruler?



Exactly...and more to the point, would there have been an X touch if the PC hadn't been caught?



> Again, it seems like you're using a different function to the card than is intended. In the intended use, there is no 'screeching halt'; the DM simply takes the scene/conversation/what-have-you in a different direction, away from whatever topic appeared to be problematic. In the mechanical example, however, then yes, you would see the game grinding to a halt, because it's not clear why the player invoked the card and thus what the player is trying to say by doing so.



Exactly; and this might be the case even in what some might think are more obvious examples - the DM* might not realize she's doing anything wrong at all, so when the X gets touched it's not at all clear why.

* - side note: we keep saying the X touch is to rein in the DM but it could be to rein in (an)other player(s) as well.



> This illustrates that it's just as important to explain what the card doesn't do -- it doesn't undo PC or NPC actions -- it simply allows a player to register discomfort with a topic or point of subject matter within the game so that the table can get past that topic without causing undue discomfort to the player.



No, it doesn't undo PC/NPC actions but it can certainly be (ab)used to prevent them from happening in the first place and-or stop them in their tracks, as per my examples re info gathering and in-party fighting.



> And here I think we're kind of getting to your real problem with the system -- your presumption is that, if nobody at the table explicitly complains about a thing, then everyone tacitly agrees to that thing, even if later someone decides that, in fact, the thing is a problem. This leads to the only way that player can express a distaste for a given thing being walking away from the table.



Touching a card doesn't count, in my eyes, as explicitly complaining.  Explicit complaining involves words, and discussion, and give-and-take or compromise or consensus...and yes, sometimes also leads to someone leaving the game if there is no compromise to be had.



> Best example I can think of -- the game store table populated entirely by middle-aged dudes. A woman sits down at that table, since the table is advertised as 'open gaming'; the first night, one of the dudes refers to a female barmaid as a 'strumpet'. The woman isn't pleased about this, but nothing else bad happens that night, so she's inclined to think of it as a one-off. Then at the next session, a few more comments are made -- she didn't complain about 'strumpet', so clearly she's OK with it, and it's 'accepted at this table', right? Eventually, she leaves and doesn't come back, and the dudes are left to wonder why women don't seem to have the courage and desire to play TTRPGs.



Does she say something about it first and see if anything changes?  Chances are they won't see what they're doing as wrong in any way until-unless it's pointed out to them...

But now, take the same situation - an established game-store table of middle-aged dudes - but replace that new player with a different one: another middle-aged dude whose religion causes him to be offended by any mention of devils or demons or deities that are not his deity.  Is this new player allowed to in effect twist the game's morality to suit his own?

I certainly hope not.



> If that's the way you'd be planning to use an X card, then I'd suggest you stick to your guns and not use them. The idea is that they're a way for a player to express non-verbal displeasure at a topic in a non-judgmental manner. The thought that a player will touch the X card and be suddenly subjected to something along the lines of "what's wrong with this thing we just did? Are you a weak player? What's your problem?" Well, that's not what the player was buying in for.



Oh, don't worry - I ain't about to use this system.

My concern is for people who, on reading an article like this, will take up the system as presented in theory without giving any thought to what might happen in practice.



> The X card is not a panacea; it's a tool, and its only as good a tool as the people who use it. With that said, I'd be as leery of a DM who expressed disdain for the tool as I would be a potential dating partner who expressed disdain over the use of protection in intimate situations; it's clearly a sign that that person prioritizes their interests and desires far above mine.



As a player I'd be leery of a DM who used this tool, as it would fly a red flag regarding the table's (or maybe just the DM's) capacity and-or willingness for real communication and discussion.

Lan-"there's no such thing as a right to not be offended; but there is such a thing as a right to speak your mind if-when offense occurs.  Immense difference"-efan


----------



## Eirikrautha (Sep 7, 2018)

Sadly, this is an unsurprising idea to see in a modern role playing game.  There is a modern cultural movement where some adults seem to believe that they are not responsible for their own lives.  These cards (especially the X) are the embodiment of the flight from responsibility and the assertion that others must conform to whatever is best for you.  The reality is that, as a symptom of the larger disease, this cultural drift will actually lead to the death of role playing games.  You cannot have a shared experience with people who are unwilling to share.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 7, 2018)

I can see why this would be an attractive option for some DM, especially at conventions and organized play sessions. It is a good-hearted attempt to support people you may have issues with certain content and given them a way to register this without having to go into detail what their personal issue is. I would guess that it would not get much if any use if I were to use it. 

But when I try to think through it in practice, I can see it making things worse. The person with the issue still has to publicly indicate discomfort with a topic, which many people with phobias and traumatic experience are not going to want to do, even if they don't have to talk about it. And I can see many instances where, without more context, I may misunderstand what is making them uncomfortable or what their level of discomfort is. For example, the party come across a dissimortuum who is dismembering a corpse and adding the pieces to a large bag of purtrifying body parts. 

Player taps X. 

I tone down my description. Thinking the level of gore is making the player uncomfortable. I continue with the encounter using less descriptive, more mechanic-focused terms. Some players may be disppointed that the encounter and combat are not colorfully narrated, but most adults are willing to make accomodations. But then the player gets up and leaves. I later find out that the player had recently been present at a suicide at a metro and a part of the person's body flew out and hit them. They still suffer PTSD. 

Note - this exact scenario never happened to me, but due to my work in a prior job, I've met many people with stories like this. 

I want to be understanding, but an "X" card really didn't help. 

I'm planning to run some games at a convention for the first time. Measures that I will take to help ensure that nobody is caught off guard with scenes that they are uncomfortable with are:

1. The con has a pretty clear rating system. I'll make sure I conservatively apply it (i.e., if in doubt rate it more mature)

2. My description will clearly describe the adventure subject and setting and warn of any subject matter that is commonly an issues.

3. Before the session starts -- I will explain that I want everyone to enjoy the session and will go over the rating and description and again point out things that a more likely to be problematic. I don't want to give spoilers, so they will likely be general: "This is a 17+ D&D adventure. It will involve violence and descriptions of injury and gore. It may involve fiends, giant insects, aberrations and other horrors to be found in the various published monster manuals. Romance is unlikely but if it comes up, it will be played 'fade to black.'  Same with torture." 

I'm not saying I will use that, but I do want to come of with a very quick sentence or two to remind people of the type of game they signed up for. 

4. I'll handout initiative tents where I ask them to write their AC, passive perception, character name, etc. and, on the DM side, give space for them to write any topics that they have issues with. That way the need not bring it up in front of others, even touching an X.  I will, however, say that while I will do my best to accommodate requests to avoid certain topics, I can't rewrite the adventure on the spot. 

If I do the above, I'm not sure what an "X" card adds to it. 

As for the "O" card. I feel it could get distracting and it just doesn't seem fun. I've toyed with the idea of "DM inspiration" in the past. If the party really likes a scene or NPC or how I run on something....whatever, they can award me an inspriation point. Every player gives one. I get to use that inspiration the same way that they do, but with NPC rolls.  It was fun for a session, but I discontinued it. 

With a regular group, you just elicit their feedback and use it in prepping future sessions. For a game at a con or when running an AL module, you are limited in how much you can do with that feedback. It just becomes a metagame distraction. 

So I'm not so against them that I would walk away from a table that used them, and I appreciate the intent, but I find them unnecessary and distracting.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 7, 2018)

While I'm not sure about the actual benefits, I don't see any harm in using this in my games.
I'm a bit surprised about some of the overly negative reactions I'm seeing in this thread. What's wrong with you guys?


----------



## Sadras (Sep 7, 2018)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm a bit surprised about some of the overly negative reactions I'm seeing in this thread. What's wrong with you guys?




I guess they were triggered by the X card. We need to respect that and move on to an O thread.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 7, 2018)

Eirikrautha said:


> These cards (especially the X) are the embodiment of the flight from responsibility and the assertion that others must conform to whatever is best for you.




Are you being serious?


----------



## Eminence_Grise (Sep 7, 2018)

The x card wasn't meant for me. If I have an issue with a game, I'll raise the issue to the group.

That being said, I can understand that it is necessary for some people.  If it can make them feel more comfortable, I'm all for it.

In 15+ games at convention using it, it wasn't used once.


----------



## AriochQ (Sep 7, 2018)

We did an entire podcast episode that, while not specifically about 'X' and 'O' cards, dealt with issues similar.  It is entitled "Too Taboo for Tabletop" (The Grognards).

It covered many of the points already made here, as well as some other issues relating to morality and such.

IMHO, it boils down to:  Know your table.  If you don't know your table (e.g. convention game), keep your game PG rated.

I would never include 'X' cards at a table I run.  I tend not to include extreme content. If the content I did include 'triggers' a player, they are free to verbally prompt me that they are uncomfortable.  D&D is a social activity, interaction is expected.  I am an emotionally aware adult and an experienced DM, I know when it is time to move the story along if a player expresses discomfort [I do the same thing if I detect players are bored with a segment of the adventure].  

D&D is a game based on social interaction.  It is often the case people are slightly uncomfortable in social interactions of any type.  There are commonly used, and socially acceptable, methods for dealing with those situations (e.g. excusing yourself from the conversation, steering the conversation to a new topic, informing the speaker you are uncomfortable, etc.).  

Taking the concept to the extreme, should people carry an 'X' card with them in case they end up in a random conversation that may have triggering content?  Of course not.  D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 7, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.




Damn-it man, why do you resist the need to safe space our hobby.

I could have used an X while watching _Starship Troopers_. 

*"It's an ugly planet, a bug planet!"*


----------



## jasper (Sep 7, 2018)

brimmels said:


> ....
> On the flip side, Kira Scott created its counterpart, the O-Card. It works the same way as the X-Card except it signals “more of this, please.”
> 
> As a GM, have you ever wondered if players were enjoying a specific sequence or aspect of a game? By using the O-Card, you don't have to guess. If it's invoked, you know the banquet scene that is all role-playing doesn't have to be rushed or next time, add more word puzzles for the players to solve.
> ...




You know I might have like your article better. You could just said "X Card signals none of this please".
SO X X X X X


----------



## jasper (Sep 7, 2018)

ikos said:


> I cant be the only one wondering if this advert was satire.



Or pushing traffic to the link.  I think pushing traffic to the link.
SO XCARD!


----------



## jasper (Sep 7, 2018)

Instead a glossy 3.5 card with a black x which covers 90% of the card and has contrast ratio of 80% using over head lighting which are at a min of 75 watts of lighting. And a 1 page print out on 50% free range cotton rag paper explaining the "X CARD".
HOW ABOUT A PERSON JUST YELLING, "NO COOL DM! TONE IT DOWN!". Simple. Verbal. Gets the point across. Does not waste paper.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 7, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.




It's my experience that a hell of a lot of gamers LACK standard social skills. And also apparently EMPATHY.  Also? Basic social queues fly over their heads like a home run over the head of an outfielder. 

Which is why when I try to put together a group to game with i'm looking for good PEOPLE as opposed to gamers. Good people can learn to be good gamers. Sociopathic gamers cant learn to be good people or Empathy. 

While the X-card is something that I wouldnt neccesarily use at my table while running a game, if someone wanted to run a game where I was a player and wanted to use the X-Card I'd be fine with it.


----------



## machineelf (Sep 7, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> Tapping an "X" card is a selfish act designed for people who think their feelings are more important than anyone else's.




Thank you. I think you said it perfectly.


----------



## ajchafe (Sep 7, 2018)

It's really for public games or games with rotating cast for sure.

A home game can much more easily figure things out ahead of time.

It also helps when a new person to the table starts talking about a topic someone is not comfortable with (because they honestly didn't know or whatever) and vice versa.


----------



## neobolts (Sep 7, 2018)

While no one should be uncomfortable or off-put by their leisure activity,  I do think that _open and mutually respectful conversation about concerns_ is the best approach for the long term cohesion of a group.  The X-card would remain a secondary option for groups where that isn't possible for some reason.


----------



## jasper (Sep 7, 2018)

takes 29 pages to explain the x card.
From page 10...
"The X-Card talk is a good way to communicate... this is not a solo activity. The people here matter more than the game we are playing. Help us make this fun for everyone...."

Doh,! How about this?
"Talking is a good way to tell us something is bothering you. Speak up!" 
70 Characters.


----------



## jimmifett (Sep 7, 2018)

epithet said:


> I am unfamiliar with this. What is Paizo's "social contract" thing?




Starting on the bottom right of page 5 of the playtest and wasting an entire column of page 6 that could be better spent on just about anything else.


----------



## epithet (Sep 7, 2018)

jimmifett said:


> Starting on the bottom right of page 5 of the playtest and wasting an entire column of page 6 that could be better spent on just about anything else.




Hah! Yeah, I had skipped over that bit to get to the actual game. I've certainly observed the general trend in the industry to include that sort of virtue signaling in the introductory pages of game manuals, but I think that's the first one I've seen that goes so far as to call it a "social contract." I like how the follow it up on the same page with "there's no wrong way to play Pathfinder."

My presumption is that all these publishers know that their game is going to be mostly played by groups of friends, and therefore no one is looking for them for guidance on who to play the game with. I think these sorts of statements are simply an effort to diffuse what has become an almost inevitable scrutiny of the product looking for any and everything about which someone could manufacture outrage over the "representation" of some subset of real-world people in a fictional, fantasy world setting. They're trying to head that off before it begins. You might roll your eyes and mutter "Whatever, dude" as you move on to the important parts of the game book, but the people who that column is probably designed to diffuse are venomous--they'll launch a torrent of social media vitriol and call for boycotts and so forth, things which Paizo would feel obligated to address respectfully and "take seriously" regardless of how ridiculous the underlying claims might be. Best to try to avoid that if possible, so my guess is that the whole "social contract" bloviation is Paizo's effort at "an ounce of prevention."


----------



## jimmifett (Sep 7, 2018)

epithet said:


> Hah! Yeah, I had skipped over that bit to get to the actual game. I've certainly observed the general trend in the industry to include that sort of virtue signaling in the introductory pages of game manuals, but I think that's the first one I've seen that goes so far as to call it a "social contract." I like how the follow it up on the same page with "there's no wrong way to play Pathfinder."
> 
> My presumption is that all these publishers know that their game is going to be mostly played by groups of friends, and therefore no one is looking for them for guidance on who to play the game with. I think these sorts of statements are simply an effort to diffuse what has become an almost inevitable scrutiny of the product looking for any and everything about which someone could manufacture outrage over the "representation" of some subset of real-world people in a fictional, fantasy world setting. They're trying to head that off before it begins. You might roll your eyes and mutter "Whatever, dude" as you move on to the important parts of the game book, but the people who that column is probably designed to diffuse are venomous--they'll launch a torrent of social media vitriol and call for boycotts and so forth, things which Paizo would feel obligated to address respectfully and "take seriously" regardless of how ridiculous the underlying claims might be. Best to try to avoid that if possible, so my guess is that the whole "social contract" bloviation is Paizo's effort at "an ounce of prevention."




Agreed mostly, and I would be fine if that non-sense were in the path/star-finder society rules docs. Thats the kind of place that language belongs for sanctioned public play to cover their corporate keisters from the professionally offended crowd, instead of wasting space in a core book. That could be 3 or 4 more feats that could be added onto the hundreds plus in the playtest! But we all know paizo is a committed member of that crowd and this is just pushing agenda driven propaganda. BC of it, my wife is extremely against buying any more paizo products, and I'm half inclined to agree.


----------



## epithet (Sep 7, 2018)

ShinHakkaider said:


> It's my experience that a hell of a lot of gamers LACK standard social skills. And also apparently EMPATHY.  Also? Basic social queues fly over their heads like a home run over the head of an outfielder.
> 
> Which is why when I try to put together a group to game with i'm looking for good PEOPLE as opposed to gamers. Good people can learn to be good gamers. Sociopathic gamers cant learn to be good people or Empathy.
> 
> While the X-card is something that I wouldnt neccesarily use at my table while running a game, if someone wanted to run a game where I was a player and wanted to use the X-Card I'd be fine with it.




I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the way people put together a group for a TTRPG is to consider who among their friends would be interested in playing (and who could be talked into being the DM, if the organizer isn't keen to do that himself.) If you're friends with sociopaths (I admit I've known a few) then you probably know that about them, and you tend not to included them in group activities in general, right? I've played a lot of D&D over the decades, and I can only think of one group I played in that wasn't made entirely of friends or friends-of-friends. While I'm sure "games with strangers" aren't necessarily rare, I would be more than a little bit surprised to learn they were anything other than a small percentage of the hobby.


----------



## epithet (Sep 7, 2018)

jimmifett said:


> ... But we all know paizo is a committed member of that crowd and this is just pushing agenda driven propaganda. ...




Really? I didn't know that. As far as I can recall Paizo has stayed above that fray.


----------



## Talysian (Sep 7, 2018)

I would never allow something like this at my table, nor play at a table where this is in use. I'm so sick of safe spaces etc. People simply need to learn to be more thick skinned. My players do stuff that take me out of my comfort zone, I take them out of theirs.. but guess what it's a game of imagination. I want people to be creeped out at times, I want things to make people uncomfortable and make them have to think about the repercussions of their actions, or why they are supporting group a over group b. If someone is truly evil, I will show it by the actions, and they may be pretty bad, it gives the players a dramatic reason to go after them.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 7, 2018)

epithet said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the way people put together a group for a TTRPG is to consider who among their friends would be interested in playing (and who could be talked into being the DM, if the organizer isn't keen to do that himself.) If you're friends with sociopaths (I admit I've known a few) then you probably know that about them, and you tend not to included them in group activities in general, right? I've played a lot of D&D over the decades, and I can only think of one group I played in that wasn't made entirely of friends or friends-of-friends. While I'm sure "games with strangers" aren't necessarily rare, I would be more than a little bit surprised to learn they were anything other than a small percentage of the hobby.




Youre going with the assumption that people ONLY or even MOSTLY game with thier friends. Even if that were the case at the height of when I was running games with people I knew there were definitely people that were freinds of mine that I WOULDNT game with. Or people that were freinds that I gamed with who showed a very different side of themslves while playing. 

I've been gaming off and on for well over 30 years at this point and I can honestly say that I've run games and played with strangers who BECAME friends more than I have with people who started out as my freinds. I have introduced ALOT of people to RPG's who otherwise would not have even been aware that it was a thing that they could do or be interested in. That being said having gone through many, MANY 
players and groups it's pretty difficult to find actual GOOD people to game with. I'm going to stand by what I stated above, becasue everyone's experiences, standards and values are different. I value people who are considerate and kind. Other people clearly do not.


----------



## ikos (Sep 7, 2018)

I don't really think anyone is advocating being unkind. or inconsiderate.  Not believing what I believe is not an indictment of your character.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Sep 7, 2018)

ikos said:


> I don't really think anyone is advocating being unkind. or inconsiderate.  Not believing what I believe is not an indictment of your character.




True. 

But some of the responses in this thread display a staggering lack of empathy (which is not completely surprising  but still) and that IS an indictment of character. 

I've said that I wouldnt use the X-card. But I didnt take that extra step and deride people who DO use it. See the difference? 

Once, many years ago, I was getting off of the F train at my stop and this older woman rushed the door ahead of me and jostled me out of the way. As if that werent enough she turns to me a says: "N*gg*r assh**e." 
To which I responded, "Just assh**e would have sufficed Ms.."


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 8, 2018)

Salamandyr said:


> Pretty much any time someone begins a response with "So you're saying" or "So you're okay with", what follows is almost universally an attempt to twist a persons words into a straw man that's easier to attack.
> 
> But taking you at face value, which is more than you are doing for me, if I understand you correctly, you appear to imply that, when the x card is played, the players would be in agreement with the x card tapper in offense at whatever the DM or other player is handling something in the game.
> 
> ...




I dont see why you would need to have everyone at the table decide that something was stupid or inappropriate or just plain wrong to stop doing it.

As an example say that one person is playing on their phone and not paying full attention to the game.  Should the DM be able to say something to that person if the rest of the Players at the table do not care if the other person is on their phone or not.  Or should the DM just be adult enough to accept that people like to play on their phone during the game.


----------



## Variss (Sep 8, 2018)

The amount of toxic in this thread alone justifies the existence of the X-Card. If these are the best and brightest responses, then I am absolutely certain that no gamers are capable of understanding social cues or responding in an adult manner to anything.


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 8, 2018)

Talysian said:


> I would never allow something like this at my table, nor play at a table where this is in use. I'm so sick of safe spaces etc. People simply need to learn to be more thick skinned. My players do stuff that take me out of my comfort zone, I take them out of theirs.. but guess what it's a game of imagination. I want people to be creeped out at times, I want things to make people uncomfortable and make them have to think about the repercussions of their actions, or why they are supporting group a over group b. If someone is truly evil, I will show it by the actions, and they may be pretty bad, it gives the players a dramatic reason to go after them.




There is a huge difference between getting creeped out and having something potentially cause an actual panic attack in a  player. "You need to grow a thick skin" shows a real lack of empathy and understanding about triggers, PTSD and other issues.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 8, 2018)

If this works for your game great. If you feel that it’s unnecessary, that’s also great.

These two things need not be in opposition, folks.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 8, 2018)

Nagol said:


> Like other scenarios that provide immediate non-negotiable veto ability, it's primary purpose is to facilitate communication in situations where there are potentially layers of obfuscation so people don't have to double-check what the person "really meant".
> 
> Can it be misused?  Sure.  All the immediate non-negotiable vetoes run the risk of being used in ways other participants didn't expect.  If one is being used at all frequently, that's the time to reevaluate what the situation is and if the participants are a good fit.
> 
> Is it as strongly needed in a primarily verbal game as other situations?  Probably not, but if it makes people feel more secure, it isn't much of a imposition either.




When I've had that kind of issue, the usual solution was to punt the offended player. Why? because it's always been one player repeatedly complaining about 2-3 others, no one else sharing the complaint, but all having issues with the complaining player's other odious play habits.

It's fine for one-offs, but the tyranny of the minority has always set wrong with me for campaign play.

I'd rather not play in groups where this kind of stuff is useful.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 8, 2018)

epithet said:


> Really? I didn't know that. As far as I can recall Paizo has stayed above that fray.




Paizo has been very verbal about being pro-LGBT, and pro-racial-inclusivity.   At least since 2013.  I have no idea if the link is still good, but the podcast where a paizo staffer notes their inclusivity approach is, according to BGG, http://www.35privatesanctuary.com/podcasts/KD058-homosexualityingolarion.mp3

In the US, a large portion (approaching 40% by some estimates) are neither pro-LGBT, nor pro-ethnic/racial inclusiveness.  Many of whom are coming out of hiding due current US politics.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 9, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> When I've had that kind of issue, the usual solution was to punt the offended player. Why? because it's always been one player repeatedly complaining about 2-3 others, no one else sharing the complaint, but all having issues with the complaining player's other odious play habits.
> 
> It's fine for one-offs, but the tyranny of the minority has always set wrong with me for campaign play.
> 
> I'd rather not play in groups where this kind of stuff is useful.




Sure like I wrote: "If one is being used at all frequently, that's the time to reevaluate what the situation is and if the participants are a good fit."

If a non-negotiable veto is being used repeatedly, there is something wrong.  Expectations between participants are unmatched.  Changing the participant mix is a decent solution and probably the only viable one if a simple discussion doesn't fix the issue immediately.

I don't use the tool for RPGs.  I would be tempted to tell prospective players I do though just to weed out those who wouldn't consider playing with it.  When being correctly used, it has no impact on play.

There is a recent situation at my table where it would have made me (the GM) somewhat more comfortable.  One of my players had a parent with dementia die immediately after the parent was moved from the player's home to a nursing facility.  The adventure I was in the middle of running featured both dementia and unexpected death.  If the campaign didn't have strong continuity and the situation already started, I would have arranged a different adventure for a few sessions.   I soft-pedaled the situation as best I could (and possibly more than was necessary).  Having a safety valve and not having it used would have helped my confidence.


----------



## Henry (Sep 9, 2018)

Do I typically use this mechanic? No. Would I have any objections to using it in a game, or playing in a game that did? Not at all. I am, however, far more likely to use it in games with people I’m not extremely good friends with, or that we don’t already have this explicitly understood in our group’s unwritten social contract.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 9, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Paizo has been very verbal about being pro-LGBT, and pro-racial-inclusivity.   At least since 2013.  I have no idea if the link is still good, but the podcast where a paizo staffer notes their inclusivity approach is, according to BGG, http://www.35privatesanctuary.com/podcasts/KD058-homosexualityingolarion.mp3
> 
> In the US, a large portion (approaching 40% by some estimates) are neither pro-LGBT, nor pro-ethnic/racial inclusiveness.  Many of whom are coming out of hiding due current US politics.



Out of curiosity, is the opposite of "racial inclusivity" segregation?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 9, 2018)

Nagol said:


> SThere is a recent situation at my table where it would have made me (the GM) somewhat more comfortable.  One of my players had a parent with dementia die immediately after the parent was moved from the player's home to a nursing facility.  The adventure I was in the middle of running featured both dementia and unexpected death.  If the campaign didn't have strong continuity and the situation already started, I would have arranged a different adventure for a few sessions.   I soft-pedaled the situation as best I could (and possibly more than was necessary).  Having a safety valve and not having it used would have helped my confidence.



I normally run pretty tame games. One time I introduced a PCs' mother into the game, and goblins were first imprisoning her and then (when the PCs dithered) killing her. I took a bit of a chance - I didn't know everything there was to know about the player's family situation - and that is a situation where an "X-card" or similar would have made sense.


----------



## dragoner (Sep 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Out of curiosity, is the opposite of "racial inclusivity" segregation?




They are called racists.

There is nothing wrong with X cards, Safe Spaces; things like that. I run my real life game often in pubs, so it is governed by the rules of civil society, and acceptable public behavior. Sometimes humor can get a bit ribald, though obviously there are no children to worry about, and if say a 25 year old woman, wanted to join, I'm fine with that in theory, the wife may take a dimmer view however ...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

machineelf said:


> Thank you. I think you said it perfectly.




He may have said it perfectly, but he didn't think it through to the end.  Because that logic cuts both ways:  Failing to respond to the X-card request is itself a selfish act of a person who thinks their feelings are more important.

Frankly, for a lot of you, I find your lack of compassion and empathy to be highly unfortunate.  Several of you seem to want to play your game, as you want, and to heck with how anyone else at the table is doing!  They're having a bad time with some of the content?  Too frelling bad!  I don't wanna change for anyone else!  Me!  Me me ME!!!  The amount of entitlement seen in this thread is quite astounding.

It seems that if you don't want to take real-world people into consideration, a cooperative game where you actually have to work with real-world people to have a good time may not be the best choice for you.  The others at the table are not AIs providing you content.  They are people.  They matter.  A tabletop RPG is a social gathering, and like any other social gathering, to reap the benefits of the company of your fellow humans, you must hold up some certain social responsibilities - like don't be a thoughtless jerk when someone has a problem.

I mean, this is a pretty low bar here.  If you were playing touch football, and someone noted things were getting a little rough, and asked for people to dial it back a notch, would this cause an uproar?  Or if you were in a conversation at a dinner party, and someone asked to avoid a topic while you were eating, would that seem so horrible a request to allow?  This isn't any different, really.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Paizo has been very verbal about being pro-LGBT, and pro-racial-inclusivity.   At least since 2013.  I have no idea if the link is still good, but the podcast where a paizo staffer notes their inclusivity approach is, according to BGG, http://www.35privatesanctuary.com/podcasts/KD058-homosexualityingolarion.mp3
> 
> In the US, a large portion (approaching 40% by some estimates) are neither pro-LGBT, nor pro-ethnic/racial inclusiveness.  Many of whom are coming out of hiding due current US politics.





And that, I think, makes this a time for me to note something in this conversation.  From The Rules of EN World:

_"*Keep it inclusive:* EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms such as "social justice warrior" or "virtue signalling" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute. We do not subscribe to the argument that tolerance means that we need to tolerate intolerance or that inclusivity means that we need to include non-inclusiveness."_

To the moderating staff, this is not an issue of politics.  It is an issue of being good to your fellow human beings.  If you aren't up for being good to people - well, sorry, but we require you be good to folks while you are here.

Someone has already fired a, "virtue signalling" volley.  Please understand that we won't have patience for more such stuff.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.




Right.  Except, of course, that pretty often, "standard social skills" don't suffice.  Harassment at cons *should* be covered by standard social skills, but we most definitely have an issue there.  We need moderators in EN World in large part because people are more than willing to throw out standard social skills when they feel they aren't winning an argument!  

So much for "standard social skills".


----------



## Dualazi (Sep 9, 2018)

Umbran said:


> He may have said it perfectly, but he didn't think it through to the end.  Because that logic cuts both ways:  Failing to respond to the X-card request is itself a selfish act of a person who thinks their feelings are more important.
> 
> Frankly, for a lot of you, I find your lack of compassion and empathy to be highly unfortunate.  Several of you seem to want to play your game, as you want, and to heck with how anyone else at the table is doing!  They're having a bad time with some of the content?  Too frelling bad!  I don't wanna change for anyone else!  Me!  Me me ME!!!  The amount of entitlement seen in this thread is quite astounding.




Or, people recognize that the average group is usually 5-6 people strong, and one person having the ability to shut down content that's enjoyable to everyone else is the real "entitlement". Tapping the X-card is one player being 'entitled' to dictate the content consumption of the entire group, which is certainly less preferably than the alternative. 



Umbran said:


> It seems that if you don't want to take real-world people into consideration, a cooperative game where you actually have to work with real-world people to have a good time may not be the best choice for you.  The others at the table are not AIs providing you content.  They are people.  They matter.  A tabletop RPG is a social gathering, and like any other social gathering, to reap the benefits of the company of your fellow humans, you must hold up some certain social responsibilities - like don't be a thoughtless jerk when someone has a problem.




"They are people, they matter" are pointless appeals to emotion that are unneeded, as they were never in question, and irrelevant, since them being people is immaterial to discussions of how they should behave. That point aside, you once again seem to be missing the point that the X-card people _are the ones who aren't cooperating._ If I'm an alcoholic and my friends are throwing a party, I just excuse myself and don't go, I don't mandate that everyone else not drink as well. Likewise, a player can easily sit out a session if they're uncomfortable. If the campaign is going to be going into territory they're averse to for long periods of time, that's something that should have been addressed when they were doing session 0 or when the GM was explaining the campaign theme. In that case, the player in question should really just bow out unless everyone else is cool with re-starting. Basically, you're right that there are social responsibilities to be observed, but its people who would use the X-card that are avoiding them to the group's detriment.



Umbran said:


> I mean, this is a pretty low bar here.  If you were playing touch football, and someone noted things were getting a little rough, and asked for people to dial it back a notch, would this cause an uproar?  Or if you were in a conversation at a dinner party, and someone asked to avoid a topic while you were eating, would that seem so horrible a request to allow?  This isn't any different, really.




Neither of those analogies really apply. "Dialing it back a notch" doesn't change core game elements, alter the score, or reset team positions. At a dinner party, I still enjoy the food and the company, the core experience remains the same. A more apt analogy would be inviting people for dinner, and then one of the guests demanding everyone obey their vegan diet. That's a far more accurate picture of what's happening, the fundamental nature of the meal is being altered.

As a side point, I can't remember if it has been mentioned or not, but this also places undue strain on the GM which is already the most demanding role o the group. If the DM knows ahead of time to avoid certain topics, then they can plan as usual with that in mind. The X-card can easily derail an entire run, either ending the session early or forcing the DM to scramble with improvisation. Improv is a skill every GM should practice of course, but doesn't mean they want to do it for an extended amount of time on someone else's say-so.


----------



## Arilyn (Sep 9, 2018)

The X card is there for people to tap if things get extremely uncomfortable. These things can't always be predicted. Talking things over ahead of time is not necessarily going to cover specific triggers either, but only broad areas such as amount of more mature content. If something does come up, who would want to interrupt the game and let other players know why this particular scenario is distressing?

There seems to be a lot of criticism around the idea of one player dictating a game's direction, as if players are going to be continually tapping that card to just get what they want, or to what? Deliberately disrupt the game? This is not placing extra work on the GM, or ruining other players fun, or catering to a select few "entitled cry babies". This is a useful tool, especially for groups who don't know each other. I have never heard of any incidents where the X card was disruptive, or used in a selfish manner. It's a good tool, and it is disheartening seeing so much contempt for it on this thread.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> Or, people recognize that the average group is usually 5-6 people strong, and one person having the ability to shut down content that's enjoyable to everyone else is the real "entitlement".




Yes.  It is.  That's _exactly the point_.

I also feel you are entitled to a game in which you are not physically harmed or assaulted.  And, if someone hits you at the table, intentionally or otherwise, you should be able to say, "Be more careful!" or "Stop that!" and have people listen to you.

The X-card is the psychological equivalent.  The only real difference is that you can see when someone is getting punched in the face.  You can't see when someone is getting struck emotionally.



> Tapping the X-card is one player being 'entitled' to dictate the content consumption of the entire group, which is certainly less preferably than the alternative.




Maybe you don't really understand the use of the card.  Allow me to give a real-world example that I personally witnessed.

The GM is a larger, bearded man.  The party is involved in tense negotiations with a villain, who is trying to be intimidating.  The GM stands up, leans over one of the players, and makes a demand in a loud, deep voice...

Player freaks out, and slaps the X-card.  GM steps back, says, "I'm sorry" calls a 5 minute pause in play, and re-frames the scene.  Play then continues.

What the GM does not know is that the player is a rape survivor, and their rapist was a large, bearded man with a deep voice.  The player may normally be perfectly okay with the GM every other time, but for some reason, this time, they got freaked out.  The player could not have told the GM or other players beforehand that this event would freak them out, as it has never come up before.  This is sometimes how post-traumatic stress works - things can jump out at you when you don't expect them.  

I say the player _does_ have the right to have a game that doesn't freak them out, nor do they owe any explanation of their rape to anyone at the table.  I say that the group's right to a looming GM does not trump the one player's issue.

Do you disagree?  It is better that the player relive this horrifying experience so you can have your content?  Really?

Is that the side of the argument you want to be on?


----------



## Sadras (Sep 9, 2018)

ShinHakkaider said:


> It's my experience that a hell of a lot of gamers LACK standard social skills. And also apparently EMPATHY.  Also? Basic social queues fly over their heads like a home run over the head of an outfielder.




Then shouldn't your argument be that we should use this for X card for everyday life? i.e. let us put this X card in schools, at homes, at daycare centres, at work, at the bus stop, at the suburban grocery stores....etc. Or is this mechanism only meant for gamers because the gaming community is dis-proportionally more socially awkward than any other communities and are unable to use their social skills to get their point across?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Then shouldn't your argument be that we should use this for X card for everyday life?




No.  At the game table, we have a small group of people gathered for a common purpose - this setting is entirely appropriate for "table rules" (aka a social contract) to govern behavior at the table.  Out in the wide world, we do not have common purpose, and very little context or ability to establish a detailed social contract.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 9, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  Except, of course, that pretty often, "standard social skills" don't suffice.  Harassment at cons *should* be covered by standard social skills, but we most definitely have an issue there.  We need moderators in EN World in large part because people are more than willing to throw out standard social skills when they feel they aren't winning an argument!
> 
> So much for "standard social skills".




And tapping an X card will improve on standard social skills?


----------



## Dualazi (Sep 9, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  It is.  That's _exactly the point_.
> 
> I also feel you are entitled to a game in which you are not physically harmed or assaulted.  And, if someone hits you at the table, intentionally or otherwise, you should be able to say, "Be more careful!" or "Stop that!" and have people listen to you.
> 
> The X-card is the psychological equivalent.  The only real difference is that you can see when someone is getting punched in the face.  You can't see when someone is getting struck emotionally.




The two aren't even remotely equivalent. Being assaulted requires conscious, physical aggression from another party. Being able to shut down any number of unknown variables is not the same as not worrying about being attacked by another person.





Umbran said:


> Maybe you don't really understand the use of the card.  Allow me to give a real-world example that I personally witnessed.
> 
> The GM is a larger, bearded man.  The party is involved in tense negotiations with a villain, who is trying to be intimidating.  The GM stands up, leans over one of the players, and makes a demand in a loud, deep voice...
> 
> ...




Since it's the side of the argument I've been on all this time, yeah, I'm comfortable staying that way. Your example doesn't really sway me, either. While I've never seen a DM invade another player's personal space, that sort of thing definitely should have been brought up prior. I'm not saying they have to give their whole life story, but saying "hey, I don't do well with people in my space, please give me room" doesn't seem like its a terribly undue burden. If this is the first time this individual has _ever_ had a flashback or episode in their life then maybe this is a fringe case where use of the card is going to be somewhat valid. I say 'somewhat' because obviously the GM/players are going to want to know what the problem was, if only to avoid it in the future, and virtually every advocate for the card's use thinks you don't have to explain yourself. I do have people in my life who deal with PTSD, and most of them are well aware of what sets them off and take steps to avoid it. I don't find that to be an unreasonable standard to hold others to. 

I also find it interesting that you completely side-stepped my earlier points about the X-card player's responsibilities. Is the GM supposed to never be intimidating again? Are they supposed to sideline that villain? Should they abandon attempts at tension? Tell me then, at what point is it that the X-card player is imposing to the extent that they should simply find a new group? Because if the answer is "never" then I suspect that this is the fundamental root of our disagreement.


----------



## Henry (Sep 9, 2018)

Sadras said:


> And tapping an X card will improve on standard social skills?



Actually, yes - if the people causing others to use the X card take notice to what they are saying at that moment, and if it’s necessary to say for everyone’s enjoyment.


----------



## cmad1977 (Sep 9, 2018)

My favorite part of the X card is how angry some people* are about it’s mere existence.

* you do not seem to remember that certain loaded words & phrases are not allowed here.  A referesher, then:



> You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media, use pejorative terms such as "social justice warrior" or "virtue signalling" to dismiss the opinions of those you disagree with, or post any message which is discriminatory towards those who differ to you in terms of skin colour, gender, gender identification, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, age, religion, or any other personal attribute.



http://www.enworld.org/forum/


----------



## Richards (Sep 9, 2018)

Whereas I'm somewhat amused that both sides of this issue see the _other_ side as being composed of "pathetic snowflakes."  The poster above thinks those who don't want to use X-cards are "pathetic snowflakes," while others seem to think anyone who wants to tap an X-card during a game is a "pathetic snowflake."

With all these alleged "snowflakes" involved, I'm thinking about getting my winter coat out of the closet.

Johnathan


----------



## Sadras (Sep 9, 2018)

Henry said:


> Actually, yes - if the people causing others to use the X card take notice to what they are saying at that moment, and if it’s necessary to say for everyone’s enjoyment.




If people aren't taking notice of what people are saying at the table then you have bigger problems than the tapping of X cards.


----------



## epithet (Sep 9, 2018)

Umbran said:


> ...
> Frankly, for a lot of you, I find your lack of compassion and empathy to be highly unfortunate.  Several of you seem to want to play your game, as you want, and to heck with how anyone else at the table is doing!  They're having a bad time with some of the content?  Too frelling bad!  I don't wanna change for anyone else!  Me!  Me me ME!!!  The amount of entitlement seen in this thread is quite astounding.
> 
> It seems that if you don't want to take real-world people into consideration, a cooperative game where you actually have to work with real-world people to have a good time may not be the best choice for you.  The others at the table are not AIs providing you content.  They are people.  They matter.  A tabletop RPG is a social gathering, and like any other social gathering, to reap the benefits of the company of your fellow humans, you must hold up some certain social responsibilities - like don't be a thoughtless jerk when someone has a problem.
> ...



The hell are you talking about, man?

The folks who are dismissive of this "X card" concept aren't suggesting some kind of insensitive tyranny at the gaming table, only that people should speak up if they have a problem. The only vigorous expression of "me me me" entitlement is the suggestion that all I should have to do is touch an X card to immediately shift responsibility for my feelings onto the gaming group, which is now compelled to figure out what upset me and act accordingly.

A tabletop RPG is not, in fact, a social gathering. It is an activity at a social gathering. The gathering and socializing is a necessary prerequisite for, and might be motivated by, the game. Ultimately, though, "the company of your fellow humans" and those certain social responsibilities that come with it do not arise from the game or at the table, they exist in the larger context of the social gathering at which the game occurs. Your mileage may vary, but when I have interacted with "real-world people" I've understood that along with courtesy and consideration came a responsibility not only to listen to the other people involved, but to clearly express anything I felt was important for them to know.

Many of us have been playing D&D and other TTRPGs now for decades, and have been successfully navigating social gatherings for longer than that. The assertion that being dismissive of this "x card" idea somehow makes us "thoughtless jerks" who are unfit to "reap the benefits" of human company has to be the most smugly sanctimonious thing I've heard in days. We are perfectly capable of having a good time with real people, because we take responsibility for our actions and we are considerate of each other, and some of us believe that includes sometimes reaching out to other people and sometimes withdrawing from an uncomfortable situation, but doesn't extend to this "x card" business.

I think maybe you need to have a moment of introspection before you accuse other people of not wanting to take other people into consideration, or being unwilling to change. You seem to have a rigid worldview that leads you to vilify anyone that doesn't share it.


----------



## Henry (Sep 9, 2018)

Sadras said:


> If people aren't taking notice of what people are saying at the table then you have bigger problems than the tapping of X cards.




To be clearer, If more people did pay attention to the words coming out of their own mouths at the table, and the appropriateness of said words, then there would be a much smaller desire for x-cards.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

Richards said:


> The poster above thinks those who don't want to use X-cards are "pathetic snowflakes,"




The "pathetic snowflake" comment was not cool.  You summarized it inaccurately, but it was uncool even in its original.



> while others seem to think anyone who wants to tap an X-card during a game is a "pathetic snowflake."




Yes, well, not everyone has a good handle on psychological health.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 9, 2018)

I think an important consideration is whether an RPG has the chance to introduce topics that most social gatherings would avoid. I would expect that the answer would often be yes. Not always, and not for all games. But certainly some. Things like violence, thievery, rape, addiction, mental instability, questions of faith, dark magic....all manner of questionable topics may or may not come up when playing an RPG. Compare that to, let’s say bowling or poker....most of those topics would just be considered off limits by default. 

Now, my personal game is with decades-old friends, so we all know each other, so we don’t have need of this kind of thing. And when it comes to organized play, I’d expect things to stay pretty PG for the most part. But there may be public games that are not officially organized play like dventurer’s League or Pathfinder Society...and in games like that, perhaps something like this could be useful.

Because it’s the uncertainty of those topics’ inclusion that creates the issue. A game of D&D can play out like an episode of the old cartoon, or it can be something more like Game of Thrones. Trying to establish everything ahead of time may not be possible. Certainly there are games that include questionable stuff by default....Blades in the Dark has the PCs engaging in some kind of vice in between jobs, so that’s baked in to the game itself. But many games are wide open to a variety of interpretations. 

Ultimately, I can see occasions where this could be useful. I can understand some of the criticisms of it...and I’m glad it’s not needed in mg home game...but to think it could never be a positive thing is a bit extreme.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 9, 2018)

epithet said:


> The hell are you talking about, man?
> 
> The folks who are dismissive of this "X card" concept aren't suggesting some kind of insensitive tyranny at the gaming table, only that people should speak up if they have a problem.




Two things:

1) One thread of argument here is that using the X-card is "selfish" - one person should not override the desires of the group.  Effectively that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.  Yes, that is kind of an insensitive tyranny.

2) As I have already said - use of the X-card _*is speaking up*_.  It is communicating that there's an issue to everyone at the table.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 10, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) One thread of argument here is that using the X-card is "selfish" - one person should not override the desires of the group.  Effectively that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.  Yes, that is kind of an insensitive tyranny.



What are the other options, though?

The X-card as presented just gives a tyranny going the other way: the needs/desires of the one outweigh the needs/desires of the many.

Democracy can't enter into it, because as presented there is no discussion and no vote.

So, you've got a choice between tyranny and...well, tyranny.



> 2) As I have already said - use of the X-card _*is speaking up*_.  It is communicating that there's an issue to everyone at the table.



Only in part, which isn't really enough.

It's communicating that there is an issue of some sort.

It's not communicating what that issue is, making successful resolution more or less a matter of guesswork.

Never mind that I've had players in the past who I know for a deadshot certainty would have abused the face off of this system just to shut down discussion (in or out of game) that they didn't like or that they disagreed with, as in this less-than-serious example:

Player A: "I'm a Canucks fan for life!"
Player B: "I'm not, I can't stand those useless..."
Player A: >whack!< on the X-card

Lan-"never mind the input players C, D, E and the DM don't get to have to this discussion"-efan


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What are the other options, though?
> 
> The X-card as presented just gives a tyranny going the other way: the needs/desires of the one outweigh the needs/desires of the many.
> 
> ...




It's not mind control! It's an easy way to speak up. That's it. It doesn't magically pass binding international treaties, or pass sentences in a court of law or anything. Words like "democracy" and "tyranny" are absurd hyperbole in this context. It's social interaction, not law.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> Tapping the X-card is one player being 'entitled' to dictate the content consumption of the entire group, which is certainly less preferably than the alternative.



Huh? In my experience single-person veto is very common in social activities eg if one person doesn't like horror films, we don't go and see a horror movie; if one person is vegetarian, we don't go to the steakhouse; etc.



Arilyn said:


> The X card is there for people to tap if things get extremely uncomfortable. These things can't always be predicted. Talking things over ahead of time is not necessarily going to cover specific triggers either, but only broad areas such as amount of more mature content. If something does come up, who would want to interrupt the game and let other players know why this particular scenario is distressing?



Right.



Arilyn said:


> There seems to be a lot of criticism around the idea of one player dictating a game's direction, as if players are going to be continually tapping that card to just get what they want, or to what? Deliberately disrupt the game?



I find the idea which is being floated in this thread, of players "gaming" the X-card, quite bizarre. Are these the same people who "accidentally" knock the board when they're losing?


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> I also find it interesting that you completely side-stepped my earlier points about the X-card player's responsibilities. Is the GM supposed to never be intimidating again? Are they supposed to sideline that villain? Should they abandon attempts at tension? Tell me then, at what point is it that the X-card player is imposing to the extent that they should simply find a new group? Because if the answer is "never" then I suspect that this is the fundamental root of our disagreement.



You ask these questions like they are knock-down rhetorical points! As opposed to things that can be worked out through the ordinary techniques of social interaction once the situation has cooled down. (Which seems to be exactly what happened in the episode that [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] described.)


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2018)

jimmifett said:


> Agreed mostly, and I would be fine if that non-sense were in the path/star-finder society rules docs. Thats the kind of place that language belongs for sanctioned public play to cover their corporate keisters from the professionally offended crowd, instead of wasting space in a core book. That could be 3 or 4 more feats that could be added onto the hundreds plus in the playtest! But we all know paizo is a committed member of that crowd and this is just pushing agenda driven propaganda. BC of it, my wife is extremely against buying any more paizo products, and I'm half inclined to agree.




Oops. Careless. You’ve been here long enough to know not to use derogatory phrases like “agenda driven propaganda” to dismiss opinions you don’t agree with. It’s like you read the rules and carefully selected the exact phrase we call out. Argue with positions, not insults.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 10, 2018)

Morrus said:


> It's not mind control! It's an easy way to speak up. That's it. It doesn't magically pass binding international treaties, or pass sentences in a court of law or anything. Words like "democracy" and "tyranny" are absurd hyperbole in this context. It's social interaction, not law.



I was responding to [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] , and my statements simply follow on from his use of "tyranny".

And while we're on about terms, tapping a card (at least the way it's presented in the OP) is not really "speaking up"; as speaking is in fact neither involved nor - as presented - allowed to be.

I couldd get behind this at least to some extent if actual speaking - as in debate, discussion, consensus, give-and-take, allowable disagreement, etc. - was an inherent part of the system.  But it's not, thus making this idea both a) poorly conceived* and b) horribly open to abuse.

* - as are, IME, a great many things involving non-negotiability.  As soon as someone says something - be it a method of operation, a rule, a system, whatever - is non-negotiable or non-debateable my immediate response is "why?".  Sometimes the reasons are obvious (e.g. workplace safety, or a sensible school essay deadline) and that's fair enough; other times they aren't (usually involving an authority that doesn't like to be questioned and-or knows it can't provide a reasonable answer - this is far too common in corporate workplace culture) which dlesn't fly with me.  This X-card system is among the latter, in my view.

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Huh? In my experience single-person veto is very common in social activities eg if one person doesn't like horror films, we don't go and see a horror movie; if one person is vegetarian, we don't go to the steakhouse; etc.



If one person doesn't like horror films we don't invite that person on those occasions when we're going to see one. (in my own case, reverse that: I don't like horror films thus my friends don't bother inviting me to go and see any)



> I find the idea which is being floated in this thread, of players "gaming" the X-card, quite bizarre. Are these the same people who "accidentally" knock the board when they're losing?



In my own experience they're the people who simply can't tolerate and-or refuse to either hear or acknowledge the existence of a viewpoint different than their own, be it a serious debate e.g. gun control in one's country or a frivolous debate e.g. Star Trek vs. Star Wars fandom.

I don't find the idea of gaming or otherwise abusing the X-card system bizarre at all; in fact over the mid-to-long run I'd be far more surprised if it didn't happen than if it did.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> What are the other options, though?
> 
> The X-card as presented just gives a tyranny going the other way: the needs/desires of the one outweigh the needs/desires of the many.




Are you thinking that someone's tagging the thing like, every five minutes or something?  Because, no, that's not what generally happens.  This sounds like pretty typical internet catastrophizing - OMG, someone may dictate we need to back off something!  The horror! The *HORROR!!!!*

Imagine, for a moment, that you aren't always surrounded by total douchebags that make the worst out of everything.  Imagine, instead, that you are primarily surrounded by good people, some of whom might have an occasional issue that's kind of personal and difficult to talk about.  I mean, unless you are always surrounded by total douchebags - but then you have bigger problems than this.  If that's the case, I don't see why you are in this conversation.  

'Cuz really, it isn't tyranny to say, "Whoops, I guess this encounter won't be spiders," on occasion.   It isn't so heavy a cross to bear.



> It's not communicating what that issue is, making successful resolution more or less a matter of guesswork.




The "no discussion" part is a defense for the victim.  They should not be required to talk about it, because it may be a deeply personal thing.  If they want to, that's fine.  But the rest of the people should not expect them to talk, or attempt to compel them to do so.

Ultimately, if you step on someone's toes, there's no onus on them to put flags and lasers on their shoes so you can't possibly miss them.  You're supposed to back the heck off of where you were just standing, far enough so that you can't possibly do that again.  That's not generally difficult or a mystery.  The thing that's problematic is the thing that's happening right when the card is invoked.


----------



## Dualazi (Sep 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You ask these questions like they are knock-down rhetorical points! As opposed to things that can be worked out through the ordinary techniques of social interaction once the situation has cooled down. (Which seems to be exactly what happened in the episode that @_*Umbran*_ described.)




...because they are! As people keep bringing up and keep being given non-answers to, the X-card user _does not have to explain its use_. This means in umbran's example, once play resumes, the DM just has to guess what the issue is, and just has to guess about how to avoid it in the future. A key criticism of the practice is that by design it side-steps the assumed default method of social interaction that is talking and compromising.



pemerton said:


> Huh? In my experience single-person veto is very common in social activities eg if one person doesn't like horror films, we don't go and see a horror movie; if one person is vegetarian, we don't go to the steakhouse; etc.




Lanefan beat me to the punch here, but as people seem to keep getting off track with analogies and metaphors, it's really much closer to the group having a horror movie night and someone else trying to change the genre. The fact that it's still a movie night is immaterial to the fact that now one person is dictating what's being watched.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 10, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> ...because they are! As people keep bringing up and keep being given non-answers to, the X-card user _does not have to explain its use_. This means in umbran's example, once play resumes, the DM just has to guess what the issue is, and just has to guess about how to avoid it in the future. A key criticism of the practice is that by design it side-steps the assumed default method of social interaction that is talking and compromising.
> 
> Lanefan beat me to the punch here, but as people seem to keep getting off track with analogies and metaphors, it's really much closer to the group having a horror movie night and someone else trying to change the genre. The fact that it's still a movie night is immaterial to the fact that now one person is dictating what's being watched.




Nah, it's more like everyone is down with horror night, but one member watching starts getting more freaked out than expected because something in the movie feels way too personal --an early victim looks too much like their dead sister/the aggressor acts too much like their father/whatever.  Nothing in the synopsis or trailers suggested it would feel this way but it suddenly does and they _need_ to do something about it.

Not having to explain yourself doesn't mean not talking about it.  It means the tapper gets to control how much detail and depth goes into the conversation and that conversation can take place at a speed they can tolerate.  People cannot demand justification as to why the card was tapped and try to determine if its use was "appropriate"; they simply accept it was.  The tapper will almost certainly be falling over themselves telling you what caused the tap so you don't get close to doing it again.​


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> If one person doesn't like horror films we don't invite that person on those occasions when we're going to see one.





Dualazi said:


> it's really much closer to the group having a horror movie night and someone else trying to change the genre.



I don't have much to add to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s reply. Turning up to play a RPG isn't, per se, turning up to be reminded of some unpleasant or traumatic personal incident that you're rather not (re)engage with as part of your leisure time.

To use the spiders/bugs example that has been brought up a few times in the thread: is turning up to play a RPG ipso facto agreeing to be freaked out by bug narratives? I don't see how it is, and I don't see how it's any sort of "tyranny" or "entitlement" to ask the group to step back from that.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 10, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I don't have much to add to @_*Nagol*_'s reply. Turning up to play an RPG isn't, per se, turning up to be reminded of some unpleasant or traumatic personal incident that you're rather not (re)engage with as part of your leisure time.
> 
> To use the spiders/bugs example that has been brought up a few times in the thread: is turning up to play an RPG ipso facto agreeing to be freaked out by bug narratives? I don't see how it is, and I don't see how it's any sort of "tyranny" or "entitlement" to ask the group to step back from that.




It isn't tyranny or entitlement, but it can still tank the session. Let's say I plan an entire 6-hour session involving a party getting caught up in a dispute between a Spirit Naga and Guardian Naga. The Guardian naga is served by a group of Yuan-ti. Various serpents of mundane and giant variety also figure strongly in the session. 

One of the players who show up to the game turns out to have a crippling fear of snakes. 

If this is my home game, I scrap the game and we play something else that evening. But what do I do at a convention? I think I would have to explain to the player that this isn't the right adventure for them. Normally, good descriptions should avoid this, but sometimes the nature of the antagonists is not given because it would be a spoiler. Or maybe the player didn't know what a "naga" or Yuanti is.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 10, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> It isn't tyranny or entitlement, but it can still tank the session.



Do your (or anyone else) have any actual examples of this from real life? This is one domain where I'm rather sceptical of "what ifs".



MNblockhead said:


> Let's say I plan an entire 6-hour session involving a party getting caught up in a dispute between a Spirit Naga and Guardian Naga. The Guardian naga is served by a group of Yuan-ti. Various serpents of mundane and giant variety also figure strongly in the session.
> 
> One of the players who show up to the game turns out to have a crippling fear of snakes.
> 
> If this is my home game, I scrap the game and we play something else that evening. But what do I do at a convention? I think I would have to explain to the player that this isn't the right adventure for them. Normally, good descriptions should avoid this, but sometimes the nature of the antagonists is not given because it would be a spoiler.



I find it fairly hard to imagine this game being promoted at a convention without the term "scale(s)" or "serpent(s)" or something similar being in the title. I mean, if the whole session involves yuan ti and nagas, where is the spoiler in such a title?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> and b) horribly open to abuse.




If the folks you game with cheat or abuse the rules or systems, I think the problem probably lies elsewhere. It's not the card. I think it's reasonable to assume people will act in good faith, and if not then you'd have to deal with that issue some other way.

I've never used the card, and probably never will. But I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 10, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> It isn't tyranny or entitlement, but it can still tank the session. Let's say I plan an entire 6-hour session involving a party getting caught up in a dispute between a Spirit Naga and Guardian Naga. The Guardian naga is served by a group of Yuan-ti. Various serpents of mundane and giant variety also figure strongly in the session.
> 
> One of the players who show up to the game turns out to have a crippling fear of snakes.
> 
> If this is my home game, I scrap the game and we play something else that evening. But what do I do at a convention? I think I would have to explain to the player that this isn't the right adventure for them. Normally, good descriptions should avoid this, but sometimes the nature of the antagonists is not given because it would be a spoiler. Or maybe the player didn't know what a "naga" or Yuanti is.




Finding an unexpected sore spot could tank a session, sure.  It's likely to tank a session regardless of using the X card though as the player suddenly leaves or acts out.

If a player knows the appearance of snakes are crippling weakness in their play then they should learn what a naga and other iconic triggers are.  If they are still caught in a adventure dominated by that form at a convention then it pretty much sucks to be them and they should bow out.

The X-card is a single tool not a panacea.  It doesn't obviate the players from knowing their limits and discussing well-defined types upfront.  It acts a safety valve for unexpected situations.​


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 10, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> As an example say that one person is playing on their phone and not paying full attention to the game.  Should the DM be able to say something to that person if the rest of the Players at the table do not care if the other person is on their phone or not.  Or should the DM just be adult enough to accept that people like to play on their phone during the game.




Absolutely they should. There is no reason that the DM should expect everyone to be 100% focused on them the whole time. If the phone user is not disrupting play or bothering the other players, leave them be.


----------



## Sadras (Sep 10, 2018)

Michael Silverbane said:


> Absolutely they should. There is no reason that the DM should expect everyone to be 100% focused on them the whole time. If the phone user is not disrupting play or bothering the other players, leave them be.




Interesting. So if the DM is bothered due to the phone playing, the DM has to suck it up and continue.
It is only when a player is bothered by the phone playing that action should be taken.


----------



## AriochQ (Sep 10, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  Except, of course, that pretty often, "standard social skills" don't suffice.  Harassment at cons *should* be covered by standard social skills, but we most definitely have an issue there.  We need moderators in EN World in large part because people are more than willing to throw out standard social skills when they feel they aren't winning an argument!
> 
> So much for "standard social skills".




Neither of those things (harassment at cons or online behavior) are topics that are being discussed in this thread.  They also have very little in common with the topic actually being discussed.  [You are utilizing a False Analogy fallacy]


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Sep 10, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Interesting. So if the DM is bothered due to the phone playing, the DM has to suck it up and continue.
> It is only when a player is bothered by the phone playing that action should be taken.




You forgot an (s) on the end of player(s). The DM is one of the players.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2018)

Dualazi said:


> Lanefan beat me to the punch here, but as people seem to keep getting off track with analogies and metaphors, it's really much closer to the group having a horror movie night and someone else trying to change the genre.




No, it isn't.  "Horror movie night," give a lot of information about the details of the expected content.  "D&D session," does not.  Does yoru GM give you a set of the tropes, encounters, and expected themes to be addressed before a session starts?  Probably not.  They are probably explicitly not telling you what's in the adventure, so that as a player, you cannot choose to bow out based on content like you can for Horror Movie Night.

So, it is more like "movie night", without specified content, and one person asks for it to not be horror.

Or, even more like it is movie night, horror is chosen, and someone says, "Hey, can we fast forward right now? This individual scene is freakin' me out!"




> The fact that it's still a movie night is immaterial to the fact that now one person is dictating what's being watched.




Again, no.  One person is dictatign what it *not* watched.  And this is important.  Excluding some content is not the same as picking the exact content that will be presented.  "Not horror" is not the same as "I will only watch Galaxy Quest" in terms of the burden on the rest of the party.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 10, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> [You are utilizing a False Analogy fallacy]




I don't think so.  "Standard social skills" were invoked.  To determine if "standard social skills" can be considered reliable, their general efficacy (or lack thereof) is entirely relevant.

To wit: it is shown that sufficient gamers have issues with their social skills in situations that have no particular reason to be emotionally charged that we need binding policies for group gatherings.  Having a mechanism for emotionally charged situations, which are notably more difficult, then seems quite reasonable.


----------



## jasper (Sep 10, 2018)

Umbran said:


> No, it isn't.  "Horror movie night," give a lot of information about the details of the expected content.  "D&D session," does not.  Does yoru GM give you a set of the tropes, encounters, and expected themes to be addressed before a session starts?  Probably not.  They are probably explicitly not telling you what's in the adventure, so that as a player, you cannot choose to bow out based on content like you can for Horror Movie Night.
> 
> So, it is more like "movie night", without specified content, and one person asks for it to not be horror.
> 
> ...



Okay the choices are Galaxy Quest 5, Halloween 44, My little Pony, All let out around 9:30. After that we meet at Buffallo Wild Wings for dinner. 
Umbran, Not Halloween. I am vegan. 
Votes are taken. 5 for Halloween, 1 for GQ 5. 
Umbran, "I can't go!" Crowd ok. See at 9:40 at Wild Wings. Umbran, "But I vegan" Jasper I will buy you some fries you pick up the tip. "
Next week the group chooses GQ 5 and goes the vegas vegan bar and Umbran pays for Jasper's Coffee. And Jasper leaves the tip. See Problem solved. 

Slapping the X card is a throwing caltrops and ball bearings in the way of communication. Jasper can speak up about his fear of snakes. Then Umbran the DM can decide if the snakes encounters are important to story, or reskin. If Important to the story Jasper should just leave the table. 
I dm for open tables in a local game store and try to keep everything PG-13. I have played with people who have phobias. They were kind enough upfront to tell me. Or their buddy did. Slapping the x card as it is presented in the 30 page document would have me going down a checklist to see what trip wire I broke.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2018)

I think an X-Card would be a handy tool for me, personally, if I ever ran a pubic game in a shop (or bar - that's a thing nowadays here in Philly). Precisely because I've spent the past decade or two playing in and running home games for a relatively small group of friends who I know well who share a... ahem... particular sense of humor. 

At this juncture I couldn't tell you what's PG-13 or appropriate for general consumption if you had a vorpal katana leveled at my head. 

I'd like to think something like an X-Card would become less necessary/unnecessary over time, assuming a stable group of players that got to know each other better. Formal communication strategies have their place, but I'm old-school; I prefer the messy informal ones. But if it helps some folks, good. 

I admit to not getting the concept of an O-Card, though, outside of a desire for symmetry, I guess. Presumably, if you *like* something, there's less anxiety and discomfort involved in expressing it. Though I admit I'm being somewhat selfish here. A happy player tapping a card would do nothing for me. I like laughter, smiles, and straight-up verbal praise.

And gifts, too!


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 10, 2018)

Mallus said:


> ... a pubic game in a shop (or bar - that's a thing nowadays here in Philly) ...



OK, you now have my complete attention.

While there's game-themed bars and pubs in a few other cities, we don't have one here in Victoria.  Nice to hear in-the-pub gaming is catching on in Philly - hope it spreads!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> OK, you now have my complete attention.
> 
> While there's game-themed bars and pubs in a few other cities, we don't have one here in Victoria.  Nice to hear in-the-pub gaming is catching on in Philly - hope it spreads!




My group's considered playing at a bar, but we ultimately decided against because it would mean a significantly more expensive session. There's a couple bars we'd be welcome in even if we weren't buying anything more than a bottomless cup of coffee, so we could do it cheaply . . . but we wouldn't.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 10, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> OK, you now have my complete attention.
> 
> While there's game-themed bars and pubs in a few other cities, we don't have one here in Victoria.  Nice to hear in-the-pub gaming is catching on in Philly - hope it spreads!



Apparently it's spreading in Philly. The "Drinks and Dragons" FB page is up to 4 locations hosting monthly events. It started at a place I liked even without funny dice & elves in the mix, American Sardine Bar. 

https://www.facebook.com/drinksdragonsPHL/

My buddies and I swear we'll go at least once, but we don't get out to bars as much as we used to. Which is good, because we'd all be alcoholics by now.

edit: of course, last session at our home game we put a shameful hurting on a bottle of bourbon, so maybe we should get out more!


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 11, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Interesting. So if the DM is bothered due to the phone playing, the DM has to suck it up and continue.
> It is only when a player is bothered by the phone playing that action should be taken.




It seems to be the consensus that if it is just one person bothered then you dont do anything.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 11, 2018)

I was listening to Jonathan Haidt a social psychologist who suggested that things like the X card may have no effect and or make things worse.  

It turns out that exposure can strengthen your resolve.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I was listening to Jonathan Haidt a social psychologist who suggested that things like the X card may have no effect and or make things worse.
> 
> It turns out that exposure can strengthen your resolve.



That's between a person and their shrink. A D&D game is supposed to be a recreational activity, not a therapy session - it's perfectly all right to want to build up resolve through exposure, but not to do it at game night with your buddies.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the particulars of this X-card proposition. I think it infantilizes what needs to be a mature conversation. But the basic idea behind it, of avoiding material that makes people uncomfortable, is just common courtesy. If someone at your table says to you, "I don't want the game to go this way", and your response is, "Play it anyway, it's for your own good", then you're a patronizing jerk.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 11, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> That's between a person and their shrink. A D&D game is supposed to be a recreational activity, not a therapy session - it's perfectly all right to want to build up resolve through exposure, but not to do it at game night with your buddies.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't like the particulars of this X-card proposition. I think it infantilizes what needs to be a mature conversation. But the basic idea behind it, of avoiding material that makes people uncomfortable, is just common courtesy. If someone at your table says to you, "I don't want the game to go this way", and your response is, "Play it anyway, it's for your own good", then you're a patronizing jerk.




I guess if I had to paraphrase Jonathan's point, it would be better to have small doses of someone being a patronizing jerk in a relatively safe space then ending up having to see a shrink because your Boss growled at you because they were having a bad day at work.

For example there are now more people that have Peanut allergies because they never had any contact with Peanuts when they were children and so never built up any tolerance.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I guess if I had to paraphrase Jonathan's point, it would be better to have small doses of someone being a patronizing jerk in a relatively safe space then ending up having to see a shrink because your Boss growled at you because they were having a bad day at work.



I'm familiar with Haidt. You seem to have missed _my_ point: *that is not your call to make as a DM.*



Shasarak said:


> For example there are now more people that have Peanut allergies because they never had any contact with Peanuts when they were children and so never built up any tolerance



Wrong physiological system.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 11, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm familiar with Haidt. You seem to have missed _my_ point: *that is not your call to make as a DM.*





I am not here to tell you how to run your game and I am not here to play a Doctor on the internet.  On the other hand maybe the science is giving us a different answer.



> Wrong physiological system.




Analogies are never going to be exact, being shot with tiny bullets is not going to make you immune to big bullets.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> I was listening to Jonathan Haidt a social psychologist who suggested that things like the X card may have no effect and or make things worse.
> 
> It turns out that exposure can strengthen your resolve.




Right.  So now we get the armchair psychology, and the over-generalization, and painting people's real problems as "lack of resolve".

But then, I did note upthread that most folks don't have much of a handle on psychological health.  *sigh*.

Go ask your social psychologist if exposure to triggers in an uncontrolled environment is a recommended thing for, say, people with PTSD.  

Hint:  It isn't.  At all.


----------



## Shasarak (Sep 11, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So now we get the armchair psychology, and the over-generalization, and painting people's real problems as "lack of resolve".
> 
> But then, I did note upthread that most folks don't have much of a handle on psychological health.  *sigh*.
> 
> ...




So quoting an actual scientist who has studied this field is considered armchair psychology now?


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 11, 2018)

Shasarak said:


> So quoting an actual scientist who has studied this field is considered armchair psychology now?




Moral philosophers are not scientists. They don't practice science. They practice moral philosophy.


----------



## AriochQ (Sep 11, 2018)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Moral philosophers are not scientists. They don't practice science. They practice moral philosophy.




It appears he is a Social Psychologist who specializes in psychology of morality.

His Wikipedia entry:

*Jonathan David Haidt* (/haɪt/; born October 19, 1963) is an American social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business.[1] His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. Haidt is the author of two books: _The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom_ (2006) and _The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion _(2012), which became a _New York Times_ bestseller.[2] He was named one of the "top global thinkers" by _Foreign Policy_ magazine,[3] and one of the "top world thinkers" by _Prospect_ magazine


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Sep 11, 2018)

AriochQ said:


> It appears he is a Social Psychologist who specializes in psychology of morality.




Precisely my point.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 11, 2018)

Sepulchrave II said:


> Precisely my point.




He is a scientist. He performs empirical experiments with real human subjects. The merit of his experiments or hypotheses can of course be questioned, but I think that's beyond the scope of this thread. The take-home point is that _whatever_ his qualifications are, we average gamers have no qualifications at all, and so should probably stick to running our games for entertainment rather than therapeutic value. (If any of you happen to be psychiatric professionals playing with your patients, feel free to disregard this advice.)


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Sep 11, 2018)

Hopefully we all recognize that the best approach here is to recognize that personal responsibility goes both ways. When your needs are specialized and unusual, it is usually best to notify those around you in advance. Conversely, not all people are equipped to assist those with special needs, so perhaps it is better to establish (before any game ever begins) whether a game table is able and willing to handle such special considerations. 

"I have trigger alert issues." 
"My table may not work for you then. But that table over there is designated as a safe space."
Problem solved. Right?

....to those saying, "But you should be able to accommodate this person," let's be clear that I am in no way qualified to provide for or handle their psychological issues, nor do I wish to be put in the position of having to do so. It's my responsibility and right to recognize when my own failings prevent me from being able to help them with theirs. Likewise, I do not want to accidentally contribute to their limitation by pure error of omission or unfamiliarity with their needs, and as such feel it is important that I be able to state clearly that I cannot assist on those grounds. Perhaps, if no one else can do so, then I might be able to step up and do the best I can.....but only because I feel empathy for their situation, not because I am in any way qualified or trained to be able to aid them in their special needs.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 12, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> ....to those saying, "But you should be able to accommodate this person," let's be clear that I am in no way qualified to provide for or handle their psychological issues, nor do I wish to be put in the position of having to do so. It's my responsibility and right to recognize when my own failings prevent me from being able to help them with theirs. Likewise, I do not want to accidentally contribute to their limitation by pure error of omission or unfamiliarity with their needs, and as such feel it is important that I be able to state clearly that I cannot assist on those grounds. Perhaps, if no one else can do so, then I might be able to step up and do the best I can.....but only because I feel empathy for their situation, not because I am in any way qualified or trained to be able to aid them in their special needs.




This is an understandable take on it.

Now....if only there was a clear and simple visual cue that could be implemented that could help the average player or GM navigate such a scenario....


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 12, 2018)

Woa, this discussion went off the tracks many pages ago. 

But bringing it back a little to the original post. I feel this system is a solution to a problem that I'm not sure even exists. If I'm playing with friends, a session 0 is there to 'test the waters' and see what themes my players may find objectional. The things that they might find objectional is a very short list: sexual content, religious themes or violence.

If however I'm playing at a convention (which admittedly I've never done), I don't think I would include these sensitive themes to begin with. You don't know who your players will be, and so it makes sense to stay clear of sensitive topics in such an open setting. And when in doubt, ask your players.

If I were to put these cards on the table, I feel that what I'm basically doing is establishing a mood that the game is most likely going to contain objectional content, by introducing an X-card. I don't think I want to give off that vibe at all. Nor do I feel I need an O-card to be able to tell what my players are enjoying about the game.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 12, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Woa, this discussion went off the tracks many pages ago.
> 
> But bringing it back a little to the original post. I feel this system is a solution to a problem that I'm not sure even exists. If I'm playing with friends, a session 0 is there to 'test the waters' and see what themes my players may find objectional. The things that they might find objectional is a very short list: sexual content, religious themes or violence.
> 
> ...




For friends, there are two cases where it may make some sense:

1) Acute issue. Something sad/unpleasant has happened to one or more friends recently.  Some aspect of what would be normal play might trigger an unexpected emotional response.  See for example, my example of a player whose parent with dementia died right after being relocated to a nursing home.  Several of my players have had to deal with close ones dying, bad medical diagnoses, marital disintegration, and other terrible and sometimes quite personal issues over the decades.  Often I know what's going on.  Sometimes I don't.

2) Issue from the past.  Something terrible happened in a player's past.  Normally, it has no power over them, but occasionally a seemingly innocuous situation can trigger an extreme response.  Triggers probably aren't predictable.


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 12, 2018)

Nagol said:


> 1) Acute issue. Something sad/unpleasant has happened to one or more friends recently.  Some aspect of what would be normal play might trigger an unexpected emotional response.  See for example, my example of a player whose parent with dementia died right after being relocated to a nursing home.  Several of my players have had to deal with close ones dying, bad medical diagnoses, marital disintegration, and other terrible and sometimes quite personal issues over the decades.  Often I know what's going on.  Sometimes I don't.
> 
> 2) Issue from the past.  Something terrible happened in a player's past.  Normally, it has no power over them, but occasionally a seemingly innocuous situation can trigger an extreme response.  Triggers probably aren't predictable.




A few weeks ago one of our players suddenly burst out in tears. Not because of something that happened in the game, but because she was having a hard time in her life. The DM handled this very well, by simply pausing the game and comforting her. We talked a bit about her personal issues, and eventually resumed the game. 

This sort of thing can always happen. It is a reality of life that sometimes bad things happen. That can make it hard for us to enjoy any social activity. It can make us emotional vulnerable, which is probably not the right place of mind to be in when trying to enjoy a game. But these are also the moments when the comfort of friends is exactly what we need. I don't think a system of cards is going to make this sort of thing go away. Instead, simply talking about it may be the best solution.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 12, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> A few weeks ago one of our players suddenly burst out in tears. Not because of something that happened in the game, but because she was having a hard time in her life. The DM handled this very well, by simply pausing the game and comforting her. We talked a bit about her personal issues, and eventually resumed the game.
> 
> This sort of thing can always happen. It is a reality of life that sometimes bad things happen. That can make it hard for us to enjoy any social activity. It can make us emotional vulnerable, which is probably not the right place of mind to be in when trying to enjoy a game. But these are also the moments when the comfort of friends is exactly what we need. I don't think a system of cards is going to make this sort of thing go away. Instead, simply talking about it may be the best solution.




I don't think the cards are meant to make it go away.  I think they're meant to provide a simple (because profound emotion limits complex responses), unsubtle (because gamers playing a game aren't looking for sudden emotional shifts), unambiguous (because who wants to be asked "Is that you talking or your character?" when you are asking for help), non-verbal (because its fast, immediate in delivery and voice can betray one under stress) indicator that someone is experiencing something both unusual and unpleasant.  The person may or may not want to talk about it beyond describing what they'd like to not do any more because such a response almost certainly comes from a very personal place.

I don't use the X card.  Looking back on 30 years of gaming, I can see some incidences where its use would have been helpful even in a close knit group -- mostly around acute situations that were personally troubling to the people living through them.  I see very few situations where having it in use would be detrimental and those are easily solved through conversation, peer pressure, and/or changing the group membership.  I probably won't add it at this time.  There is an excellent chance I won't be gaming for another 30 years and the value, while positive, is reasonably low for the group members extant.

I see very little value to its O counterpart, however.  Unlike the X card, the request does not need to be simple, unsubtle, unambiguous, or nonverbal.  A state of enjoyment and interest is quite different from a state of personal panic or overwhelming grief.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 13, 2018)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - 
while not exactly the same, I have had players object in league play about being triggered by other players' dialogue. Interrupting them, in order to demand the scene end. Essentially, attempting to use a not extant at my table X-card to end scenes they weren't in because of their own choice to split from the party. The players at that table who happen to have major anxiety issues complained about the whinger - because the several times it was done were times where the party was split by the complainer. In one case, the nature of the complainer's desired scene was MORE offensive to the rest of the party - they were uninvited by the store, as they did the same kind of whinging at others tables. (This was during HotDQ.)

Now, why I think the X-card is bad outside one-shot play? Because it's not a communication starter - it's a fade to black without explanation needed. Without explanation, I cannot avoid the issue down the road. Without explanation, it can make other players feel bullied, not protected. I know people who would use it to maximize their screen time, because they've tried it in games with a rule in place that was similar.



pemerton said:


> Huh? In my experience single-person veto is very common in social activities eg if one person doesn't like horror films, we don't go and see a horror movie; if one person is vegetarian, we don't go to the steakhouse; etc.



We just let them find something else to do. I don't eat tomatoes nor potatoes any more. If the group decides to go to a burger and fries joint, I either don't go, or simply don't order fries.
If the group decides to go to a horror film, and one doesn't want to go, they don't, while the rest of us do.


> I find the idea which is being floated in this thread, of players "gaming" the X-card, quite bizarre. Are these the same people who "accidentally" knock the board when they're losing?




It's a strong correlation. Definitely the same ones who "accidentally" knock pieces out of place, then put them back wrong.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 13, 2018)

I’m amazed by the amount of people out there who don’t go to movies with their friends!


----------



## Satyrn (Sep 13, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> I’m amazed by the amount of people out there who don’t go to movies with their friends!



My friends like terrible movies.


----------



## Mallus (Sep 13, 2018)

Out of curiosity, how many people here have direct experience using tools like the X-Card? Did they help? Harm? Do nothing or something else? 

With a topic like this, it's pretty easy to get lost in yet another skirmish along the Empathy Front of the seemingly endless Western Culture Wars.


----------



## MNblockhead (Sep 14, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> @_*pemerton*_ -
> while not exactly the same, I have had players object in league play about being triggered by other players' dialogue. Interrupting them, in order to demand the scene end. Essentially, attempting to use a not extant at my table X-card to end scenes they weren't in because of their own choice to split from the party. The players at that table who happen to have major anxiety issues complained about the whinger - because the several times it was done were times where the party was split by the complainer. In one case, the nature of the complainer's desired scene was MORE offensive to the rest of the party - they were uninvited by the store, as they did the same kind of whinging at others tables. (This was during HotDQ.)




What was the gist of the other players' dialogue that "triggered" the complaining player? It is difficult to assess the reasonableness without knowing what the other players were saying.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (Sep 15, 2018)

hawkeyefan said:


> This is an understandable take on it.
> 
> Now....if only there was a clear and simple visual cue that could be implemented that could help the average player or GM navigate such a scenario....




I think my suggestion is that maybe if you've reached the point where the visual queue is needed then a breakdown in communication (and understanding) has already failed.


Worth noting though that I am not arguing this is not a good tool for tables with unknowns (like convention games) where it may not be possible to establish precedent/understanding in advance.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Sep 16, 2018)

Doctor Futurity said:


> I think my suggestion is that maybe if you've reached the point where the visual queue is needed then a breakdown in communication (and understanding) has already failed.
> 
> 
> Worth noting though that I am not arguing this is not a good tool for tables with unknowns (like convention games) where it may not be possible to establish precedent/understanding in advance.




Yes, absolutely. My comment was more of a joke than anything. I think that public games and convention games are likely the only place where this type of thing may be handy. In a home game amongst friends, if it’s needed then there are bigger problems.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 18, 2018)

I think there may be a place for this in some games, a less of this/more of that thing, but it seems like it's easy to misuse. I think generally having an appropriate film-style age rating for the game according to regular community standards is the best approach - I don't want to go into a D&D game and find out the GM is doing _The Human Centipede_ - and give some indication where the iffy stuff might lie (sex, gore, horror, & slavery seem like four obvious ones on current standards). I guess being trapped with a bunch of crawling spiders comes under horror, but the mere presence of a spider seems like something that shouldn't be voidable.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Sep 19, 2018)

S'mon said:


> I guess being trapped with a bunch of crawling spiders comes under horror, but the mere presence of a spider seems like something that shouldn't be voidable.



I mean, anything is voidable. You're the DM. You can decide what does and does not appear. The question comes down to, when a player says, "Hey, no spiders please", do you say "Okay" or "No"?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 19, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I mean, anything is voidable. You're the DM. You can decide what does and does not appear. The question comes down to, when a player says, "Hey, no spiders please", do you say "Okay" or "No"?




I meant voidable by player tapping an X card.

"I have a phobia of ancient red dragons..."


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 21, 2018)

MNblockhead said:


> What was the gist of the other players' dialogue that "triggered" the complaining player? It is difficult to assess the reasonableness without knowing what the other players were saying.




Nothing that rose to any level of offensive to a reasonable person. Including no one else in earshot. Simply put, and this is several years gone by, the person was abusing the rules of AL in an attempt to cut others "screen time" when they didn't go with said player's plan, and said player removed themself from the scene, then tried to cut the majority's scene short.

AFAICT, the trigger was about the level of "They won't do what I want them to" temper tantrum. Banning them (done by the store's AL coordinator) was for the common good. (They'd been disruptive the prior week, at someone else's table.)


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 21, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I mean, anything is voidable. You're the DM. You can decide what does and does not appear. The question comes down to, when a player says, "Hey, no spiders please", do you say "Okay" or "No"?




If I'm running a published adventure in a public venue as part of organized play, "No." Because the limits of organized play include not making major changes, and swapping out the spiders is likely to be a major change. Actually had that happen at the start of an AL Season 3 (Out of the Abyss). When they realized it was a drow-driven subsetting, they packed up, and came back for next season... which I feel was the appropriate choice for that situation.


----------

