Safety Tools in RPGs Meta-Discussion

[EmperorNorton]

...and you people honestly think that domestic abuse is more damaging than what survivors or life-threatening assaults or the relatives of the victims of such assaults have gone through?
Yeah, he idea is unfathomable to me. You might want to read the part of the post where I'm replying to Victor as well.

This is 100% not understanding what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, a person signing up for a Mafia game should expect guns. If they aren't OK with gun violence... they shouldn't sign up for that game. If someone has trauma related to gun violence, couldn't handle it, and signed up for a Mafia game I'd be genuinely baffled as to what they are doing there. It isn't about the trauma being "less damaging" it is that someone who has that kind of trauma and who couldn't handle gun violence should have known that was going to be a part of the game and not signed up for it.

Domestic violence isn't covered by the premise of "Mafia game". Someone could sign up for a Mafia game that has specific trauma related to domestic violence and no trauma related to gun violence. They go "hey cool, robbers, hits, taking out rival gangs, and being part of the 'Family', sounds fun" and get hit with something that hits a personal trigger.

Again, it isn't about less or more damage. It is about the expectations of what a Mafia game will have in it, and not expecting their specific trauma to be a part of the game.

 

[CRKrueger]

Those are terms adopted by a modern ideology for concepts that have existed for a century or longer. The idea that certain people need to be protected from controversial or potentially psychologically distressing elements in media and life in general has existed as long as media has existed. Millenial fanatics don't have a monopoly on people trying to "protect" other people.

So...it’s ok to talk about current policy planks in a party platform because they didn’t invent the ideas, they just politicized them?

 

[CRKrueger]

BTW, if someone knows anything about actual Mafiosos, Domestic Violence is less common then guns, but definitely part of the package. What matters is what’s done in public and how out of hand it gets.

 

[TristramEvans]

So...it’s ok to talk about current policy planks in a party platform because they didn’t invent the ideas, they just politicized them?

It's OK to talk about things related to RPGs on an RPG forum, if one can leave out Politics.

It's a very simple line "can I talk about this thing without bringing up politics?" If the answer is yes, then the thing can be discussed. If the answer is no, then the thing is inherently political.

 

[Bunch]

I wouldn't say always but sometimes. Life is less binary than people would like. If my leg is blow off in a war people can see it and empathize. If shells explode all around me like a snare drum for months on end no one who wasn't there really understands why certain noises make you freak out, cry, etc

That's the essential lesson of WWI is sometimes physical wounds heal faster than mental ones. There is something about having something concrete to point to that changes the reaction from yourself and people around you. With mental wounds part of what empowers them is the doubt they cause in yourself and others.

I'll never forget the call I had with. Bipolar friend who was just beginning his understand of the condition. He was sobbing because he had just realized he lost the ability to trust his own judgement about just about anything. Take that in and understand that you might not be able to trust your judgement to why and when you need to go to the store and why isn't your friend at work on a Saturday at 3am because that seems totally reasonable to you.
That's an extreme but inside a head that can be a glimpse into what's happening in someone's head when you start talking about item X. It begins a thought process they might not currently be able to control where it goes and where it goes might not be rational to you and me.

Are some people assholes who would pull an X car because they want to shut down a topic they don't love but doesn't cause actual discomfort for them. Yeah I've seen that crap. Are some people playing amateur psychologist telling everyone what they need to do to heal. Yeah I've seen that crap too.

Is domestic assault worse? I can't say but I would be willing to listen if someone told me that it's worse because it didn't just leave bruises it cost them their ability to trust friends and family. To be always wondering when/if this person claiming to be my friend is going to reveal their true asshole.

...and you people honestly think that domestic abuse is more damaging than what survivors or life-threatening assaults or the relatives of the victims of such assaults have gone through?
Yeah, he idea is unfathomable to me. You might want to read the part of the post where I'm replying to Victor as well.

 

[AsenRG]

It's OK to talk about things related to RPGs on an RPG forum, if one can leave out Politics.

It's a very simple line "can I talk about this thing without bringing up politics?" If the answer is yes, then the thing can be discussed. If the answer is no, then the thing is inherently political.

If you're following that logic, I believe you should close the thread.

This is 100% not understanding what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is, a person signing up for a Mafia game should expect guns. If they aren't OK with gun violence... they shouldn't sign up for that game. If someone has trauma related to gun violence, and signed up for a Mafia game I'd be genuinely baffled as to what they are doing there. It isn't about the trauma being "less damaging" it is that someone who has that kind of trauma and who couldn't handle gun violence should have known that was going to be a part of the game and not signed up for it.

Domestic violence isn't covered by the premise of "Mafia game". Someone could sign up for a Mafia game that has specific trauma related to domestic violence and no trauma related to gun violence. They go "hey cool, robbers, hits, taking out rival gangs, and being part of the 'Family', sounds fun" and get hit with something that hits a personal trigger.

Again, it isn't about less or more damage. It is about the expectations of what a Mafia game will have in it, and not expecting their specific trauma to be a part of the game.

...OK, that was the helpful part. Thank you!
Mind you, I don't think such an option makes sense in this example - domestic violence is indeed part of the package for anyone who knows anything about organised crime - but I get what you mean...
I would still disagree - IMO, it should be buyer's discretion here - but I'm honestly not interested in arguing the point. As I said, I'm only reading because some weird people are talking about something that, in your world, is tangentially related to RPGs! (But this also means I'm going to ask for clarification here and there - hope you don't mind!)

 

[Silent Green]

TBH, with the amount of digital paperwork going into the system Ladybird described above, I probably wouldn't run a game; too much like work.

 

[TristramEvans]

If you're following that logic, I believe you should close the thread.

Probably. I figured it had a timer on it since it started. If a productive discussion of the topic can take place, I doubt it's going to originate from a discussion of whether or not the topic can be discussed.

 

[CRKrueger]

TBH, with the amount of digital paperwork going into the system Ladybird described above, I probably wouldn't run a game; too much like work.

I’d just redline everything, click every content warning and call it a day. I doubt any dial would ever get past half, but redlining them all saves the inevitable argument when a jackhole decides the needle went just over half, and the organisers get involved and find out what I really think of them.

 

[Ladybird]

TBH, with the amount of digital paperwork going into the system Ladybird described above, I probably wouldn't run a game; too much like work.

It sounds more than it is, the form is pretty simple.

Questions 1 - 7 are the what system, who is running, etc. stuff - your basic stuff that you'd expect a club to know so they can advertise your game for you. This is the relevant "content warnings" section of the "I want to run a game" form:


Folk using the x card on our discord server is logged, but it's an online server and it's something we have a bot to watch out for (It messages the council to warn them they might need to get involved), so logging is easy.

but redlining them all saves the inevitable argument when a jackhole decides the needle went just over half, and the organisers get involved and find out what I really think of them.

In practice, not a thing that happens; nobody is trying to catch anyone out, and mistakes happen. All this assumes good faith on the part of everyone involved; if you wanted to go into it in bad faith to prove a point, well you do you.

 

[arjunstc]

A couple years back, pre-covid, I ran a game at a tiny convention. Space Opera, Savage Worlds.

I have been a GM for more than 30 years, but it was going to be my first convention game, so I googled on how to run one and learned about consent and safety tools. The organisers didn't require safety tools.

There were four players, three of for whom this would be their first ever RPG.

One of them was quite upfront with having some mental health issue (autism spectrum is my guess).

I asked everyone at the table if there was any topic/subject that they didn't want to encounter in the game. No one had any.

One girl asked if there was going to be racism and sexism in the game; I replied that some NPCs would be racist or sexist, but the players didn't have to be or agree with them.

Game went well, mostly because the one experience player (who was a stranger to me) helped a lot by leading the other players into the game. It was the first game for three of the players, and there was no expectation for any PC to act according to their "party role". They had to be goaded into their first bar fight, during which the player with ASD had his droid character just hide under a table. Everyone just tried to act like a space trucker and make the story move.

Everyone was supportive and encouraging to each other.

So that's my experience with running a public, convention game where I used some form of "safety tool".

=

Recently I watched a Sly Flourish video on this topic:




I am not a fan of the X card, but watching this video changed my perspective on the topic a little.

I am still not a fan of the X card, but I realise that as the GM, I have been using the "wait, hold up" tool myself when my players are going down the murder-hobo road with too much enthusiasm.

I've never had organisers or players demand safety tools of me, but in practice it's just about broadcasting a willingness to listen to players' concerns during a game. If I do run another convention game again, I will likely ask the same question and try to accommodate the players, especially if they are new to the hobby.

 

[Ghost Whistler]

So anyway, as I've mentioned, after the UKGE incident the Council that runs my local gaming club announced to everyone, at the christmas AGM, that in future all games would be using a couple of safety tools; content warnings before game sign-ups, and x cards. Here are the relevant sections from the AGM's transcript:


For a few people the mandatory use of the xcard felt a bit excessive when later discussion with the Council showed that they were taking this very seriously and this was not optional if you wanted to GM at the club. But y'know, it's not the end of the world, nobody was raging (But there was some mockery from some folk), plus some GM's had used x cards or similar at their table before particularly for horror games; I'd been playing in The Warren that year and we'd had one (That game got weird; not just gory rabbit life, but also child sacrifice and whatever the hell the humans were up to). Some players were also very happy that they'd mentioned it; the council are very strongly anti-discrimination and pro-equality, we have a fairly even gender balance, more LGBTQ+ folk than some LGBTQ+ events I've attended, and a very low amount of catpissfolk, but here was something concrete and absolute that they were doing.

I can say that in the ten years or so I'd been going before this, I hadn't noticed any major issues come up in-game, but obviously I am not at every table every week. The worst incident I could recall was one GM's "enthusiastic" RP of an Ogre under a Love spell, which resulted in a non-member couple at the next table over very hastily leaving, and for which I am still really sorry for ruining that couple's evening.

Game Advertising

This is the pre-signup stuff, so you have an idea what each game is about. I don't have any of the sheets from that time, but I'll show you what it's evolved into, with a game from the next block that looks fairly interesting for this discussion. I've censored out the GM's personal info.

View attachment 28707
First page, basic stuff. Game name, overall age rating (Comparable to BBFC ratings because this are understood by more people than PEGI ratings, and we're using these because we're gaming in the UK) and some blurb. Nothing unusual here. It took a while to get "who is GM'ing" added, because some members of the council didn't like cliques forming, but eventually they agreed to add it.
"Restrictions" tends to get used for such things as "newbies encouraged", "continuation of a previous game so previous players get first preference", that sort of thing. I and others have asked for some sort of "I don't like player x and GM'ing for them would make me miserable so I'd rather not have them in my game" option but we don't have that (I was actually told "get over it, grow up" by one of the council members, but I know that's not a majority opinion amongst them).

View attachment 28708
Right, your content summaries. Violence, swearing, and fear we can expect a lot of. There might be some gambling but likely nothing too serious. Sex, drugs, and discrimination are probably not going to feature much if at all.

View attachment 28709
This is mechanical. It's gonna be fairly crunchy, the GM is likely going to expect you to know your mechanics, and it would help to have a good idea of what the setting is like. Not related to safety but still something you'd like to know.

View attachment 28710
Last page is specific content warnings, and honestly if you've played D2 most of these are what you'd expect. You are not going to have a happy time playing this game, and D2 also contains some of the spideriest spiders in games (I've actually had a genuine nightmare about the D2 spiders).

Now, none of this has limited the GM (Although I suspect that if you said you wanted to include rape and graphic torture in your game you would be politely advised to run it somewhere else); the only expectation put on them here is that they're honest and give filling out this form their best shot. If when it comes to signups nobody wants to play in this game, well, sucks for the GM I guess but that's just the way it is.

I don't think anybody has had a problem with this system, everybody's took it well and given it their best shot. The GM's who run games that push the upper edge of the boundaries seem to like that they can put this up front and it's clear to folk what they'll be getting into, and the players that aren't interested in that sort of thing are pre-emptively warned off so things aren't an unpleasant surprise for them.

The 'X' Card

The council printed up a bunch of these, using a club-specific design (Which I don't have a picture of) and the club rules for it. This is taken from the Discord version of the card if someone uses it's trigger command:

For in-person games, copies of the card were included in the "table packs" that they put out each session (A chalkboard with your game name on it, and one of these cards for everyone at the table), and the intention was that you'd put it in front of you and tap it.

The first game that I was in at the new year was a pulpy action-adventure game, and the group all knew each other and we'd gamed together a lot before and we knew each other's boundaries fairly well. To be honest we used the x card more as a joke amongst each other whenever something silly happened, because we didn't feel the tool was a thing we needed when we could just talk to each other and the GM wasn't even vaguely interested in pushing anyone's boundaries.

When one of us mentioned this joking about to a member of the council they were not amused.

Anyway, came the end of the world, so the club went online. A few months later there was a game of SLA Industries, which as we all know is a grimdark splatterpunk game where bad things happen for no good reason. In our second session, we were sent to investigate adverts for a Rival Company; turns out they were being put up by kids who were being paid in sweets, so we radioed this in and were told to take them out.

So we did.

Now, this is exactly the sort of thing an x card is there for. But nobody used one, we did our thing, went back to base, and all logged off for the night.

Next week, half the group didn't come back. The GM told us that he'd spoken to them, and they'd said what happened had went too far for them, so they were going to play in a different campaign. Fair enough, their call, we could see why they had objected; we didn't ask them why they hadn't used the x card but perhaps we should have (The GM said he could easily have worked around it and have us arrest them or something).

Having access to the server logs, nobody has actually used it in a game situation, only in practice and demo situations; I don't know how any tables I've not been at have handled any potential issues. From what I can tell, the players in the horror games seem to be having as good a time as ever.

So that's my experience using safety tools in practice.

I can't obvoiusly comment on why, but to hazard a gues people didn't use them because the concept isn't something they are perhaps used to? Maybe over months they will.

 

[Silent Green]

It sounds more than it is, the form is pretty simple.

Meh. It may be a very small mountain, but this is a very lazy prophet. I'm probably like screw it at that point and just go to the convention to play and end up complaining about the lack of interesting games.

 

[Ladybird]

I asked everyone at the table if there was any topic/subject that they didn't want to encounter in the game. No one had any.

This system works, but pre-session safety tools have their limits. If I'm at a table with strangers, then I'm not going to mention that (An incident from my personal life I'm not going to discuss) because it's an obscure thing I wouldn't expect to come up anyway and wouldn't feel comfortable discussing around them. Not a slight on anyone, everyone is trying their best, I just don't know them well enough to open up that much.

An in-session safety tool is an extra catch, so that if it does come up, I can quietly indicate "no thank you" and we can just move on with the minimum of fuss.

I can't obvoiusly comment on why, but to hazard a gues people didn't use them because the concept isn't something they are perhaps used to? Maybe over months they will.

Could be! Obviously hiding them behind a text command in a chatroom also doesn't help either.

I doubt we'd have had the same situation in an IRL game; one, we'd have had the physical cards, and two, we'd have had body language to tell "hey something's up with this player", or we could have had a debrief chat after the game.

Meh. It may be a very small mountain, but this is a very lazy prophet. I'm probably like screw it at that point and just go to the convention to play and end up complaining about the lack of interesting games.

Fair. It's your call.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I’d just redline everything, click every content warning and call it a day. I doubt any dial would ever get past half, but redlining them all saves the inevitable argument when a jackhole decides the needle went just over half, and the organisers get involved and find out what I really think of them.

Equally, in your game I'd just make my character a paedo cleric and tell anyone who complains about it to "get over it" and point out there's no limits on content.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Oh yeah, and before you ask, I've known victims of domestic violence as well. More than one, in fact, including people very close to me. I've also participated in he "countermeasures"...

See... and I've been a victim, and I've known victims, and I know some of them can cope pretty well with it sooner than others and other people get rabbit's blood over it for the rest of their lives. Some people are ready to jump back into situations that remind them of it, some people find it cathartic, and that's their prerogative.

But for all your chest-thumping primate bullshit about how you know people who can handle it, how you can handle it, I'll bet you know people who aren't ready to handle it again yet. And the thing that you and Dr. Kreuger don't seem to get, just can't wrap your stupid little egos around, is the fact that whether or not someone who has been through the shit is ready to face it again or not, whether they would find traumatic or therapeutic, is not your fucking decision to make for them. You're not them, you're not their fucking therapist, you don't know what's going on in their head and you don't have the actual medical credentials to be entitled to having your own medical opinion.

And I think, if you took half a second to think about it instead of posturing about what kind of hard man you are, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself.

Hard fucking man, sitting behind a GM screen, telling all your friends to "get over it" because you're not the one dealing with it.

My opinion of such ideas, however, is unlikely to ever become anything but strictly negative.

 

[arjunstc]

This system works, but pre-session safety tools have their limits. If I'm at a table with strangers, then I'm not going to mention that (An incident from my personal life I'm not going to discuss) because it's an obscure thing I wouldn't expect to come up anyway and wouldn't feel comfortable discussing around them. Not a slight on anyone, everyone is trying their best, I just don't know them well enough to open up that much.

That makes sense. I will probably go with the "lemme know if there's something you don't want to encounter in the game, and if something else comes up that you are not ok with during the game, you can just say 'hold up' and we can pause".

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think part of the problem is that there may be a number of reasons for such tools, beyond just PTSD and phobias and the like. And although I think CRKrueger is right that avoidance is ultimately counterproductive, I think he's skipping the part where it is a normal and natural step in healing. There is a period of time where avoidance is healthy and normal. But it is a step that should lead to others.

Now, having said that, I don't think that not wanting certain topics in a RPG is in any way harmful. It's a bit of fun and that's what it should be. I'm not a big fan of body horror movies.....so I don't watch them. It's not that they trigger me or that I have a phobia about the content....it's just that I don't find them enjoyable. That's a personal preference and easy to maintain when I'm selecting a movie to watch alone.

If I'm having friends over to watch a movie, we'd likely take these kinds of considerations into account. Joe doesn't like rom-coms, Susan doesn't like horror movies.....okay, we'll watch a comedy or an action movie. Again, this is simple. Group activities typically take into account the preferences of the people who make up the group.

I mean.....if people were hosting a movie night would they insist "no no we're watching Caligula I don't care how you feel"?

The idea that any RPG should have any content possible is absurd. I mean, if a 10 year old sat down for their first convention game, my expectations would be for the GM to keep things reined in. My kids aren't old enough to be gaming at conventions or anything, but if they decide that's something they want to do when they get older, that'd be great....and I'd want to make sure that whatever games they were going to play had some consideration given to the participants' wants and needs.

 

[Dammit Victor]

I don't think you should be incentive to someone who has been traumatized by either of these things. But if they are likely to come up and it is important to genre, I think letting people know this might not be the game for them is how I would approach it. A mafia game especially because you just don' know what crimes could come up in that kind of scenario.

Yeah. I've gone on record before, and will repeat, that I think having a frank discussion of game content or full disclosure in an event game is going to be much more effective than having tools to stop the game and divert away from difficult subjects in-play. On the other hand, I'd also like to think that most of the people arguing against the cards would also stop the game and have a supportive conversation if someone told them, during the game, that they weren't okay.

That's all the cards are. A shortcut for people who might have a hard time speaking up because, you know, they're freaking out. But in everyone's submoronic rush to dunk on the people saying maybe that's a good idea, we've got otherwise intelligent people saying if they've got someone at their table who is uncomfortable or distressed about the game, they're going to lean into it to toughen them up.

That is beyond the pale. There is no excuse for it, period, and there's no excuse for defending it just because the people they're attacking are also full of shit in their own way.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

The idea that any RPG should have any content possible is absurd. I mean, if a 10 year old sat down for their first convention game, my expectations would be for the GM to keep things reined in. My kids aren't old enough to be gaming at conventions or anything, but if they decide that's something they want to do when they get older, that'd be great....and I'd want to make sure that whatever games they were going to play had some consideration given to the participants' wants and needs.

To be clear about this: me thinking Safety tools are misguided, and thinking it is especially bad if they become this thing everyone is supposed to do, doesn't mean the normal rules of social interaction don't apply. I definitely am not saying you should insist on a viewing of Caligula against the wishes of people in your company, and I am not saying you shouldn't tailor content to your audience and the sensibilities of your group. I am also not saying you shouldn't be compassionate. I just think what compassion is and ought to be, and how often patterns of behavior should be entertained versus shifted to another environment, these are not cookie cutter things that a game, a mechanic or tool can address.

 

[CRKrueger]

So anyway, as I've mentioned, after the UKGE incident

BTW here’s a link to what actually happened at the UKGE incident.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

That's all the cards are. A shortcut for people who might have a hard time speaking up because, you know, they're freaking out. But in everyone's submoronic rush to dunk on the people saying maybe that's a good idea, we've got otherwise intelligent people saying if they've got someone at their table who is uncomfortable or distressed about the game, they're going to lean into it to toughen them up.

This is where I disagree. I think the cards and the consent in gaming sheet are an invitation for people to find triggers they don't have. And I think you see this in discussions about it online and in live play where safety tools are used (where everyone in the group has way more issues then you would every naturally see crop up). And I think that has to do with these becoming things that are expected, even rewarded for having. That is why I see this as a negative trend. To me this trivializes the real issues, and it kind of makes all of gamer culture neurotic. I don't think that is good for us as a hobby. I just can't be dishonest about my feelings on this one. I am not trying to be hurtful or mean, or not show compassion if someone at the table has a real issue. I just think this kind of stuff is reaching an 'emperor has no clothes' level for me

 

[CRKrueger]

Yeah. I've gone on record before, and will repeat, that I think having a frank discussion of game content or full disclosure in an event game is going to be much more effective than having tools to stop the game and divert away from difficult subjects in-play. On the other hand, I'd also like to think that most of the people arguing against the cards would also stop the game and have a supportive conversation if someone told them, during the game, that they weren't okay.

That's all the cards are. A shortcut for people who might have a hard time speaking up because, you know, they're freaking out. But in everyone's submoronic rush to dunk on the people saying maybe that's a good idea, we've got otherwise intelligent people saying if they've got someone at their table who is uncomfortable or distressed about the game, they're going to lean into it to toughen them up.

That is beyond the pale. There is no excuse for it, period, and there's no excuse for defending it just because the people they're attacking are also full of shit in their own way.

It would help if you stopped outright lying about what people said. Show me where anyone has said that once they find out a trigger area, they will lean into it to toughen them up.

If that’s your takeaway, you’re the one going beyond the pale.

 

[Dammit Victor]

This is where I disagree. I think the cards and the consent in gaming sheet are an invitation for people to find triggers they don't have. And I think you see this in discussions about it online and in live play where safety tools are used (where everyone in the group has way more issues then you would every naturally see crop up). And I think that has to do with these becoming things that are expected, even rewarded for having. That is why I see this as a negative trend. To me this trivializes the real issues, and it kind of makes all of gamer culture neurotic. I don't think that is good for us as a hobby. I just can't be dishonest about my feelings on this one. I am not trying to be hurtful or mean, or not show compassion if someone at the table has a real issue. I just think this kind of stuff is reaching an 'emperor has no clothes' level for me

This is a legitimate argument. I would have to think about it, because there is definitely a balance that needs to be struck between supporting people who need support at the table, and not-- as you point out-- encouraging people to make themselves more fragile than life has already made them. I think starting from a place of content disclosure, rather than trigger disclosure, is a good idea. I think having an informal "ratings system" on multiple axes, as proposed above, is a good idea.

That's a conversation that adults should have. It's too bad the conversation largely isn't being had by adults.

 

[CRKrueger]

This is where I disagree. I think the cards and the consent in gaming sheet are an invitation for people to find triggers they don't have. And I think you see this in discussions about it online and in live play where safety tools are used (where everyone in the group has way more issues then you would every naturally see crop up). And I think that has to do with these becoming things that are expected, even rewarded for having. That is why I see this as a negative trend. To me this trivializes the real issues, and it kind of makes all of gamer culture neurotic. I don't think that is good for us as a hobby. I just can't be dishonest about my feelings on this one. I am not trying to be hurtful or mean, or not show compassion if someone at the table has a real issue. I just think this kind of stuff is reaching an 'emperor has no clothes' level for me

Well said, bro. It’s way past Emperor’s Clothes though, it’s reached Bizarro World/Twilight Zone/Mirror Universe level.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To be clear about this: me thinking Safety tools are misguided, and thinking it is especially bad if they become this thing everyone is supposed to do, doesn't mean the normal rules of social interaction don't apply. I definitely am not saying you should insist on a viewing of Caligula against the wishes of people in your company, and I am not saying you shouldn't tailor content to your audience and the sensibilities of your group. I am also not saying you shouldn't be compassionate. I just think what compassion is and ought to be, and how often patterns of behavior should be entertained versus shifted to another environment, these are not cookie cutter things that a game, a mechanic or tool can address.

That's understandable. My instinct is to kind of resist it, too. But everyone is different and no one approach will ever be perfect. I think X-Cards may have some negatives that go along with them, sure, but probably not in most cases. I'd expect tools like that to help in more cases than it will hurt.

Safety tools are something that we all pretty much use. That's the kicker. We all pretty much just incorporate this stuff into our games; it's just that most of us play with people we already know, so there is no need for an actual process. It's just when these tools are formalized into a specific thing like an X-Card, then people start having problems.

And honestly it just seems like the RPG version of the "back in my day we used to have to walk to school" kind of comment made by the older generation to point out how soft the new generation is.

 

[Ladybird]

This is where I disagree. I think the cards and the consent in gaming sheet are an invitation for people to find triggers they don't have. And I think you see this in discussions about it online and in live play where safety tools are used (where everyone in the group has way more issues then you would every naturally see crop up). And I think that has to do with these becoming things that are expected, even rewarded for having.

I'm really curious as to where you're getting these impressions from. There's no reward or bonus for having more triggers than the next girl; if there's honestly nothing that you know sets you off, I think many players would be happy for you. What you're probably more likely to see in examples or in live play shows is people exaggerating the amount of trigger conditions that they have, to demonstrate the concept of these safety tools and that it's okay to use them if you need to.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

But for all your chest-thumping primate bullshit about how you know people who can handle it, how you can handle it, I'll bet you know people who aren't ready to handle it again yet. And the thing that you and Dr. Kreuger don't seem to get, just can't wrap your stupid little egos around, is the fact that whether or not someone who has been through the shit is ready to face it again or not, whether they would find traumatic or therapeutic, is not your fucking decision to make for them. You're not them, you're not their fucking therapist, you don't know what's going on in their head and you don't have the actual medical credentials to be entitled to having your own medical opinion.

This isn't what people are saying. As I said before, I was having panic attacks for two years. That is a long time. I certainly wasn't ready to deal with them immediate after the events that caused them. And it would be cruel for a friend or fellow gamer to think they have enough mastery of psychology to put my feet to the fire. By the same token, it is equally bad, I think, for gamers and designers to believe in the power of safety tools to help protect such a person. For me, my view is, the table is not the place to fix these things, and I definitely practiced a lot of avoidance that first year and a half or so, to the extent it was crippling not just for me, but for the people around me (my family). That isn't something I would want to impose on a gaming group. It is also more complicated because if you are going through that kind of thing, there aren't always clear and obvious triggers. Sometimes eating can set you off, or having caffeine, or just going down the wrong chain of thoughts. If there really is a problem, to the extent that content in a game could set off a panic attack, I would say seek professional help, take time off from gaming, or have an arrangement where it is understood you may need to get up from the table and leave. This isn't about not being compassionate. It is more about not being arrogant about the ability of tools to solve the problem, and not being sloppy in talking about things, so we are able to distinguish between mental trauma and physical harm (both are bad, one isn't worse than the other, but physical safety harm is a different thing than dealing with psychological issues). I think when we start equating those things, it waters down the meaning of the words, and people, while they might not express it because it gets backlash and can make you a pariah, start taking mental illness less seriously because they think it is about people checking off 6 items on a consent list.

 

[CRKrueger]

I'm really curious as to where you're getting these impressions from. There's no reward or bonus for having more triggers than the next girl; if there's honestly nothing that you know sets you off, I think many players would be happy for you. What you're probably more likely to see in examples or in live play shows is people exaggerating the amount of trigger conditions that they have, to demonstrate the concept of these safety tools and that it's okay to use them if you need to.

Ask Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and Sociologists. Victimhood Culture is a phenomenon being identified, studied and discussed.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I'm really curious as to where you're getting these impressions from. There's no reward or bonus for having more triggers than the next girl; if there's honestly nothing that you know sets you off, I think many players would be happy for you. What you're probably more likely to see in examples or in live play shows is people exaggerating the amount of trigger conditions that they have, to demonstrate the concept of these safety tools and that it's okay to use them if you need to.

I see it online all the time in the way people talk about their triggers, and you see in live streams too. It gets you attention. It is a bit subjective obviously. If you don't think this is a trend that is happening, or you think there is another explanation, that is fair. But my honest analysis of what I see is these tools are creating more sensitivity to triggers, and not really addressing the realm problems.

 

[AsenRG]

See... and I've been a victim, and I've known victims, and I know some of them can cope pretty well with it sooner than others and other people get rabbit's blood over it for the rest of their lives. Some people are ready to jump back into situations that remind them of it, some people find it cathartic, and that's their prerogative.

But for all your chest-thumping primate bullshit about how you know people who can handle it, how you can handle it, I'll bet you know people who aren't ready to handle it again yet. And the thing that you and Dr. Kreuger don't seem to get, just can't wrap your stupid little egos around, is the fact that whether or not someone who has been through the shit is ready to face it again or not, whether they would find traumatic or therapeutic, is not your fucking decision to make for them. You're not them, you're not their fucking therapist, you don't know what's going on in their head and you don't have the actual medical credentials to be entitled to having your own medical opinion.

And I think, if you took half a second to think about it instead of posturing about what kind of hard man you are, you'd be able to figure that out for yourself.

Hard fucking man, sitting behind a GM screen, telling all your friends to "get over it" because you're not the one dealing with it.

My opinion of such ideas, however, is unlikely to ever become anything but strictly negative.

"Posturing?" Sorry, man, if you think that post counts as posturing, you've never seen me actually doing it!

"Telling all your friends to "get over it" because you're not the one dealing with it"...that's your idea of "giving the benefit of doubt", I guess.
Cool, except...I've never had to tell anyone any such thing. In fact, there never was a problem like that, AFAIR.
(Also: why do you keep dragging me into this thread?)

And no, negative, I don't know anyone who "isn't ready to handle the topic in a game". In fact, one of said victims is running games herself, and she's got...let's just say "a much darker view of human nature than me".
Actually, I might call her and ask about an opinion on the X-card...

But one thing I'll agree with: if you know such people, I'm not "their fucking therapist". In fact, I doubt I could do a decent job running a game for them. And I doubly doubt trying to do so would be fun for me. And I usually run games for fun.
So hey, maybe something like the form Ladybird suggested wouldn't go amiss! Except I wouldn't know what to write in "other triggering topics". Probably just "yes" - they would exist somewhere in the setting, you can encounter them.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the issue that some people in this thread have with X Cards, and IMO this is a legitimate issue, is that there is indeed that sort of person who will use the card, and over use it, because for them inserting their own drama into the game is more important than the game. They are using it as a mechanism of control to try and impose themselves on a table. That person can kiss my ass. As for someone who has a legitimate issue with something at the table that honestly would prefer a fade to black? Sure, I have no problem with that, and (honestly) I don't need a tool for that, it's just common courtesy. That said, for those people, the latter example here, the X Card is necessary tool at the table to some degree or another when they are playing with strangers.

 

[Gringnr]

So, I run a group for three millennials and two old farts (not including myself). I used to work with the millennials, and I'm reasonably certain that I have offended at least one of them a few times. At work.

But at the gaming table, I tend to keep my gaming PG-13 (at most) for sexual situations. It rarely comes up. Like, hardly ever. Personally, I avoid Role-Playing sex stuff. It's not comfortable for me. I'm no prude, lemme tell ya. It's not what I I'm gaming for. For violence, on the other hand, I have no problem going to a hard R.

Now, the kids (as I call them) and one of the oldsters are all relative RPG noobs. The other oldster has some years of gaming under his belt.

I brought up the idea of using safety tools in our games, and the idea was soundly rejected by the whole group. I did let them know that they were free to object at any time to any thing.

For reference, my group has 1 female, 1 gay man, 1 Muslim, and 2 Latinos. Not that any of that matters, really, but it's not a homogeneous group is all I'm sayin'.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

Safety tools are something that we all pretty much use. That's the kicker. We all pretty much just incorporate this stuff into our games; it's just that most of us play with people we already know, so there is no need for an actual process. It's just when these tools are formalized into a specific thing like an X-Card, then people start having problems.

And honestly it just seems like the RPG version of the "back in my day we used to have to walk to school" kind of comment made by the older generation to point out how soft the new generation is.

I don't think it is just that normal social interactions are being formalized into tools. It is that there is a whole language and philosophy behind it that many people strongly disagree with, but feel they can't say anything because it gets such a profoundly negative reaction from some segments of the hobby (I basically expressed the views I did here on facebook and I was labeled a monster, one person stated he was put on earth to protect gamers from people like me). And I am not coming at this as a 'back in the day' kind of thing. I think there are real issues behind some of this discussion. I just think the X card approach, the consent in gaming approach, trivializes these problems, and also leads to people adopting them as a kind of accessory that gets them more attention (which is only going to be harmful to people who really do have these issues)---and I think when someone does have a real problem, a tool like this is problematic because it imposes there issues on the whole group (like I said about how you shouldn't give someone with mental illness the power to control all the terms of the conversation). I am not saying you are bad if you disagree. People can have honest disagreements about this stuff. But I would be lying to you if I didn't say all these opinions I have about it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I see it online all the time in the way people talk about their triggers, and you see in live streams too. It gets you attention. It is a bit subjective obviously. If you don't think this is a trend that is happening, or you think there is another explanation, that is fair. But my honest analysis of what I see is these tools are creating more sensitivity to triggers, and not really addressing the realm problems.

What do you mean by "real problems"? And how do you think playing RPGs can help with them?

If someone has a problem with sexual violence in a fictional context.....either they're too young for it to be an appropriate topic or perhaps they've had personal experiences of some sort that make them averse to such content.....how would an RPG better handle this compared to allowing the player the ability to either state ahead of time that this is problematic for them (or in the case of age, hopefully the GM would know to avoid such) or allow them some means of alerting folks during the game?

What would be the way of addressing that real problem in the context of RPGs?

 

[BedrockBrendan]

What do you mean by "real problems"? And how do you think playing RPGs can help with them?

I mean people who have legitimate issues around things like PTSD, panic attacks, other forms of mental illness.

I don't think playing RPGs can help with those things. Perhaps in the care of a skilled counselor, using role play can help (and I am sure there someone with that kind of knowledge who uses RPGs in their sessions and does so effectively). I don't think a typical table is going to be able to help. That said it can be helpful in the way that many other hobbies and activities can be helpful. But what you got to understand when someone is recovering from something like that, as I was, is it is a very different kind of engagement. I don't think it is fair to impose that process on the group. I participated when and how I could, but I was very cautious about it.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

If someone has a problem with sexual violence in a fictional context.....either they're too young for it to be an appropriate topic or perhaps they've had personal experiences of some sort that make them averse to such content.....how would an RPG better handle this compared to allowing the player the ability to either state ahead of time that this is problematic for them (or in the case of age, hopefully the GM would know to avoid such) or allow them some means of alerting folks during the game?

Every table is different obviously. Different groups will have different lines. But again, not subscribing to safety tools doesn't mean all the normal rules of social interaction go away. I don't feature sexual violence in my games as a rule. I once had a player in a session try to do something like that, I simply said "we are not doing that". I think most groups would be uncomfortable, for a variety of reasons, with that kind of content. My suggestion is people should talk to one another before the game if they think something could be a problem, or discuss it when it comes up. I think creating a new taboo around it, and treating it like it is a bigger deal than it is in the vast majority of cases, doesn't help. And, like I said, when it is a bigger problem, you need more than an X card anyways.

And especially obviously: not using an X Card, doesn't excuse having things in a game that are clearly not age appropriate for the players. I only play with adults, so this isn't really something that comes up in my groups. But at one point one of my players started bringing his girlfriends son to the games, who was in high school I believe, and we were all conscious of the fact that we had a younger person at the table. None of what I am saying is meant to be used an excuse for behaving badly or being a jerk to someone. And it isn't meant to suggest that people should just toughen up either.

 

[Ladybird]

This isn't what people are saying. As I said before, I was having panic attacks for two years. That is a long time. I certainly wasn't ready to deal with them immediate after the events that caused them. And it would be cruel for a friend or fellow gamer to think they have enough mastery of psychology to put my feet to the fire. By the same token, it is equally bad, I think, for gamers and designers to believe in the power of safety tools to help protect such a person. For me, my view is, the table is not the place to fix these things, and I definitely practiced a lot of avoidance that first year and a half or so, to the extent it was crippling not just for me, but for the people around me (my family). That isn't something I would want to impose on a gaming group. It is also more complicated because if you are going through that kind of thing, there aren't always clear and obvious triggers. Sometimes eating can set you off, or having caffeine, or just going down the wrong chain of thoughts.

The tools are just there for you to use if they make you more comfortable; they don't and aren't trying to fix anything, just help you enjoy your hobby with one less thing to worry about, if you want to use them. If you don't or you have other tools like "hey GM, stuff's not going to great for me right now, I might need to take a few minutes out", cool; they're just formalisations of the "look out for your fellow players" concept.

I think when we start equating those things, it waters down the meaning of the words, and people, while they might not express it because it gets backlash and can make you a pariah, start taking mental illness less seriously because they think it is about people checking off 6 items on a consent list.

I actually agree, but anyone who expresses any sort of "oh of course you're triggered by something, that's trendy right now, you're just faking it for attention" views counts as an asshole in my book.

 

[TristramEvans]

I read the Consent in Gaming document because it was brought up earlier in this thread, and it is abhorrent.

I may look down on Xcards, my general thought is a well-intentioned idea executed a little horribly and a little stupidly.

But the Consent in Gaming document is nothing short of infantilism and I think, predatory

 

[Dammit Victor]

"Telling all your friends to "get over it" because you're not the one dealing with it"...that's your idea of "giving the benefit of doubt", I guess.
Cool, except...I've never had to tell anyone any such thing. In fact, there never was a problem like that, AFAIR.
(Also: why do you keep dragging me into this thread?)

Look, man, I actually like you. I really am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're not leaving me any doubt for you to benefit from. The callous and vapid position you've staked out, and the arguments you're using to justify it, all boil down to the fact because whatever serious personal trauma you've lived through in the past-- and man, I'm not trying to compare scars-- has led you to believe that you know better and have the moral right to override people who are telling you (hypothetically) that they're not ready to handle games about their shit, and want a way to inform you that they're punching out.

It's not a matter of being a Good person or a Bad person, it's a matter of speaking Right or Wrong. If your beliefs and your attitudes and your actual in-game practices are not cruel and stupid, you are expressing them cruelly and stupidly, and I am responding to your argument with all the respect it is due.

But one thing I'll agree with: if you know such people, I'm not "their fucking therapist". In fact, I doubt I could do a decent job running a game for them. And I doubly doubt trying to do so would be fun for me. And I usually run games for fun.
So hey, maybe something like the form Ladybird suggested wouldn't go amiss! Except I wouldn't know what to write in "other triggering topics". Probably just "yes" - they would exist somewhere in the setting, you can encounter them.

See, man, nobody's asking you or Dr. Kreuger to be their therapist. I'm asking you to stop appointing yourself to that position because you think you know what they need better than they're telling you what they need.

You run your games for fun, your players join your games for fun, so if someone tells you that you're making them too uncomfortable to have fun... I'm not going to tell you to change your game to accommodate them, man, but don't sit there and tell me that maybe their real therapeutic needs justify pushing them through something they're telling you they don't want to deal with.