This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Author Topic: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum  (Read 2095 times)

rytrasmi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #30 on: August 04, 2022, 09:32:18 PM »
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

  • You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
  • You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

  • You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
  • To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
  • To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
  • The GM's vote counts double.
  • A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
  • You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.
Are you for real?

An entire "parliamentary" meta-game to figure out how to behave during the actual game?

Why even play elf games? Just play this governance game you invented.

This is some fucking deep-state trolling you got going on here.
Hit me up if you're in the Toronto area and you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!

mudbanks

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 99
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2022, 12:17:16 AM »
If you're playing a team sport and it's a friendly match, and then some player keeps on fouling you, you bring it up to the other team and tell them to knock it off or the game is over. Simple as that. If there are special rules, they should get discussed at the beginning and a consensus should be reached. Again, simple as that.

Why should RPGs be any different? Because we're all assumed to be socially inept or incapable of expressing our feelings?  ::)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2022, 01:30:34 AM »

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

WRONG! The GM is the final arbiter, as a player you have the power to not play or to quit playing at any point.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

WRONG! Theres another possible outcome, if the GM is a dick the players all get up and leave (they kick him), and where's the problem in kicking out dicks?

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

  • You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
  • You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

You could even say that not using BS like the X-Card is PROBLEMATIC!

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

It was a first generation tool, in the BDSM space, where IT IS useful, in RPGs it's not needed... Unless you're playing with leftards who love to play out their perversions on the table.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

  • You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
  • To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
  • To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
  • The GM's vote counts double.
  • A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
  • You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

Thanks I hate it.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2022, 02:33:19 AM »
Greetings!

"Divine Right of Kings" is fucking right. *I* wear the Viking Hat. I am the DM. It's my fucking game, my fucking campaign, and my fucking rules.

WTF is the REEEING about parliament?

NO.

This is not a fucking democracy. It is not a parliament. It is the rule of absolute Caesar, anointed by god. ;D

Geesus. It also helps that I'm the fucking HOST. Everyone is gathered together in MY HOME. Everyone is being fed and watered with my food, my sodas, my beer, my coffee. Sitting on my chairs, gathered at my table. And also eating my chips, my salsa, and my guacamole.

Why shouldn't everything be run according to what I fucking say?

Oh, yeah. and usually, it is also my cigars, too! Though, to be fair, the gang often brings me offerings and tribute! Often supplying goodies, drinks, and cigars, too. Still, though, it is mostly ME.

Crazy fun aside, geesus. There is no need to embrace a governmental mini-game, or "Safety Tools". If the game makes you uncomfortable, or REEE, or otherwise "offended"--there's the fucking door.

See, all of this nonsense comes from playing with random strangers, and somehow embracing this kind of emotional obligation or social burden to accept and play with mentally damaged and fucked up people.

NO. Merely because there are some few people out there that for some fucking reason feel obligated to embrace the mentally ill--the rest of us do not. There can be exceptions, of course, made for your aspie wife, or your cousin that may be a bit slow. Whatever. That's all good. However, this whole wave thing of constantly accomodating fucking mentally ill and fucked up people simply isn't good for the hobby.

Sorry. It just isn't, as we can plainly see from the contant deluge of whining, crying, problems, and drama.

Gaming is not your fucking mental therapy session. Goddamn. You see? All of these dramas and problems are because so many people in our society should not be sitting at a game table--but instead they should be sitting in a rubber room, on medications.

Gaming is supposed to be intellectual and FUN. Not a fucking therapy session for the mentally ill.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Skullking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2022, 01:47:54 PM »
X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

Fheredin

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2022, 06:29:19 PM »
I think that most of you are completely misunderstanding the point. My objective is not "safety" in the sense of protecting a snowflake. It's to protect the GM from a hostile player infiltrating a group at a Con with the specific intent of causing the GM (and by extension the group) harm. Judging from Kahoona's comment on the first page, this is a lived experience.

I suspect these people fall into three categories:
  • Simpleminded SJWs who are very trigger-happy with safety tools (probably the most common),
  • Following-thieves, who destroy content creators to get a boost of followers of their own, and
  • Industrial saboteurs, looking to protect major IPs by creating incidents to eliminate or humiliate the competition.

The last one is probably quite rare, but also intentionally placed.

In the context of a saboteur, a lot of these decisions make sense. You aren't protecting a player; you're forcing an interaction where a saboteur is called out and exposed in a public vote. This has to be formally backed up with the majority of the other players because if you don't, the saboteur will escalate it to the Con staffers, and without a clear plurality opinion that the player in question was being disruptive, it becomes the saboteur's word against the GM, and the Con staffers are probably going to feel compelled to side with the saboteur once he/ she/ it pulls out the "this GM was being insensitive!" card. You can't win if you let that conversation stay as the GM's word against the saboteur.

David Johansen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 5724
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2022, 06:50:57 PM »
X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

Nonsense, X-cards are exclusionary by their very nature.  They're saying, we don't want you to play these games because you're insensitive.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4875
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2022, 06:54:50 PM »
I think that most of you are completely misunderstanding the point. My objective is not "safety" in the sense of protecting a snowflake. It's to protect the GM from a hostile player infiltrating a group at a Con with the specific intent of causing the GM (and by extension the group) harm. Judging from Kahoona's comment on the first page, this is a lived experience.

I suspect these people fall into three categories:
  • Simpleminded SJWs who are very trigger-happy with safety tools (probably the most common),
  • Following-thieves, who destroy content creators to get a boost of followers of their own, and
  • Industrial saboteurs, looking to protect major IPs by creating incidents to eliminate or humiliate the competition.

The last one is probably quite rare, but also intentionally placed.

In the context of a saboteur, a lot of these decisions make sense. You aren't protecting a player; you're forcing an interaction where a saboteur is called out and exposed in a public vote. This has to be formally backed up with the majority of the other players because if you don't, the saboteur will escalate it to the Con staffers, and without a clear plurality opinion that the player in question was being disruptive, it becomes the saboteur's word against the GM, and the Con staffers are probably going to feel compelled to side with the saboteur once he/ she/ it pulls out the "this GM was being insensitive!" card. You can't win if you let that conversation stay as the GM's word against the saboteur.

Vote with your feet and wallets: Don't go to any convention gaming store that demands you use their BS "Safety Tools".

If enough people did this you'd soon find them changing their tune.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Visitor Q

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2022, 04:42:55 AM »
The only situation that maybe possibly an X card could he useful would be in one shot pick up games at Conventions and the like where you might want to try a game, there is a social commitment not to quit a game even if you aren't enjoying it but you are also unable to vet the GM and other players.

I'd rather that the organisers and GM at the sign up process wrote helpful sumamries with a rating system (like movies) and what themes would be in a game so other in game solutions weren't necessary. But this represents a one off and quite a curated environment.

In regular gaming groups if a game was inherently unfun for one or more players as GM I would (and have) bring the game to a close for the evening and play a board game, have a few beers etc. Then I'd have a chat with the player and discuss whether the game or rpgs was really for them.



« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 04:46:24 AM by Visitor Q »

Skullking

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2022, 06:11:21 AM »
X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

Nonsense, X-cards are exclusionary by their very nature.  They're saying, we don't want you to play these games because you're insensitive.
I agree they are exclusionary. I never said the Leftest point of view made sense or was logical.

Their 'logic' runs thus: RPG's are for everyone, that includes snowflakes/narcissists so we need to protect them, X-cards are created to protect the snowflakes/narcissists, if you don't like X-cards you are exclusionary, therefore you should be excluded.

Their cognitive dissonance allows them to exclude people so as to be more inclusive.

Darrin Kelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 1083
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2022, 12:43:16 PM »
X-Cards and the like enable players to flip the table on any game they want. As such, I find them a completely unacceptable prospect. I will never use them.

The solution to a player throwing a tantrum is to call security and have them escorted out of the convention. It's a simple matter. The solution is already there.
 

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2022, 04:28:25 PM »
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

  • You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
  • You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

  • You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
  • To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
  • To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
  • The GM's vote counts double.
  • A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
  • You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.
Are you for real?

An entire "parliamentary" meta-game to figure out how to behave during the actual game?

Why even play elf games? Just play this governance game you invented.

This is some fucking deep-state trolling you got going on here.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Hilarious, my friend! So true, huh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 16126
Re: D&D "Safety Tools": The Quiet Tantrum
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2022, 01:24:47 AM »
And then I turned to the final player, a petit teenage girl. Who just completely broke down and we had to completely cancel the game. The other players (her friends) rushed to her help and comfort and one player addressed me, apologized and told me that we had to end it there. (I can only assume they were accustomed to this girls frail psyche)

WTF just happened?

So can there be players who genuinely have issues? Yeah, there is.
Would X-cards have helped here?
I don't think so.

Sounds like it was unrelated to X-card stupid and was more likely just a case of nerves or even some problem.
One of my friends from years ago had a fear of crowds and even small groups might cause them to panic.
Another friend has a completely debilitating fear of open spaces.
And another has paralyzing anxiety attacks. As in they pretty much shut down due to death spirals.
Kat had a really odd one. A panic attack induced by a 3d movie.
One time we were at the movies and a guy just flipped and ran screaming out of the blue. Not sure what the cause was.

So yeah someone just breaking down like that almost certainly has nothing to do with X-cards. Just bad luck then was the time they has an attack.