Related to the X-card

[trechriron]

...

You have to GOT to be a troll. I'm being an asshole?!?! You sir are not only an asshole, but a disingenuous weaselly one to boot.

After both these dudes talk about personal experiences and how X Cards suck (and would insult them and hurt them), and you want them to "get involved"?

"Hey, I know that bullet thing hurt when I shot you, but I want to make sure it delivers maximum stopping power. Your input would be greatly valued. Of course, at some point in the future, we'll need to shoot you again. You know, with the improved bullet to compare results."

What part of "this idea is horrible and stupid and should not be used" do you not get?

I hope the creator has the balls to show up here. I can't wait. I hope his psychologist girlfriend shows up to. Maybe she can illuminate how interjecting involuntary therapy into a recreational activity makes good medical sense.

You know, if you really WANT to be special you could do something that sets you apart, that gives people some impetus to declare you special. Maybe something significant that warrants positive attention? Out here in the real world we call that significant accomplishment.

Maybe I should invent a tool that modifies special snowflake behavior... involuntarily...

-----------  I have it! ---------------

I will call my inclusive to all gamers propaganda rules addendum ....

Snowflakes!!

Here's how it works. (I may be channeling another poster's suggestion, I vaguely remember this somewhere...  )

1. You'll need to hit up your local party store for some larger-cut snowflake confetti. Extra points if the color combination fits the genre or setting you are running.

2. Place the confetti into a bowl in the middle of the table.

3. Anytime someone feels embarrassed, deprotaganized, admonished, guilty or uncomfortable because some Special Snowflake has grandstanded, made an outburst, touched any kind of card or invoked any rule to be special, or throws a selfish attention-grabbing temper-tantrum another player can grab a handful of confetti and toss it over the character sheet.

4. The GM/DM will then look at what % of coverage (best guess) of the character sheet has been covered or touched by confetti.

5. The GM/DM will then assess increasing damage or wounds to the character based on %.

Example Damage Table (5e D&D):
25% - Take 1d10 damage
50% - Take 3 HD (highest type for multiclass) damage
75% - Take level in HD (highest type for multiclass) damage
100% - Take all current HP + 50 HP in damage.

Confetti throwers, in an attempt to be sensitive to those with issues regarding spontaneous parties, confetti or celebration like effects, should avoid throwing confetti on players.

If death results from the damage, the offending player should be encouraged to leave the game.
----------------------

[shlominus]

dr. jest, is it unimaginable for you that anyone could ever benefit from the card? is it always harmful in your opinion, even for people with less severe trauma?

[Ratman_tf]

It seems to me that there are more healthy and productive ways to deal with issues at the table than these passive-aggressive X-Card things.
If someone took me aside during or after an adventure and said they were uncomfortable with a topic being used in a scenario, I might consider it. Might. Depends on the topic and the argument.
If someone flipped me an X-Card, I'd probably laugh at them.

[Bren]

fully agreed on the professionalism. i will try to get confirmation that there has been consultation with professionals during development of the concept. personnally i would be surprised if that wasn't the case, we shall have to wait and see. i don't think anyone involved wants to "play with people's emotional stability". the quote of the psychiatrist is of not much use to support that, i am aware of that. it's just one of the reasons why i doubt this was "amateur psychology".

Citations and such would be great.

I don't know anything about John S. so I have no way to assess his wants. But as I said, his motivation is irrelevant to me. The effects are what matters. All the good intentions in the world don't change one bad effect.

i'm not saying we should automatically trust anyone. i am saying the fact that he has a lot of experience dealing with gaming with strángers supports my idea that he knows what he is doing. i think that's a fair claim. also consider what i said before about professionalism.

I've been gaming since before most gamers were born. Consequently I've gamed with a lot of strangers. Does that support my experience that the X-Card is unnecessary? Only anecdotally and not very strongly. But I'm not advocating a change so I don't really need to provide lots of support for asking, "Hey is this new thing a good idea?" John is making a claim that the X-Card allows people who would not otherwise be able to  play RPGS or to enjoy playing RPGS to play enjoyably and safely. Some support beyond a handful of selected short quotes doesn't seem like a lot to ask for given the potential stakes that John says are involved here. Again, "First do no harm" seems a reasonable principle in this case.

"In gaming situations that weren't prefaced by a conversation about boundaries, if giant spider monsters get introduced I typically have to plead, "No, seriously, please don't include this" about four times before anyone takes me seriously. The first time I say it they think I'm joke-pleading. The second time, they assume I'm joking and laugh. The third time, they assume I'm milking the joke for all it's worth, and kind of roll their eyes and politely chuckle once more. By the fourth time, they tend to think I might be serious, and then proceed to backpedal or say something defensive like, "Well, if you're serious, why didn't you say so?" I always feel super awkward and not supported."

"In gaming situations that were prefaced by a conversation about boundaries, if giant spider monsters get introduced I typically have to say "Hey, this crosses a line for me. No spiders." That's it. I'm respected. Maybe I have to repeat myself a second time, but certainly not a third."

He reminds me of one of my players who is afraid of spiders. I've no idea how severe my player's issue is as it just isn't something that has arisen in play even after a many years of gaming together. I gamed with him for quite a while before I was even aware that that was a thing for him. His degree of discomfort sounds about like the person in the quote. He can articulate what the problem is but he'd rather not have to explain or justify in detail why it is a problem. Really what is there to say beyond, "Spiders creep me the hell out."
"Even in a table top game?"
"Yeah, even in a table top game."
"Ok, what about scorpions?"
"I'm good with them, just don't compare them to spiders."
"OK then, so you see three multi-legged creatures, each about two meters long, skittering towards you. Above their bodies projects a tail or stinger, which drips some sort of viscous liquid that smokes and steams when it hits the floor. What do you do?"

"I can only speak for using safewords: the fact that I don't have to explain myself and that it's a clear-cut signal really helps. I don't have to come up with an explanation of what exactly bothers me and why (maybe I can't explain, maybe I just don't want to) - but with X-cards and safeword, I don't need to."

Again, this person is not concerned about not describing the THING, they are concerned with having to justify their dislike of the THING. Explanation of what the THING is and justifying not wanting the THING are two very different issues which John conflates with his rule of cannot question, cannot ask for justification, but if you want to explain you can. But you don't have to.

Now I really, really don't like cocoanut. Its presence ruins several Indian and many Thai dishes that I would otherwise like – because I really like the spices that comprise the various curries. Sometimes people intentionally neglect to tell me there is coconut in a dish. Sometimes the restaurant doesn't clearly say on the menu (though I have become adept at reading between the lines of the listed ingredients). But when the dish comes, even if it just has a little coconut milk added, I can always tell. Now if you asked be to explain what exactly bothers me about coconut there isn't a lot I can say besides, "I just don't fancy the flavor." But if I don't want to end up with a dish I won't enjoy, I tell people I don't like coconut. Ordering food or cooking a meal for a group is awkward if I don't have to tell you what it is I don't like. Now you are left to guess when I X-Card the meal, was it the rice, the side dish, the meat, the sauce, the relish, the lassi? What is it that Bren doesn't like about this meal? Darn it he said he liked [Indian, Thai, Malaysian, Asian] food. (And again I am not saying that my dislike of coconut is the same as someone who has an actual phobia or PTSD or something. Only that explaining why I don't like coconut or why their issue is their issue is the same. It is irrelevant. You dislike what you dislike. But if you want not to get it, you have to say so. My mind reading powers are sadly lacking.

about "not speaking about what the THING actually is", well, i reread the presentation and this is mentioned and explained. maybe you'd like to reread it again as well, the document explains the thoughts behind the ideas much better than i ever could. i think rereading could clear up a lot of confusion some people have regarding both intent ind impact. apart from the professional psychological support in development i can't find any issue i would still find problematic.

I did read it more than once. I found the reading difficult. John's explanation of the mechanics is slightly confusing due to his use of repeated, sometimes slightly varied statements that partially conflict with each other.

Which is why someone might say, "Hey John doesn't say you don't explain." Because in one statement John says the person can explain if they want to. And in another statement he says, the GM can take them aside and ask them to explain, if it isn't clear. While in a third statement John says, but the person never has to explain and never has to justify. So which is it? Well it depends, but it might be, no explanation. Great, Bren said sarcastically. Now everybody gets to guess what THING just made everything unpleasant for Jean. Almost without a doubt at a table of four people, at least one person will guess wrong.

You and Will see this as nuanced, I guess. I see the nuance, but ultimately I see that the one thing I want and need to engage in the activity we have come together to engage in is the one thing I may not get with the X-Card. That's an issue for me.

i think it's a good thing that you are skeptical of "amateur psychology", we all should be. like i said, i'll try to get info on that. maybe john would like to post here, you never know. it's such an inviting place and has such a fine reputation, i can't think of any reason he wouldn't want to... :rolleyes:

Information would be great.

I agree this is almost always a tough crowd. On the plus side, voices don't get sanctioned because they are unpopular or don't adhere to a particular creed. You can't game the system by tippy toeing around the rules to bait somone into flaming out. And the number of toxic posters is, while still greater than zero, is significantly lower than on RPGnet. And here I can tell them they are acting like an ass.

Whether John is willing to deal with the friction he is almost certain to get here is entirely up to him. But if the X-Card is really something he cares about, values, thinks has a real benefit for real people, and which he has actually gotten real professional help with to ensure it will "Do no harm," then why wouldn't he want to take the time to come here and explain it?

[Will]

I tell folks they should consider TheRPGSite for game talk unfettered by BS jackbooted moderation.

Anything remotely political or social? People would get more productive conversations with a coked up wolverine.

[Doctor Jest]

dr. jest, is it unimaginable for you that anyone could ever benefit from the card? is it always harmful in your opinion, even for people with less severe trauma?

I think the X Card is, at best, a completely unnecessary prop for "feel good" pseudo-psychological self congratulatory back patting and attention grabbing. At worst, it's armchair psychology messing with complex psychological issues as a game mechanic. Neither one sounds good to me.

Now, I've already said everything I have to say on this subject, and far more than I ever intended to. I'm done with this subject.

[TristramEvans]

I think the X Card is, at best, a completely unnecessary prop for "feel good" pseudo-psychological back patting. At worst, it's armchair psychology messing with complex psychological issues as a game mechanic. Neither one sounds good to me.

Now, I've already said everything I have to say on this subject, and far more than I ever intended to. I'm done with this subject.

I think you've said all that needs to be said. I agree with all your conclusions 100%, you were simply much nicer about it than I chose to be.

[Bren]

It seems to me that there are more healthy and productive ways to deal with issues at the table than these passive-aggressive X-Card things.
If someone took me aside during or after an adventure and said they were uncomfortable with a topic being used in a scenario, I might consider it. Might. Depends on the topic and the argument.
If someone flipped me an X-Card, I'd probably laugh at them.

I'd consider it. No harm in that. I don't usually game with people whose genuine concerns are something I'd laugh at.

I don't think anyone, even John S. the designer of the X-Card is advocating players pulling an X-Card out of their...pocket. The X-Card is clearly meant as a tool that the GM sets up or that the table agrees to ahead of time.

dr. jest, is it unimaginable for you that anyone could ever benefit from the card? is it always harmful in your opinion, even for people with less severe trauma?

shlominus, can you imagine anything that would convince you that the X-Card is a bad or unsafe concept?

And if so, what would it take to convince you?

[Ladybird]

I've found Sacrosanct and Doctor Jest's recent posts on this to be very interesting and informative. A lot of very interesting things to think about.

[jhkim]

I think the X Card is, at best, a completely unnecessary prop for "feel good" pseudo-psychological self congratulatory back patting and attention grabbing. At worst, it's armchair psychology messing with complex psychological issues as a game mechanic. Neither one sounds good to me.

I don't hugely disagree withe the former. I agree that the X-card is unnecessary, and it does strike me as "feel good" rather than serious psychology. As I've said over many times, I disagree with anyone who says that the X-card is necessary.  Anyone claiming that there is real psychological benefit from the X-card would have to prove it, and I've seen no evidence for such.

However, if a group as a whole wants to engage in "feel good" behaviors like groups hugs and affirmations - that's their business. While it's not science, that doesn't mean that "feel good" behavior is objectively wrong.

shlominus, can you imagine anything that would convince you that the X-Card is a bad or unsafe concept?

And if so, what would it take to convince you?

I don't speak for shlominus, but to me, there is a pretty high bar for an RPG mechanic to be considered "unsafe".  The idea that a tabletop mechanic does psychological damage would call for a real professional assessment and evidence.

Over the years, various parents and concerned adults have spouted how RPGs are dangerous, addictive, and/or other problems. However, the actual psychological studies have pretty clearly shown no issue with RPGs. I have collected a page documenting some of the studies here:

http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/whatis/psychology.html

I realize that these (obviously) haven't specifically studied games using the X-card. Given the past false accusations, though, I am skeptical of any claim that some new mechanic causes psychological harm. Though conversely, I am also skeptical of any claim that a new mechanic causes psychological benefits.

As a personal note, my father is a psychiatrist, and he was very disapproving of RPGs as I grew up. So I'm not particularly convinced by a single patient or even a single professional.

[TristramEvans]

"Harmful" is pretty relative. I think "ill-conceived" and "of no actual value" is more accurate. It's not really the job of game either way to deal with genuine psychological issues. True there can be benefits as far as socialization and even exploring identity from playing RPGs, but that's not their primary purpose and really they should stay well clear of that territory when it comes to rules design.

[trechriron]

...

(1) However, if a group as a whole wants to engage in "feel good" behaviors like groups hugs and affirmations - that's their business. While it's not science, that doesn't mean that "feel good" behavior is objectively wrong.


(2) I don't speak for shlominus, but to me, there is a pretty high bar for an RPG mechanic to be considered "unsafe".  The idea that a tabletop mechanic does psychological damage would call for a real professional assessment and evidence.

...

(1) What does that have to do with X Cards? Are you saying X Cards are a means of "feel good" behavior? Because a) the ENTIRE premise of the things are to accommodate "bad feelings" that may crop up during a game and b) if it does come up, then someone wasn't having a "feel good" moment. So the idea that X Cards are promoting "feel good" behavior is absurd. It's a mechanism to accommodate melodrama and I cannot imagine how anyone would "feel good" when the "mechanic" was used.

I am not saying the pursuit of feeling good is objectively wrong. I'm saying that X Cards are objectively wrong. I am also very glad to succinctly say that X Cards have FUCK all to do with objectively feeling good. Unlike your circular quasi-arguments that keep punching our debate down the rabbit hole.

(2) So there's no evidence to support an RPG can cause mental damage. That would require professional evidence. But we can invent a mechanic to prevent this unlikely mental damage? If playing RPGs cannot cause mental trauma then what in the fuck would we need the X Cards for in the first place?

I don't get you. You have passively argued in circles around having an opinion only to stand up for the "rights" of people who want to do whatever they want to. OK. Awesome. I'm with you man. People should be able to do what ever they want to. Note that I did not call for a boycott, a lawsuit, a trial, a burning or otherwise. We are not debating Liberty and Justice for All. We're discussing the merits (and validity) of X Cards.

I also believe this stupid procedure is NOT a game mechanic. It's a fucking procedure. It's META. SO therefore, the argument that an RPG mechanic is harming people is also way out of scope.

It's not a fucking game mechanic! It's a procedure instituted at the Meta-game level by PEOPLE at the table that could potentially harm them! It's no different than "2 fingers up means quiet down" or "if something bothers you raise your hand". It has fuck all to do with playing a character or participating in the activity of tabletop roleplaying. It's like creating a game that must be played in the library and every time the librarian hushes you, the DM rolls a d10 and everyone gets that many HP back! Next you'll have us playing musical chairs every 30 min so everyone can experience every character in the adventure because #fairness.

I AM pointing out (again) that X Cards are a horrible stupid disingenuous "social contract" table procedure and you should NOT use it. You want to use it? Knock yourself out. I just think anyone who uses this obviously flawed pretentious nonsense is a dumbass.

[Aos]

X-cards ate my baby.

[Bren]

I don't speak for shlominus, but to me, there is a pretty high bar for an RPG mechanic to be considered "unsafe".  The idea that a tabletop mechanic does psychological damage would call for a real professional assessment and evidence.

Wouldn't the claim that John Stavropoulos makes that using the X-Card enables people who would not otherwise be able to play an RPG safely and comfortably to do so also need a real professional assessment and evidence?

John Stavropoulos claims that X-Cards make gaming "safe." What evidence do you think is necessary to show or prove that X-Cards are safe and that they make gaming safe? Has John provided that evidence?

[TristramEvans]

Plus, paper cuts.

No one should be handling hard little slivers of paper when they're emotionally upset