X & O For More Fun

machineelf · Sep 6, 2018

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

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

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

dguerrieri · Sep 6, 2018

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

Doctor Futurity · Sep 6, 2018

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

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

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

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

I guess the TL;DR would be:

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

GMMichael · Sep 6, 2018

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

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

Umbran · Sep 6, 2018

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

X card wins.

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

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

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

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

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

I try to address these issues in Session 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nagol · Sep 6, 2018

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

Vexorg · Sep 6, 2018

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

Dualazi · Sep 6, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

brimmels said:
On the flip side, Kira Scott created its counterpart, the O-Card. It works the same way as the X-Card except it signals “more of this, please.”

As a GM, have you ever wondered if players were enjoying a specific sequence or aspect of a game? By using the O-Card, you don't have to guess. If it's invoked, you know the banquet scene that is all role-playing doesn't have to be rushed or next time, add more word puzzles for the players to solve.

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

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

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

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

Lanefan · Sep 6, 2018

Umbran said:
X card wins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lanefan