X & O For More Fun

The main purpose of RPGs is to have fun but ensuring that everyone enjoys themselves is tricky. First you have to agree on a game, then a play style. A dozen or more things after that can make or ruin a game. John Stavropoulos created an elegant solution to a common fun killer by creating the X-Card.

View attachment 100815​

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.

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.

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.

The X-Card also makes convention games better. It's impossible for a GM or players to guess what strangers will like.

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.

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.

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.

This article was contributed by Beth Rimmels (brimmels) as part of ENWorld's User-Generated Content (UGC) program. We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[AriochQ]

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

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

His Wikipedia entry:

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

 

[Sepulchrave II]

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

Precisely my point.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Precisely my point.

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

 

[Doctor Futurity]

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

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

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

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

This is an understandable take on it.

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

 

[Imaculata]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nagol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Imaculata]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nagol]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aramis erak]

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

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

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

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

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

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