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!

 

[Eirikrautha]

Sadly, this is an unsurprising idea to see in a modern role playing game. There is a modern cultural movement where some adults seem to believe that they are not responsible for their own lives. These cards (especially the X) are the embodiment of the flight from responsibility and the assertion that others must conform to whatever is best for you. The reality is that, as a symptom of the larger disease, this cultural drift will actually lead to the death of role playing games. You cannot have a shared experience with people who are unwilling to share.

 

[MNblockhead]

I can see why this would be an attractive option for some DM, especially at conventions and organized play sessions. It is a good-hearted attempt to support people you may have issues with certain content and given them a way to register this without having to go into detail what their personal issue is. I would guess that it would not get much if any use if I were to use it.

But when I try to think through it in practice, I can see it making things worse. The person with the issue still has to publicly indicate discomfort with a topic, which many people with phobias and traumatic experience are not going to want to do, even if they don't have to talk about it. And I can see many instances where, without more context, I may misunderstand what is making them uncomfortable or what their level of discomfort is. For example, the party come across a dissimortuum who is dismembering a corpse and adding the pieces to a large bag of purtrifying body parts.

Player taps X.

I tone down my description. Thinking the level of gore is making the player uncomfortable. I continue with the encounter using less descriptive, more mechanic-focused terms. Some players may be disppointed that the encounter and combat are not colorfully narrated, but most adults are willing to make accomodations. But then the player gets up and leaves. I later find out that the player had recently been present at a suicide at a metro and a part of the person's body flew out and hit them. They still suffer PTSD.

Note - this exact scenario never happened to me, but due to my work in a prior job, I've met many people with stories like this.

I want to be understanding, but an "X" card really didn't help.

I'm planning to run some games at a convention for the first time. Measures that I will take to help ensure that nobody is caught off guard with scenes that they are uncomfortable with are:

1. The con has a pretty clear rating system. I'll make sure I conservatively apply it (i.e., if in doubt rate it more mature)

2. My description will clearly describe the adventure subject and setting and warn of any subject matter that is commonly an issues.

3. Before the session starts -- I will explain that I want everyone to enjoy the session and will go over the rating and description and again point out things that a more likely to be problematic. I don't want to give spoilers, so they will likely be general: "This is a 17+ D&D adventure. It will involve violence and descriptions of injury and gore. It may involve fiends, giant insects, aberrations and other horrors to be found in the various published monster manuals. Romance is unlikely but if it comes up, it will be played 'fade to black.' Same with torture."

I'm not saying I will use that, but I do want to come of with a very quick sentence or two to remind people of the type of game they signed up for.

4. I'll handout initiative tents where I ask them to write their AC, passive perception, character name, etc. and, on the DM side, give space for them to write any topics that they have issues with. That way the need not bring it up in front of others, even touching an X. I will, however, say that while I will do my best to accommodate requests to avoid certain topics, I can't rewrite the adventure on the spot.

If I do the above, I'm not sure what an "X" card adds to it.

As for the "O" card. I feel it could get distracting and it just doesn't seem fun. I've toyed with the idea of "DM inspiration" in the past. If the party really likes a scene or NPC or how I run on something....whatever, they can award me an inspriation point. Every player gives one. I get to use that inspiration the same way that they do, but with NPC rolls. It was fun for a session, but I discontinued it.

With a regular group, you just elicit their feedback and use it in prepping future sessions. For a game at a con or when running an AL module, you are limited in how much you can do with that feedback. It just becomes a metagame distraction.

So I'm not so against them that I would walk away from a table that used them, and I appreciate the intent, but I find them unnecessary and distracting.

 

[Jhaelen]

While I'm not sure about the actual benefits, I don't see any harm in using this in my games.
I'm a bit surprised about some of the overly negative reactions I'm seeing in this thread. What's wrong with you guys?

 

[Sadras]

I'm a bit surprised about some of the overly negative reactions I'm seeing in this thread. What's wrong with you guys?

I guess they were triggered by the X card. We need to respect that and move on to an O thread.

 

[Imaculata]

These cards (especially the X) are the embodiment of the flight from responsibility and the assertion that others must conform to whatever is best for you.

Are you being serious?

 

[Eminence_Grise]

The x card wasn't meant for me. If I have an issue with a game, I'll raise the issue to the group.

That being said, I can understand that it is necessary for some people. If it can make them feel more comfortable, I'm all for it.

In 15+ games at convention using it, it wasn't used once.

 

[AriochQ]

We did an entire podcast episode that, while not specifically about 'X' and 'O' cards, dealt with issues similar. It is entitled "Too Taboo for Tabletop" (The Grognards).

It covered many of the points already made here, as well as some other issues relating to morality and such.

IMHO, it boils down to: Know your table. If you don't know your table (e.g. convention game), keep your game PG rated.

I would never include 'X' cards at a table I run. I tend not to include extreme content. If the content I did include 'triggers' a player, they are free to verbally prompt me that they are uncomfortable. D&D is a social activity, interaction is expected. I am an emotionally aware adult and an experienced DM, I know when it is time to move the story along if a player expresses discomfort [I do the same thing if I detect players are bored with a segment of the adventure].

D&D is a game based on social interaction. It is often the case people are slightly uncomfortable in social interactions of any type. There are commonly used, and socially acceptable, methods for dealing with those situations (e.g. excusing yourself from the conversation, steering the conversation to a new topic, informing the speaker you are uncomfortable, etc.).

Taking the concept to the extreme, should people carry an 'X' card with them in case they end up in a random conversation that may have triggering content? Of course not. D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.

 

[Sadras]

D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.

Damn-it man, why do you resist the need to safe space our hobby.

I could have used an X while watching Starship Troopers.

"It's an ugly planet, a bug planet!"

 

[jasper]

....
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!

You know I might have like your article better. You could just said "X Card signals none of this please".
SO X X X X X

 

[jasper]

I cant be the only one wondering if this advert was satire.

Or pushing traffic to the link. I think pushing traffic to the link.
SO XCARD!

 

[jasper]

Instead a glossy 3.5 card with a black x which covers 90% of the card and has contrast ratio of 80% using over head lighting which are at a min of 75 watts of lighting. And a 1 page print out on 50% free range cotton rag paper explaining the "X CARD".
HOW ABOUT A PERSON JUST YELLING, "NO COOL DM! TONE IT DOWN!". Simple. Verbal. Gets the point across. Does not waste paper.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

D&D is essentially an extended social interaction and shouldn't require any extra props when standard social skills suffice.

It's my experience that a hell of a lot of gamers LACK standard social skills. And also apparently EMPATHY. Also? Basic social queues fly over their heads like a home run over the head of an outfielder.

Which is why when I try to put together a group to game with i'm looking for good PEOPLE as opposed to gamers. Good people can learn to be good gamers. Sociopathic gamers cant learn to be good people or Empathy.

While the X-card is something that I wouldnt neccesarily use at my table while running a game, if someone wanted to run a game where I was a player and wanted to use the X-Card I'd be fine with it.

 

[machineelf]

Tapping an "X" card is a selfish act designed for people who think their feelings are more important than anyone else's.

Thank you. I think you said it perfectly.

 

[ajchafe]

It's really for public games or games with rotating cast for sure.

A home game can much more easily figure things out ahead of time.

It also helps when a new person to the table starts talking about a topic someone is not comfortable with (because they honestly didn't know or whatever) and vice versa.

 

[neobolts]

While no one should be uncomfortable or off-put by their leisure activity, I do think that open and mutually respectful conversation about concerns is the best approach for the long term cohesion of a group. The X-card would remain a secondary option for groups where that isn't possible for some reason.

 

[jasper]

takes 29 pages to explain the x card.
From page 10...
"The X-Card talk is a good way to communicate... this is not a solo activity. The people here matter more than the game we are playing. Help us make this fun for everyone...."

Doh,! How about this?
"Talking is a good way to tell us something is bothering you. Speak up!"
70 Characters.

 

[jimmifett]

I am unfamiliar with this. What is Paizo's "social contract" thing?

Starting on the bottom right of page 5 of the playtest and wasting an entire column of page 6 that could be better spent on just about anything else.

 

[epithet]

Starting on the bottom right of page 5 of the playtest and wasting an entire column of page 6 that could be better spent on just about anything else.

Hah! Yeah, I had skipped over that bit to get to the actual game. I've certainly observed the general trend in the industry to include that sort of virtue signaling in the introductory pages of game manuals, but I think that's the first one I've seen that goes so far as to call it a "social contract." I like how the follow it up on the same page with "there's no wrong way to play Pathfinder."

My presumption is that all these publishers know that their game is going to be mostly played by groups of friends, and therefore no one is looking for them for guidance on who to play the game with. I think these sorts of statements are simply an effort to diffuse what has become an almost inevitable scrutiny of the product looking for any and everything about which someone could manufacture outrage over the "representation" of some subset of real-world people in a fictional, fantasy world setting. They're trying to head that off before it begins. You might roll your eyes and mutter "Whatever, dude" as you move on to the important parts of the game book, but the people who that column is probably designed to diffuse are venomous--they'll launch a torrent of social media vitriol and call for boycotts and so forth, things which Paizo would feel obligated to address respectfully and "take seriously" regardless of how ridiculous the underlying claims might be. Best to try to avoid that if possible, so my guess is that the whole "social contract" bloviation is Paizo's effort at "an ounce of prevention."

 

[jimmifett]

Hah! Yeah, I had skipped over that bit to get to the actual game. I've certainly observed the general trend in the industry to include that sort of virtue signaling in the introductory pages of game manuals, but I think that's the first one I've seen that goes so far as to call it a "social contract." I like how the follow it up on the same page with "there's no wrong way to play Pathfinder."

My presumption is that all these publishers know that their game is going to be mostly played by groups of friends, and therefore no one is looking for them for guidance on who to play the game with. I think these sorts of statements are simply an effort to diffuse what has become an almost inevitable scrutiny of the product looking for any and everything about which someone could manufacture outrage over the "representation" of some subset of real-world people in a fictional, fantasy world setting. They're trying to head that off before it begins. You might roll your eyes and mutter "Whatever, dude" as you move on to the important parts of the game book, but the people who that column is probably designed to diffuse are venomous--they'll launch a torrent of social media vitriol and call for boycotts and so forth, things which Paizo would feel obligated to address respectfully and "take seriously" regardless of how ridiculous the underlying claims might be. Best to try to avoid that if possible, so my guess is that the whole "social contract" bloviation is Paizo's effort at "an ounce of prevention."

Agreed mostly, and I would be fine if that non-sense were in the path/star-finder society rules docs. Thats the kind of place that language belongs for sanctioned public play to cover their corporate keisters from the professionally offended crowd, instead of wasting space in a core book. That could be 3 or 4 more feats that could be added onto the hundreds plus in the playtest! But we all know paizo is a committed member of that crowd and this is just pushing agenda driven propaganda. BC of it, my wife is extremely against buying any more paizo products, and I'm half inclined to agree.

 

[epithet]

It's my experience that a hell of a lot of gamers LACK standard social skills. And also apparently EMPATHY. Also? Basic social queues fly over their heads like a home run over the head of an outfielder.

Which is why when I try to put together a group to game with i'm looking for good PEOPLE as opposed to gamers. Good people can learn to be good gamers. Sociopathic gamers cant learn to be good people or Empathy.

While the X-card is something that I wouldnt neccesarily use at my table while running a game, if someone wanted to run a game where I was a player and wanted to use the X-Card I'd be fine with it.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the way people put together a group for a TTRPG is to consider who among their friends would be interested in playing (and who could be talked into being the DM, if the organizer isn't keen to do that himself.) If you're friends with sociopaths (I admit I've known a few) then you probably know that about them, and you tend not to included them in group activities in general, right? I've played a lot of D&D over the decades, and I can only think of one group I played in that wasn't made entirely of friends or friends-of-friends. While I'm sure "games with strangers" aren't necessarily rare, I would be more than a little bit surprised to learn they were anything other than a small percentage of the hobby.