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!

 

[Pauper]

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.

I think you're missing the point of how this is meant to work.

Based on the original essay (and most of the other discussion I've read of the concept), the X card is meant to allow players to non-verbally express their distaste for the content of a given scene. The idea is that the tapping of the card is equivalent to saying, "This discussion makes me uncomfortable; let's please move on."

What you seem to be describing is a situation in which the X card is used as a game mechanic -- where the player touching the card is doing so to get a specific benefit or avoid a specific penalty in-game. That seems odd and likely to cause confusion.

As an example, let's use a scene where the party is speaking with the local ruler. The discussion is getting heated and the ruler threatens the party with imprisonment and torture, which provokes a player into touching the X card. That seems straightforward -- the card is being invoked because of the conversation, and thus the topic is problematic. Time to take a moment and direct the conversation down a different path. But let's say a character instead attempts to steal an ornate set of tableware and is caught, at which point the ruler calls for the guards to apprehend the character, and that character's player hits the X card. Is the player signalling a distaste for arrest or topics involving unequal use of power? Or is he just trying to avoid being punished for being caught stealing from the ruler?

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.

Again, it seems like you're using a different function to the card than is intended. In the intended use, there is no 'screeching halt'; the DM simply takes the scene/conversation/what-have-you in a different direction, away from whatever topic appeared to be problematic. In the mechanical example, however, then yes, you would see the game grinding to a halt, because it's not clear why the player invoked the card and thus what the player is trying to say by doing so.

This illustrates that it's just as important to explain what the card doesn't do -- it doesn't undo PC or NPC actions -- it simply allows a player to register discomfort with a topic or point of subject matter within the game so that the table can get past that topic without causing undue discomfort to the player.

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 I think we're kind of getting to your real problem with the system -- your presumption is that, if nobody at the table explicitly complains about a thing, then everyone tacitly agrees to that thing, even if later someone decides that, in fact, the thing is a problem. This leads to the only way that player can express a distaste for a given thing being walking away from the table.

Best example I can think of -- the game store table populated entirely by middle-aged dudes. A woman sits down at that table, since the table is advertised as 'open gaming'; the first night, one of the dudes refers to a female barmaid as a 'strumpet'. The woman isn't pleased about this, but nothing else bad happens that night, so she's inclined to think of it as a one-off. Then at the next session, a few more comments are made -- she didn't complain about 'strumpet', so clearly she's OK with it, and it's 'accepted at this table', right? Eventually, she leaves and doesn't come back, and the dudes are left to wonder why women don't seem to have the courage and desire to play TTRPGs.

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.

If that's the way you'd be planning to use an X card, then I'd suggest you stick to your guns and not use them. The idea is that they're a way for a player to express non-verbal displeasure at a topic in a non-judgmental manner. The thought that a player will touch the X card and be suddenly subjected to something along the lines of "what's wrong with this thing we just did? Are you a weak player? What's your problem?" Well, that's not what the player was buying in for.

The X card is not a panacea; it's a tool, and its only as good a tool as the people who use it. With that said, I'd be as leery of a DM who expressed disdain for the tool as I would be a potential dating partner who expressed disdain over the use of protection in intimate situations; it's clearly a sign that that person prioritizes their interests and desires far above mine.

--
Pauper

 

[neobolts]

(Quagmire voice) Awwww yeah, I'm tapping my O-card if you know what I mean.

:: Other players frantically tap X-card ::

 

[Salamandyr]

I almost didn't post anything, but in a lot of cases, these kinds of ideas go without any kind of serious pushback because the people who don't like the ideas are afraid of the kind of outrage that will result from disagreement. But that just breeds the kind of false consciousness that such ideas are popular (who knows, maybe they are...but we'll never know if half the people are unwilling to step up and argue the point).

This is an absolutely terrible idea. Everybody's fun becomes hostage to the person with the narrowest sense of propriety--instead of having a good time, everybody walks on eggshells to keep from blowing up the jerk with the shortest fuse.
Metaphorically speaking, this is giving everybody a gun and then pointing it at each others heads. The winner is the one with the itchiest trigger finger.

Gaming, like every group endeavor, is a series of compromises; the "serious roleplayer" has to allow for the antics of the practical joker; the guy who likes humanocentric sword & sorcery has to accept the presence in the party of the anime inspired dragonborn monk; the min-maxer has to deal with the storygamer; and everybody sometimes has to deal with the squicky bits of action adventure stories--things die, and gentlebeings get their feelings hurt. If they just can't handle their current group--they do what grown ups do, the put their differences aside, swallow their objections in order to not derail the fun of everybody else at the table, thanks everybody for a good game, and then finds another group.

If something is actually so horrendous that you just can't adult through it, then you have an obligation to actually say something--to talk to your fellow human beings, and expose your problems for either the agreement or ridicule from your fellow players that your arguments deserve. ADDENDUM: Maybe everybody feels the way you do, and your arguments will persuade the group and the dm to take a different course. Or maybe they'll all think you're being ridiculous and tell you so, but either way...you won't know until you actually say something.

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

 

[Shasarak]

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.

What is more creative, describing a situation or having to think of a different situation? By definition using an X card must be more creative.

 

[Shasarak]

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

I dont get it. Why would you want to run a game that people dont enjoy?

 

[Nagol]

I almost didn't post anything, but in a lot of cases, these kinds of ideas go without any kind of serious pushback because the people who don't like the ideas are afraid of the kind of outrage that will result from disagreement. But that just breeds the kind of false consciousness that such ideas are popular (who knows, maybe they are...but we'll never know if half the people are unwilling to step up and argue the point).

This is an absolutely terrible idea. Everybody's fun becomes hostage to the person with the narrowest sense of propriety--instead of having a good time, everybody walks on eggshells to keep from blowing up the jerk with the shortest fuse.
Metaphorically speaking, this is giving everybody a gun and then pointing it at each others heads. The winner is the one with the itchiest trigger finger.

Gaming, like every group endeavor, is a series of compromises; the "serious roleplayer" has to allow for the antics of the practical joker; the guy who likes humanocentric sword & sorcery has to accept the presence in the party of the anime inspired dragonborn monk; the min-maxer has to deal with the storygamer; and everybody sometimes has to deal with the squicky bits of action adventure stories--things die, and gentlebeings get their feelings hurt. If they just can't handle their current group--they do what grown ups do, the put their differences aside, swallow their objections in order to not derail the fun of everybody else at the table, thanks everybody for a good game, and then finds another group.

If something is actually so horrendous that you just can't adult through it, then you have an obligation to actually say something--to talk to your fellow human beings, and expose your problems for either the agreement or ridicule from your fellow players that your arguments deserve.

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

Like other scenarios that provide immediate non-negotiable veto ability, it's primary purpose is to facilitate communication in situations where there are potentially layers of obfuscation so people don't have to double-check what the person "really meant".

Can it be misused? Sure. All the immediate non-negotiable vetoes run the risk of being used in ways other participants didn't expect. If one is being used at all frequently, that's the time to reevaluate what the situation is and if the participants are a good fit.

Is it as strongly needed in a primarily verbal game as other situations? Probably not, but if it makes people feel more secure, it isn't much of a imposition either.

 

[Salamandyr]

I dont get it. Why would you want to run a game that people dont enjoy?

What's to get? Why would I want to hold a groups fun hostage to one person?

 

[Shasarak]

What's to get? Why would I want to hold a groups fun hostage to one person?

So you are OK with one person holding a groups fun hostage as long as that person is the DM?

Fair enough.

 

[Salamandyr]

Like other scenarios that provide immediate non-negotiable veto ability, it's primary purpose is to facilitate communication in situations where there are potentially layers of obfuscation so people don't have to double-check what the person "really meant".

If that is the case, it is the most obtuse, backwards logic I have ever heard since the last time I watched a congressional debate. Providing someone with nonnegotiable power to stop something doesn't encourage communication; it actively discourages it. Why should the person with the power explain themselves? Why should they do anything? They have the power.

 

[Nagol]

If that is the case, it is the most obtuse, backwards logic I have ever heard since the last time I watched a congressional debate. Providing someone with nonnegotiable power to stop something doesn't encourage communication; it actively discourages it. Why should the person with the power explain themselves? Why should they do anything? They have the power.

It's not meant to encourage communication; it's meant to guarantee one particular message is clearly received and understood. "If this happens, we stop."

Generally all participants have the power and in most cases, no participant uses it. It's purpose is that of a safety valve. Making it work without requiring explanation is making any particular use of the ability non-judgemental. Often, in the other scenarios, asking why it was used (after participation has stopped) helps prevent future uses.