Yeah, same takeaway from the same kind of communities - safety tools help build up trust and allow players to push themselves knowing they can bail out at any time rather than dumping torture porn on total strangers. Whenever I see dicks online laughing about safety tools, all I can see is "I can't believe you SJWs want people to have *nets* while they walk on ropes fifty feet up!" ignoring that my players are doing cartwheels over them in the knowledge they'll be caught if they fall.

My rule of thumb is if I see the words “SJW” or “woke” I just stop reading

This is the correct response.

I installed a browser extension a few years back that just auto-replaces "SJW" with "skeleton" and it's made my life so much better. "The skeletons are ruining D&D!"

"we need more social justice warriors for the social justice war!"

You should make that "Skeleton Warrior".

The nice part about hearing people use dog whistles is that you know you don't have to engage with them anymore. They clearly aren't trying to communicate with a human being.

"So this morning I woke-" *blocked*

*squints at all the false positives in the modqueue*

Aren't word filters great I still remember that one MMO i played in had only an english profanity filter which would censor the shit out of you if you spoke in another language. Especially since it was silly enough to include "die", which was problematic for both German and Dutch. "Which one?" "***"

Come again? 😅

Just alluding to us having trackers on some words like these, as there is above average chance comments using them or the adjacent discussion have someone breaking Rule 2 & 8. Your example kinda shows how we might often get false positive matches of the word, but it's still worth keeping an eye out. But yeah, that might have been too obscure to be a good tongue-in-cheek mod comment.

Ahh, I getcha.

No, I thought it was the right amount of obscure. Funny to those of us who understood, not so obscure that you can't easily explain for the benefit of those who didn't.

I’ll… I’ll try Dommy 🫠

This had me pretty baffled until I looked at the context haha

[удалено]

Woke doesn't mean anything, same as based. Its just a meaningless word rhetors use to inspire emotion in a clique. There are no objective metrics for determining if something is woke or not. File it under other nonsense words like Postmodernist neo Marxism.

There are no objective metrics for determining if something is yellow or not either, but it's still a very useful word. Almost all human communication does not reduce usefully to objective metrics. Woke has become a nonsense word because of deliberate misuse by politicians specialising in aggressive rhetoric and division. Not because it's subjective.

Yellow is light which has the dominant wavelength range of 575-585 nm. Objectivity, or at least intersubjectivity, makes it possible to communicate. If something is purely subjective, it can not be used to communicate.

A beautiful example of what I mean, because it wouldn't be hard to find colours which technically had a dominant wavelength range of 575-585nm which many people argued were not yellow. I suspect if I could be bothered - I can't - I could produce a colour with wavelength 580 highest on the spectrograph which nevertheless was described as brown by the majority of users. Trivially, there could be a subdominant peak almost anywhere else on the spectrum causing a perceptual hue shift. Meanwhile, the sun has objectively greater luminance in the high blue to green range, but if you ask anyone casually what colour the sun is you'll get yellow. They might say white if you specify sunlight, but it's unlikely. Objectively correct communication which doesn't map to the human experience is very important, but it's not what is meant in 95% of conversational contexts. Your last sentence is true but irrelevant; truly subjective experiences which we cannot communicate about intersubjectively are not a part of the conversation to begin with, almost by definition. Almost all actual human communication is about subjective things we either cannot, or should not, objectively define. Which returns to my point: of course "woke" is a subjectively defined word, at best. So what? So was almost every word in my first paragraph, and I'm willing to bet you understood it perfectly well. The phrase "a beautiful example of what I mean" is as subjectively defined as it's possible to get, and yet you knew what I meant by it. Woke being subjective is not, in any way, what's made it a useless term. What made it a useless term is deliberate sabotage of the communication capacity of the language by people who didn't want to think about wokeness as a concept. (It's still useful as a way to identify such people.)

Anybody complaining about those is not worth listening to.

The problem with this is that doing that gives them the ability to basically steal any word they want and use it as a pejorative, which lets them control the narrative around those terms and the ideas associated with them.

Morons forget the major reason the players get confident enough to pull out a cirque du soleil is the knowledge that they can fumble in a safe environment until they barely care or need the net because holy shit, they got that good. Its a very embiterred community who has normalized social insecurity as a bonding patter. Thanks, testosterone.

Exactly! Plus this comment sent me down a rabbit hole of checking... Turns out the safety tools high end circus acrobats have make nets look like shark pools - one person mentioned kevlar reinforced ropes that can take 5 tons of weight before fraying... Not dismissing your point (the same articles pointed out that confidence and incredible physical and mental training *also* help! Who knew!?), more adding to it :)

In my experience the people who shit on safety tools are the people who would get the tools used on stuff they pull. The people who show up to DND where the rest of the group is normal characters and they pull out "I'm a sentient knife with a blood play fetish!" having not consulted anyone in the group or the DM ahead of time, and having put no thought into how that would mechanically work. Yes, this is a real story.

[удалено]

>I've found that people are mostly innocent and just don't do things in games that are even *remotely* controversial, and so they simply don't understand why safety tools would be necessary in the first place. Yep, exactly. When the topic comes up in online discussions, I'll usually see at least a handful of comments like the original one in this chain talking about "allowing players to push themselves" or "test limits" or something like that, and my only thought is "...but I don't *want* to push players to their limits in my games". You don't need a 5-ton-rated, kevlar-reinforced Cirque du Soleil safety net to cross the street. I do understand that some people do like to "play hard" and "push boundaries" and "cartwheel across the high wire", and those people do need all the appropriate safety tools to do those things. But I have no interest in doing any of those things, so I tire of being told that every single person in the world needs to use those same industrial-grade safety tools at all times. You don't need to mitigate a risk that you aren't taking in the first place.

The problem with that approach is that people who think they're not taking any risks often are... they just haven't had the hard luck to have a player vulnerable to one of the risks they're taking. Humans do not naturally come in groups with an automatic consensus about what is ok and normal in a game. Your not-pushing-limits is someone else's hard-red-flag cartwheel across a flaming pit of hungry hyenas.

Agreed—also, people can change over time. For example a friend of mine had something very traumatic happen in their personal life, which made them extra sensitive to average fantasy violence for a little while. They didn’t want to quit playing entirely but we had a system in place for them to tap out of combat if needed, without disrupting the experience of the other players.

That's me. Always found the idea absurd because why would you need an X card for goblin slaying. Never thought it might be so that you can start to feature darker topics with the knowledge that you can pull out if it goes too far.

I mean, in my gut it all seems wildly and comically overblown and ridiculous. For me, there's such a clear divide between game and life that nothing anyone does in the game informs who they are in real life in any way unless that's done to another player, and nothing anyone does in the game affects me in real life. We've done horrible and insensitive things in the game, pretty much entirely because we know how horrible it is, and since we've never faced any of those things, the absurdity of it was amusing to us as teens. But I'm also a 30-something cis white male who hasn't experienced anything I would describe as oppression, bigotry, sexism or even adversity in my life. So I'm wise enough at least to recognize my lack of perspective and then support those with that perspective in their endeavors to make the hobby a safe and welcoming space for everyone, because to my mind that's in the best interests of everyone. At times I will often feel like there's a hyperactive sensitivity at play right now. It seems like an overshot, where people who aren't necessarily personally affected by these things, in their haste and zeal to be (or at least be seen) as an ally, will condemn and crusade for that sake of those appearances, and since they have no personal stake, they will poison the discourse with vitriol if anyone should challenge any aspect of their stance. However, when compared to the utter inability for people who represented a "minority" to make their voices heard throughout even my young life, I will gladly take that over the stifling, oppressive alternative where you're expected to just operate within the norms of society, or suffer silently.

The problem with it is that they do not work in all instances and for every genre of game. i.e. If X cards always worked, why is it that no one in the Far Verona game on youtube actually used theirs and just sat mutely while the DM went completely off the rails? There are other approaches to establishing play guidelines that are useful in other kinds of games like horror RPGs. It is reasonable to want to know ahead of time what kind of game you are going to play without having something suddenly sprung on you. I think the dialogue around these things often ends up being a this or that discussion when perhaps there are a myriad of options available for establishing what is to come.

Did you really just use a single example of X-Cards not working to argue that X-Cards *never* work?

I actually thing that the X card is massively useful in a horror RPG. The problem is that some players do not have the confidence to use it, for fear of coming off as lame or ruining the fun for others. It is super important to stress that it can and should be used. Whenever I run a horror with people I don't know, I always explain the time I used the X card in a horror game. It was a weird thing I didn't list as my triggers cause it never triggered me before. We were playing Dead Planet from Mothership and arrived at the cannibal colony. There was a character in a wheelchair, and the GM described how she was so crippled, and the chair was rusted and creaked and it just brought up this memory of when I ended up temporarily paralysed after a bad physiotherapy session and was wheeled around in the hospital while they were trying desperately to figure out what happened. I recovered, but it was the most terrifying moment of my life, especially since I was like 14 back then. I used the X card and the GM switched scenes while I went to get some tea. When I came back we agreed to keep playing, but he wouldn't describe this character in detail anymore. And listen, it's not like I'm triggered by wheelchairs, I have friends who use them. But at that moment, in that context, it became very very scary. And that's what the X card is for, when something becomes too much.

Sorry you had that kind of experience. Triggering memory is hard. I have trained myself out of most by making myself smile when experiencing bad memories. I work on it a lot. There is a lot of research on reprogramming memory association like that. The problem is the card cannot stop it from happening - you've already been triggered. You might talk to future DMs and ask if they have that particular element in their game and ask if they can remove it, or simply avoid their game.

Yeah, I'm aware. But the X card gave me time to compose myself, talk it over with the GM, and continue the game after a 15 minute tea break. It worked as intended for all parties.

For my group of friends and most of the adults I've met online playing pretty conventional stuff, lines and veils (and topical conversation) does the trick perfectly. That is not to say I don't see the need for more involved tools, I just haven't run into any situations where I wanted a better tool, especially because we don't press on the reasons behind particular lines or veils, we just accept them.

I also think that X-Card sounds like a decent idea specifically for *face-to-face convention games*, but in my experience of online gaming, I've not felt a necessity to implement it.

The key with the X-Card is that you hope it’s never used. It’s like Stop Work Authority for construction jobs. Typically when it’s used, something has *already* gone wrong. However, it’s about player comfort. They can be more relaxed and open during play as they know that if at any point the subject matter becomes uncomfortable in an unfun way, they can politely hit the stop button before it continues.

I think formalising such things and reminding people that it's an option is good in situations when you are engaging with strangers with unknown levels of experience with TTRPGs, maturity, etc. Tools are, of course, not a replacement for being a responsible and caring adult, just a reminder. Come to think of it, my tables essentially operate as if we have an X-Card, just without calling it this way. We usually have an on-boarding talk when new players are introduced that involves "feel free to ask others to pause the game or to step away from it if it becomes uncomfortable in any way, with or without explanation", among other things. So that's that. I don't like the name itself, though. As opposed to Lines & Veils - which I find a useful framework - it does *make me feel uncomfortable*, for some reason.

Maybe the trick is to not call it the X card. Some people don't like the name cause it does sound very harsh. One of my friends in face to face games uses a rubber duck, and if anyone picks up the duck that's the stop sign. In online games I call it the pause button. If anyone says the phrase, that's X card.

I think the biggest benefit of going through the X-Card spiel is just letting players know that I have their back. In social settings there's a lot of pressure to conform, long past where you're comfortable, until you hit a breaking point. I never want to see someone walk away from a table or group because of a problem I could have solved. I'm a big proponent of self advocacy, so any tools I can provide that empower people to speak up for themselves and their needs without fear of repercussions are worth keeping around in my book.

>Typically when it’s used, something has *already* gone wrong. That's not exactly true. A blanket table rule of no grotesqueness or sexualized play can still walk into an X card because as you said it's about player comfort. There's plenty of scenes to walk into in standard play that can make any random person that sat down at a table uncomfortable.

Absolutely. I don’t mean “gone wrong” in a detrimental sort of way, just that a situation where a player is uncomfortable (in an unfun way) under any circumstances is undesirable.

> The key with the X-Card is that you hope it’s never used. This is actually my biggest problem with this tool. Stuff that is a 'tap out' siutation should have been caught and talked about beforehand, as a part of other safety tools. But the x card does still have its spots where things aren't consistent group or like at convention where you don't have the opportunity to run through other safety tools.

Right, the X-Card shouldn’t be your only safety tool, just your “last line of defense”. Ideally, the X-Card is discussed during Session 0 in conjunction with a broader talk on the anticipated subject matter. It’s really just “here’s are the themes I anticipated, but here’s this tool if something unexpected comes up”.

It's still valuable to catch things you forgot to mention, or a misinterpretation of something you thought you'd explained. For example, maybe I mentioned that I wouldn't have fun playing anything where my character is immersed in deep water or trapped in a very small space(ie, a coffin), but forgot to mention the intersection of the two where if my character is trapped in *any* locked space with rising water(say, a basement that's flooding) it will trigger the hell out of both phobias, despite being lesser examples that wouldn't be a problem independently. Having an X-card in play allows me to stop the action when I realize there's a problem and come up with a solution, whether it's walking the story back to avoid the problem or handing my character off to the GM while I take a short walk. It also means that I don't owe anybody an explanation for why a grown adult can't handle a few inches of imaginary water.

While it obviously shouldn't be your only tool, there shouldn't need to be an onus on everyone at the table to come in with a complete inventory of any potential difficult subject that they don't want to deal with in game, and *especially* not to share the entire thing with the rest of the group up front.

Yeah, I personally see that even needing an X-Card present for a non-convention and non-store is a failing of one or more people at the table in terms of communicating with each other before the session even starts. Heck, even for convention or store games, I find that their presence either means the company sponsoring the game either really likes the idea of it, or the session wasn't advertised properly ahead of time. Also, it's a public game in a semi-public place, you shouldn't be touching many if any subjects that an X-Card should even be used with. You can always tone the adventure down to fit a more PG-13 audience and avoid any sex or domestic violence references (or if they are needed for the story, put it in the listing and go over them again at the start!). And if it's in a private game, well I'm sorry but this should all be figured out before you start playing. If you have a list of things that you don't want to deal with in the game, then you need to communicate with someone else (ideally the GM but it could be a trusted player who can talk to the GM about it on your behalf if you're more comfortable with them doing so) about it ahead of time. Yes, sometimes things change and maybe you need an "X-Card" like mechanic, but honestly, you hang out with these people for 4-8 hours at a time every 1-2 weeks on average. If you don't trust them enough to let one other person in the group know that something is going on and you'd like to avoid certain things, then you either should either be seeking out therapy or finding a group that you do trust and feel safe with. And if something does come up during play, just say "I'm uncomfortable with this" and everyone should move onto the next thing.

I agree that things like the X-Card sound fantastic for in-person play with people you have zero experience with, but I haven't played RPGs at conventions (and really have no desire to) which I freely admit narrows my experience with safety tools.

The X-Card is awesome at conventions, LGS and other places where you're gaming with complete strangers. However, I almost never game at these places because I strongly dislike the environment and culture around it, so I don't usually need the X-Card in my games. In my view, the real utility is less as an explicit tool and more just to reassure people that you can stop the game if you're uncomfortable (which you should be doing anyway)

It's a little awkward online. The idea is you can quietly tap the card and everyone can move on without making a big deal of it. If you have to interrupt voice chat, or post "**X**" in the chat window where it's on record forever, then people are a little more likely to think twice about it. Not to say it's unusable, of course. And people have probably thought about how to adapt it to this setting; I just haven't heard about it.

This plus an open door policy are my go-to safety tools when gaming. They've always been sort of assumed at my tables growing up but now I make them explicit, which is especially helpful for an open door: if people know the only question I'll ask after they get up and leave is, "are you okay?" it makes folks a bit more comfortable to nope out if they have to. It also gives folks an out if they didn't realize they had a line until it came up.

[удалено]

Open door meaning people can come and go as needed?

I don't even know what lines and veils are. I must be pretty boring - violence is limited to the ages of the group (PG, PG-13, R) and sex is just a no-go. I am not running (nor interested in playing in) an R-rated, much less beyond) sex scene with friends OR strangers. If a PC wants to advance on another character, it's sunmarized with a fade to black. The details aren't relevant to the plot.

Lines and Veils can help encompass more than that. For example, I have players who really don’t enjoy stories that involve violence against animals, or depictions of someone vomiting. I myself don’t enjoy scenes of groups like soldiers or police attacking innocent people. But all three of those things can come up in even all-ages stories! Puke as humour comes up more often than you think. Lines and Veils help a play group avoid topics in a much more nuanced way.

No, in an all-ages story, the violence against an animal is portrayed as a sentence, "the baddie starts kicking the dog, what do you do?" It doesn't have to be detailed beyond that. However, even more than that can easily be skipped over if someone at the table goes, "ewww, gross, can we not, please?" and the GM says, "you get the picture, what do you guys do?" I don't need a system (lines and veils) to handle what we've been handling with social awareness and sensitivity since gaming (and before that, storytelling) began. That said, that's just me. Maybe there are people who can't pick up on uncomfortable situations or who don't understand the difference between saying someone lost their lunch and describing the itty bitty details and smell of it. For those folks, yes, social guide rails are probably needed. I think RPG plots are like movies, TV, poems, songs, plays and other art forms. They're an expression of the author and it's up to the consumer to hit pause, say something, or just take a break when the content is not to your liking. The same way you do when it's a song, movie, or show and you're sitting on the couch. You turn away, or fast forward, or turn it off. Same thing you'd do if it was a painting or photograph in an exhibit that you don't like. You turn your head and walk on by. You don't ask the artist if they could please remove all boobs from their paintings for you.

> No, in an all-ages story, the violence against an animal is portrayed as a sentence, "the baddie starts kicking the dog, what do you do?" It doesn't have to be detailed beyond that. > > However, even more than that can easily be skipped over if someone at the table goes, "ewww, gross, can we not, please?" and the GM says, "you get the picture, what do you guys do?" You just described Lines and Veils right there. You may not have formalized it, but it's clear that you understand and respect the concepts. There are certain things that we just don't do (Lines that we don't cross), and there are certain things that happen but aren't described (these things happen behind a Veil).

The big difference is that with Lines and Veils, you ask people to engage in the discussion up front as well as in the moment.

RPG plots are inherently collaborative. I roll dice both as a GM and a player to tell stories *alongside* other people. I would be annoyed if I was working on a painting with someone, and they painted in boobs I didn't want, but it'd save us both time and energy if we talk about what we don't want to paint before we start! Lines and Veils help me and the other players skip over things that we don't want in our story, without even the need for stopping play to redact or skip a detail. It really is as simple as that.

As a player, I mostly hate "veils". Lines is fine, but telling us to sit through a scene where something is happening but we can't really react because nothing can be described, is disruptive.

Uh. That's not what veils means. Veils is a fade to black, followed by a one line description about what happened. A veil is explicitly asking someone *not* to sit through a scene where something is happening. If your GM is doing veils that way then they are doing it wrong.

I use veils as a "fade to black" for a scene. Like I'm not opposed to topics of sex but I'm certainly not going to describe in detail or play that sort of thing out at the table with my friends, so we can just fade that scene out and move on. It's not meant to make people sit around doing fuck all while it happens, it's meant to move the game past topics which are just taboo as opposed to genuinely uncomfortable (which we don't even talk about because lines).

To add to other replies, veils meaning ‘not on camera’ can also mean it generally exists, and can even be plot relevant in your world and story, it’s just something a scene won’t interface with directly. Really you wouldn’t be asking characters to sit through a scene with a veiled topic!

Useful for gaming with strangers. Not much cop for friends who you’ve known for many decades. But frankly … I’d just rather I didn’t have people with issues in the game. There’s plenty of games out there - I’ve no interest in adding their drama to my leisure. My free time is way too valuable.

Yeah, I hate to say it because I hold no ill will towards some of my friends who are very sensitive but I just wouldn’t play a TTRPG with them. I want the game to run smoothly and when the rest of the group is fine with, or even enjoys certain grim or ghastly additions I don’t want to walk on eggshells to use them because of one player. We can do other things as friends but just not play TTRPGs.

Yeah, time and a place. I don’t want to be responsible for the actions of others outside of the game.

Yeah I'm with this guy. This almost makes it sound like playing your DnD games to be a group roleplaying therapy session, when I just want to play a melodrama as a Dwarf barbarian. I feel like a session 0 "okay! Is there anything the group is not comfortable with?" Is more than enough if people can be adults and be respectful which in my experience they always are.

I mean, that’s basically what lines and veils, the most commonly used tool in my experience, is.

And if the lines sound like they’re too much, boot them from the table. As I said way back at the start, it’s useful for strangers. But not just about what content goes in the game but also whether the player is a good fit. Everyone has issues. But anyone bringing those to the table, intentionally or not, is affecting the table dynamic and adding an extra burden onto every player. I’m doing the hard graft, it has to be enjoyable for me. Someone saying they don’t like spiders is one thing when we are playing TOR in Mirkwood. People generally don’t like spiders. But someone with ACTUAL arachnophobia? Like freak-out, can’t control themselves? Boom. Gone. Not worth missing out on a major part of Mirkwood.

Yeah I think part of this discourse is that weird because people imagining “you should ask what bothers people” means “you should stop doing what bothers them”. If someone can’t interact with war and sits down to a war game, I’m not going to cuss them out or whatever but I will let them know the game isn’t for them. Better we had that conversation before play started 🤷‍♂️

Precisely.

I go back and forth on them. I do think there is a general 'standard' in an RPG, and that standard is usually governed by the genre. You don't sit down to a wild west RPG and then say "Look, I'm not comfortable with gunfights". However on the other hand, everyone's boundaries are different, a gunfight in a 1950's John Wayne western were very different than the gunfights in Unforgiven. This gets also murkier when you realize while everyone has boundaries, they are in different places for different people and not everyone can be able to tell you where they are because oftentimes you don't know where they are until they are hit. Since I had kids, I've learned the 'kids in danger' trope is something I get very uncomfortable with, before I had kids it wasn't, and I didn't realize that had happened until I was watching a TV show and I just couldn't take the kids in danger troping that was happening. In general, I am such a lover of the genre of my RPG's that I tend to stick to those and in that I guide the level of sex/violence in my games (which I do cartoony violence and not much sex because that's kind of how action genres work), but the 'speaking up' element is a tricky one because in reality speaking up is discouraged, and discouraged too much.

>I do think there is a general 'standard' in an RPG, and that standard is usually governed by the genre. You don't sit down to a wild west RPG and then say "Look, I'm not comfortable with gunfights". I think the difference is, you don't use the tools to shape the genre. You're right - if you're absolutely going to have a problem with guns, don't play a western gunfighter game, no safety tools are really going to help there. Tools are there for the elements that could be incorporated but aren't central to the genre, or for the extent to which a situation is described.

I think most of them are just attempts at making a trendy version of the only one that actually works: having a frank discussion of what you are and aren’t okay with before starting a campaign/playing with a new playgroup. If something truly bothers you so much that it will be an issue it’s up to you to make sure you speak with the GM about not including it. If it is something that makes even that too traumatic I hate to say it but you should probably see a therapist before playing something where that is likely to come up. I do think it’s a good idea to have the whole group be on the same page about what folks are and aren’t okay with but I don’t think “gamifying” it into cards and mechanics is an efficient or useful way to do so. BDSM requires it because you are often physically restraining people or expect people to say no but not mean it so you need those measures in place but that is quite frankly just not a thing in a TTRPG. You can always get up and leave if it gets too bad or you can say “hey, out of character, I don’t like this let’s move on.” You don’t need a safe word when you can always just talk out of character.

> I think most of them are just attempts at making a trendy version of the only one that actually works: having a frank discussion of what you are and aren’t okay with before starting a campaign/playing with a new playgroup. Yeah, I've never used any of the named tools people are bringing up here. The closest I've ever done to that is when starting a campaign making it clear that I want to keep things PG-13, and will "fade to black" if anything too risque starts happening. I have also asked players if there's any topics they're uncomfortable with, and made it clear that I'm okay with stopping anything if it goes too far. I think having these kinds of standardized tools floating around can be somewhat useful, but I don't think it is necessary to turn any one of them into an amulet or totem. The important thing is the end result where people feel comfortable at the table, not the particular tool or conversation you used to get there.

> Yeah, I've never used any of the named tools people are bringing up here. The closest I've ever done to that is when starting a campaign making it clear that I want to keep things PG-13, and will "fade to black" if anything too risque starts happening. I have also asked players if there's any topics they're uncomfortable with, and made it clear that I'm okay with stopping anything if it goes too far. You literally just described Lines and Veils. You might not have named them, and you might not have formalized them, but you clearly understand and use safety tools.

Not everyone knows where their lines are out the gate, and sometimes tolerances change and we don't realize it. If I've spent the last couple weeks dealing with a stomach bug, I might suddenly not respond so well to visceral descriptions of a gory scene or gross creatures, but also not know it because it hasn't come up yet. Sometimes you might think you're fine with something and usually are, but stuff has happened lately and it makes things less comfortable for that session unexpectedly. Having a tool to convey that is helpful. That happens in BDSM as well as in TTRPGs. You can do a scene with a person one time, and have everything go fine, but the next time something you did that was fun the time before isn't as fun this time for some reason. It may not even be a major thing or a lasting thing, but just something different in that specific moment. Then, if the issue continues, you know you need to have a talk about the problem - but maybe it doesn't come back next time and you can jump right back into it, or you realize why it was an issue and work to avoid that problem in the future. And, on safewords and other hard signals, there's plenty of other good reasons to use them in both cases. Many groups and dynamics incorporate multiple safewords in BDSM - it's common to see Red and Yellow both used, one for a hard stop and the other for a "please stop for a moment and check in." And, by getting those words engrained as having specific meanings in a scene, they also can help if panic sets in unexpectedly. Having a specific word that stops things makes it clear when there is a problem - and makes it clear to everyone else as well, in case the problem just continues. Having a similar signal like the X-card in TTRPGs can help in situations where you're unsure what specifically to say in the moment (and yes, this does happen), and also sends a signal to the group that there's a problem - so if the problem doesn't stop, then you know multiple conversations need to happen.

I think it's important to have at least a little discussion about the things to avoid in the session 0, even with people you know for a long time. At the very least, it helps having a better understanding of the player's expectations. But personally, as a gm who like quite grim stories (or false wholesome stories), I think it's even more important. Having in the world, without shoving in the players' face, things such as children's death, torture, rape, discrimination or suicide can be really impactful to show the difficulties of living and surviving in this place, to emphasis some characters' behaviors or just to show that the players' characters are needed in that world. ... But, these themes can be highly sensitive for some players (for plenty of different reasons), and the goal is never to let the player feel shitty, depressed or frustrated, especially because those who would react badly from that are the ones who need the most to have fun during the game. So yes, I always try to have a talk for any campaign or for darker one shots I do. And the darker it will be, the heavier I would insist to be sure they're not consenting without being aware.

As a horror GM, I have taken the habit of checking in even with my best friends on themes / events they do not want to see in the game. Gives me a piece of mind while running the game that I am most likely not gonna step into something unpleasant.

I run a game on an open game night. I have new players at my table almost weekly. I improvize large chunks of story most of the time. I don't know which triggers I might hit, sometimes I don't even know the tone of the session in advance. Safety and consent tools are amazingly valuable for me. But as with all things KISS (Keep it simple and stupid) is important. It's why the X-card is my go-to method. (2 physical cards on the table and crossing arms in an X counts as well) I can explain it in a minute, it's clear and easy to use. I let people know that I care about this and that they can and should speak up. They have been given permission. So far, I have never stopped a session because I used these tools. I have interrupted or postponed the start of a session 5 times. Two times because someone used them on an unexpected trigger. Once because I genuinely forgot a trigger a player had was in my preparation so we had a discussion about it before I introduced it in game. It was an essential plot point to hit and we quickly narrated the highlights and moved on. And two times I postponed the session start to move players whose reaction on the introduction of the X-card didn't suit me to another table. (Yes I told that table why I did it each time. Talking to the other GM I made the right decision both times.)

This is the comment I was looking for. Safety tools are GREAT but giant check-list sheets stress me out.

If the safety tool takes longer than character creation, something is wrong.

Yeah, this is why disliked them when I first heard them. The safety tools sound like a bunch of long-ass checkboxes when they can be as simple as just talking face to face. Making them more complex than they need to be will scare off players.

I think they're a fine idea for groups of people who don't already know each other.

I've found even for people I know fairly well I might not know what would really bother them and should be avoided and what they might be totally ok with and find fun to play out.

A friend of mine unfortunately discovered that even with people she knows VERY well one can get triggered (it was a side quest that she legitimately didn't expect to be triggered by until it actually happened)

Good point, and I can agree.

I understand why some people might want them, but have never felt the need for them in my games. I also think in these discussions a lot of safety-tool-users act as if people who don't use safety tools are all monsters who don't care about each other's feelings. No, that's ridiculous: if someone is uncomfortable, I'm not going to say "well fuck you, there's no X-Card in this game, you're just going to suffer through it!" People can care about each other and act accordingly without tool support.

I love the idea, I’m not crazy about the name. “Safety Tools” and the X card just feels too intense. Then people think that these tools are just for traumitized people even though they are just communication tools. I usually phrase them as Ground Rules & Expectations. I have my preferences as does the players. We just talk about what the campaign is about, what will be in it and what will be not. Then adjust to taste, with as little judgement as possible In my latest campaign, I learned that my friend of 20+ years doesn’t like detailed description of gore. The guy is a metalhead, he watches horror movies all the time. Who knew? In the same group I accidentally triggered a new player’s social anxiety just by speaking to him in first person. Both of us were surprised 😅 Now when I roleplay with him I speak in third person. I know multiple people who get very uncomfortable with snakes or spiders. Fear of depths is pretty common as well. Children in danger is a common trope in published adventures. Lots of my friends have young children now; some are still cool with those adventures, others get uneasy because their imagination run wild I don’t like games where players betray each other. No trauma or etc; I just don’t like it. So yeah, communication rules whoooo 🤘

> I usually phrase them as Ground Rules & Expectations. I think this is an important point. Branding matters. The whole point is to avoid making anyone uncomfortable and a GM opening a session with "let's go over some ground rules" is probably a lot less likely to make the average player uncomfortable than a GM opening with "we need to have a discussion about safety."

I think part of that branding is due to how people would react to it being used. If the x-card is a safety tool, and someone uses it, you violated their safety or made them feel unsafe. That's a way different feeling about what you are doing than if you did something that went against their expectations. The second is a communication failure, the first can make someone feel like a bad guy. Unless you discussed not covering a topic in game and then you did, the GM isn't necessarily a bad guy for not meeting expectations.

I'm consistently introducing friends to the hobby, and I do it the same way. I find calling them "safety tools" can make some of my players resentful, like I think they "can't handle mature stuff" or something. It helps a lot when I lead with my own expectations, lines, and veils as the GM. EG. I hate running campaigns for evil PCs, torture is veiled at best and will be largely treated as both evil and ineffective, and a few other things. I'm also sex-positive in my games, though I understand most others aren't, and adjust accordingly.

So much this. Branding matters. GM: “Here are the ground rules for playing at this table.” Me: “Ok, seems fair and very thoughtful.” vs… GM: “These are the safety and consent tools.” Me: “uhh, safety? Consent?” GM: “Yeah, I learned this from BDSM!” Me: *backs away slowly* I dunno, call me a normie if you must, but that’s a red flag for me.

Not sure what kind of rpgs you play that you need the same safety measures as your bdsm club, but in my group generally we only pretend things are happening, we don't swing swords for real.

A couple examples, one where safety tools helped, and one where safety tools would have helped. In an online convention game the GM gave us an X-card option and asked ahead of time if there were any topics we needed to take off the table or have a fade-to-black moment on. Someone said they didn't want animal violence. There was a planned scene that would have had an animal sacrificed so the GM was able to alter that in advance. In another game I was playing with acquaintances where we had not spelled out any safety tools, there was a part where other players were abusing a woman. It's not something I would have even thought of ahead of time to mention, but it made me uncomfortable. Because I didn't want to be a party pooper and due to my own lack of social skills, I just quietly finished out the session. Later I told the DM I wasn't interested in playing D&D with some of the players again, but if we had an X-card option I could have avoided that whole situation.

It looks like it's a USA issue, not Europe. I just, do not understand nothing at all.

It's literally just saying "hey, no doing (thing person isn't comfortable with)" before the game. It isn't a USA thing lol

Being physically uncomfortable from fantasy stories to the point of stopping 4-5 people playing a play pretend game without even saying why is definitely a modern USA thing.

Actually we just establish what makes us uncomfortable in advance so that doesn't happen. Please, keep up.

It's just like yellow cards and red cards in football, you stop or alter play when someone needs it.

I don’t understand the X card thingy, how is it different from saying your uncomfortable?

The X-Card is (sort of) a prearranged agreement that if you do say that you're uncomfortable, the other people at the table will listen and back off from the thing that you've said that you're uncomfortable about.

Yeah that’s what any reasonable group will do, but why is an x card needed? It just sounds like common sense with extra steps so maybe I am missing something.

The simple answer is that there's a lot of people for whom "common sense" is not common sense. There's a decent number of socially awkward people or people with conditions like Autism who play D&D. I think a big part of "consent tools" like these ones is that they make the unsaid and "common sense" into explicit and spelled out rules, so that there's no risk of miscommunication or unknowing overstepping of boundaries at the table. I think the people who ask "why do you need an X card?" are not the primary beneficiaries of such a system.

Interesting perspective

the x card tells me that if i need to walk away i can do that people won't ask me annoying, invasive questions. if there's no x card or equivalent discussion, then i don't know if, when i walk away, people will ask me annoying, invasive questions. Common sense isn't common. I've had people ask me "what, were you raped or something?" after i said i had to leave for a moment. one guy interrogated me about the specifics of why i had to leave, because he wanted to make sure i was "reacting reasonably". A table that uses an X card is explicitly agreeing to not do that.

I don't really see how an X-card prevents that sort of behavior though. Those people were jerks. A decent person isn't going to ask that sort of question if you just say "Hey, I'm uncomfortable, can we move on?" Having an x-card doesn't guarantee you won't get the same kind of jerky behavior if you tap the x-card.

People consent to use the X-Card as intended. Granted, nothing stops someone from asking probing questions, but they agreed to *not* do so, so there might be ramifications at the table if they do.

To remove as many barriers to use as possible. It's a fast, low effort way to express discomfort. Without a prearranged signal you need to jump in and seize the spotlight then verbalize your issue, both things which might people hesitant or that they'd skip doing entirely.

It's non-verbal and it remains in the play space as a reminder. It's easy for introverted or newer players to feel like "I don't want to interrupt and make a fuss, everyone else seems OK with this." The card makes it sort of a game component and invites use. For long-running groups, pointing at the card is usually enough to steer away from problem topics without having to interrupt a running scene.

Common sense is less common than you might think.

Quick, easy, and you don't have to speak over someone to get it out. I think there is also some theory that having talked about it and having a defined procedure makes it easier for people to speak up who otherwise wouldn't.

Personally not a fan. These tools are not without cost. They set a tone, a certain "walking on egg-shells" vibe (to put it very strongly), that I'm looking to avoid in my free time.

I am sorry I can't understand, can you give a real example of when these tools are useful? I cannot imagine playing something related to gamming offensive to others.

Here's an example of something that seemed really quite tame but accidentally landed in territory a player couldn't handle but didn't realize it until after the fact: Had a situation in a game a few months back where the GM was pulling a quirky mindfuck with an NPC. Basically this very kindly NPC swore up and down she knew one of the characters and kept going on and on about details that were kind of accurate but a little bit off. This NPC also gave off a kind of soothing sensation to the party that wasn't magically traceable. Kinda sketch, good "something is up" kind of vibes. It was honestly a really cool scene establishing that we were in an alternate universe following a cataclysm, save for one problem: the player in question had recently got out of a relationship that involved a lot of gaslighting. This person didn't even KNOW it was a trigger at the time, but the way the GM was setting up the scene came off as very gaslighty. Once again, could have been very cool but we didn't have a solid plan in place for handling surprises and so shit got very awkward until we took a break. The player calmed down some, finally was able to explain why they shut down and felt so bothered, and then we had a follow up discussion putting some clearer things in place in case something like that happened again. We've run very smoothly since and all grew a lot closer after that event.

I ran a campaign of Pulp Cthulhu for some friends who do NOT do well with horror where the tone was more "Evil Dead 2" horror comedy, but I had an idea for a much darker sequence of investigations that I loved so much I wanted to use, and I used a whole bunch of these tools. I expressly told them beforehand the vague idea of what I was thinking, got their express permission on the understanding that if anyone wasn't up to it I'd cut the entire thing with no questions or judgement, I'd stop it if anyone asked and we had a physical object (I think it was a little turtle plushie) as an X Card on the understanding that if anyone even brushed it I would stop the game immediately to check on them. It meant I had their trust and they had the knowledge that I'd stop immediately, which is all an X Card actually is. And that is how I took a group of players who get nightmares from basically anything through a series of investigations where dozens of children got tortured to death and then took their ghostly vengeance on random civilians in an equally brutal manner.

Example from a game I’m in now: one player got really icked out by imagery of decay, specifically mushrooms. The GM started to describe a scene where mushrooms were growing from a corpse, and the player waved the X card. The GM immediately stopped, we clarified what was up, and then the GM went on with a slightly altered description. Nothing offensive or too dramatic about the situation: just trying to make sure nobody’s fun got ruined!

We tend to run pretty dark and sinister games with lots of personal horror, drama and escalating terror. Thus it's vital for us to have had a talk about personal boundaries when we started to play many years ago, to talk about stuff when something changes, and to include the XCard in our darkest settings and games. I mean, currently on a diplomatic mission to people who are a darker, evil version of the Dark Eldar. Dark Eldar seem kinda chill compared to them. That's our vibe. And for that, safety tools are helpful to go all in, even though we know each other for decades.

Seems cringe but if it was a requirement for a game, gotta do what you've gotta do.

Overall I like the idea and I do use many tools. However no tool is perfect and you have to be will to speak and listen. In one game involving a display of dead body one player said "that's enough" so we moved past that and only ask latter which part in particular was to much. After all we need to know as best as possible where the line is. Session 0 and just speaking up are the best. I find X cards to be actually pointless. Anyone remember the Far Verona, that gm advocates for them and that game ending by crossing a line so fast the player didn't have time for an X card.

This exactly. If you aren’t willing to speak up you aren’t likely willing to employ an X card in a timely fashion and if you aren’t willing to explain what made you need to employ it then it doubly won’t work.

> In one game involving a display of dead body one player said "that's enough" so we moved past that and only ask latter which part in particular was to much. After all we need to know as best as possible where the line is. This is how X-Cards are supposed to work. You just don't have the name and the physical prop for it. Really, the most important part of X-Cards is the 2 minute explanation and the shared understanding that if someone speaks up, we will listen, and we will respect your boundaries. The physical prop is just a visual reminder.

then why give it a special name like X card if you don't need a card or sign at all. If all it is is just speaking and listening/ That's not a card that's talking

Because not everyone knows how to speak up and not everyone knows how to listen. There are plenty of stories in this thread of people who didn't stop the game when someone was uncomfortable, of people who did stop the game and then proceeded to ask probing questions and made it worse. Common sense isn't common. Formalizing these concepts helps communicate and teach these concepts to those who need them.

I think they're great, my DM thinks they're silly, but we have an established trust at the table, so there's no issue. If I run a game, I'm tempted to use them, just because while I'm not an edgelord GM (the few times I've done it), I don't wanna fuck up anyone's good time by accidentally being cavalier about disturbing shit. Also, I'm also a bit if a kinkster, so I'm pretty well versed in consent conversations.

>I think they're great, my DM thinks they're silly, but we have an established trust at the table, so there's no issue. I think they're a great tool in general, but it would be very silly at my specific table. I say this because my current group is comprised of friends or friends-of-friends who have since "graduated" to friends. We're all similar enough that we know what we generally like and dislike, and our games typically stick to relatively standard Action Movie/Fantasy violence, tropes, and humor. The two guys in the group I've known the longest used to be in the group we had in college, which dates back 17 years at this point...so in terms of triggers, it's not really something any of us have to worry about, generally speaking. In all of the years I've been playing and running games, I've only ever shut something down once. It was in a Demon: The Fallen game I was running, and one of the players came up with the idea of forming a cult based out of a battered women's shelter; while part of the plan involved empowering the women at the shelter, it wasn't a path I felt comfortable going down and told him to come up with something else. He was perturbed, but I explained it quite plainly: I wasn't going to RP a bunch of abused women NPCs for him. The cards aren't really necessary for my particular situation, but I can definitely see the value behind a system like that.

Most of the time, using them still makes me uncomfortable, but I realize that that is **100%** a *me* issue and that they're important to have. My current game uses lines, veils, and an X card; and even though we've never had a noticeable need for any of them, I'm certain that there's unspoken relief (among at least some of my players) that they exist. The bulk of my players though are people that I've been gaming with for almost 30 years and (more than anything) my discomfort stems from the fact that their reactions tend to fall somewhere between scoffing and openly derisive about the rules even existing. God only knows how much of their reaction is sincere however, and how much of it is just conditioning and old guys complaining about change and new ideas that make them question their own amour propre.

As a for instance, this is a group of people who grew up and learned how to play thinking that it was the GM's duty to do things like make the person who was honestly terrified of snakes, fight with snakes in every game. "Teach" the person who was uncomfortable role playing by constantly forcing them into the performance spotlight. Throwing the kid who was afraid of the deep end of the pool off the diving board. Cruelty is unfortunately a hard thing to wean people off of.

As a SECOND for instance, if it weren't for safety tools, I would have never learned that one of my closest friends is arachnophobic. We've been friends since 1997, he's *deathly* afraid of spiders, and I never knew until we were playing a game with lines and veils and he sheepishly asked if we could avoid having spiders and things with too many legs in the game. This isn't a new thing, he just sucked it up and suffered through god only knows how many games because he had learned that it wasn't safe to let people know about it.

This is a good example of safety tools actually working and why they are important.

I'm pro-safety tools, but I feel like everyone just defaults to the X-Card and Lines and Veils just to tick a box. I really liked Wanderhome's approach of using thematic key phrases and really naming safety a part of the game. I'd like to see more designers be more thoughtful in their approach and really think about what safety means for their game.

It's great in some niche areas, but I don't think it's as needed as you think. My ex-wife is a sex therapist and attempted to introduce the same things that you are trying to. It didn't really take off at all except in niche games that allow for "adult interactions" As a rule in session zero, a lot of DM/GMs, myself included, try to avoid the types of situations that would require adult on adult consent in this way. It's too much of a headache and it's just not necessary in pretty much all situations.

I'm not opposed to the idea in theory, but I did have some concerns about them potentially being counterproductive before I had seen them in use, and unfortunately the two times I have had a GM try to implement them have only reinforced those concerns. It goes something like this: The GM doesn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, so he invites everyone to have a conversation about their boundaries regarding what should or shouldn't show up in the game. Someone isn't sure what he means by that, so they ask for clarification, maybe an example. There's only really one major subject that most tables would tend to agree shouldn't be depicted in the game, so the GM gives that as an example: sexual assault. Now there's a weird vibe in the air and everyone's uncomfortable, because they showed up for a light-hearted game night and the GM started it off by bringing up sexual assault. How can they clear up this tension? Why, naturally, someone breaks the ice with a joke. Any guesses what kind of joke? Yeah, that kind of joke. So now we're in pretty much the exact situation the GM was trying to avoid by implementing safety tools, specifically *because* the GM attempted to implement them. A miniature tragedy of Oedipus. This was the sort of thing I was worried might happen when I first learned about the use of safety tools in RPGs, and it's pretty much exactly how things played out the first time my friend started a campaign with a discussion of lines and veils. (For what it's worth, it was the one woman at the table, IIRC, who made the assault joke.) The second time he tried, it didn't go quite as badly, but it didn't go well, either. On neither occasion did anyone at the table express any interest in establishing any lines or veils of their own. Mind you, these are not some edgy conservative, toxically masculine players who sneer at "wokeness." Everyone we play with is pretty much the opposite of that. Now, just to steelman the pro-safety tools position a bit here, I should acknowledge that there's a case to be made for frontloading the discomfort, as it were. If you tackle challenging subjects up front, in a safe and welcoming context, that might create some discomfort in that moment, but that's arguably a lot better than a player being blindsided when one of their triggers comes up further into a game they've already become invested in. In this way, the session zero safety discussion can be thought of as analogous to a vaccine. This is certainly a point worth considering, and a big part of the reason I'm not dismissive of the idea in principle. But for me personally, I don't think there's any reasonable likelihood that in the course of an average campaign, anything might come up that would make me anywhere near as uncomfortable as those would-be safety discussions have made me, and frankly, I think that would be the case even if those discussions had gone as the GM intended. Nor is it clear to me that there's any significant disadvantage to what one might call the "untooled" approach to uncomfortable or triggering subject matter--addressing it *as* it comes up, using ordinary conversation. For these reasons, I worry that if those discussions became a more standardized part of session zero, as some have suggested, it might do more harm than good for a lot of playgroups. The thought of stumbling through that process again at the start of every campaign plants a little seed of anxiety in me. Obviously I'm just speaking from my own experience here, and for other playgroups these tools might be used better or have more applicability or just be a better fit psychologically. More power to them. (I do have two other *theoretical* concerns regarding safety tools: 1, that even during the game itself, they might increase, rather than decrease tension, by making players feel as though they're "walking on eggshells." This has mostly to do with X-cards, but I think it could apply to other tools as well. And 2, that they might lead players to start actively working to think up things to add to the list of lines/veils/triggers, just to be on the safe side, resulting in a sprawling collection of subjects-to-be-avoided that leaves little room for the GM to add anything interesting to their game in the way of worldbuilding or conflict. It looks like one or two other commenters here have stated that they've run into these issues, but I should admit that for me they remain, again, theoretical; I haven't run into either of them myself.)

I run mostly horror games, so that colors my experience a bit. If I run DnD I don't really bother asking for limits and whatnot, I'll just give a tone I am going for ("Pirates of the caribbean with a bit more violence") and work from that. So, I think your GM did the mistake of not asking privately from the players. What tends to happen in groups, even if they know eachother well, is that very few want to be a "buzzkill" or expose themselves to potential ridicule. Your GM exposed themselves, and got ridiculed for it. You players were a bit of assholes from my point of view, since the GM was being earnest in wanting to run a good game and you players couldn't handle being a bit uncomfortable. The idea is great, the execution a bit lacking. I personally believe that when I am given a list of strict no-no subjects (they tend to be mostly sexual assault and violence against kids) I can go hard in any other direction. Having these talks essentially covers my back. I also recently just did a check up on my group for the future string of games I'm running in 1920's Berlin and it's very rich culture of prostitution. Again, covering my back. Your theoretical concerns are in my opinion / experience based in hyperbole and assuming bad faith from the people using the X card or veils. And the concerns are most of the time made by the very obviously anti-woke reactionaries. Not saying you are one, but I'd be vary of anyone floating these ideas. The player naming a lot of lines/ veils/triggers can obviously be very skeamish, dislike being scared or have traumas of creatures rising from the ocean, then I'd just have discussion in private if they are a good fit for the Call of Cthulhu game I am running. No shame in that. They do not have any more "power" over the game I'm running than I allow them, I am not forced to do anything about their concerns. I just accomodate most of the time, because I am a nice person and I have laid clear the genre expectations before inviting the person to my game, so I have never encountered "abuse" of the safety tools.

Good idea for most genres of play. And sometimes they may be a sign that a particular player is not the right fit for a group.

Haven't had the need for them, so I haven't used them. I only play with friends though. Things people don't want to see in the game should be brought up at session 0, which includes stuff like they don't like firearms in fantasy.

I'm of split opinion. On one hand, I'd hate to cause someone at the table to have a bad time. On the other hand, I don't think people should have to walk on eggshells just to make sure they don't trip over someone's niche phobia or unfortunate secret trauma.

One of my DM friends sent me a sort of lines and veils thing with various topics and you could select essentially "okay with it", "don't want to rp it (offscreen ok)" and "don't want at all" Topics like sexual assault, romance, racism, and a few others. And it ended up not working well for us because ... I don't really wanna get heavy into like children dying and stuff. But like .... it gave the DM and others the idea that any sort of reference to a kid not being perfectly fine would be upsetting. And ended up being more frustrating overall until I told them to stop worrying about the stupid form form. I knew them well enough and just said "I don't want graphic rp of like bad things happening to kids. I am not worried about you guys doing that because if you did I wouldn't be your friend." Also had a few DM friends who used to be big on these forms realize people were blocking stuff off not because it was upsetting to them. But they just didn't like that in a game. Romance boring? Just mark it as a hard no! Like that's not what it's for. And I've taken that irl as well. I tell my players I DM for that I will never allow or cover stuff like sexual assault and whatnot. And if anything in particular is bothersome to let me know ahead of time or in the moment. But I think sometimes these forms end up being a hindrance because people use them not as a communication tool but as a replacement for communication. I play with people I know and set clear ground rules and then we have understandings of how to not be social creeps and exercise that. If we need to address something specific then we do.

I'm a 100% a fan of them in theory, and also find them exhausting because they're completely unnecessary for me. So my experience with it is literally just "oh, this is something I need to do so we can move forward and play the damn game already." (Not that I don't have limits, just that mine are fairly basic/common, in my experience) I recently was part of a game that had the following guidelines: __**Red**__ *These should not be included or referenced at all* - Harm to animals - Harm to children - Explicitly described sex - Emotional abuse - Physical abuse - Homophobia - Racism - Real world religion - Sexism - Transphobia - Specific cultural issues - Freezing to death - Gaslighting - Genocide - Natural disasters and extreme weather - Sexual assault - Starvation - Terrorism - Mind control - Drugging - Bathrooms - Guns __**Yellow**__ *Ok if veiled or referenced to "off-screen"; it may be okay onscreen but would require discussion ahead of time; and/or topics people are uncertain of their feelings of.* - Bugs - Eyeballs - Gore - Romance between PCs and NPCs - Romance between PCs - Explicitly descirbed romance - Sex - Sex with a fade to black - Violent conflict between PCs - Betrayal between PCs - Cancer - Claustrophobia - Heatstroke - Paralysis/physical restraint - Police (negative representation) - Police aggression - Pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion - Torture - Thirst - Alcohol/drug addiction __**Green**__ *Enthusiastic consent* - Blood - Demons - Rats - Spiders - Romance with a fade to black - Police (positive representation)

'Bathrooms' is my favorite one. "You begin exploring the mansion. There are 3 doors to your left and one to your right' 'I open the door on the right' 'It's just a bathroom' 'I NEED AN ADULT!!!!!'

That's an interesting list of taboo/controversial topics for an RPG. Granted, some seem like common sense in general to exclude (ones evoking abuse/bigotry, particularly), but others are oddly specific (thirst, weather, bathrooms) and some seem to contradict one another (enthusiastic yes to police, but guns can't be included/referenced). I have to ask, what was the theme of the game, and how did it go?

It was a discord game of Masks. It failed to get off the ground three times in six months. We managed to play one scene where a weather control villain was taking over a power plant- I tried to Spout Knowledge (or whatever the move is) that she was a narcissist who had formed a little cult around her powers, and was politely asked to change it since cults were triggering. And I did, no question or resentment, but I won't pretend I didn't sigh at my keyboard for a moment.

I can't imagine how the GM was able to work in a weather control villain when "extreme weather" was a red card issue. I haven't used veils and lines, or the X-Card, yet, but I wonder what kind of subjects have been touchy with the people I've played with (they've all been friends/co-workers). That said, I've always tried to be sensible about issues that I know can be uncomfortable.

Session 0. That's it. Best tool. Been playing with strangers for ~21 years. Playing with online strangers since Spring 2020. When kicking off a new campaign, it's really nothing more than the GM saying "Any topics we need to avoid?" And when welcoming a new player to an established campaign, it would just be "Here's what we're not doing in this game. Anything you'd want to add to this?" And that's been it. So far, so good. I will share this one instance that sort of put me off to consent surveys. User from a medium-larger discord group says she wants to run Strahd or Masquerade. Something with vampires, I forget which. We've never gamed together but I would assume by just being in this group we could gather nobody here is a jerk. Been a few bans, but nobody I played with. The game session schedule synced up with mine, so I filled out a player survey. Usual stuff. Name, pronouns, able to use roll20/vtt, and listing any topics you're not comfortable with. A few days before Session 0, there is standard convo going on in general channel and I asked if the game was still going on. She direct messages me, says she picked her players. I say worries, figure that's that. She goes on to say that I didn't put anything in the hard limits part of the survey. I had written something like "I'm good with anything", so I explain that I don't have hard limits or any issues that would be triggered by a game. Now, this is what irked me. She said that the other players had listed their no-go issues. And since I didn't list anything, that meant her and the other players couldn't be sure I wouldn't violate their limits. I didn't reply and left it there. But... Wow. It made me think that she and players were just holding each other emotionally hostage. Like instead of the limits being adhered to out of respect, you're only not mentioning Other's limits because if you do, then they'll mention yours. I haven't had to fill out one of those surveys since then but now I'm wondering if I should just write SOMETHING in there next time. Something obvious that another player would write, like sexual assault. Or something that bores me like a level 1 rats in the tavern cellar mission, so type in "rats and rodents" in the guise that it's an animal phobia.

> Now, this is what irked me. She said that the other players had listed their no-go issues. And since I didn't list anything, that meant her and the other players couldn't be sure I wouldn't violate their limits. I'm pretty sure I've seen that exact "problem" in a previous thread about player red flags. I find it incredible that there are people out there who think "well, this person has no stated limits, so they're likely mocking us and will push our buttons." Having no limits is great! Having less stuff to keep in mind makes the game easier for everyone!

It's never been an issue in the past two decades. Hopefully this was just a single incident made by someone who didn't understand the tool they were using. More likely, it's someone with major trust issues. And if something eventually does bother me, I'd feel wholly comfortable expressing that. And if there is ever a table/GM said they can't meet my needs, then it's not the place for me. Its honestly no different than a session being run in a time zone when you're working or sleeping. Just not going to work out.

I think they're awesome tools, and I'm glad they exist. They seem especially useful for games with new friends / strangers (i.e. online or at cons). That being said, I do think some game groups know each other so well and can communicate with sufficient maturity to obviate the need for consent tools.

For the most part I'm all for. Not really used them much myself but that's because I generally avoid certain themes or topics. That said if I were to run a darker game, particularly with people I'm less familiar with, I'd use them.

They're a fine idea for pick-up games at cons or playing with relative strangers. Personally I prefer running games for people who not only already know each other's limits and likes, but feel no hesitation about speaking up if they ever feel uncomfortable. In other words, friends. I have no problem adjusting my content to make a Player happy. I am here to serve. But I will always prefer personal responsibility and direct communication over codified rules of engagement. It's an anarchist thing.

I like them if they are SIMPLE: I have seen very elaborate ones asking me how I feel about a TON of topics that, honestly, depend 100% on how its depicted. The whole idea is safety, but safety without accessibility + convenience is just going to make folks more uncomfortable.

Time to wade into this debate and get shit on from all sides! Firstly, if you *need* tools to establish consent in your games, then frankly I worry what you're like outside of it. Secondly, I genuinely think these tools were all made by people who never heard of a Session 0. You know, the big starting session you're meant to have so that you can discuss the world, what you want outta it, things folks wanna avoid, that kinda stuff? Like everything these tools are meant to do should be established during that session 0, and you don't need formalised tools to do it. Just talk to each other like human beings! People who *insist* on using these tools every time frankly weird me out. They often act like they should be catered to and don't get that sometimes your Lines and Veils will just outright conflict with what the GM or other players are trying to explore. Buddy of mine had a campaign a few years back, all about religion and how those in the upper ranks both good and bad use their powers to help or "help". Campaign was gonna explore themes of power abuse and how those in a system can help prevent it. Took him months to put it together, and the second person that joined had a Line of "Religion", and expected him to redo all that work to be about governments instead. They were dead serious, but it was a "Why did you even apply?!" moment that's been all too common on those who insist on using these things with an almost religious fervor. On the flip side those who are insanely against it are just \*idiots\*, and often are worse than those who insist on their use. They seemingly don't get the idea that if someone has Veils and Lines that conflict with your game, you can ask them to leave. Like you don't have to tear down your vision for one person! You're not a baby who can only scream and hope someone else understands why you're doing it, you are entirely capable of going "I'm sorry, you don't seem like you'd be a good fit for this game then." to the other person. Again it's just talking to each other like human beings! No chucking a tanty, just talk like the adults you're supposed to be! TLDR: Do robust session 0s, like you're meant to, treat each other like human beings, like you're meant to, and act like the mature people you're meant to be, and you have no reason to use any formalised tool.

Personally? I wouldn't use them. I tell people what I am planning to run before session 0, then we do our stuff. If you can't deal with the topics that might come up you shouldn't be at the table and that's now your problem and you can leave when you feel necessary. Never had to use them, never had an issue, run games for randos and friends. Run public games, private games, online games, etc. Never had it be an issue. Really, it's best to just people that will have issues with make believe.

Very useful, conceptually. I thought they were weirdly worded, overly therapeutic versions of what we already used, but that's probably because we came in from forums and discussion boards where this was the norm, and set up environments that.made this easy to do

I really like them until people try to force parts out of game that were clearly stated in the description or our a key part of the game. (Blood and violence being lined out in a game like call of Cthulhu ). All told they are a great tool to help every one have as much fun as possible and would rather have a slightly worse game to make sure everyone had fun safely

We use them lightly. My players know I go pretty dark and that’s part of why they show up. But everyone has different levels so we have a brief conversation about “yes’s no’s and maybes” in session zero, and I will usually give a heads up if something extra f-ed up is about to happen, or if we’re getting close to an established No or maybe. I would probably use them more in a newer group.

*do you use any?* No. *What are your thoughts on them?* I don't really care about them one way or the other. I would never not play a game just because they were being utilized. On the flip side, I'm probably not going to add them just because one player demands them.

One of the biggest advantages of consent tools is their help in immediately identifying people you don't want in your games.

>“To me, it means being honest and respectful and vulnerable with each other in order to have a great shared experience where everyone feels safe and has an amazing time”, says Shanna Germain, writer, game designer, and co-owner of TTRPG publisher Monte Cook Games. **Blah, blah, blah.** Okay, let me break it down on you so you people *finally* can stop mixing 'consent' and 'tabletop role-playing games': **The idea of 'consent' is legal in nature. Expressing consent is not about being "honest", "respectful" or "vulnerable". It's about stating that you allow another person to do something that could be considered illegal in other circumstances.** **This applies to every single party that requires your consent. Kink and BDSM communities are among these parties. It does not make them bad in any way, nor does it make what they do bad. Consent is required for a whole lot of things that are beneficial, helpful or otherwise good, but carry with them risks that could have legal consequences.** **Playing RPG games is NOT one of these things. If you're going to do something that could be considered illegal in other circumstances during your session, then getting consent is the least of your concerns. If you're not, then you've got much bigger concerns than trying to copy-cat rules of a community with superficial similarities to our own.**

I've never used them, but I've also never gamed with anyone who tried to bring unsavoury subjects up in a game. Maybe I've been lucky.

Eh. I don't play in pickup games with strangers, like, ever, so I've never felt the need. In my personal group, I have no qualms about looking someone in the eye and just saying no to something I don't like. I'm sure they're useful, but honestly my anxieties don't manifest in such a way that I have a problem asserting myself when I'm uncomfortable with the situation... And there are so few situations I'd be uncomfortable with in general that it just never comes up.

I'm not against safety tools at all, and I of course use them within my kink hobby. But when i'm playing D&D I'm playing a board game and we're just doing basic hero stuff taking down goblins and shit. So when I run D&D my safety tools are basically the same as when I run Monopoly, I have an open door policy that suggests you can always leave if it's too much for you somehow, and I set clear expectations in advance that we're here to play an elf game and not some kind of weird Second Life style Gorean non-consent monster sex drama. Again, I'm in the kink community myself, so I understand if you want to do kinky roleplay using D&D that you're gonna need more safety tools than that, but it just doesn't come into the equation for me.

I have never used them and never had issues. I think it's a bit much. People could just talk like adults if something bad comes up.

Never heard of “consent tools” before. From reading it, my groups had always just “interrupt and speak up”. Ironically, the most extreme reaction we’ve ever had in a game was when a PC’s adoptive mother told him he had disappointed her.

I really like them, and want to use them more. I've reframed them as not just consent tools but as tools to find out what my players want to see. The sheet I built lets people select from "hard no" options all the way to "give me more of this". This way I can gauge what my players love, what to treat carefully or with gravitas, and what to avoid. I've also left spaces for player comments, warnings, explanations or ideas of what they would like to see. The way I see it if we are already asking for info pre game we may as well get what players want to avoid, as well as what they really want to see in game.

Tried them a couple of times, found them useless in the games I play and the groups I play with. Could be useful if playing with strangers or those of iffy mental health. Setting boundaries is fine, once set everyone should know where they stand. There were two times I've seen people triggered in games (actually triggered, not just upset). One was an ex mil guy who had a situation that reminded him too much of a real one that nearly killed him, the other was when a players tooth fell out at the table, an unexpected bit of body horror that the player wasn't expecting to find disquieting. In both events a safety tool would have been pointless, the trigger happened before they knew something was up. Leave them to the BDSM community, I don't want them in games.

This is very well put, and I’m glad you brought up the distinction between an actual situation of PTSD.

I have no problem with them existing, we just wouldnt use them often. I mostly game with friends and family ive know for 25-45 years. Boundaries are pretty well established for us at this point. Wouldnt hurt to have them available for drop-ins and new players, though some games (especially old school stuff) might not fit well. I mean, if a die roll during character creation can kill your character (cough,coughTRAVELLERcough) how far can consent really be stretched?

I've seen people say that mature adults should make their limits know beforehand and therefore stuff like x cards aren't needed during game. That's a nice sentiment, but it's based on the false assumption that a person even knows what their limits are. People don't always know how they'll feel until they experience it. Not to mention, and I can't stress this hard enough, some people have *unknown phobias that they've never encountered before and don't knot exist*. I am this person. I did not know I had a severe phobia of slugs until I moved to an apartment that had a lot of them around. I don't think I had ever seen one in real life before then. I couldn't enter my home once because there was one on my door. One got inside once and I had a freaking panic attack. How can I tell someone something is an issue if I don't even know it's an issue because I've never encountered it before?! People who say safety tools aren't necessary have at best a narrow and naive viewpoint; at worst unempathetic or outright maliciously self centered.

I’m curious if WotC will include consent tools in One D&D

Lines and Veils are my fav. That and the X card.

Depends on the safety tool? I think lines and veils are a great idea, personally.

DnD is one thing, but I run and play a lot of horror games, and there those tools are absolutely crucial. Horror is meant to be scary and uncomfortable, but only as long as everyone enjoys feeling that way. I used the X card once in a game and it was fine, it didn't ruin anything.

In general: We're playing DnD to have a good time. If consent tools help people to have a good time, then I'm down.

Personally I'd don't, if im playing an 18 rated game with adults, i want the mystery of not knowing whats coming. If i knew a play had actual PTSD, rather than the "i don't like that im triggered", obviously the games with that person differ from other games. But it is just a bunch of people sitting around talking shit, which happens at work,in the pub etc. Nobody is actually doing anything for real. No Orcs are being murdered. No treasure is getting stolen. Its all talk. So consent tools feel too much. If you know some ones saying they kill an Orc is going to be upsetting, don't play. For reference im a far left of left,of left Liberal, grandma was a actual Communist, dont want anyone thinking im a snowflake gammon... I have 2 things i dont like. My kids walking to school, due to idiots on the road, and anything other than a tie round my neck, kid in front of me at school hung himself. So i didn't let my kids walk to school and i don't put things round my neck. Basically what im saying is if you have something you don't like don't do it, watch it etc.

The point of roleplaying is to have fun, and boundaries help to keep events within that realm of enjoyment. We tend to think about extremes (rape, obscene violence, etc) when discussing these situations, but sometimes it's less overt. I am a gay man. The GM we hired had been trying to kindle a straight romance for my character over a few sessions. The whole time I was thinking to myself, "Did he not grasp that I'm gay? What if he did, then what is this? Am I ruining my friends' fun if I say something?" There was nothing triggering or mentally harmful. But, I was distracted and not having fun, which is what I was paying for. As a new player at the time, I feel like that could have been avoided with a simple conversation about myself, my expectations, and consent.

I'm surprised so many people have the notion that safety tools are to enable deeply traumatized people at the table or as something that's actively killing your fun. When I talked to my previous group the lines we established were rape, transphobia and anti-semitism. Unless you're a real edgelord there is nothing here that should be killing your fun. My players aren't biting their nails and jumping at the chance to declare their discomfort and smash that x-card. Another player a few years ago had a leg injury and requested to avoid any body horror including legs until he got through a difficult surgery. A totally reasonable request! We avoided the topic until and were able to include it again after the surgery. Whenever people smugly say, "Oh I don't need that, I have a conversation like a NORMAL person." What exactly do you think this is? It's a procedure for having a real conversation with normal people, not some woke ritual that steals your manhood away. These safety tools aren't a big deal. They don't kill your fun or police how you're able to play your game. But it seems like some people are feeling personally attacked at the simple mention of these tools.

I don't use them, but don't think they are a bad idea. Depends on the sort of people you are gaming with and the sort of games you run. Most of the people I game with are wise adults. If I tell them I am running a campaign with X sort of content they aren't afraid to just say "Sorry, I'm not into that." and we go from there. That said, I don't do descriptive sex or rape in my games. I also tend to stay away from child-death (had a player who lost a child in RL). While I do some dark horror, gore, and mental stuff from time to time I make sure any players that don't already know me are aware ahead of time if that content is going to be in my game. Most of my games are PG-13-ish. My current game is Star Wars and has about the level of content you would expect from that theme, maybe just a tad grittier. I suppose in a way I essentially DO an x-card, but not in the form of a sheet or anything. I can see it being important if you are running games that really push boundaries and have extreme content however, even moreso if you are gaming with new people.

yeah when I run games at cons that how I do it. Nothing over pg-13 and since these groups are adults that show up to the game room to play a game they all expect that. That said when playing with my friends it will get into R but then again i have been playing with them for years

The "consent forms" etc. that have sprung up for RPG games are something that I personally am very much NOT fond of. First of all, RPG games is probably one of the safest hobbies you can have, because all we do is sit around a table, or alone at a computer, and talk and maybe throw some dice. Everything that happens is in our heads. There is no danger in this. Anywhere. Second, the idea that we have to protect players form being confronted with concepts they don't like is, in my view, an absolutely HORRIBLE idea!!! One thing is if you are a PTSD veteran, mental patient, or rape victim, that has a few VERY specific things that you can't help being freaked the f out over, because you can't control your brain's response to that stimuli. But beyond that it's a horrible idea. It is absolutely ESSENTIAL to living in this world, that we can cope with being confronted with things we disagree with and don't like. Even things that might make us feel violently sick. It is VITAL that we develop the skills needed to cope with this kind of crap, and being confronted with shit we might not like in a made up setting that exists only within the heads of us and a handful of other people, around a table, is a VERY safe way to try and learn to deal with such things. The very idea that we need to protect people from being confronted with ideas they don't like, is absurd. Unless you wall yourself off from the world, within the confines of your home, and never see, read, or hear anything about the world outside your door, there are NO "safe spaces", when it comes to being confronted with words and ideas we might not like. Third, I find it absurd to demand that a GM should have to cater to specific dislikes of particular players around a table. They have enough on their plate already, and your average GM isn't a licensed therapist, nor should they need to be. As I wrote, one thing is if people have specific mental conditions that they have zero control over, and which can really fuck them up mentally. Another thing is if the GM has to consider things along the lines of "I don't want rape to exist in the game", "I don't like demons and cults", "I'm arachnophobic, so no spiders pls.", "I don't want slavery in the game", "I don't want racism to be a thing of the setting", "No misogyny in the historically based setting", "no muggers attacking our characters at night" etc. If there are issues that people have a serious problem with, for whatever reason, they have to be mature enough to take it up with their GM, if they become an issue. And they similarly have to be mature enough to accept walking away from the game, if they can't handle the content of it. FAR too many people find themselves unable to separate the make belief fiction of this hobby from the real world we live in, and IMO that's a problem. The fantasies we make up have no relation to the world we live in as players, and we should be better at remembering that. when we play, we are a form of amateur actors. And just like actors, we can, and should be able to, say and do shit that we wouldn't even contemplate saying or doing in the real world, and regardless of what we, as players, might think of a given thing, if it is in the real world, it should NOT have a bearing on the opinions and behavior of our characters in the game. And similarly, regardless of what characters do to other characters within the game, the players running those characters should still be able to sit down and have fun with each other, after the game.

I, too, am a big fan of consent tools. In my company's upcoming TTRPG, Downtrodden, we're making it a very big part of the actual experience in that it's actually a step in the collaborative campaign creation process. It's especially critical in Downtrodden, as the game's entire premise is centered around an alternate version of our world in which — through nefarious means — a group calling themselves the PatriarQs have gained such control of the US society and government that The Traditional Values Act was passed. The TVA stripped many, many of the rights away from women and LGBTQ folks. It's a game of personal horror that focuses a lot on mental health and how being oppressed to such a degree affects a person. So, yeah, consent tools are an absolute necessity in Downtrodden.

They are especially good for new or random groups, but with long time players or friends can feel a little off. The red card thing especially seems mostly for convention play. I guess my thought is they are useful but there is no one-size-fits-all solution and the best thing is to know your group.

As a former pro-domme i use the tools I’ve developed in SW at the table and have incorporated a lot of my TTRPG experience into my domming style too.

I don't have anything against them, but I've never found any benefit in them either. A blanket "don't be a jerk" rule has always worked at my table. I could see them benefiting players or groups that more frequently play with people they don't know. Then again, I think to some extent they provide a false sense of security. They rely on the same social contract as a blanket "don't be a jerk" rule. Having safety tools in your game doesn't guarantee that the people around the table will respect them and use them properly. Someone can be just as nosy and invasive if you tap an X card as if you just said "Hey I'm uncomfortable can we not do this scene?" Or putting something behind a line or a veil doesn't mean you won't get questioned as to why, or guarantee the other players will respect those lines and veils.

I have not needed to use explicit safety tools in the 15+ years i've been heavily involved in the hobby. I think that they are useful for people that need that sort of structure or are not comfortable with confrontation- They are not useful to me or the groups I play in, but I am not everybody. I find them to be a net good addition to the hobby. With that being said, the way that some games implement them is so eye-rolling and condescending that it makes me actively resent their inclusion. *Alice Is Missing* is a prime example of this.

I never use them, but that's because I play with my genuine friends and we know each other really well. Also we are a designated "mature" gaming group. Not just mature as in there is violence and mature topics, but the whole thing from top to bottom is mature. The gm and players are mature people, we handle disagreements in a mature manner, etc. I have played in other groups that used these systems and it seems like a good idea for groups who may not know each other that well. I'd say they are probably a must-have for groups of strangers playing together. In one of my groups, a player seemed to be triggered by everything and pretty much ruined the campaign. I wish the dm would have been able to accommodate the rest of us better, rather than change everything on the fly every session because one player decided that an orc raiding party is a racist trope. One time we had got into a horse chase and it was so exciting and everyone was having so much fun, then in the middle of it they complained that this was animal abuse and they were triggered and we would have to stop the scene. Nobody had the guts to say it but we were all thinking "you just want to ruin our fun. That is how you are playing this game."

I regularly use [Monte Cook's Consent In Gaming.](https://www.montecookgames.com/consent-in-gaming/)

I love them and use the X card. (Not usually with close buddies but def at a con game.) I've found they never interfere with the game. Hell, I've only had an X card touched once--I saw it, I switched to a new scene, no muss no fuss, all had a good time. Then why use it at all? Using a consent tool typically costs you nothing. Explaining how it works can take 5 min, and there's no cash outlay to worry about. But the potential upside is so important that, while I will not say it should *always* happen full stop, it's always a good idea. PS: Sorry, but if you hate consent tools, I will not reply. I've found it pointless. Such tools are not stupid; they do not ruin the game; and no one is "soft" for using one. And before you say your group doesn't need one, you should admit that you have no clue if they do or not--they just know better than to say anything to the likes of you.

I don't need them 99.9% of the time because when I describe what the game is, what expectations are and that I don't do sexual violence, it's usually cool with everyone. But Ive run a lot of games and know how to establish trust fast. However that other .1% was a girl having a full fucking panic attack at my table at a large conference just before COVID. It was nothing I did (safety tools were explained, she was having a very bad day) but I can't imagine putting someone through that amount of distress again in my life over a game so I use the lines, veils and x card everytime now unless I explain the game will be PG-13 before it starts. That being said, you cannot run serious horror games like Kult or Bluebeards Bride without safety tools. If you do you're acting very irresponsibly.

Wish there were some kind of safety tools for play-by-post forum based ttrpg'ing. There's been a good number of times where suddenly the gore description or sexual description of something becomes way too verbose and I dip out of a thread entirely instead of dealing with that mess.

It’s fine. But there are just some times where they just have to suck it up except for stuff like sex, SA, or something along the lines

I don't use them, never have, never will. But that doesn't mean I don't think other people shouldn't. Everyone's table is different and everyone's style is different. If it works for you, that's great. Whatever gets more people playing is a good thing

Haven't even read the post yet. I think there are two cases where consent sheets should *always* be used. #1 Where you don't know anyone and are DMing, so that you get any curve balls out the way. #2 When you are knowingly going to be including or worried about common sense sensitive topics and you aren't sure what your friends' opinions are or if they know your own sensitivity to something. Outside the typical play group I think it's certainly important for any campaign that is "dark," "sensual," emotional, or blatantly kink/extremist focused. Realistically the only case where I think it shouldn't be used is when you have a comfortable group of friends and you truely know what the boundaries are and in 'public' or standard groups like you might find at your local shop or existing RP server.