When we do lines and veils at con play, if there is someone at the table who has expressed a particular line before, I will often express it myself.
For ex: There’s a non-neglible number of my gamer friends who need a line on child abuse. Some of them find it difficult to say, as that itself can be triggering.
So … I’ll put it out as a line, and then it’s there and we don’t need to think about it.
It helps that I have essentially zero interest in plotlines regarding abuse of any kind, with noteable and very specific exceptions.
Yup. These days I just have a blanket sexual violence Line and consensual sex Veil in every single game I run or play in if it’s not there already. I have no particular personal trauma associated with either, but it just takes it off the table for everyone without requiring someone more vulnerable than me to out themselves.
I remember reading something early on when learning about the X-card that seems brilliant, but I haven’t seen done: X yourself early on.
Certainly not something purpously heinous, just something minor that you think twice about. For example: “Carla the town guardsman comes up to you and presses her spear into your face… Ahh… :tap x card: She pushes you back with a clenched fist, what do you do?”
The idea is normalize the use yourself, point out you can use it on yourself, and show that play will just move quickly on and it isn’t a ‘buzz kill’.
Just as the X card is not enough, consent is not enough.
Backstory was mentioned recently and Alex Roberts had some very interesting interviews with larpers there, among who Johanna Koljonen. What Ms koljonen says is that RPGs being improvisation, you never know where you’re going to get. Prior to this, I worked with the martial arts analogy, where we spar always far from our limits. And we can escalate, and the the partner will follow, until one perceives a limit, and then we stay way below that (competition apart). The whole thing is a slow complex sequence of moves and subtle check-ins. But it’s not rocket science either. The whole process Ms Koljonen calls “calibration” and I’ll use this term from now on.
Calibration to me is Safety 101. Heating up before sports, etc.
“Consent” is like level 0 in safety.
Sadly it is useful. It’s useful only because most societies are appallingly sexually violent. So Safety 0 is better than the abysmal depth of violence that’s out there, but it’s not enough to play games that go anywhere near just having some honest “take that”, such as a fairplay round of leading questions.
First, all safety procedures with a simple yes/no alternative are crap. Being a language teacher, I know that “yes” can mean “I don’t know what you’re saying please don’t eat me” as well as “Frankly no, but I’ll stay polite” or “I’d be glad to”
Second, consent can be manufactured. It is more and more so. I don’t even have to evoke an hypothetical alienation. Sometimes you’re in a position where the “no” is obfuscated.
What’s more, the X card is like a panic button : it’s something you know how to use, but at the same time it’s something that says “don’t use me lightly”, as it qualifies the situation as a problem. How many practice “safety in play” exercises (like we have “fire alarms exercises”) and workshops so they WILL use it when needed ? I am not saying “theoretically” : I am thinking of a competent professional, Elspeth Eastman who, being cornered into a rape scene, didn’t have the power to use it. Until that point in time, I was confident that the X card and Cut and break, etc. could be enough. I am no more.
Calibration is much more ingrained in play, the cost/benefit is, I believe, immediately apparent. I wish that Ms Eastman’s character’s rape would be a Tenerife airport disaster to the TTRPG and LARP community and brings us to craft procedures we actually use everytime we play and all along the session. Not slight cues or interpretation, but a solid code that’s as obvious as green or red light is for traffic.
What are the most useful tools…I think depends on context, right? In Gauntlet Hangouts, the X-card and Script Change are hard to effect because they’re not very easy to communicate — I tell my players to just interrupt whatever’s happening and say “x” or “pause,” whatever, but that’s far from ideal.
And I think lines and veils, in an online game, might be the most effective, especially since they can be done anonymously pretty easily. When I’m introducing lines and veils, too, I make sure to cover what setting a line and veil means, being a little more specific than just saying “these aren’t going to be in or story” (i.e. as the GM, my NPCs will not do that to each other or to PCs. As your PCs, you will not do that other PCs, etc.).
A useful safety tool in an online space would be built into the video call software, something similar to Zoom and Jitsi’s “raise hand” functionality, but way more impactful (Zoom’s “raise hand” is barely noticeable).
I’ve had similar thoughts bouncing around in my head for a while now, thank you for your post as it helped put my own ideas in order.
I’ve always had a subconscious issue with the existing safety tools, not that they aren’t effective, but that they are missing something. The issues I’ve had are that they are either
A) retroactive; they come up once harmful material has already occurred. This makes them a useful emergency button but not one that is preventative. Where I think they are effective is that people may not be aware of what material they are uncomfortable with.
B) vulnerable to peer pressure; they require everyone to declare what material they are uncomfortable with in front of everyone else. Even in cases where there is anonymous submission, publicizing the results still maintains that subconscious feeling of exposure. My issue is in an event with a group of strangers there is an implicit social pressure to suppress one’s own desires for the good of the group. As @DeReel wonderfully put it:
When reading the safety tool chapter in many games, I often see the same themes mentioned; sexual violence, domestic violence, and abuse. Would it not make more sense to create a culture and safety rules that assume these issues are off the table by default? There is a difference in how you will approach a game if the above issues are opt-in instead of opt-out.
I do software development using “agile methods” a thing I use from that is the retrospective. Every few sessions I’ll ask everyone to say both
things we should be doing more of
things that we should stop doing
I find this promotes the idea that tone and content are evolving and that it’s the responsabily of the whole table not just the GM or something that will sort itself out
Before the game, I’ll also ask the players for “references” games, films, books etc that they’d like to pull elements from. That goes a long way to set expectations about content.
I’ll also explain the X Card and we will have a conversation about tone in our first session.
I’ve definitely used this in horror games and it’s been a good way of setting expectations and creating that divide between ‘we love the players’ and ‘we want to see the characters get ripped apart, betray each other, etc, etc’.
Keeping a blase attitude to some of it helps. “Obviously we’re using lines & veils and these things are off the table for starters, any of you want anything on there?” almost like you’re ordering from a menu of things you don’t want. The same with open door and X, I try to make it like a flight attendant, rattle through and so far it’s worked for me.
The only safety tool I use is “Speak Up”. If you don’t like the game maybe you shouldn’t be playing. We play very grim, dark, and gritty adventures. It isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
Hello and welcome !
The only thing is… some people won’t dare to speak. They don’t want to disturb : discretion, not complaining is part of the values they have been taught.
Of course, playing with a group of friends is more forgiving than playing with a random pick up group.
That sounds ideal, but, even in a close-knit group, sometimes a policy like that isn’t supportive of what’s actually happening at a table. If a game uses the common GM/player split, there’s already an unbalanced division of power that may, in the end, disempower someone from speaking up, especially if there isn’t an explicit discussion about how to speak up or what someone would speak up about.
A lot of safety tools help to empower people avoid situations where they might want to speak up, but not know how or when.
Reading this I’m thinking “Speak up” isn’t the only Safety Tool you’re using. You’re basically (hopefully) upfront about the game you are going to play. “Hey guys, so I was thinking about playing GrimDark Dungeons and Sadistic Dragons ™ with you today. It’s gonna be grim, dark and gritty. Are we good or do we need to play something else?” Right?
Still, as noted before, some people might be to intimidated to oppose or say yes not to spoil the other’s fun. They might be thinking “Oh, I don’t like grim and dark. And also sadism isn’t my kinda thing. I was hoping on Magical Pony Tea-Time Adventures ™, but the others seem into it, so I’ll go along.”
Now, that isn’t very safe of them, and they should act more responsibly towards their own sensibilities, but they are also your friends. You don’t want to hurt your friends, right? Peer pressure is not okay. I hope we can agree on that.
I don’t usually play with randoms, so your mileage may vary.
I find that just being with a group of people that trusts and understands one another is the most valuable thing. No safety tool can replace that. If you don’t have that, some safety tools might even make it worse. At this point I just refuse to play with people I haven’t had a basic conversation with before playing.
I also disagree with some of the posters here that the GM/Player split gives more power to one player. I don’t know what games you’re playing, but at my table there is always an assumed equal relationship between everyone at the table, at the social level. GM is just a player role, not a god of the game and definitely not in charge of people’s well-being any more than anyone else. I refuse to play if this is not the agreed social contract, as it brings many more social problems than lack of safety. I’m neuroatypical and don’t really feel comfortable playing if there is an expectation that as a GM i am also some sort of therapist and should be able to read the table and figure out who’s feeling uncomfortable.
All that said, I tend to propose a variation of this simple method in my games – with the strong caveat that not all games are the same. An explanation of this is usually included at the beginning of a campaign, and reminded every now and then. I think these things are mostly common sense.
Talk about the game and what you’re expecting of the game.
Let everyone know that if something upsets them it’s OK to ask to remove it.
Gloss over things that make someone uncomfortable.
Understanding that if we go into some dark themes we are well damn going to explore them together
Feel free to take a break if you need to
Hold debriefing session after game to talk about what went good/bad.
I guess in safety tool speak this would be a mix of “Lines and Veils”, “Pause”, “Open Door Policy”, etc… but we don’t really call it that way.
I would not add any additional game mechanics (e.g. any X-Cards or other table tools) for safety reasons; I prefer to play games as written.
IMO the idea of safety tools is to create this social contract where it may not already exist. I’ve seen a lot of sentiment similar to “if you are close friends with knowledge of each others’ boundaries, you probably don’t need safety tools”
I think the intention of the X-card and related safety tools is that they are explicitly not mechanics. Their use is not to modify the game itself but rather to apply an emergency safety button for the group setting.
I think based on recent posts it may be valuable to talk about how safety tools are pitched and used. To people who have never used them they often appear unnecessary (calling for things their group is already aware of), uncomfortable (it requires exposing vulnerability), or intrusive (why do we have to go through all this if everything already works fine?). I’m going to need to sleep on ideas, but I certainly think there is value in improving the “selling” and outreach of safety tools; including when they should be used (even if you believe the answer is “every time”), how they are to be used, and why they are useful.
Hey @Radmad, I agree with the rest of the post and your general sentiment. But I really don’t think X-card is not a game mechanic: it is, if you keep using it to negotiate the fiction instead of the built in procedures provided by the game to do so then it is a procedure of play you are using to agree on fictional events, and thus by definition part of the System by the lumpley-boss principle. I can totally see it override actual text-defined procedures in games that have strong assertions on who gets to narrate when and who has veto power over what. Trollbabe, My life with Master come to mind.
In other games there is a built-in expectation that play will hit themes that might be dark or triggering for most – My life with Master, DitV or some editions of Vampire come to mind – the entire idea of a vampire is subtext for sexual violence themes. I’m not saying the X-Card should not be used, but there should be at least awareness that it can modify the experience of some games, and that it’s not a silver-bullet one-size-fits-all solution that can just be slapped on top of a game and call it a day.
That’s why, personally, I just prefer talking about things. I understand in some situations it’s really not possible – if you regularly play with strangers, for example – and that’s why I said your mileage may vary.
I share your view that safety tools are game mechanics. OK, they are also outside of the game. They are like a snorkel between game and off game, a bypass as you say. And not the only one in the game “system”.
With the engineering analogy, it becomes obvious that a secure system needs redundancy. Using the X card is for people who have a problem with speaking up. But it won’t do anything for those taught into discretion. For these, being the official buddy for another player is better. Being all buddies doesn’t work because attention requires focus, and we’re talking light non-verbal cues (eg embarrassed smile)
I actually have an example on how this happened during play, to me, playing with relative strangers – that is, people that know each other but don’t play with each other on the regular, and where we didn’t really use any safety tools but common sense and adult discussion between humans. I also have to specify that my culture is generally open about disagreements & emotions, and this generally makes problems like this easier to solve.
Basically, I was playing a scene in Fantasy World where my priest-type character was talking to a healer-type NPC offering spiritual help, and the conversation veered about her past trauma and the death of her son. Now, I feel very uncomfortable being in a therapist role – as you can probably ascertain from the posts above – and the use of first person and direct speech was particularly affecting me. However, it was I who initiated the scene, I wanted to play through this and I didn’t want to spoil others of the potential dramatic catharsis. So I told the group I was uncomfortable, explaned what I was uncomfortable about, asked the group to continue the scene in third person and using indirect speech. This all happened in the span of about 4 seconds. Scene was awesome, satisfying, and was completed successfully.
If I had let the scene continue, and had been hurt by it, would it have been the other player’s fault that I was hurt? Would it have been the group’s fault for not putting a safety mechanic in place? Or would it have been my fault for initiating a scene in a way that I couldn’t handle, and not speaking up about it? What about a mix of the above?
Fiction is always introduced together, never forced by a player on another. Even if you’re doing GM-heavy play such as OSR-like dungeon crawls. Another player might say it, but you have to agree to it for it to actually be part of the shared fiction. If this is not understood, play should not begin.
With this, what I’m trying to exemplify is that safety is the responsibility of the whole group, sometimes including the player who is feeling uncomfortable. And so, my personal approach to this is that, yes, you can trust that we are here for you but we have to trust that you will speak up. If someone is not able to communicate like this, I don’t really want to play with them – too many potential problems and hurt feelings and emotional damage that I don’t want to have to handle – and I’d just rather do something else than a roleplaying game with them.
I don’t think safety tools or mechanics solve this fundamental problem, although the conversation around safety tools might help. It’s a social problem: communication, transparency, trust, they go both ways. How can I know what you are OK with if you can’t bear to tell me?
First of all, thanks for the great and thought-provoking post. This discussion is giving me a lot to chew on.
I wonder if there’s a different way to think about this. I don’t know if the idea of “fault” is really helpful here. I agree with you that safety is the responsibility of the whole group, but I’m wary of thinking about things in a manner that blames any one as long as they were acting in good faith, and even saying “this was on everyone” to some degree can do that. Shame is a powerful demotivator, and if someone does feel defensive or at fault, it could lead to them shutting down rather than continuing to be a contributor and helping maintain table safety. So how does that get negotiated at the table? I don’t have any answer here, just trying to think it through some.
I agree with most of this in principle, but I also think it’s fair to say that we want to be accommodating of people who maybe have less emotional intelligence, or maybe who were firmly raised in guess culture rather than ask culture, or for any myriad of reasons doesn’t feel comfortable speaking up, but for whom a tool like the X-Card is less emotional/cognitive load.
I think it’s absolutely okay to say “this is the type of group I want to play with,” but I would be careful to not suggest “this is how all groups should be.” Maybe you’re not doing that, and I’m reading into your statements something that isn’t there–if so, I apologize; I do think it’s still an important point, though, because in conversations like this, the default is often “this is the correct way to do things,” even if you or I might not specifically be engaging in that manner.
Avery Alder had a really great thread on Twitter recently about how the expectation of “speaking up” (in the context of ask vs guess culture) can itself be pretty fraught, and that we would be remiss to assume that asking is automatically better/more healthy than guessing. I think where this becomes especially relevant to this discussion is in the assumption that there are no power dynamics at play at the table. My tables strive very hard to play as equals, and as Forever-GM I work really hard to make it clear that we are all players in the game, with specialized roles, and the GM is just a specialized role that has no more inherent power over the fiction than anyone else. But is it always true? Probably not. And that’s without considering any other pre-existing power dynamics at the table. I play with close friends who all have some degree of history with one another; beyond that, dynamics of gender, race, trauma, and a plethora of -isms still exist at the table. It’s our job to mediate and, to the best of our abilities, ameliorate the effects of those dynamics at the table, but they’re still going to be there.
All that’s to say: I would like to believe that my tables are democratic and equal in power, but I don’t know if that’s truly always the case; if it even can be the case.
And that’s where tools (and mechanics–I think I agree with you there that the X-card et al are in fact mechanics) come into play. In my day job, I am a psychotherapist and have spent a lot of my time facilitating therapy groups. In those groups, you build trust over time, but there are certain shortcuts to building therapeutic rapport or trust more quickly. I don’t bring those particular things to the table, because it’s not appropriate, but I think safety tools can be similar. They help build trust quicker, and offer a scaffolding to rely on, one that will hopefully help people come to the place where they are able to have the kinds of open and vulnerable conversations your table champions. (And gaming groups are still groups, after all, and tend to develop in the same manner as most other groups.)
So I think ultimately my point is this:
The model you suggest is a great one, and the one my tables strive toward.
It’s also sort of utopian, and I think that safety tools exist to address the impossibilities (improbabilities?) of every table being able to adapt such a model from the jump.
Again, you have every right to state that this is the type of table I am going to play with and these are my expectations of the other players. I think that’s perfectly valid, and I know for my part I certainly strive for something very similar. But for myself, and for many groups, it’s not necessarily attainable as a matter of course. Safety tools fill those gaps.
I believe lines and veils and traffic light systems often put a lot of burden on the distressed party to extrapolate on and expound upon the specifics and unfortunately sometimes the reason for their restrictions. Especially in con settings I think they can sometimes do more harm than good, where people feel like they’re being compelled to spill their guts before perfect strangers to have their traumas catalogued publically.
I, recently, have settled more on explaining and cultivating early on the open and cooperative nature of the table and using the ‘pause’ system from belonging outside belonging (similar to the X-Card but the pauser doesn’t need to be reacting to distressing content. It can be a script rewrite, a call for a break or just an explanation of how the topic at hand has affected them more broadly. Basically just the distressed party gets the floor). I hope that this enables people to feel like they have options if stuff comes up without having them feel like the specifics of their trauma need to be public knowledge
