We published a safety system a while back, called Traffic Lights (it’s free to download, of course). It is also the only safety tool I’ve tried. I like the three part structure of it. “I’m fine, keep going!”, “I’m getting uncomfortable, can we change direction?” and “Okay, we need to stop this now.”
I think it works pretty well. But I also know that much of the criticism against these kinds of safety systems also applies to this.
Back on the anvil.
It appears from a recent discussion that a short foreword about the Bully Victim Savior triangle and the evils of White knighting can be a good safety tool, specially against mishandled safety tools.
Also, I have just found the one I lacked in my last hurt game : NGH vs IWNAY. I have no second thoughts about resurrecting a long untouched thread and here’s why : if you follow that link, you’ll find that the thread is 14 years old. That means I want to thank the admins and @jasoncordova for making this forum perennial. Keeping knowledge alive can prevent tragic brain wrecks.
Yes, I’ve always liked that Meguey Baker post, and I’ve strongly been on the “I will not abandon you” side of things for most of my roleplaying.
Just to add something to it, since it might not be clear, dealing with heavy issues can be done with drama as well with humor. It’s not necessary that the tone is “serious”.
I find this very interesting and would like to pick your mind (and anyone else interested) about a position I currently hold in regards of safety mechanics and how to design them.
In a recent Reddit post about Fantasy World a user moved both a praise and a critique of the game’s “One Golden Rule”.
Here is the rule: LINK
Here is the critique: LINK
And right after it is my reply.
It’s kind of a long-ish ready, sorry for that >_<
What do you think?
Does my design reasoning hold?
Could there be a better way to implement it?
Hello, I agree with bms42 : I had the same reaction and see arguments for not distinguishing emotional safety and aesthetics.
Maybe you could add the precision your post adds : if the NPC does something I can’t stand, the game stops. That may be just the chronological order of presentation. As is, it’s like you want the reader to infere as if from a book of law : that is not robust to my reading. And safety needs robust and redundancy.
Or is it what you mean, that the game should then stop ? and who would call it stop ? the player unable to stand the fictitious scene or the douche GM ? In my opinion the rule most of all lacks a clear handle. Read “everyone must like what is played” at the beginning of the rule. It sometimes look as if you wanted to disclaim responsibility.
Maybe to prevent safety AND safety rules abuse you need two short rules instead of a big curved one ?
I don’t know.
Thanks, this is very good feedback! 
As I mentioned in the post I am trying to walk a thin line between offering a sort of X-card in disguise and a much more neutral and innoquous “same page tool” that (undercover) builds healthy social habits.
But I think there should be a way to iron out the wording of the rule to make a few things more explicit:
I’ll be sure to work on it 
Why exactly would the GM be a “douche” in this context?
1° In the scenario I paint, everybody perceives the other as either weak or a bully. I collapsed all quotation marks to imply a situation where emotions affect their judgement.
2° I think the GM got a worst treatment in my scenario mostly because they come later in the story, but it could be many subconscious things : that I saw in the Golden rule example the GM pushing child violence at the table, that I consider the GM both wielding greater authority and with the responsibility of keeping an eye open to player reactions, therefore more responsible in case of a train wreck. Or something ?
I don’t know : I don’t remember. Did you miss the form factor I explicit in 1 or did you pick a bias as in 2 ?