Safety Tool advice in RPG books ineffective?

[Solamnicknight]

I’ve noticed in newer RPG books when talking about safety tools there seems to be this boilerplate text about lines and veils and X cards. I feel this advice is actually ineffective and potentially harmful. I think the more important thing to keep players comfortable is communication without embarrassing them or making them feel singled out amongst their other players. And that’s a problem I see with the advice with lines and veils and the x card is that it could potentially make certain players who have phobias or trauma seem like the odd ones out at the table. Session 0 is definitely important, making sure everyone knows what the campaign is about and table expectations. I feel a better way to make sure your players are okay during potentially intense moments is to ask “ how are we feeling?” And to have ways to communicate with each player that are discreet like texts. Also other players can be a big help. I remember during a campaign I was in I got a bit anxious during a painful transformation scene and my friend noticed and asked if I was ok. I said I was a little on edge and the DM wrapped up his description and moved on. How does everyone else feel about this? How do you keep your players comfortable at the table? Do you have any useful advice on handling dramatic or frightening TTRPG scenarios?

[Hairfish]

I don't believe there's anything preventing or dissuading GMs from both openly discussing such things on certain occasions (such as: starting the campaign, when a new player joins, after a known or previously unknown boundary was crossed, or something was introduced that the GM then realized was likely to have strongly affected people) and making it clear that private communications are also available and encouraged if for any reason someone would prefer that to public discussion.

The GMs I've played with who do ask up front have also emphasized that private discussion is okay. You specifically mentioned what you've seen in books and not what you've experienced at the table (or heard about from people at other tables), so perhaps this is less problematic in practice than you think?

The topic is something of a generation and culture gap. Younger and more progressive folks are learning that it's okay to be open about setting boundaries and identifying when a known or unknown one was crossed, while people who are older and/or more conservative tend to prefer private discussion.

Some GMs (probably newer, younger, and/or neurodivergent) simply may not have yet developed the social skills for reading their players' reactions or having a good sense of common boundaries. Having language about this in the books both gives them a tool to use and exposes them to the concept if their personal experiences have yet to do so.

e: There's also the matter of drop-in/drop-out game formats like Adventurer's League.

[Solamnicknight]

I’m all for safety tools, and on the autism spectrum, part of what I was saying in the post is I felt some of the rulebooks I read had some tools I felt may be less effective than others. I can definitely see physical cards being useful to a lot of neurodivergent players! Something else I tend to have at the table to help myself is some sort of fidget toy to help me stay calm and focused. I’ve used a fake fantasy coin and a tangle.

[Vahnavoi]

To date, I'm not aware of a single good cross comparison study between different safety tools in roleplaying game environments. So the efficacy of these specific tools is largely that of a magic feather: somebody thought adding them would be a good thing and enough people agreed to make it a thing, but it's not known if the thing does anything on its own.

Specific tools should be distinguished from safety and inclusivity mindsets in general. Lots of good things can be said for taking event participants' limitations into account and creating an open and welcoming atmosphere where people are comfortable expressing their objections. But this can be done in more than one way. My opinion as event organizer is that these tools offer no benefits over what was already being done. Some people are just unaware anything was being done. It's this comic all over again.

[Ionathus]

Without knowing the specific text you're referencing, I can't give more direct insights. But this topic sweeps through the forums every couple of months and sparks some conversation about how much a DM "should" do and how willing every player "should" be to discuss their triggers. I've seen some pretty passionate declarations like "if you can't manage [basic XYZ interaction] with your friends, you shouldn't play TTRPGs in the first place." Personally, I'm always in favor of giving DMs another tool in their toolbox that they can use if it fits their group. Tools like X-cards strike me as most useful for tables where you don't have a great read on everyone, or you know someone has a social/neurological/trauma reason they might not speak openly if they're in a bad spot.

My table is made of very close, very trusting friends, who are all excellent communicators and aware of each other's tastes and discomforts. We manage this pretty organically most of the time. Even so, I've been surprised by something I thought was pretty innocuous (a PC's hair falling out) that completely tripped something deep none of us knew about, maybe not even her. She's usually great at advocating for herself but in this instance it caught her by surprise and she shut down. If we hadn't all been so in-tune with each other, it could have easily gone unnoticed and we would've pushed further into that scene, probably ruining the night for her. But a save like that is only possible when you really, really know your group.

As with literally everything else in TTRPGs, they are not mandatory or being pushed as "the one true way all games should be played, forevermore." They're another tool in the toolbox that you can use if you see value in them that outweighs any disadvantages (common ones are immersion breaking, game-ifying, or fear of abuse₁).

1. Though I have a pretty big axe to grind with any insinuation that X-cards or other safety tools could truly be "abused" by a bad-faith player for mechanical advantage. This always winds up being a purely hypothetical problem that's managed perfectly fine by not playing with jerks in the first place.

[Unoriginal]

I’ve noticed in newer RPG books when talking about safety tools there seems to be this boilerplate text about lines and veils and X cards. I feel this advice is actually ineffective and potentially harmful. I think the more important thing to keep players comfortable is communication without embarrassing them or making them feel singled out amongst their other players. And that’s a problem I see with the advice with lines and veils and the x card is that it could potentially make certain players who have phobias or trauma seem like the odd ones out at the table. Session 0 is definitely important, making sure everyone knows what the campaign is about and table expectations. I feel a better way to make sure your players are okay during potentially intense moments is to ask “ how are we feeling?” And to have ways to communicate with each player that are discreet like texts. Also other players can be a big help. I remember during a campaign I was in I got a bit anxious during a painful transformation scene and my friend noticed and asked if I was ok. I said I was a little on edge and the DM wrapped up his description and moved on. How does everyone else feel about this? How do you keep your players comfortable at the table? Do you have any useful advice on handling dramatic or frightening TTRPG scenarios?

"Other people should notice when one person is uncomfortable and act accordingly" is not enough by itself.

X cards and the like are a good tool to use when you're uncomfortable and the others don't notice.

Having the group discuss the concept and agree to use X cards is to remove the "make one player feels reluctant to say something" risk.

Obviously no method will ever be perfect, but having people make an effort to notice other people's feelings AND empower people to express those feelings without shame or 'but I don't want to be a buzzkill' sentiment are both important. As is discussing things in Session 0 to prevent situations before they happen as much as possible.

[Xervous]

The remark about boilerplate text provides a clue to the intent. It’s minimum effort being put towards meeting a perceived standard for marketability. Unless a system has already gone over far more relevant things like scheduling, deciding when and how to play with missing players, deciding what to do about rules lookups mid session, dealing with bad rulings, dealing with overpowered items or characters, the usefulness of hidden and visible rolls, and a bunch more things; then it’s simply a waste of space to put in such an infrequently needed tool.

[schm0]

I don't use tools in a formal sense, and I generally reject most of the ones that are found online and in published materials. I find they are mostly unnecessary, as they all more or less boil down to one thing: respect. Instead, I try to foster a table where communication and respect is fundamental. (Those are essentially the first two rules of my games, in fact.)

I play exclusively online, so when I start a new campaign I interview the players with the knowledge of the campaign in mind ahead of time. If a player has a phobia or trigger that directly conflicts with the campaign I have in mind, I politely tell them that they won't be a good fit for the campaign I'm running. If not, I note the player's concerns down and adjust my campaign if necessary going forward. I expect my players to act as adults and communicate with me privately if needed (usually over discord, but whispers in Roll20 work too) if something is bothering them, and this is covered in Session 0 as well to avoid any confusion (and included in numerous documents highlighting the key principles of my campaign.)

I also let my players know the level of detail and serious subject matter I may go into. I run my games very much in line with a PG-13/R-rated movie, with fade to black for things that involve sex, etc. I may use depictions of gore or disgust for dramatic effect. I don't feature or dwell on things like abuse (rape, torture, physical/emotional abuse,slavery, etc.) or prejudice (racism, etc.) but they are present in my game and used as a tool to motivate the players to stop or confront it. I actively discourage my players from pursuing these same methods by insisting on no evil characters, and presenting torture as an ineffective method of interrogation, etc.

I also limit species in the game so that I am not constantly forced to deal with the fact that an orc or a goblin in the party might be confronted by an angry mob, something that could very well happen in the Forgotten Realms. So for starters, there are no monstrous species permitted in my games. That being said, I may dwell on a sensitive aspect of the world for a moment. And as I mentioned before, let's say I feature an orcish horde that seeks to eradicate a group of elves, resulting in literal genocide, it is always used as a tool for motivation for the players, never as something that is glorified, etc.

On the whole, bad things happen in order to motivate the players to stop them from happening again. And if it is especially heinous, it pretty much always happens off-screen.

So yeah. Formal tools? Nah. Adult communication and respect for everyone at the table? 100%.

[JNAProductions]

I don't use tools in a formal sense, and I generally reject most of the ones that are found online and in published materials. I find they are mostly unnecessary, as they all more or less boil down to one thing: respect. Instead, I try to foster a table where communication and respect is fundamental. (Those are essentially the first two rules of my games, in fact.)

I play exclusively online, so when I start a new campaign I interview the players with the knowledge of the campaign in mind ahead of time. If a player has a phobia or trigger that directly conflicts with the campaign I have in mind, I politely tell them that they won't be a good fit for the campaign I'm running. If not, I note the player's concerns down and adjust my campaign if necessary going forward. I expect my players to act as adults and communicate with me privately if needed (usually over discord, but whispers in Roll20 work too) if something is bothering them, and this is covered in Session 0 as well to avoid any confusion (and included in numerous documents highlighting the key principles of my campaign.)

I also let my players know the level of detail and serious subject matter I may go into. I run my games very much in line with a PG-13/R-rated movie, with fade to black for things that involve sex, etc. I may use depictions of gore or disgust for dramatic effect. I don't feature or dwell on things like abuse (rape, torture, physical/emotional abuse,slavery, etc.) or prejudice (racism, etc.) but they are present in my game and used as a tool to motivate the players to stop or confront it. I actively discourage my players from pursuing these same methods by insisting on no evil characters, and presenting torture as an ineffective method of interrogation, etc.

I also limit species in the game so that I am not constantly forced to deal with the fact that an orc or a goblin in the party might be confronted by an angry mob, something that could very well happen in the Forgotten Realms. So for starters, there are no monstrous species permitted in my games. That being said, I may dwell on a sensitive aspect of the world for a moment. And as I mentioned before, let's say I feature an orcish horde that seeks to eradicate a group of elves, resulting in literal genocide, it is always used as a tool for motivation for the players, never as something that is glorified, etc.

On the whole, bad things happen in order to motivate the players to stop them from happening again. And if it is especially heinous, it pretty much always happens off-screen.

So yeah. Formal tools? Nah. Adult communication and respect for everyone at the table? 100%.

I think that that's an excellent way to go about it.
With that said, though, there's something to be said for safety tools. They don't have to be super formal, but it's always possible for something to sneak up on someone unexpectedly-a visceral reaction that they didn't know about ahead of time. Ideally, they'd be able to speak up or, if they cannot, someone else would notice that there's an issue and it would be able to be addressed. But that won't always be the case.

I think that safety tools are more important if you're going to a convention or starting with new (either to you or D&D as a whole) players. Obviously if you've been gaming with your buds for the past 16 years, you don't need formal tools to know when something's amiss. But when you're dealing with new folk who's cues you don't know... It can be a big help.

[KorvinStarmast]

IÂ’ve noticed in newer RPG books when talking about safety tools there seems to be this boilerplate text about lines and veils and X cards. I feel this advice is actually ineffective and potentially harmful.{snip} Do you have any useful advice on handling dramatic or frightening TTRPG scenarios?

There are well over 4,000 RPGs published, and I am sure more are coming. How many of them have you played or reviewed? As to handling dramatic or frightening TTRPG scenarios, there's a substantial difference between those two.
1. Drama. It comes with tension and the chance for success or failure.
2. Frightening scenarios.
a. Make sure your players know what kind of game they signed up for.
b. If someone has a strong negative reaction, call time out, take a break, and see what can be done to make an adjustment or at least to get the strong reaction to subside a bit. Yes, it's a reactive measure, but you can't predict 100 per cent of everything.

making it clear that private communications are also available and encouraged if for any reason someone would prefer that to public discussion.

Very good point. Some folks would rather discuss issues in private.

As with literally everything else in TTRPGs, they are not mandatory or being pushed as "the one true way all games should be played, forevermore." They're another tool in the toolbox that you can use if you see value in them that outweighs any disadvantages

+1

X cards and the like are a good tool to use when you're uncomfortable and the others don't notice.

Having the group discuss the concept and agree to use X cards is to remove the "make one player feels reluctant to say something" risk.

Obviously no method will ever be perfect, but having people make an effort to notice other people's feelings AND empower people to express those feelings without shame or 'but I don't want to be a buzzkill' sentiment are both important. As is discussing things in Session 0 to prevent situations before they happen as much as possible.

+2

boil down to one thing: respect. Instead, I try to foster a table where communication and respect is fundamental. (Those are essentially the first two rules of my games, in fact.) {snip} So yeah. Formal tools? Nah. Adult communication and respect for everyone at the table? 100%.

Good approach.

[Solamnicknight]

Without knowing the specific text you're referencing, I can't give more direct insights. But this topic sweeps through the forums every couple of months and sparks some conversation about how much a DM "should" do and how willing every player "should" be to discuss their triggers. I've seen some pretty passionate declarations like "if you can't manage [basic XYZ interaction] with your friends, you shouldn't play TTRPGs in the first place." Personally, I'm always in favor of giving DMs another tool in their toolbox that they can use if it fits their group. Tools like X-cards strike me as most useful for tables where you don't have a great read on everyone, or you know someone has a social/neurological/trauma reason they might not speak openly if they're in a bad spot.

My table is made of very close, very trusting friends, who are all excellent communicators and aware of each other's tastes and discomforts. We manage this pretty organically most of the time. Even so, I've been surprised by something I thought was pretty innocuous (a PC's hair falling out) that completely tripped something deep none of us knew about, maybe not even her. She's usually great at advocating for herself but in this instance it caught her by surprise and she shut down. If we hadn't all been so in-tune with each other, it could have easily gone unnoticed and we would've pushed further into that scene, probably ruining the night for her. But a save like that is only possible when you really, really know your group.

As with literally everything else in TTRPGs, they are not mandatory or being pushed as "the one true way all games should be played, forevermore." They're another tool in the toolbox that you can use if you see value in them that outweighs any disadvantages (common ones are immersion breaking, game-ifying, or fear of abuse₁).

1. Though I have a pretty big axe to grind with any insinuation that X-cards or other safety tools could truly be "abused" by a bad-faith player for mechanical advantage. This always winds up being a purely hypothetical problem that's managed perfectly fine by not playing with jerks in the first place.

I was specifically referencing the Pathfinder 2e original core book and the recent Tales of the Valiant Player Core which mention the X card and lines and veils. I feel like I’ve gotten good replies here! Speaking of the situation with your player, that’s similar to the situation I dealt with when the DM did the forced transformation scene with my character. She got the equivalent of fantasy cybernetics to deal with a major extraplanar threat but the DM described the process as incredibly painful and had my character roll saves. She passed out. My other friend at the table noticed I was clutching my chair arms at that point checked on me and helped me get the DM to move on at that point. Sometimes you don’t know what is going to make you uncomfortable and since it’s a game you should be having fun, not feeling icky.

[Vahnavoi]

The remark about boilerplate text provides a clue to the intent. It’s minimum effort being put towards meeting a perceived standard for marketability.

It's that too, but the real reason is the other meaning of boilerplate: "Standardized or set language that is meant to be used repeatedly, often in organizational publications or legal documents." X-card in particular is a specific mechanic distributed under a license. Don't know about "Lines & Veils", but the same might be true there.

[Solamnicknight]

It's that too, but the real reason is the other meaning of boilerplate: "Standardized or set language that is meant to be used repeatedly, often in organizational publications or legal documents." X-card in particular is a specific mechanic distributed under a license. Don't know about "Lines & Veils", but the same might be true there.

I think that’s what irked me about the terminology is seeing it in multiple books and it feeling like reading a TOS document. That’s why I feel it’s a bit ineffective especially now that it’s been printed multiple times. Also some ruder players will make jokes about it. I will say the Pathfinder 2e Gamemastery Guide had better advice on handling player issues and safety but it’s not a core book. I’ll have to see if the recent remastered player and GM core has errata or incorporates what was in the Gamemastery guide.

[Unoriginal]

To use a metaphore:

Wearing an helmet does not mean you shouldn't be careful about your environment when riding a bike, but the people writing a "ride a bike safely" guide should still about wearing the helmet.