X-Cards

bored

This really just circles back to age-old discussions about consent-only games, and I don't think there's anything new in this particular approach to it.

A unilateral veto is pretty much unworkable in what's supposed to be a large, cooperative environment.

Wretched

@surreality said in X-Cards:

We do already kinda have this as a 'page the GM' kind of thing, if someone wants to make a quiet exit without speaking up to all and sundry.

p GM=This is hitting an RL limit for me due to <X>. I'd like an out this round, via <Reasonably Possible Y, ex: 'hears a noise outside to investigate and will meet up with the party later', 'is knocked out and carried home by the others', 'gets an emergency call from Bob and must go', etc.> if at all possible.

So what if we standardized something like this in game. Just made it part of the culture. A Player should feel comfortable saying 'Hey, this is something I am sensitive to and would like to find a way for me and my PC to not interact it.' and the GM/ST/DM Simply smiles, understands, gives them an out, or something else to do in the meanwhile, and every opportunity to rejoin once past said impasse after. You guard the hall! Your babysitter fell through, so you gotta hunt the monster another day. With 0 stigma.

Tangent I mean some folks will have to come to grips that their yum is not everyone else's yum. And that if your yum is someone else's yuck, that there is nothing wrong with that either and you dont have to push your yum on them. But also that if their yum is your yuck, you don't get to demean them for it either. I married a Vegetarian 12.5 years ago, I promise that it's okay to still be great friends while not liking the same things. End tangent

surreality

@Wretched I've typically seen people work with that without a giant fuss, so it seems to be becoming more a part of the culture.

It breaks down more often in one on one scenes, I've noticed, with the creeper sort. But if it's embraced more on the whole? That will stand out more as 'this is not an OK thing to do', and will not only discourage the pushy creepers from trying it, but help inform folks that yes, that is a real issue, and you absolutely can and should report that behavior as a real issue if it happens that might have been hesitant or uncertain otherwise.

Derp

I think @bored has it right on this.

But what's more, this could easily be misused by people just interested in controlling the scene to more easily meet their whims.

I'd be pretty firm against something like this, personally. If others wanna give it a shot, then by all means, but I already feel like there are too many people constantly bringing their RL into the gaming environment in manipulative ways.

Thenomain

@Derp said in X-Cards:

But what's more, this could easily be misused by people just interested in controlling the scene to more easily meet their whims.

It's fairly easy to tell if someone is abusing a system to manipulate a scene's outcomes. Not everyone, of course, but most people are terrible at making up believable lies. And even if they're not entirely believable lies, if the outcome is a matter of still coming up with a realistic IC situation then so be it.

The liars and abusers will out themselves. How quickly is a problem, but how much of a problem is up to each of us to decide how far we're willing to accept...whatever it is. Which is to say: Toxicity isn't a binary.

If it were we'd never eat McDonald's again.

Derp

@Thenomain said in X-Cards:

It's fairly easy to tell if someone is abusing a system to manipulate a scene's outcomes. Not everyone, of course, but most people are terrible at making up believable lies. And even if they're not entirely believable lies, if the outcome is a matter of still coming up with a realistic IC situation then so be it.

But this system is no-questions-asked. There's no need to lie. They just slap the veto card down and everyone is expected to change course.

Nah. Still not a fan.

Chet

I've never been able to comport myself public-wise.

Bad at Lurking

It's funny how MUSHing (and RPG gaming in general) is slowly, fractionally being dragged towards reasonable adult behavior, usually kicking and screaming the whole way.

I can remember the first time I was playing on a MU where the staff actually had to make a rule that you couldn't pressure people to participate in rape-related RP. (City by the Bay, I believe it was.)

If an X-card helps with situations like that, I'm all for it. And honestly, there are situations I need to nope out of myself, though they usually only come up in games where there is a competition to be the edgiest of edgelords.

Arkandel

@Bad-at-Lurking If you look at it from a historical perspective it makes more sense. When MU* started spawning all over the place (and back then there were next to zero other options for multiplayer online gaming at all) each was completely, 100% ruled by the person who owned the server. They could do whatever they wanted, each MU* was its own island and word of mouth was next to impossible - you'd get banned if you annoyed the admin and then that's that.

Not that we're in the clear these days but perhaps there's a bit more accountability and visibility. Plus we simply have more history to show (and learn from), examples to bring up, there's more substance to potential complaints than there used to be.

mietze

Pretty sure there have been some social changes between the 90s and now that have helped in that regard too. Perfect no but you're no longer the outlier or bad sport if you think you shouldnt have to accept stalking or harassment.

Ghost

This article, here (about a guy ejected from a gaming con for running an RPG where the PCs get gang raped) is why promoters of the X-Card feel that it is necessary. Regardless of my personal disagreement with the X-Card, this is highly relevant to the discussion.

On more than one occasion my SO and I have been "surprised" by stuff like this during game night. It resulted in someone being thrown out the door like Jeff on "Fresh Prince of Bel Air".

Thenomain

@Derp said in X-Cards:

But this system is no-questions-asked.

Then the system needs altered out of its original purpose for a new medium.

It's a thing we do because not doing anything leads to problems.

We're used to house-rules, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't apply that philosophy here.

faraday

@Thenomain said in X-Cards:

Then the system needs altered out of its original purpose for a new medium.

The whole purpose of the card system is to be no questions asked. If you invite questions, you invite peer pressure of the “aw come on don’t be a spoil spot” or “why are you overreacting” variety.

Personally I agree with what others said earlier... I’d prefer just open communication where adults can adult and say “you’re being skeevy, knock it off” or “this plot line bothers me because X”. If you have a culture of making each other comfortable, you don’t need cards. But among strangers in a con circuit or something where there’s a pattern of harassment and such a culture doesn’t exist? I can understand the appeal.

Thenomain

@faraday said in X-Cards:

The whole purpose of the card system is to be no questions asked.

And if you don't like it, change the system.

Which is what I said.

Auspice

@Thenomain said in X-Cards:

@faraday said in X-Cards:

The whole purpose of the card system is to be no questions asked.

And if you don't like it, change the system.

Which is what I said.

And thus it invalidates the system at its core.

It's a great system when you're going in blind (as in, yeah, Cons) and you don't know anyone (a), you're on a limited timeframe (b), and you're likely already in a stressful environment (c).

But on a MU, I think we'd be better off trying to foster better communicative environments. Someone suggested adapting events systems to have tags that could work as ways to flag what an event might include as triggers. I know I (and I've seen others do it) try to notate when a plot scene might include things that could be triggering (such as horror themes, lots of violence, etc.) so that people are forewarned. A tagging system where it could be readily listed in a common (as in the same every time) location that people can see at-a-glance would be great.

Policies wherein people know they can approach the ST privately (or if they're uncomfortable with approaching the ST, a Staffer or 'Guide' on the games that have them) to say 'Hey, I'm not comfortable with this specific element' and discuss it in an adult way (on both ends: STs who can handle being told 'I don't like this' and players who can handle being told 'I'm sorry, but it is a core aspect of the plot; you may need to consider sitting this one out.'

And the last is a vital thing, too: I think there have been times where people put themselves through things they shouldn't (and know they shouldn't: be it triggering content, clash of personalities, etc.) because they want the XP, the loot, or the Staff attention and become the problem themselves after the fact. Sometimes it's just not going to work and you need to acknowledge that ('This element I don't like is a me thing and I need to step away rather than continue to be a detriment to everyone else.' for example.).

...I think in our particular unique sort of community we need to utilize other methods and there's no amount of 'house ruling' X-Cards that would see them still be anything of their former self without just being a sort of... hassle. We can grow what we currently have (making a richer +event system, building a better policy, being our best selves) instead, IMO.

Thenomain

@Auspice said in X-Cards:

And thus it invalidates the system at its core.

Then people disagree with the core of the system, or the system is wrong for the situation. You change the system until it works.

This is Game Design 101, people. I am not arguing the points, just extrapolating on it.

Ghost

So, in IT my crew and I often use what we call the "shooting gallery" method, which is: "If you can shoot every last bullet you can think of at it and nothing dents it, then the idea AS YOU KNOW IT is sound". Kind of a scientific method thing where you try to break your theory to test if it's a decent theory.

This, I feel, is where the X-card doesn't pass the test.

@faraday hit the nail on the head when she mentioned that the point of the X-card is "no questions asked". This is a key point to the X-card because the method believes that one should not have to justify why they pushed the X-card, and that an immediate detour needs to be made to be inclusive to their wishes.

Here is how the X-card gets a bullet shot in it:

Say you're a tabletop (convention, house game, OTT, even Mush) GM who had written an adventure surrounding a murder investigation.

X-card gets pressed on the word 'murder'

Now...the entire session focused on solving a murder is:

Not supposed to hash out the details
is expected to immediately detour, no questions asked
The topic of said murder (and investigating it) is core to all of the effort the GM put into the session
The X-card presser expects to not be asked to leave
The GM has....nofuckingclue what to do

Changeling: The Lost is essentially about kidnapped children who are abused by alien-minded entities.

X-Card on 'kidnap' or mention of Gentry

That's...gonna be rough

Zombie game with high mortality rate and depictions of dead people...

X-card on PC death and descriptions of dead bodies

I could go on, but so long as the expectation is that there are no questions asked and that the table needs to accommodate for said X-card presser's wishes, there's no good way to navigate the pressing of that damn card if they press it on something impassable. If "no questions asked" and "cant ask player to leave" is non-negotiable, then it presents an impasse that "proper adult communication skills" is not subject to.

There is no good "game design" method (other than excluding the player from the game) that exists for "what to do if the player doesn't want to play your story, but still wants to play the game."

faraday

@Ghost said in X-Cards:

This, I feel, is where the X-card doesn't pass the test. @faraday hit the nail on the head when she mentioned that the point of the X-card is "no questions asked". This is a key point to the X-card because the method believes that one should not have to justify why they pushed the X-card, and that an immediate detour needs to be made to be inclusive to their wishes.

Yeah. In the same vein, I don't think that "modify the X-Cards system if you don't like it being no-questions-asked" passes the bullet test either. If you're among reasonable adults and are willing to communicate your boundaries, then you don't need the X-Cards in the first place. The entire point of the system is to get around those limitations for environments where people are uncomfortable speaking up and/or might get pressured to cave if they do.

Sure, you could create a wholly different system (like the tag thing @Auspice mentioned) but that really wasn't what we're talking about here.

Ghost

@faraday Yeah, the X-card system isnt really designed to be chopped up in some places. Sure, it says that you can take/leave as much of it as you want, but the basic core tenets that are somewhat static/necessary are:

You tell the player that if they push the X-card, the group will deviate from that topic, no questions asked.
Asking the X-Card player to leave the game due to discomfort is contradictory to the spirit of adopting the X-card "mission statement".

Arkandel

@Ghost said in X-Cards:

Asking the X-Card player to leave the game due to discomfort is contradictory to the spirit of adopting the X-card "mission statement".

That has been the default answer since the 80s. "If you don't like it then don't play here".

It fixes nothing.