Read on Twitter
I had someone ask me specifically about RPG "safety tools," because I said some of the worst experiences I've had gaming involved their use. For those so inclined, I'm going to unpack it just a little bit.
The immediate example that jumps to mind was in a game where we were using the X-card rule. We discussed it before the game, everyone knew how it worked, et cetera.
During that game I experienced something that immediately stunned me and left me overwhelmed with anxiety. I tried to speak up, but I just couldn't. The GM kept going on and on, and I was frozen in place.
After the game, a player asked me why my character didn't react during that thing. I explained that I was having an anxiety attack. The GM asked why I didn't use the X-Card. I explained that I was overwhelmed with anxiety and he was talking over me every time I tried.
To which he explained that, then, everything that I experienced was my fault for not speaking up and using the tool that was meant to protect me. "Yeah you really should have used the card," one of the other players told me. "It's like a safe word," another told me.
In fact, in the past few years I've both seen and heard a number of versions of the "people using X-card talked over me then blamed me when I didn't use the X-card." In my experience, it's functionally no different than saying "I need to take a break" except that it's enabling.
At a con game I was playing a game using a very similar tool. I have a very specific, very conditional PTSD trigger. It's not the kind of thing I'll EVER get a content warning for, because it's that specific and rare.
That circumstance came up in the game. So I used the fade tool. Immediately, people started asking why. Of course this isn't in the spirit of the rule. But it was significantly more uncomfortable than a) just playing through it, or b) stepping away for a moment.
I made the stupid mistake of telling people the specific trigger. I had a fairly big name in Online Gaming Social Justice Spaces at the table, and they laughed at it. Having my trauma interrogated at the table was not what I signed up for, and the tool made the experience worse.
One of the comparisons I often hear is that these kinds of rules are like "safe words." They're really not. They CAN be, under certain circumstances. But unless a) you know what you're getting into in advance, and b) you're getting constant check-ins, it's not similar.
I feel MUCH safer being handled in most rule-heavy kink spaces, because we discuss what we're getting into in advance, and nobody outside bullshit fantasy fiction thinks that "safe word" means "license to do literally anything until the word is used."
The whole point of a safe word isn't just to quietly stop what you're doing and move on. The purpose is to let you emphatically say "STOP" and not mean it. That's important. And that's not a thing we see in games where this discourse comes from.
To use a safe word style rule successfully, you need to agree in advance. "I will let you do X to me until I say Y."
In games, we start with the "say Y" part. Which implies that X = anything.
In games, we start with the "say Y" part. Which implies that X = anything.
A more direct parallel would involve a proactive, advance permission system. You have to say, "I am okay with X, Y, and Z until I do this thing." But if you don't have that discussion in advance, you're saying all's fair until I do this thing.
This is dangerous, because it tells the play partner that they're free to do what they want until you proactively tell them to stop. In the case of strong trauma points, a person can freeze and act unexpectedly, often appearing consenting to someone who doesn't know better.
Can you have games where "safe word" style play works? Absolutely. But you need a group that is all walking in knowing what they should expect, THEN they need to talk boundaries, THEN the safe word is a fallback.
But if you're not comfortable with people at the table crying, "Stop, please, I'm begging you" with tears in their eyes WHILE WANTING YOU TO CONTINUE, then you really shouldn't co-opt that language or use that comparison, because different problems require different tools.
Now I'm going to cite my game. This isn't some cynical ploy to tell you to buy it. THIS WHOLE SECTION IS FREELY AVAILABLE. But I put my experiences into practice in game design, because I make what I want to see more of.
#iHunt works with a "levels sheet." Basically before play, everyone proactively says what they're okay with. We use six levels for each issue.
Hard Line means no. This cannot appear in the game, period. Don't want to see it. Don't want to hear about it. No no no no no. Absolutely no.
Off-Screen means that it can appear in the story, but not "on-camera." It can happen in the background. Players can stumble upon the aftermath. But the thing cannot happen actively in the narrative.
On-Screen means it can happen. It shouldn't be the driving foundation of the plot, but it can happen. The villains can do it. We can see it. We can discuss it. All is fine with it.
A-OK means it can be the guiding foundation for the story. It can be aggressive, in-your-face, described with abandon. The story can be about this thing, and that's a-ok.
YES, PLEASE means not only am I cool with this thing, but I WANT IT. Please bring it into the game, because it's a thing I want to see a bunch of, and I want to directly engage with.
Not Me is the final level. It means that you're cool with it being on-screen. You're cool with it being important to the plot. But you don't want to engage directly with it. You cannot be targeted by it. You cannot be forced to deal with it. It can exist, but it's not for you.
Now, the thing is, these all presume good faith. There are people who will abuse their play opportunities and can intentionally or unintentionally hurt people. Rules like this can help, but are not a panacea. Players need to be empowered and encouraged to step away.
Another thing we do is the "commercial break." It's like an X-card but for two major differences:
1) You're expected to step away, to break. Not move on.
2) Players are asked to do it frequently for anything that deserves a little break. Even just the potty.
1) You're expected to step away, to break. Not move on.
2) Players are asked to do it frequently for anything that deserves a little break. Even just the potty.
Why do we do that? It's important to normalize these breaking mechanics. As it stands, X-Card style mechanics in play scream, "something's wrong." People are naturally curious. They want to know what's up, and they will pry and try to "fix" things.
Part of this is an instinct to reduce conflict. It's a huge Geek Social Fallacies issue. However, the absence of conflict isn't social justice. In fact, it's often the exact opposite. Efforts to reduce conflict often silence victims.
So we try to preempt that conflict diffusion instinct. We tell everyone to step away, and to step away frequently. That way the behavior isn't tied to "the game is suddenly halted because Pat has a problem."
Anyway, that's a bit on my experience with Safety Tools, a couple of anecdotes on how they've failed me, and how I work to solve those problems personally. I hope this helps some of you.
Oh actually... sorry. On the "levels sheet" for iHunt, one important thing is the "Yes Please" and the "A-OK" levels. Because they encourage proactive, opt-in play, sure. But most importantly, it means the whole sheet isn't a "bring down." It's both "not this" AND "this."
I find that as a GM, having these proactive opt-ins not only help me to not cause my players unwanted harm, but it helps me to craft the kinds of plots they want to see. So in a lot of ways, it's an improvisational tool, not just a Nanny Rule.
In my experience, even well-meaning gamers tend to toss out Nanny Rules at first convenience. Because frankly, to most people, they don't seem necessary. Most of us by and large think too mature to need them. So, I make it a positive, game-enhacing experience.
I think the SINGLE, MOST IMPORTANT part of safety tools is that they are integrated into the play expectation. I don't like them when they're tacked on as an appendix in the second printing, or when they're catch-all modular rules you are expected to use with any game.
Your safety tools should be ingrained in your game as built-in expectations, and all the mechanics should be written around them. In my #iHunt example, the levels sheet is referenced numerous times in the monster powers section, because monster powers affect agency.
If the safety tool is just some thing on a blog somewhere, or tacked on as an appendix, the players will know it, and often behave as such. It's an afterthought—it's not considered essential to the play experience because the game wasn't built with it in mind.
I compiled all these thoughts on Safety Tools, Safe Words, and how I handle them, and I put them into a handy dandy public blog post. https://www.patreon.com/posts/35648566
