X.cards

[Anders]

Has anyone here played with X-cards? What kind of experience did you have?

[RogerBW]

I wouldn't run a game for strangers without them, and in my experience they do no harm when gaming with friends either. If the subject matter has just crossed into unwelcome territory, it's already socially hard to be the person who interrupts the game; having the card to tap at least means you don't also need to marshal an explanation right away.

[Varyon]

I had never heard of or considered such a tool, but it strikes me as really good idea. If I ever do run a game again, I may well bring those to the table.

[RyanW]

I've never played with a physical card, but in the campaign planning papers (the "getting a feel for what to run next" stage) I've been putting:

List here any topic you would be uncomfortable with, either as something affecting your character or in the campaign at all, and we will consider it off the table. (Also, note that if any issue comes up in game that gives you trouble, even if you don't list it here, let me know and we will adjust play accordingly.)

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Anders

Has anyone here played with X-cards? What kind of experience did you have?

I've had one who (ab)used it as a weapon to prevent plot from going places other players wanted.

When I've had it available, it hasn't been used by my players, save by that one. And he was no stranger. He was, however, pretty toxic. And also violated the agreed upon lines/veils in a different game.

Without it, however, I've had players ask for a fade to black and/or private conference about prior trauma, which has usually been dealt with by one of several methods: ① fade scene to black ② player opts to take a short walk so scene can continue, ③ discussion with triggering player about propriety of certain actions in public games. ④ use more ambiguous language (usually due to excessive detail in effects of damage. Mea culpa.)

Until about 2020, I never felt the physical card useful; now, my box of goodies includes X-cards - I use red cardstock, 2.5" squares. The reassurance of the physical token is good with new players.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

I've had one who (ab)used it as a weapon to prevent plot from going places other players wanted.

Originally Posted by s7t8u9v0

I've used X-cards in a few of my games, and they've generally been helpful in ensuring everyone feels comfortable. However, I did encounter a player who misused them to disrupt the game, which was a challenge. Overall, though, they've been a positive addition.

It honestly sounds like it could be used as a filter for problematic players. Many such can be subtle about it, so that you're not certain if they're actually jerks, they're legitimately trying to stay "in character" but sorta-accidentally created a jerk character, or if you're just misinterpreting them. But give them power in the form of a veto, and one where the objection can only come from the player, and they may be unable to resist, making their toxic nature much more readily-apparent. Plus, if they keep vetoing things the other players want to do, you automatically have an excuse to get rid of them if you'd rather not call them out as a jerk - "I'm sorry, but it looks like everyone else wants this campaign to go places you clearly aren't comfortable with, so this campaign isn't for you. We'll let you know if we make a later one that is more to your liking." I mean, at that point they could insist on staying, at which point you'd need to go with "You're a disruptive jerk and have been summarily disinvited. Don't let the door hit you on the way out," but at least you gave them a chance to save face.

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Plus, if they keep vetoing things the other players want to do, you automatically have an excuse to get rid of them if you'd rather not call them out as a jerk - "I'm sorry, but it looks like everyone else wants this campaign to go places you clearly aren't comfortable with, so this campaign isn't for you. "

Not always an option, especially when the problem player is the host.

[DeadParrot]

Originally Posted by ak_aramis

Not always an option, especially when the problem player is the host.

Then the group has a hard decision to make. Either keep playing in a place provided by a player that is making the game less fun for everyone else or find a new place to play while explaining why to the former host player.


Had never heard of x cards until this thread. I can see the method being abused. If using, perhaps give each player 2. If someone feels the need to play a 3rd card, that person has self identified as being in the wrong game or group.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by DeadParrot

Then the group has a hard decision to make. Either keep playing in a place provided by a player that is making the game less fun for everyone else or find a new place to play while explaining why to the former host player.

I agree, but that is often much easier said than done.

Originally Posted by DeadParrot

Had never heard of x cards until this thread. I can see the method being abused. If using, perhaps give each player 2. If someone feels the need to play a 3rd card, that person has self identified as being in the wrong game or group.

I feel this is largely an "I'll know it when I see it" kind of situation, and giving players limited vetoes is likely to be counterproductive. I could see problematic things coming up more than twice in a game (particularly considering the GM is only human and may accidentally trip over the same trigger more than once without realizing it), and additionally I feel it will result in players remaining in uncomfortable scenarios because they're afraid of being seen as problematic and thus don't actually use the X Card (or are afraid something worse will come along later and they won't have any vetoes left), invalidating the whole purpose of them.

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by DeadParrot

Had never heard of x cards until this thread. I can see the method being abused. If using, perhaps give each player 2. If someone feels the need to play a 3rd card, that person has self identified as being in the wrong game or group.

I think a better solution would be to not have explicit limits, but rather, if one player is constantly interrupting scenes that everyone else finds fun, to have a conversation about whether the campaign the group is playing is one that's a good fit for him. (We roleplayers know from experience that hard rules limits have never stopped a determined munchkin- and that rules should therefore not be designed to combat munchkinry if doing so makes things worse for honest players-, and I suspect that applies as much to out-of-game social mechanics as to in-game rules mechanics.)