Quote from: Motorskills;1061467But the direct experiences of Forge, jhkim and myself are irrelevant, the usual suspects here have decided that the very concept is something offensive to them.

As usual when you can't win the debate on something you lash out at those who disagree with you by insulting them. Then you pretend to wonder why your called disingenuous and regressive on this site. If you can't or more likely won't see why the non disclosure clause on a X-Card is a bad thing then your just ignoring that to further the narrative.

Or to use the stupid seat belt example imagine trying to explain to a police officer why a person choose not to use the seat belt. Yet refuse to tell him why because it makes the person being asked the question uncomfortable. While refusing to give a reason why. Then again why do I bother because you will ignore this example as it does not fit the narrative.

Quote from: sureshot;1061518As usual when you can't win the debate on something you lash out at those who disagree with you by insulting them. Then you pretend to wonder why your called disingenuous and regressive on this site. If you can't or more likely won't see why the non disclosure clause on a X-Card is a bad thing then your just ignoring that to further the narrative.

Or to use the stupid seat belt example imagine trying to explain to a police officer why a person choose not to use the seat belt. Yet refuse to tell him why because it makes the person being asked the question uncomfortable. While refusing to give a reason why. Then again why do I bother because you will ignore this example as it does not fit the narrative.

And yet you have steamrollered past the agreed conclusion that the X-card isn't about restricting communication, rather it provides a route to initiate it. Maybe the wording on the governing document could be clearer, but the intent is clearly to allow someone uncomfortable to indicate that they have an issue with an element of the game without having to provide (unnecessary) background as to why. We can debate the functionality of the tool itself, but you are blinkeredly refusing to even engage with that, on ideological grounds.


(And for the love of Pete: of you = your; you are = you're)

Quote from: Motorskills;1061528And yet you have steamrollered past the agreed conclusion that the X-card isn't about restricting communication, rather it provides a route to initiate it. Maybe the wording on the governing document could be clearer, but the intent is clearly to allow someone uncomfortable to indicate that they have an issue with an element of the game without having to provide (unnecessary) background as to why. We can debate the functionality of the tool itself, but you are blinkeredly refusing to even engage with that, on ideological grounds.

How are we supposed to figure out the problem when the rules as written give the person using the X-card away out to not communicate what is wrong. Turning it into a guessing game. It's one thing if the person using the card had to speak at least to the person running the game. They don't have to communicate in any manner. So explain to me how given how they work how that makes it easier to communicate. Maybe in SJW fairieland people can read minds. In reality where real people live if I ask a person what is bothering and they don't tell me it's not making it easier to find out. It does not make communication easier imo. Yes it may put more peer pressure on the person using the card. I'm not going to play a endless guessing game with one person or multiple players. Or bring the game to a virtual halt because I have to learn to read minds or become amateur psychologist.

The X-Card is flawed yet your refusing to see any major flaws because it's all about how good the X-card are as your narrative. Typical SJW behavior anything that goes against the carefully constructed personal narrative is wrong and is not to be acknowledged in any way shape or form. Fix the major issues of the X-card and I will concede they have a use at gaming tables. Not mine yet I will not prevent others from using them. Yet I'm sure somehow this will be once again a issue on my end.

Quote from: Motorskills;1061528(And for the love of Pete: of you = your; you are = you're)

Your not my robot Grammar Nazi Supervisor and I'm not getting paid to do so no I will continue to write in my grammatically challenged style because I want too.

I see your X-card and I raise with my Y-card. As in "Y are you not using your words?".

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1061551I see your X-card and I raise with my Y-card. As in "Y are you not using your words?".

I have been giving some thought about a modified card / approach that would handle some of the issues being raised in this thread. I think anything that promotes constructive feedback to ensure everyone at the table has a fun time has to be a good thing, but I also appreciate different folks have different expectations.

Quote from: sureshot;1061547How are we supposed to figure out the problem when the rules as written give the person using the X-card away out to not communicate what is wrong. Turning it into a guessing game. It's one thing if the person using the card had to speak at least to the person running the game. They don't have to communicate in any manner. So explain to me how given how they work how that makes it easier to communicate.

Again, I think the most common cases are: (a) the other players can tell what is being X-carded easily by the timing and reaction of the player, or (b) the player is willing to explain what the problem is.

However, let's assume the edge case of (c) a player who is upset by something in the game and wants it edited out, but for whatever reason, they can't verbalize it. In this case, the options are:

1) Using the X-card. The player signals using the X-card, and everyone else now at least knows they have a specific problem.

2) Not using the X-card. The player is still upset, but they don't have that signals.

I'd say that #1 has at least marginally better communication. Now, your reaction might be "That player is fucked up and I don't give a shit about communicating with them." But if that's the case, then say so instead of pretending that you care about communicating with them.

Personally, it seems like a very rare edge case to me. It doesn't bear much on my decision on whether to use the X-card or not. In general, I tailor my rules and practices around the sort of players I generally deal with - not with rare edge cases of problem players or abusive players. If there is a rare problem, I can deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than restructuring my game because of it.

Quote from: jhkim;1061560Again, I think the most common cases are: (a) the other players can tell what is being X-carded easily by the timing and reaction of the player, or (b) the player is willing to explain what the problem is.

However, let's assume the edge case of (c) a player who is upset by something in the game and wants it edited out, but for whatever reason, they can't verbalize it. In this case, the options are:

1) Using the X-card. The player signals using the X-card, and everyone else now at least knows they have a specific problem.

2) Not using the X-card. The player is still upset, but they don't have that signals.

I'd say that #1 has at least marginally better communication. Now, your reaction might be "That player is fucked up and I don't give a shit about communicating with them." But if that's the case, then say so instead of pretending that you care about communicating with them.

Personally, it seems like a very rare edge case to me. It doesn't bear much on my decision on whether to use the X-card or not. In general, I tailor my rules and practices around the sort of players I generally deal with - not with rare edge cases of problem players or abusive players. If there is a rare problem, I can deal with it on a case-by-case basis rather than restructuring my game because of it.

From where do you derive the statistics regarding which uses of the X-card are "common" and which are "rare edge cases"?

Quote from: jhkim;10615601) Using the X-card. The player signals using the X-card, and everyone else now at least knows they have a specific problem.

2) Not using the X-card. The player is still upset, but they don't have that signals.

I'd say that #1 has at least marginally better communication.

No, it's really not. It's more information, but it's not useful information. An indicator that someone is upset without giving the GM what they need to edit the current scene and avoid the alleged problem in the future isn't communication - it's noise.

If you're absolutely unwilling to provide the bare minimum to the GM in order to correct the problem now and avoid it going forward, then you should keep your mouth shut. Letting people know that something upset you in these conditions does nothing to fix the problem, and it just makes things crappy for everyone else. It's exceedingly selfish.

Quote from: Zalman;1061565From where do you derive the statistics regarding which uses of the X-card are "common" and which are "rare edge cases"?

It's a fair point. I'm extrapolating based on personal experience. I've played a lot of games with a lot of people, and in general, we were able to communicate at least in some way if someone was upset about something in the game. It seems to me like a very low bar to ask someone "What are you bothered by here?" and discuss the issue.

On the one hand, some would cite this as evidence that the X-card isn't necessary. I certainly agree that the X-card isn't necessary. I haven't used it in the games that I run.

But it also is counter to people's projection that if they used the X-card, then players would suddenly turn into stonewalling enigmas.

Quote from: Motorskills;1061528We can debate the functionality of the tool itself

The functionality being the only important thing to debate at all about the X-card.

Quote from: Motorskills;1061528but you are blinkeredly refusing to even engage with that, on ideological grounds.

And you say this only because you are being disagreed with.

Quote from: Motorskills;1061558I also appreciate different folks have different expectations.

Only if they agree with you and aren't "whitebread".

Quote from: sureshot;1061547Maybe in SJW fairieland people can read minds.

There's no need to guess (or communicate) when everyone thinks the same approved thoughts, and we are all supposed to be thinking the same approved thoughts, right comrade?

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1061551I see your X-card and I raise with my Y-card. As in "Y are you not using your words?".

Rule 134.5: If you XY-card has a white face and prefers to be played on XX-cards, it will lose to non-white XX cards played on the same.

Quote from: Alderaan Crumbs;1060507My first ever foray into online gaming was over Discord, with strangers I met online, to run Blades in the Dark, which is a pretty grim and potentially violent and adult setting. I simply asked the group, one of which was a woman, "What rating do people want?". "Game of Thrones" is apparently now considered a rating, but it worked. .

There's been some useful discussion in this thread, but I love this, definitely going to use it (and probably some variant of the egg-timer). Maybe instead of a X-card I will have a Dinklage marker.

"This game is being played at Game of Thrones level of sex, gore, and violence, but with no sexual violence, no incest, no child poisoning, and the like. Did I miss anything on the HBO list?
So it's mostly PG, with some 15, and the occasional R. If there's some ground that is really touchy for you, let's chat on the side before we begin, I'll do my best to accommodate.
Should I or another player start to veer away from those groundrules, please discreetly draw my attention discreetly to Mr Dinklage, and I'll figure out how to resolve the issue."

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061586Rule 134.5: If you XY-card has a white face and prefers to be played on XX-cards, it will lose to non-white XX cards played on the same.

My brain now hurts...

Quote from: Motorskills;1061593There's been some useful discussion in this thread, but I love this, definitely going to use it (and probably some variant of the egg-timer). Maybe instead of a X-card I will have a Dinklage marker.

"This game is being played at Game of Thrones level of sex, gore, and violence, but with no sexual violence, no incest, no child poisoning, and the like. Did I miss anything on the HBO list?
So it's mostly PG, with some 15, and the occasional R. If there's some ground that is really touchy for you, let's chat on the side before we begin, I'll do my best to accommodate.
Should I or another player start to veer away from those groundrules, please discreetly draw my attention discreetly to Mr Dinklage, and I'll figure out how to resolve the issue."

That's very well said! If I was at your table and you started with that, I would agree. Then I would take you aside and admit that I need at least one graphically sexual scene with a gnome (of any gender), a black pudding and a mindflayer. The logistics of insertion would be up to you and it could be bluebooked.