Most the time when people say ‘no in game racism’ they mean ‘these races are bad and these races are good!’
Memes are good at presenting false dichotomies for people to nod knowingly and say yeah, that about sums it up.
Both of what are valid?
Wouldn’t it be intragroup if your party are all banging?
Which rulebook is that?
FATAL, now roll an anal circumference saving throw.
I run gritty low magic games with death and safety tools. Which group do I join!?
What are safety tools?
Methods like the X card or „lines and veiles“, that you can use to define with what you are comfortable or not and to stop in-game if needed.
OSHA 1910.132(d)(1)(ii) mandates that safety tools needs to be clearly communicated to each affected employee.
basically a safe word system for TTRPGs, LARPs, etc.
in my experience they’re useful for large and/or public groups but if you have to use them with small groups of familiar people you’re probably just not a good match for each other TTRPG wise
I’ve used lines and veils before but that was because it was my first time running for those players and wasn’t very familiar with what is or is not ok for them
I honestly thought it was about PPE.
safety glasses only recommenced if you have REALLY enthusiastic dice rollers
D4’s are a menace that should be illegal.
I wish Ted would just bring a dice tower, instead of that damn dice mortar!
Well now I want a dice mortar
I want the first one but with high magic. Do you know how compelling the story can be when you’re fighting racist oppressors who have access to ‘Wish’?
Yes, the term “in-game racism” is pretty broad. Does it mean anything that’s not a human, elf, dwarf or halfling has a KILL ME sign on it? Or when elves and dwarves don’t get along? Or that character races are called “races” instead of “species”? Is it racism when character race influences stats?
“I wish for all wishes made after this one to fail spectacularly”
👀
sir, a second wish has hit the hightower
Ten bucks says the first group hasn’t had a single character die in the whole campaign, and the second group is all on their second characters due to the Sybian Incident
That’s because the first group does their mimic checks
safety tools: oh-oh the dragon slipped and impaled itself on your spear which you did not know was actually +10 and guaranteed criticsl against dragons
Dragon OSHA is on their way, now.
Gritty, low magic, character death, in game racism… are you sure they first game isn’t the old war hammer pen and paper tabletop?
Btw, OP, it’s Niels Vergouwen.
Thank you.
D&D? No thanks
buys yet another no-violence rules-light queer indie rpg book
There’s “everything goes exactly as planned until one player derails the whole session unhindered by rolls or turns” rules-light and “let things flow more naturally and allow things outside the rules if everyone thinks they add to the story” rules-light though…
Personally I much prefer the presence of rules which can be followed if convenient or desired, or ignored if you’d rather, but it is also equally valid to want to do collaborative storytelling/investigation without being derailed by bad rolls, I just know that dealing with setbacks and things not going to plan (which is different to things not succeeding in a pre-planned manner, but again equally valid, along with everything going well if you’d rather) is probably my favourite part
Love me some Thirsty Sword Lesbians.
That sounds fun actually.
I don’t want “lots of the safety tools”. I want something useful and effective, not just heaping a whole bunch on and assuming more is better.
Honestly, you only need three at most: a way to set limits beforehand, a way to calibrate during and a safe word for when it goes wrong. Thats not “lots”
From my limited understanding of the English language, the comma before the and makes it so that the “lots” refers to the intergroup romance, not the safety tools. I think.
In formal English, the comma is just wrong. Informally, I agree it does a very effective job of making the message get across that way.
But a much better way would be to say “with safety tools and lots of inter-group romance”.
“And your character?”
“Three kobolds named Jeff.”
Safety tools shouldn’t be lumped under style of play, IMO.
100% agree
Yeah, if anything, they’re MORE important in a gritty game with death and racism. The further a campaign is likely to go, the more you need to know what’s “too far”.
Why not?
Because they’re valuable whether you’re doing sexy romance or gritty realism or something else entirely. They don’t factor in with the “various styles of play are all equally valid” conversation.
Ah, excellent point, thanks! We very much agree.
Yes, they do. Believe it or not, but most groups I play in have no use for safety tools. They’re great for people who need them, but absolutely unnecessary for others who don’t have a problem speaking up when they dislike something and who don’t carry around significant amounts of trauma.
Even at tables that use safety tools, they’re still optional. You can still speak up, but it’s there for people who find that difficult.
I really don’t understand the animosity against tools that help improve the enjoyment for all players involved.
If you, as a player, don’t want to use them, then don’t.
I think you misunderstood. I have nothing against safety tools. I just stated that the majority of players neither use them nor need them and if your group doesn’t include a single player who needs safety tools, then there really isn’t a point in having them. Im not carrying a spare tire while hiking. Doesn’t mean I think that spare tires are a bad concept in general.
No, they have nothing to do with the style of play. They have to do with group dynamics, which is an entirely separate thing.
I actually haven’t ever used them myself. I’ve only played with people I already know or people that those people are vouching for, and I do a solid session zero to establish campaign content and tone. But it’s who I’m playing with and the fact that we’ve discussed it that’s relevant there, not whether we’re playing heroic fantasy romance or dark gritty realism.
So, you’re just disagreeing based on semantics? In that case sure. Safety tools are a group dynamic thing and not a style of play thing. No argument there.
No, I disagree that it should be in this comic because it sends the wrong message.
It’s probably a target audience thing. People who need safety tools rarely like gritty realism because it tends to contain a lot of potential trigger points and people who lile gritty realism usually don’t use safety tools because they either don’t have triggers or dissociate fantasy rp enough that it doesn’t trigger them.
So, it’s more of a correlation vs causation thing.
