|
|
Post by flexor on Oct 2, 2019 14:52:42 GMT
Is ENworld really representative of the gaming community at large? Are we really that fucked up? Not even a little bit. A bit? Dude is a complete and total cunt. But, because he's on the side of the SJWs, he gets a free pass to his cuntitude. I just wonder how often it is that a player in a game has no choice but to go catatonic or run from the table since they lack an X card? In my experience? Never. Pokin the Umbran... I lobbed a few easy underhand balls his way to keep him interested in the conversation and keep him wanting to get in the last word... Yeah Lowkey obviously thinks he is insanely clever but he just comes off as an ass a lot of the time. But Hussar takes the cake with his moralizing. I imagine looking around some of these people's tables and half the table is catatonic, the other half are a gibbering mess grasping their crumpled sweat stained X cards... |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Oct 2, 2019 15:14:57 GMT
I see a few viewpoints regarding the use of the 'X' card being discussed.
Player Z 'taps' the 'X' card: - No dialogue regarding the tapping is allowed. Player Z can remain silent, potentially leaving others to guess what specifically caused Z to 'tap'.
- Dialog involving 'what' is allowed, but the 'why' is not. Player Z must identify the threat vector (without why Z considers it threat) to provide the other players a way to proceed.
- Dialog involving 'what' and 'why' is allowed. Player Z must identify the threat vector and why it is perceived as such.
- There is no 'X' card, so players must communicate orally without using a safe word gesture to start a dialogue. If there is no dialogue, nothing is assumed amiss. Whether objections require a 'why' explanation should be discussed (and agreed upon) before the session begins.
Did I miss anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 2, 2019 16:30:37 GMT
I see a few viewpoints regarding the use of the 'X' card being discussed.
Player Z 'taps' the 'X' card: - No dialogue regarding the tapping is allowed. Player Z can remain silent, potentially leaving others to guess what specifically caused Z to 'tap'.
- Dialog involving 'what' is allowed, but the 'why' is not. Player Z must identify the threat vector (without why Z considers it threat) to provide the other players a way to proceed.
- Dialog involving 'what' and 'why' is allowed. Player Z must identify the threat vector and why it is perceived as such.
- There is no 'X' card, so players must communicate orally without using a safe word gesture to start a dialogue. If there is no dialogue, nothing is assumed amiss. Whether objections require a 'why' explanation should be discussed (and agreed upon) before the session begins.
Did I miss anything?
Your dignity for talking about that thread here. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Oct 2, 2019 19:47:54 GMT
I understand kzach. You have nothing better to do, posting using your mobile device from a restroom.
|
|
|
|
Post by flexor on Oct 2, 2019 20:20:23 GMT
What does dignity have to do with this forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lanefan on Oct 2, 2019 21:00:11 GMT
I see a few viewpoints regarding the use of the 'X' card being discussed.
Player Z 'taps' the 'X' card: - No dialogue regarding the tapping is allowed. Player Z can remain silent, potentially leaving others to guess what specifically caused Z to 'tap'.
- Dialog involving 'what' is allowed, but the 'why' is not. Player Z must identify the threat vector (without why Z considers it threat) to provide the other players a way to proceed.
- Dialog involving 'what' and 'why' is allowed. Player Z must identify the threat vector and why it is perceived as such.
- There is no 'X' card, so players must communicate orally without using a safe word gesture to start a dialogue. If there is no dialogue, nothing is assumed amiss. Whether objections require a 'why' explanation should be discussed (and agreed upon) before the session begins.
Did I miss anything?
That's a subset of the bigger ongoing discussion around whether the entire X-card idea is good, bad, neither, or both; or whether gaming even needs a 'safe word' concept.
But yes, once the card is in play and tapped, then your list is valid. The writers of the original article want it to work like your first bullet point (no discussion, people have to guess); others are using your next two bullet points to shift the goalposts and keep detractors guessing.
Still amazed that thing hasn't been locked, but I'm into it with Umbran now as well which might keep it going another half-hour...  |
|
|
|
Post by flexor on Oct 2, 2019 21:49:20 GMT
I can see how for the tiny set of gamers who are scarred by the traumas of life this could be useful. But the implementation is nuts. As has been said, if I'm reading off a bunch of info how am I supposed to know what triggered this snowflake?
And working in networking stop introducing the term of threat vectors into my D&D!
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 2, 2019 23:17:06 GMT
I see a few viewpoints regarding the use of the 'X' card being discussed. Player Z 'taps' the 'X' card: - No dialogue regarding the tapping is allowed. Player Z can remain silent, potentially leaving others to guess what specifically caused Z to 'tap'.
That's the Consent in Gaming usage of the idea. That's the standard usage. The old way of handling your problems. Only that anyone that is against the first usage is considered automatically against the next two and are evil nazis out to hurt people's feelings and kick puppies. Still amazed that thing hasn't been locked, but I'm into it with Umbran now as well which might keep it going another half-hour... I dunno mate. I just slapped Umbran with his own words and we all know how much he hates that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Oct 3, 2019 0:15:34 GMT
I threw the gauntlet down on Hussar, let's see what happens. I think it'll be a race to see if Umbran is done belittling others and making circular arguments try to sound educated and so just thread-boot Hussar when he overreacts and acts out to shut down conversation (like he does) or if Umbran will become bored of his holier-than-thou shtick and kill the thread instead. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Oct 3, 2019 2:02:39 GMT
I threw the gauntlet down on Hussar, let's see what happens. I think it'll be a race to see if Umbran is done belittling others and making circular arguments try to sound educated and so just thread-boot Hussar when he overreacts and acts out to shut down conversation (like he does) or if Umbran will become bored of his holier-than-thou shtick and kill the thread instead. Yup. I had reign the last one in. I almost called someone out for being deliberately hyperbolic and inflammatory. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 10:05:34 GMT
I understand kzach. You have nothing better to do, posting using your mobile device from a restroom. I need something to do during my refractory period. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 10:14:57 GMT
The old way of handling your problems. Suicide? No wonder your wifes left you. The only choice you left them was leaving you or kill themselves. Or kill you, but you're not worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Oct 3, 2019 14:23:46 GMT
<Taps the 'X' card>
|
|
|
|
Post by flexor on Oct 3, 2019 14:57:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Oct 3, 2019 15:38:37 GMT
Devoid wants you guys to stop talking about enworld. It hurts his feelings cause Umbran raped him in a thread or something.
|
|
