+++
title = 'Safety Tools'
date = 2024-05-12T10:00:00Z
draft = false
summary="Are safety tools necessary or healthy?"
+++

Look on [StartPlaying](https://startplaying.games) and you will find most tables listing "safety tools". Some tables list a few, some list many. If you feel that you need safety tools to play a TTPPG you have plenty to choose from. What then are "safety tools"? Are they required? Are they healthy?

Safety tools are intended to protect players from psychological harm. They do this largely by discussions before play on what players expect from the game and what players prefer to not confront during play. During play they provide mechanisms for players to control the narrative, steering it away from topics the player finds uncomfortable or disturbing.

On their face these tools look like a reasonable facility and this is certainly how they are presented. Who would not want to protect players from harm, psychological or otherwise?

Proponents of safety tools often compare them to safety belts in a car; something you hope you never need, but grateful you have when in a crash. This analogy is horribly flawed. In a car crash I have no option but to remain in the car, at an RPG table I can *choose* whether I stay or leave. In one case I have little control over my situation (and a safety belt is therefore a sensible precaution), in the other case I have complete personal autonomy (I can *choose* to stay at the table, I can *choose* to negotiate with the GM and other players if something makes me uncomfortable, and if all else fails I can *choose* to leave the game).

The problem is that safety tools places the burden of managing one players issues on all other players at the table. For example, an arachnophobe might halt play at the mere suggestion of spidery involvement thereby stopping all other players the potential thrill of this story line. Consider if cinema theatres employed this logic. Two hundred patrons sit watching Lord of the Rings, but because one of those people is arachnophobic the entire audience is denied the pleasure of the battle with Shelob. This hardly seems reasonable. Surely it is more reasonable for that one audience member to remove themself from the situation? The same common-sense approach suggests itself at the gaming table. If the adventure veers in a direction a player is uncomfortable with it is their responsibility to remove themself, not for everyone else to protect them.

This is doubly true when playing online. It is simply a matter of muting the sound of a player (or the GM), or disconnecting entirely. Contact the GM through other channels to discuss why you chose to leave (a good GM will contact you to ask anyway). Have a conversation. If a compromise is possible then one can be reached, if not just leave the game it is obviously not something you will enjoy going forward. The point being, it is not for the other players to surrender their fun on the alter of your issues.

Where does one draw the line? If you have five players each censuring play according to their own taste then you run the risk of sanitising your story to the point of blandness. Bill deplores bloody violence, Sally is triggered by graphic descriptions of poverty, Kevin has no truck with any depiction of sex, Barry is a devout Christian and objects to depictions of demons or magic use, and Jane is vegan and object to any form of animal exploitation. This will be a pretty sterile environment for fantasy role play.

I am not saying we should ignore players sensibilities but suggesting to players that they need safety tools is not the way to go. Safety tools suggest that players are victims to be protected. This is healthy in therapy sessions, not at the gaming table.

If you feel that you can only enjoy playing inside the constraint of safety tools then more power to you, there are plenty a tables willing to hand you that power, mine are not among them. If you do not trust me enough to talk with me then we are not going to have much fun at the table.
