Both of what are valid?

Thank you.

D4’s are a menace that should be illegal.

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?

Memes are good at presenting false dichotomies for people to nod knowingly and say yeah, that about sums it up.

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.

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, 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.

Right, exactly what you’ve said right here is exactly the mindset I’m pushing back against. The comic comes across as though it’s saying “only those soft soyboys care about stuff like psychological safety, real tough guys who play tough manly gritty realism don’t need that soyboy shit”. Which is an incredibly toxic and lazy point of view.

I don’t think the author of the comic intended it that way, but that’s how it comes across.

Well now I want a dice mortar

What if someone things humans are fine, but is against variant humans?

I knew it’s just optional rules, but I think it’s funnier to think of it as an in-universe race of humans.

But a much better way would be to say “with safety tools and lots of inter-group romance”.

And exactly how do you know that none of your players need safety tools?

Nobody is asking you to carry a spare tire while hiking, but you do admit that bringing one extra bottle of water is a good idea while hiking, right?

Which rulebook is that?

That’s because the first group does their mimic checks

In Character: I mean, isn’t your armour basically PPE against injury induced by foreign actors?

FATAL, now roll an anal circumference saving throw.

Because of a simple yet very effective technique I call: “Asking them”. I suggest safety tools for each new group I DM and to this date, all but one group have been open to the idea but after a quick discussion every single player told me that they see absolutely no use in having them and that they will let me know if they ever feel like the topics are getting too rough for them.

BTW, the one group that still has them active pretty much forgot about their existence. I’m a player there and as far as I can tell, the GM is the only one who really wants them.

It all comes down to group composition. If you’re comfortable around the other players and the GM and know that you can just say “stop” whenever, then safety tools add nothing to your experience.

I’m the opposite, I want romance, character death, low magic, a later era (1700s theming more than 800s), safety tools out the wazoo and in-game bigotry that my party can rebel against.