Did anyone here use the X-card system? How well did it work for you?

[Atranen]

If you replace the x-card with, say, wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, the organizers goals become a lot more clear there. They don't want to have to vet and get to know every DM that runs at their event, so the safety equipment is just mandatory for everyone, even if you don't engage in unsafe behavior.

I get where you're coming from, but imo the benefits of hard hats are much more obvious than X cards. It seems more like an unnecessary tool (for many games) imo. Which the evidence supports--very few people used X cards at those events, to the extent that the organizers felt the need to address it.

The 3rd party in organized play a complicated topic. They enable the event, but can orchestrate it to death.

Agreed, and that was the case for this group. It may be that I was a bad fit for their event. But that's really the nature of my complaint. The X card was not being used at the table, and was not achieving its purpose of making games safer. Instead, it ended up being a signaling tool that said "I am on board with what the event organizers want".

Good point about there being other "safety" rules, like no evil characters. I do its legitimate for the organizers to define the scope of their event, and I was a bad fit here. But, it's a bit of a shame that that has been my main experience with the X card

[Keltest]

I get where you're coming from, but imo the benefits of hard hats are much more obvious than X cards. It seems more like an unnecessary tool (for many games) imo. Which the evidence supports--very few people used X cards at those events, to the extent that the organizers felt the need to address it.

And hard hats are also completely unnecessary except for the one time a build where something falls on your head. Obviously, construction administration would look daft if they tried to tell people "hey, make sure you drop stuff on your head so you get used to having the helmet on." Pushing unnecessary use of safety equipment is a poor call, but that doesnt make the safety equipment bad to have.

[gbaji]

You changed the scenario slightly but there is a similar lack of judgement:
If a playgroup/player estimates the campaign is risky enough to ask for a safety tool to be used, and the GM chooses not to include the safety tool, then the playgroup/player might (probably? but not necessarily) decide they (the playgroup) are not a good fit for that GM's campaign, so they might find a different campaign/GM. The same thing happens all the time for other reasons that a player might not be a good fit for a specific campaign.*

Ok. First off. Let's stick to the topic, which is the X-card specifically, and the aspects of the X-card that make it different from other previously existing saftey tools. I made a point about how the kind of language being used about this, acts as a form of social pressure/shaming to force GMs to adopt them. To which you claimed I was saying nonesense or creating strawmen.

But then you use a case like this, where you state that if the players don't think the safety tools in place are sufficient, then they can decide this game isn't a good fit for them. And you don't see how statementts about the X-card like "Just by including the X-Card, you signify that as a GM you're concerned with the emotional wellbeing of your players," may act to form those opinions and expectations in the minds of players in the first place?

You can insist that we aren't allowed to reverse that statement around, but your own statement above clearly indicates otherwise. How do you supopse these players are deciding that the saftey tool (again, let's be specific that we're talking about the X-card itself) not being present means they should not play the game? And can you honestly state that the threat (yes, threat) of players refusing to play in your game because of this doesn't itself act as a huge amount of pressure? Sorry. I don't buy that one bit.

The only reason a player would refuse to play in a game without the X-card in it, would be precisely because they have come to believe (perhaps via repetitive claims online and other sources) that the absense of an X-card means the game will not be safe. Again, for whatever possibly vague definition of "safe" being used. Insisting up and down that positive statements about the benefits of the X-card with regard to the saftey of a game don't translate into negative assumptions about the saftey of a game that doesn't use the X-card doesn't actually hold a lot of water. Especially if we're literally talking about people not feeling safe if it's not in use at a game.

I'm just tring to nip this (frankly bizarre) bit of thinking that I see occuring in the gaming industry right in the bud before it gets out of hand.

PS: In this scenario I would also feel uncomfortable saying I did not want to use a safety tool. However the judgement would be all in my head as I ask myself why not use the safety tool for that campaign. That is because I see it as a trivial cost to myself to implement and I see it providing disproportionate benefit to those that are asking for it. So I would feel selfish for refusing even if the players merely conclude the campaign is not a good fit for them. But that is just my internal self judgement where I can see more context and hold higher standards.

And you kinda double down on this odd thinking by acknowledging that not using the tool would make you uncomfortable, not because the game is actualy "unsafe", nor that other tools aren't sufficent to ensure an enjoyable playing experience for all players, but purely because of your assumption about how others will percieve your game if you don't use them.

My issue is that there's a bit of "emperor's new clothes" bit going on here. It's entirely possible that you are using the X-card because you fear the opinions of your players if you don't. And your players want the X-card because they each assume that, even though they personally don't need it, soimeone else might. We're all just assuming that we're doing this for "someone else's benefit", but no one is actually standing up and saying "I actually need this". We get a lot of people saying "We need this" (collectively), but is that because they themselves do, or they don't want to be the one kid who stands up and points out that the whole thing is just an illusion in the first place. No one's actually benefited by it, but we're all doing it anyway, for some group of fictional "others who might need it". And all of these people are afraid to be the one to stand up and say "this isn't really necessary at all".

And yeah. You follow up with yet another backhanded slap at non-use, by claiming that, having gone though this (somewhat absurd) mental process, you can slap yourself on the back and claim to "see more context and hold higher standards". Sorry. I disagree. This is a whole lot of group delusion going on here.

There is one and only one case where the X-card has any effect on a gaming table differently than standard "pause/stop" tools that we have been using gor 40 years at gaming tourneys. And I've specifically spoke aboout this: The ability to be used without having to explain to the GM why. That's it. If we assume that, having played a stop card, everyone stops, there is an expecation that the player who plays it either informs the entire table why (which could be as miild as "Things were just getting loud, and I wanted to say something, but couldn't be heard") *or* they pull the GM aside to explain why if it's something more personal, which, also, I don't need your life history, but I do need you to tell me what bothered you, this is no different than what we've been using all along.

The only difference with the X-card is the ability to conceal the reason for using it in the first place. And that is precisely the thing I do not agree with, and will not allow at a table I am running. At the end of the day, we have to consider the social experience of the entire group. And if there is a player who is so incapable of managing even the most basic of social activities and communication, I'm struggling to see how *they* fit at the table. Not the GM. Not the other players. Them. There's no magic rule that says "we allow anyone and everyone to play, no matter how disruptive or uncaring they are about their fellow players". And the "conceal your reasons for playing" part of the X-card rules flip the script to the point where the person playing it is the one being disruptive and uncaring, not the other way around.


And yes. Some people may knee-jerk react to this with shock and horror or something, but we have to make these determinations with regard to how much the entire group has to impact their enjoyment so as to make the game more enjoyable for one person. And there's a fair distance I'm willing to go with this, but that person not telling me why? Sorry. That's just a bridge too far.

And this strange idea that we should just create this mythos around the use of the X-card and ascribe to it magical importance that must always be allowed if asked? Nope. IMO, anyone asking of insisting on the use of this at a table is either just following along with the delusion (they think the clothes look just grand!) *or* they are the player at my table who wants to be empowered to stop the game when they want without informing me why. The former doesn't need the tool, but has been tricked into thinking they do, so the correct answer is to say "no". The later is not someone I want at my table.

If you replace the x-card with, say, wearing a hard hat in a construction zone, the organizers goals become a lot more clear there. They don't want to have to vet and get to know every DM that runs at their event, so the safety equipment is just mandatory for everyone, even if you don't engage in unsafe behavior.

Except that there is actual tangible evidence showing the value of hardhats in construction zones. There is zero evidence, beyond lots of delusional assumptions, that the X-card (and specifically the "can stop something without saying why") provides any benefit to any gaming table at all (and arguably a fairly good argument that it will actually increase disruption, if it does have any effect). Again. This is something a ton of people think is a good idea, so they just use it, because of that assumption. But some of us like to actually stop and ask "Um... Is this really doing anything useful".

And look. I would not care, except for when I see comments like "using this shows you care". Hmmmm... Yeah. The meat processing industry created a certification process to show that their meat mets specific standards. It's an entirely voluntary process. No one's required to do it, or place the USDA seals on their produts.

Would you buy meat without a USDA seal on it (or equivalent in another country)? No. Right? So any claims that this is just about positive value of the tool, and not at all a negative value placed on it's absense, is absurd. But what's worse is that at least the USDA seal means something. The "I use an X-card at my table" seal, literally means nothing. It's an exercise in group psychology and blindly following things because you are told you are "bad" if you don't.

On an unrelated note, if you feel the need to use an x-card because a line is crossed and you genuinely can't talk about it, I think you are kind of obliged to excuse yourself from that table at that point. If you can't communicate where the line is so people can avoid it, you're only going to have your fun ruined and drag the group down with you when the trigger reappears, since the DM doesn't know and can't ask what the problem is.

Yeah. This. And again, I keep coming back to the fact that this is literally the only thing that the X-card allows people to do, that other "stop' tools haven't done for decades. It's almost like we've latched onto it like a brand or something, but the kinda gloss over the problems it represents.

I'll say again: I have no issue with "stop" tools. I've used them for decades. My issue is 100% and has always been 100% with the bits in the X-card rules that allow for and even encourage concealing the reason for using the X-card in the first place. That's the point that is a hard "no" for me.

And yeah. If I'm at a tourney (honestly haven't GMed at one in probably 20 years, so maybe moot), and the organizers said "We're using X-cards at the tables", my immediate response would be : "Sure. But I'm not going to follow rules number X or Y (the stuff that is about concealing things). My expecation is that if someone plays the card at my table that they will tell me why. And if they can't, then we ignore it and move on".

I don't care about the label we use for this. Call it an "X-card" if you want, but I will *not* allow that kind of disruption at a table that I'm running. if it's just about the label but *not* the concealment bits, then the organizers should have no problem with this. If their respose is that I must follow the exact rules about using X-cards as written, including the concealment bits, then any claims (by many in this thread) that this is all just guidelines and optional, are totally bunk. It is about the label. And it is about strictly following even the absurd rules that everyone seems to be claiming aren't really what's supposed to be used in the first place. Kind can't have it both ways. That concealment part is either what we're talking about, or it isn't. And if the organizers say "yeah. That's fine", then we're all good. But then, we're just calling what we've always done by a new name, right?


So which thing is the "X-card" that I should be using, or that folks feel they should be using, or that they'd feel uncomfortable not using? Is it the one that works just like a traditional "stop' card/tool? Or is it about being able to conceal the reasons for playing the card. Seems like I asked that earlier, and didn't really get a satisfactory answer. If everyone on this forum agrees that the concealment bits should not be allowed, then we're all in agreement. Again, "X-card minus concealment bits" == "traditional stop card", so I have no problems. It's just a new label for an old tool. Great.

But if people do think the concealment bits are important and necessary, then they need to very clearly state this. And then we can discuss this and just talk about those bits and only those bits.

[icefractal]

I get where you're coming from, but imo the benefits of hard hats are much more obvious than X cards. It seems more like an unnecessary tool (for many games) imo. Which the evidence supports--very few people used X cards at those events, to the extent that the organizers felt the need to address it.

Very few people using them doesn't mean they're unnecessary. It doesn't mean that they are necessary either, it's simply insufficient data to make a judgement on. Most safety features are used very infrequently.

For example, I would be equally healthy as I am now if I'd never used a seat-belt in my life. The few collisions I've been in were low-speed enough that a seat-belt wasn't needed to avoid injury. This is probably true for the majority of people. Nonetheless, seat-belts do save a number of lives each year.

Similarly, you'll more likely (as in > 50%) be fine if you eat expired food, drink and drive, use addictive drugs a few times, run with scissors, set off illegal fireworks without any precautions, motorcycle without a helmet, spar without a cup, etc, etc. It's just that most people consider even a 1% chance of serious harm something worth taking steps to avoid.

[Zuras]

And yeah. If I'm at a tourney (honestly haven't GMed at one in probably 20 years, so maybe moot), and the organizers said "We're using X-cards at the tables", my immediate response would be : "Sure. But I'm not going to follow rules number X or Y (the stuff that is about concealing things). My expecation is that if someone plays the card at my table that they will tell me why. And if they can't, then we ignore it and move on".

If something is really bothering someone to the point that they aren’t enjoying an RPG session, it’s probably not a great time to have a detailed discussion about it. Clearly if they want to continue to participate, someone who raises an X card may need to discuss the “what” component of their issue, so the GM can avoid it going forward.

They aren’t obligated to tell you their “why” reason for raising the X card, though. What possible difference would that make to the situation? The GM doesn’t get to decide whether their issue is valid or not—how would they know? We can’t see inside other people’s heads. As GM you don’t get to make a judgement call on that.

Sure, it’s a blunt tool, and actually talking things out like adults after giving a stop signal is preferable if everyone knows each other. That’s not the case in many public play settings, however.

[Atranen]

Very few people using them doesn't mean they're unnecessary. It doesn't mean that they are necessary either, it's simply insufficient data to make a judgement on. Most safety features are used very infrequently.

For example, I would be equally healthy as I am now if I'd never used a seat-belt in my life. The few collisions I've been in were low-speed enough that a seat-belt wasn't needed to avoid injury. This is probably true for the majority of people. Nonetheless, seat-belts do save a number of lives each year.

Similarly, you'll more likely (as in > 50%) be fine if you eat expired food, drink and drive, use addictive drugs a few times, run with scissors, set off illegal fireworks without any precautions, motorcycle without a helmet, spar without a cup, etc, etc. It's just that most people consider even a 1% chance of serious harm something worth taking steps to avoid.

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

[OldTrees1]

Ok. First off.

Your argument is
Premise: P -> Q
Conclusion: !P -> !Q

Please review the following doc explaining that logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

If you reply without correcting that fallacy, I will ignore you or quote this post again.

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

In specifically the worst gaming session imaginable? Yes, the literal worst case possibly imagined is worse than a standard bad car accident or even a falling object hitting your skull. Mental Trauma can get as bad or worse than physical trauma (notice we can directly talk about one). However most campaigns, even most campaigns would have used safety tools, do not risk anything close to the worst case scenario. A more reasonable metric, to compare to sessions that would have used a safety tool, might be someone wrestling, but unable to tap out, resulting in a severe injury that takes a while to recover and never fully recovers. You know, the reason wrestling has stop signals.

Agreed, and that was the case for this group. It may be that I was a bad fit for their event. But that's really the nature of my complaint. The X card was not being used at the table, and was not achieving its purpose of making games safer. Instead, it ended up being a signaling tool that said "I am on board with what the event organizers want".

Good point about there being other "safety" rules, like no evil characters. I do its legitimate for the organizers to define the scope of their event, and I was a bad fit here. But, it's a bit of a shame that that has been my main experience with the X card

Yeah. Personally I would advise organizers limit the content/tone to reduce the risk of needing a safety-tool rather than require a safety tool. There already is the implicit out of going to the organizer if you can't speak up at the table. It is nowhere as strong a tool as a safety-tool, but it is a better fit provided there are other risk reduction rules. Even the no-evil characters rule in AL is the right rule for AL to implement for the organized play as a whole, even if it was a bad fit for my particular AL table.

Although organizers need to be wary. When you (an outsider imposing laws) put safety rules that feel constraining, it incentivizes the playgroups to bend them slightly. In my case the children friend group that joined my table were allowed to play their characters because I did not fully enforce the no-evil characters rule. I monitored if that was working for my mixed ages table. This worked in the "no evil-characters" case, but would be terrible for a safety tool. Imagine someone invoking a safety tool and then the GM pausing play but interrogating them instead of letting them get to safety. So organizers should choose safety rules that work even if bent.

[Atranen]

Your argument is
Premise: P -> Q
Conclusion: !P -> !Q

Please review the following doc explaining that logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

If you reply without correcting that fallacy, I will ignore you or quote this post again.

The argument is that other people will draw the conclusion, not that it is accurate. People make logical fallacies all the time.

In specifically the worst gaming session imaginable? Yes, the literal worst case possibly imagined is worse than a standard bad car accident or even a falling object hitting your skull. Mental Trauma can get as bad or worse than physical trauma (notice we can directly talk about one). However most campaigns, even most campaigns would have used safety tools, do not risk anything close to the worst case scenario. A more reasonable metric, to compare to sessions that would have used a safety tool, might be someone wrestling, but unable to tap out, resulting in a severe injury that takes a while to recover and never fully recovers. You know, the reason wrestling has stop signals.

I think this is a little pedantic. If a gaming session is so bad that it would cause severe mental trauma, an x card would not help. In the absence of an x card, a player can always walk away. The question is "how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc." And the answer is, nowhere near as much as a seatbelt on a bad accident.

[kyoryu]

Yeah. Personally I would advise organizers limit the content/tone to reduce the risk of needing a safety-tool rather than require a safety tool. There already is the implicit out of going to the organizer if you can't speak up at the table. It is nowhere as strong a tool as a safety-tool, but it is a better fit provided there are other risk reduction rules. Even the no-evil characters rule in AL is the right rule for AL to implement for the organized play as a whole, even if it was a bad fit for my particular AL table.

It's the whole "zero tolerance" thing. It's not about what's effective - it's about defensibility if someone sues.

"Well we told people not to be jerks" may not be sufficient, when "why didn't you institute safety tools, since a number of them are well known?" is an easy counter-argument.

In that scenario, it's about pre-emptively creating a defense. Requiring it costs nothing, and reduces risk. Why wouldn't you do that?

[Vahnavoi]

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

You have the right idea but your (rhetorical) question is wrong.

The correct question would be "do you think the degree of risk in a tabletop game is similar to driving a car or going through a construction site?"

Risk, not simply harm, because risk is properly calculated using both severity (of harm) of an incident and frequency of that incident. Seatbelts and hardhats exist to protect from known lethal risks: we can look at existing body of cases and see how often people died when they were not using these devices.

The existing body of cases where someone died because of game subject matter, to date, is zero. Children choking on gaming pieces? That has happened. People having life-threatening allergic reactions or food poisoning due to table snacks? That has happened. But somebody dying because of a panic attack or a stress reaction towards an in-game event? To my knowledge, this hasn't happened. Sure, I can imagine that happening, but "worst harm imaginable" has no place in a risk calculation if its frequency cannot be measured.

Now, emergency stopping signals, the proper comparison point for an X-card, have saved lives in other contexts than tabletop games. You need to look only so far as live-action roleplaying games to figure that out. Similarly, in physical sports, stopping signals obviously serve to prevent physical injury, including death. But this only turns into a justification for the X-card for a tabletop game if you can show similar level of risk in the tabletop game.

Most often, no such risks can be shown, because they don't exist. You are using the card to prevent panic attacks at worst, not preventing broken bones nor saving lives. There, the card works, but it isn't unique. The question faced by an event organizer is not "should we have safety tools?", it's "should we enforce the X-card specifically, as opposed to tapping out or crying uncle or any of the other things that cover the same ground?".

At the other end, putting content guidelines such as "no evil characters" on the same line as an X-card is just as non-sensical as comparing the card to hardhats. "No evil characters" is an idiosyncratic tabletop gamer issue that is almost entirely irrelevant to safety, an evil Pathfinder or D&D character has less risk to it than watching Game of Thrones or playing Grand Theft Auto. If the point is about controlling level of violence or other foul behaviour, a standard PEGI rating rould be a more powerful tool. But most often it isn't even about that, instead, an evil character would just be thematically or mechanically unfit for the game. That's a concern, but it isn't a safety concern.

(Some of the above is commentary on the running discussion, not specifically to Atranen's post. It's also a rehash of much that's already been said. Seriously people, stop making pointless analogies between inequal safety tools!)

[Zuras]

Do you think the degree of harm encountered in the worst gaming session imaginable is similar to the level encountered in a bad car accident? Or, responding to Keltest as well, the level of harm one gets from having a heavy blunt object dropped on their head from a great height?

While the X-card is used by GMs at the table to prevent harm to participants, it is implemented/required by the event organizers to prevent reputational harm to the event/store.

[OldTrees1]

The argument is that other people will draw the conclusion, not that it is accurate.

I disagree. Unlike our quality discussion about the actual reactions actual people have (which forked off into the organizer subthread). Their argumentation is based on inventing something that does not happen. I am not going to engage their argument when it relies on an obvious fallacy and is contradicted by observation.

I think this is a little pedantic. If a gaming session is so bad that it would cause severe mental trauma, an x card would not help. In the absence of an x card, a player can always walk away. The question is "how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc." And the answer is, nowhere near as much as a seatbelt on a bad accident.

My answer to the worst possible imaginable was a bit pedantic. In that reply you will see me critique the question and answer before answering a better question. We don't need to think about extreme edge cases.

A more reasonable comparison is to wrestling and the stopping signal preventing an injury that takes time to recover and never fully recovers. There are gaming sessions where someone goes quiet and suffers while hoping it will end soon. There are gaming sessions where, in the traumatic moment they fear trying to leave would cause the other players to barrage them with trauma triggering questions and prevent them from leaving that head space. Those gaming sessions, without a safety tool, can cause mental trauma that takes a while to recover and never fully removes (just like those wrestling injuries).

Your question is:
"how much does an x card help compared to the standard safety tools outs of walking away, talking to the person, etc. Etc."
The answer is:
There are cases those options are initially not accessible due to the triggering event and the specific headspace that inflicted on the specific individual. Safety tools (a subset of stopping signals) extend those outs to cases they were not accessible. So how much do they help compared to what they enable? Depends on if the campaign risk needing a safety tool because it risks circumstances where those outs we take for granted are not available in the moment.

Remember, I have had a session that would have benefited from a safety tool, but we did not have one implemented. The forum rules censor our ability to describe it, but the stopping signal wrestlers use to prevent severe wrestling injuries, is comparable. It was not seatbelt vs thrown through the windshield levels of severe, but it was bad. However none of my later campaigns were as risky as that campaign. So a typical campaign probably does not need a safety tool. Do a risk assessment and use a safety tool if needed.

It's the whole "zero tolerance" thing. It's not about what's effective - it's about defensibility if someone sues.

"Well we told people not to be jerks" may not be sufficient, when "why didn't you institute safety tools, since a number of them are well known?" is an easy counter-argument.

In that scenario, it's about pre-emptively creating a defense. Requiring it costs nothing, and reduces risk. Why wouldn't you do that?

Sadly that is correct. I will still judge their choice of "can't sue us" measures based on the positive/negative impact to the groups compared to alternative choices of "can't sue us" measures.

However you are right that requiring it costs next to nothing to the org (a few paragraphs and checking once in a while). However it will have negligible impact on their "can't sue us" defense since it might sound like "oh we trusted that the strangers would play nice without supervision" or there already was supervision?

I can understand their decision, but still think it was erroneous under their metrics.

[Vahnavoi]

While the X-card is used by GMs at the table to prevent harm to participants, it is implemented/required by the event organizers to prevent reputational harm to the event/store.

Due to the fact that incidents are seldom, but security measures are ever-present, complaints about safety guidelines and enforcers that are too strict tend to outnumber complaints of missing safety tools. Indeed, it's quite common the audience/participants/etc. pay no attention to absence of safety tools at all before something happens.

Even when something happens, it's unlikely people would cry after the X-card specifically. In order for that to happen, someone has to first drum up the X-card as a standard for the hobby. Locally, this has not happened, despite the X-card having existed and been under discussion for years. No-body's getting sued and nobody's suffering credible reputation damage for not including the card, the card is just not that important.

For contrast, restrictions on cosplay props due to on-going war are far more relevant topic now... and like described in the first paragraph, most of the complaints are over the new restrictions being too strict. To the point it's now a selling point for a convention to not be stricter than the law requires. The point here being, hobbyists are capable of establishing idiosyncratic regulations that aren't required by law and don't serve to mitigate any new risks.

[kyoryu]

Sadly that is correct. I will still judge their choice of "can't sue us" measures based on the positive/negative impact to the groups compared to alternative choices of "can't sue us" measures.

However you are right that requiring it costs next to nothing to the org (a few paragraphs and checking once in a while). However it will have negligible impact on their "can't sue us" defense since it might sound like "oh we trusted that the strangers would play nice without supervision" or there already was supervision?

I can understand their decision, but still think it was erroneous under their metrics.

Nah, here's what happens.

Event requires X-Card.

Player comes back and says "Bad thing happened during game!"
Event says: "Did you play the X-Card?"
... this can go two ways.

Player says: "No......"
Event says: "Well, that's why it was there. The fact that you didn't use the safety tools provided puts the responsibility on you. Kthxbye".

or.....

Player says "Yes!"
Event says: "And the GM ignored it? Bad GM, we will tell them they are bad and feel free to sue them. There were clear policies put in place, and they chose to ignore them, putting the responsibility on them".

(Scenario two fails if and only if there are multiple complaints about the GM in question that the event ignores)

[kyoryu]

Also, here's the situation that warrants not being upfront about what the trigger is. It's probably not a phobia.

It could be, shall we say, forceful unwanted physical affection. That's the big one - someone might be (understandably) triggered by that, but also not want to say that's their issue. (And, to be clear, it might not be that topic, but something linked in their mind). That's not something a lot of people just want to bring up with strangers or even a lot of friends.

Similar things could happen with family abuse, where publicly talking about it could have repercussions.