TheRPGSite

Woke "Safety Tools" like the X-Card claim to be to help traumatized people be able to play D&D, but are actually based on the idea that you are unspeakably toxic and evil, and need to be controlled, as part of their attack on normal society.
   #dnd      #ttrpg  #osr 

I've been forced to run X Cards at my flgs a few times when I was a DM for the adventures league. To say the least for the average group of players they where never used. Then, the fourth session of them being used three new players joined the games (turned out these three requested the X Cards to be used but then had the gull to not show up for a few weeks) and used them to basically bully other players and GMs. These three where walking stereotypes, two MTFs and one Butch Lesbian. The dozens of pride pins all the works, minus hair dye. And a serious chip on their shoulders.

Something happened they didn't like? X-Card. They fail an action? X-Card. A monster targets them? X-Card. This was actually a day where I was playing board games with friends and not running as we had a smaller turn out. The DM who has these 3 disruptive players during a break asked to swap with me and they are on the... Awkward side of things when it comes to social interactions and did not handle conflict well. And being bullied by these three bad actors really upset this lad. So, he made up an excuse about an emergency and handed the game off to me.

The problem I noticed with these bloody cards is the expectation to not question their use. Which means you can never actually find the problem. So, when they started bullying myself and the other players again, I began to ask "What happened? There seems to be something upsetting you as you are using the card often."

It was like I kicked a puppy or something. The reactions from those three where horrid as they started screaming that I should never ask for someone to explain traumas and that this is a safe space where they should feel safe. I countered with something like "I cannot provide a safe space without understanding what is triggering. I don't need details, just the knowledge of what is triggering you" this one sentence. Took like seven attempts to be said with me having to calm them down.

After many attempts I was able to find out the problem. They didn't like "My Style" or the word "No".  Now, by this point most of the game store was high key paying attention to the table since it was free entertainment by this point. But I managed to finish half of the session despite all of the interruptions and I managed to push back against these three bullies by forcing them to explain the problem they had .

Thankfully, they never came back and the shop for the 5th week since the introduction of these rules removed them as "We felt these rules created a negative environment for players and DMs"

Since then, I've experienced them in online games and a few convention's and I've learned that they are almost only used by bullies and losers. And if you push back against this bad behavior you can curb the behavior utterly or quickly get kicked out from a game. Overall, I agree that these are just tools to control others. Nothing else, as if you do have traumas and I somehow trigger your trauma..it's your job to handle that shit then talk to me after you handle your shit. If we need a short pause? Sure. But it better be a damn good reason to stop the game.

So far, I've only had to stop the game once for a player who has a good reason and otherwise my players spoke to me in PMs or after the game if something came up that upset them.

Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?  When one of these crybullies tries to pull that shit you can have the rest of the players throw down their x-cards and tell the  crybully that they are all triggered by the actions of that person. 

What if you, as GM tell the X-carder that "A protective bubble suddenly surrounds your character and you cannot be affected by anything that is happening.  Also you cannot see or hear through the bubble."  Then ask the player to wait outside while your character is protected and we will resume play when the encounter is over.  Then just never call them back in.

I have two anecdotes regarding this I want to share.

The first one is when I x-carded myself (as a GM) even before the campaign started (pre-world war 1). I told my players that there are things in the setting that I won't roleplay out. (mainly anti-semitism and casual racism) But they could (and should) assume that it was there. All the time.

But by not saying those words, pejoratives and slurs, I wanted to show how "normal" or "ordinary" it was for people in the setting/during that time period to not reflect on the underlying racism. What was acceptable then is not acceptable now, so if a NPC uses any of those words now, its because I want to highlight that particular npc being a particularly vile racist. 

The thing is, I explained to my players beforehand my reasoning and they were fine with it.


My second anecdote is the time I GM:ed a player who obviously wasn't suited for roleplaying.

It was at a con and at about 20 minutes in the player had a nervous breakdown. This has never happened to me either before or after.

I GM:ed a adventure for a couple of players I've never GM:ed before.
They were at this high class party and I roleplayed the host. A powerful (and slightly intimidating) character whos word were law and who could have people killed for crossing him. But, I played him as a generous and charming host and as long as the players met him with respect there would be no trouble.

So one thing I do sometimes is that I go around the table to let each and every player have a turn to get a chance to roleplay. All the host did was strike up some casual chit-chat with the players, his guests, you know, mingling.

And then I turned to the final player, a petit teenage girl. Who just completely broke down and we had to completely cancel the game. The other players (her friends) rushed to her help and comfort and one player addressed me, apologized and told me that we had to end it there. (I can only assume they were accustomed to this girls frail psyche)

WTF just happened?

So can there be players who genuinely have issues? Yeah, there is.
Would X-cards have helped here?
I don't think so.

I think the fundamental problem is that most safety tools are designed by Woke Snowflakes. As such the problem isn't necessarily that safety tools are bad, but that the people actually making them tend to share tyrannical vices. And that means the safety tools are, of course, very disruptive and in almost all instances, massively overkill.

Personally, I tend to prefer talking about Table Governance instead of safety tools, meaning that the game should have a formal mechanic which creates a metagame space for players and the GM to talk about the game's direction and content, and in a pinch, to regulate that direction and content. And really, most GMs I've played with already implement some form of table governance, it's just an informal one where they interview each player every few sessions, and it's learned from years of GMing and roleplaying, not a process written in any RPG that I've read.

And that, of course, means that novice GMs make mistakes, which is probably what 95% of "safety tool situations" boil down to. Especially as I think problem players are notably more common these days than they were 20 years ago.

In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

This is completely orthogonal to whether or not said person, GM or otherwise, is acting like a reasonable person or a dick.  Part of not being a dick is being aware of the other people at the table as fellow human beings with feelings and interests.  The only reason to ever continue playing with a dick (GM or otherwise) is that the dick behavior is compensated by something else the group values (great roleplaying, long-time friend in other pursuits, whatever) enough to put up with it.  Or rarely, everyone else sees that person is really trying hard to improve but just not there yet, and thus they see the game as a way to help practice out of bad habits.  (It is rare, and usually people try this with way too much optimism about human nature.  However, I have seen it work more than once.)

Mixing the two categories, in the game and out of the game, seldom works well for changing behavior.  And when they do, it is only around the edges.  Leaving aside all the specific things wrong with the X-Card that make it either useless or actively harmful, it doesn't even perform as advertised, because it can't bridge that divide.  It's the player equivalent of the GM engineering a TPK because the players brought pizza to the game but didn't get exactly what he wanted. 

An X-Card variant, where touching it stopped the game momentarily while everyone talked out what was going on that was bothering them--completely outside the game, could conceivably work in certain select situations.  For me, that would be an automatic game killer--as in, I'm stopping the game right there--because I'm not going that close to the edge, and my sessions aren't for therapy.  I think attempting to use an RPG for therapy is GM malpractice, and more likely to harm than hurt (having some practical experience with people involved in each). 

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary. 

Bottom line:   X-Cards and other safety tools or pointless.

The toxic games and DM's/GMs out there will still be toxic because they will never use the safety tools.

The majority of gamers wont ever use safety tools.   Even on the big purple turd the subject doesn't come up much if ever anymore.  They have been rejected, nobody needs them and nobody wants them.

If you need to use a safety tool like X-cards, you probably shouldn't be gaming in the first place.

My 2cents

Session Zero and Clear Communication are the best safety tools imaginable.

'Nuff Said.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

So like, a counterspell?

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 04, 2022, 09:30:20 AM
Session Zero and Clear Communication are the best safety tools imaginable.

'Nuff Said.

Quoted because it bears repeating.  The only player consent is "Here is the game I am going to run, do you want to play? Yes/No" and if something isn't to their liking they are free to leave. 

Period.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 04, 2022, 10:56:36 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

So like, a counterspell?

What happens if someone X-Cards you X-Carding someone else?  It will never end!!!   ;D ;D

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 04, 2022, 11:02:03 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 04, 2022, 10:56:36 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

So like, a counterspell?

What happens if someone X-Cards you X-Carding someone else?  It will never end!!!   ;D ;D

Sure it does.  An unstable loop is formed which eventually implodes, killing all the participants or at least rendering them unable to game for some time. Thus the universe restores some modest measure of sanity, based on the great principle that "What cannot continue, will not." :D

Here is my solution to the whole X-card business.  Have a sign on a door that reads: "This Way To collect your 'X' Card." Have that door be a one-way exit that leads to a garbage-strewn alley. A camera should be installed so you can record the looks on their faces once they hear that final "SLAM" behind them.

Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 11:20:26 AM
Here is my solution to the whole X-card business.  Have asign on a door that reads: "This Way To collect your 'X' Card." Have that door be a one-way exit that leads to a garbage-strewn alley. A camera should he installed so you can record the looks on their faces once they hear that final "SLAM" behind them.

+1  Upvote

Quote from: Kahoona on August 04, 2022, 01:11:50 AM
I've been forced to run X Cards at my flgs a few times when I was a DM for the adventures league. To say the least for the average group of players they where never used. Then, the fourth session of them being used three new players joined the games (turned out these three requested the X Cards to be used but then had the gull to not show up for a few weeks) and used them to basically bully other players and GMs. These three where walking stereotypes, two MTFs and one Butch Lesbian. The dozens of pride pins all the works, minus hair dye. And a serious chip on their shoulders.

Something happened they didn't like? X-Card. They fail an action? X-Card. A monster targets them? X-Card. This was actually a day where I was playing board games with friends and not running as we had a smaller turn out. The DM who has these 3 disruptive players during a break asked to swap with me and they are on the... Awkward side of things when it comes to social interactions and did not handle conflict well. And being bullied by these three bad actors really upset this lad. So, he made up an excuse about an emergency and handed the game off to me.

The problem I noticed with these bloody cards is the expectation to not question their use. Which means you can never actually find the problem. So, when they started bullying myself and the other players again, I began to ask "What happened? There seems to be something upsetting you as you are using the card often."

It was like I kicked a puppy or something. The reactions from those three where horrid as they started screaming that I should never ask for someone to explain traumas and that this is a safe space where they should feel safe. I countered with something like "I cannot provide a safe space without understanding what is triggering. I don't need details, just the knowledge of what is triggering you" this one sentence. Took like seven attempts to be said with me having to calm them down.

After many attempts I was able to find out the problem. They didn't like "My Style" or the word "No".  Now, by this point most of the game store was high key paying attention to the table since it was free entertainment by this point. But I managed to finish half of the session despite all of the interruptions and I managed to push back against these three bullies by forcing them to explain the problem they had .

Thankfully, they never came back and the shop for the 5th week since the introduction of these rules removed them as "We felt these rules created a negative environment for players and DMs"

Since then, I've experienced them in online games and a few convention's and I've learned that they are almost only used by bullies and losers. And if you push back against this bad behavior you can curb the behavior utterly or quickly get kicked out from a game. Overall, I agree that these are just tools to control others. Nothing else, as if you do have traumas and I somehow trigger your trauma..it's your job to handle that shit then talk to me after you handle your shit. If we need a short pause? Sure. But it better be a damn good reason to stop the game.

So far, I've only had to stop the game once for a player who has a good reason and otherwise my players spoke to me in PMs or after the game if something came up that upset them.

That's pretty messed up. Good on your FLGS for rescinding the "safety tools." And good on you for confronting these assholes!

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 04, 2022, 11:02:03 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 04, 2022, 10:56:36 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

So like, a counterspell?

What happens if someone X-Cards you X-Carding someone else?  It will never end!!!   ;D ;D

It's X Cards all the way down. There's a parody game in here somewhere.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 11:20:26 AM
Here is my solution to the whole X-card business.  Have a sign on a door that reads: "This Way To collect your 'X' Card." Have that door be a one-way exit that leads to a garbage-strewn alley. A camera should be installed so you can record the looks on their faces once they hear that final "SLAM" behind them.

Best solution ever!

I said this on a different thread early June: Tools for narcissists to gain power and leverage.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 04, 2022, 11:42:25 AM

It's X Cards all the way down. There's a parody game in here somewhere.

I am getting to work on X-cards, the card game right away!

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 04, 2022, 10:56:36 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

So like, a counterspell?

Brought to you by Classic Traveller....

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/297625577_10229937594886466_5712669641561716972_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=6o6UYXwJxFQAX-d0iGE&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_Xnq8LrtppFhcTEaelyP0XDbr3T230og_fZ3FNPtgQYA&oe=62F0893E)

Quote from: Kahoona on August 04, 2022, 01:11:50 AM
I've been forced to run X Cards at my flgs a few times when I was a DM for the adventures league.

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on August 04, 2022, 07:46:31 AM
Can you use your own X-card to x-card someone else's x-card?

Makes sense to me. Kahoona is a perfect example of someone who's basically been raped by X-cards, and anyone who uses an X-card (in public no less!) is being grossly insensitive to that trauma.

As part of my quest to leave roll20, I've been getting helpful links and searching up other VTTs.  Possibly of interest to the thread is Shard Tabletop adding "safety" tools that sound similar to the X-cards:
https://twitter.com/ShardTabletop/status/1548307440495497216

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 04, 2022, 02:36:38 PM

Brought to you by Classic Traveller....

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/297625577_10229937594886466_5712669641561716972_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=6o6UYXwJxFQAX-d0iGE&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_Xnq8LrtppFhcTEaelyP0XDbr3T230og_fZ3FNPtgQYA&oe=62F0893E)

I'm stealing this! :)

I think the video made a good point of logic.

Either the X-Card is (A) required to allow people with trauma to play TTRPGs or it's (B) merely a way of expressing preferences.

If (A), then the X-Card is way too much responsibility for the GM and is also probably some form of untrained/unlicensed therapy, and poorly conceived at that.

If (B), then the X-Card is unnecessary because human beings already have several ways of doing this, which interestingly do not carry an unquestionable veto like the X-Card does.

The X-Card's sole reason to exist boils down to an unquestionable veto. The other reasons that are used to support it are just a smokescreen.

Do not let this thing pollute your table.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 04, 2022, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on August 04, 2022, 02:36:38 PM

Brought to you by Classic Traveller....

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/297625577_10229937594886466_5712669641561716972_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=6o6UYXwJxFQAX-d0iGE&_nc_ht=scontent-atl3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_Xnq8LrtppFhcTEaelyP0XDbr3T230og_fZ3FNPtgQYA&oe=62F0893E)

I'm stealing this! :)

Feel free! It is available for anyone's use!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2022, 08:50:36 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

This is completely orthogonal to whether or not said person, GM or otherwise, is acting like a reasonable person or a dick.  Part of not being a dick is being aware of the other people at the table as fellow human beings with feelings and interests.  The only reason to ever continue playing with a dick (GM or otherwise) is that the dick behavior is compensated by something else the group values (great roleplaying, long-time friend in other pursuits, whatever) enough to put up with it.  Or rarely, everyone else sees that person is really trying hard to improve but just not there yet, and thus they see the game as a way to help practice out of bad habits.  (It is rare, and usually people try this with way too much optimism about human nature.  However, I have seen it work more than once.)

Mixing the two categories, in the game and out of the game, seldom works well for changing behavior.  And when they do, it is only around the edges.  Leaving aside all the specific things wrong with the X-Card that make it either useless or actively harmful, it doesn't even perform as advertised, because it can't bridge that divide.  It's the player equivalent of the GM engineering a TPK because the players brought pizza to the game but didn't get exactly what he wanted. 

An X-Card variant, where touching it stopped the game momentarily while everyone talked out what was going on that was bothering them--completely outside the game, could conceivably work in certain select situations.  For me, that would be an automatic game killer--as in, I'm stopping the game right there--because I'm not going that close to the edge, and my sessions aren't for therapy.  I think attempting to use an RPG for therapy is GM malpractice, and more likely to harm than hurt (having some practical experience with people involved in each). 

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

Exactly.  I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.  It's a gaming session, not group therapy.  Don't feel comfortable, that's ok.  Just means you can't play in the session.  End of story.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2022, 08:50:36 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

• You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
• You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 04, 2022, 11:22:59 AM
Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

• You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
• To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
• To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
• The GM's vote counts double.
• A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
• You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2022, 08:50:36 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

• You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
• You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 04, 2022, 11:22:59 AM
Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

• You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
• To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
• To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
• The GM's vote counts double.
• A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
• You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

If players don't like the way that I GM a game, they are more than welcome to go find another GM. Likewise, if I don't like how players are acting in a game I GM, I can either eject the problem player or just not run the game for them.

No 'Divine Right of Kings', just common sense.

You can't legislate therapy.   You can't legislate all game decisions.  You sure can't mix the two, as they are fundamentally different.  That's the root problem with the thinking behind the X-card.  That it's a flawed implementation even on its own terms is just more nails in its coffin. 

There must be some judgment exercised at the table for the gaming version of role play to exist.  This is completely separate thing from the activity of a trained psychologist working through a damaged person's therapy needs.  There is not some better tool that can be done that will bridge that gap.  Anyone that thinks there can be doesn't understand how therapy works.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2022, 08:50:36 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

• You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
• You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 04, 2022, 11:22:59 AM
Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

• You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
• To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
• To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
• The GM's vote counts double.
• A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
• You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

Are you for real?

An entire "parliamentary" meta-game to figure out how to behave during the actual game?

Why even play elf games? Just play this governance game you invented.

This is some fucking deep-state trolling you got going on here.

If you're playing a team sport and it's a friendly match, and then some player keeps on fouling you, you bring it up to the other team and tell them to knock it off or the game is over. Simple as that. If there are special rules, they should get discussed at the beginning and a consensus should be reached. Again, simple as that.

Why should RPGs be any different? Because we're all assumed to be socially inept or incapable of expressing our feelings?  ::)

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

WRONG! The GM is the final arbiter, as a player you have the power to not play or to quit playing at any point.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM
My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

WRONG! Theres another possible outcome, if the GM is a dick the players all get up and leave (they kick him), and where's the problem in kicking out dicks?

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM
The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

• You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
• You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

You could even say that not using BS like the X-Card is PROBLEMATIC!

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM
The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

It was a first generation tool, in the BDSM space, where IT IS useful, in RPGs it's not needed... Unless you're playing with leftards who love to play out their perversions on the table.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM
That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

• You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
• To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
• To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
• The GM's vote counts double.
• A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
• You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

Thanks I hate it.

Greetings!

"Divine Right of Kings" is fucking right. *I* wear the Viking Hat. I am the DM. It's my fucking game, my fucking campaign, and my fucking rules.

WTF is the REEEING about parliament?

NO.

This is not a fucking democracy. It is not a parliament. It is the rule of absolute Caesar, anointed by god. ;D

Geesus. It also helps that I'm the fucking HOST. Everyone is gathered together in MY HOME. Everyone is being fed and watered with my food, my sodas, my beer, my coffee. Sitting on my chairs, gathered at my table. And also eating my chips, my salsa, and my guacamole.

Why shouldn't everything be run according to what I fucking say?

Oh, yeah. and usually, it is also my cigars, too! Though, to be fair, the gang often brings me offerings and tribute! Often supplying goodies, drinks, and cigars, too. Still, though, it is mostly ME.

Crazy fun aside, geesus. There is no need to embrace a governmental mini-game, or "Safety Tools". If the game makes you uncomfortable, or REEE, or otherwise "offended"--there's the fucking door.

See, all of this nonsense comes from playing with random strangers, and somehow embracing this kind of emotional obligation or social burden to accept and play with mentally damaged and fucked up people.

NO. Merely because there are some few people out there that for some fucking reason feel obligated to embrace the mentally ill--the rest of us do not. There can be exceptions, of course, made for your aspie wife, or your cousin that may be a bit slow. Whatever. That's all good. However, this whole wave thing of constantly accomodating fucking mentally ill and fucked up people simply isn't good for the hobby.

Sorry. It just isn't, as we can plainly see from the contant deluge of whining, crying, problems, and drama.

Gaming is not your fucking mental therapy session. Goddamn. You see? All of these dramas and problems are because so many people in our society should not be sitting at a game table--but instead they should be sitting in a rubber room, on medications.

Gaming is supposed to be intellectual and FUN. Not a fucking therapy session for the mentally ill.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

I think that most of you are completely misunderstanding the point. My objective is not "safety" in the sense of protecting a snowflake. It's to protect the GM from a hostile player infiltrating a group at a Con with the specific intent of causing the GM (and by extension the group) harm. Judging from Kahoona's comment on the first page, this is a lived experience.

I suspect these people fall into three categories:

• Simpleminded SJWs who are very trigger-happy with safety tools (probably the most common),
• Following-thieves, who destroy content creators to get a boost of followers of their own, and
• Industrial saboteurs, looking to protect major IPs by creating incidents to eliminate or humiliate the competition.

The last one is probably quite rare, but also intentionally placed.

In the context of a saboteur, a lot of these decisions make sense. You aren't protecting a player; you're forcing an interaction where a saboteur is called out and exposed in a public vote. This has to be formally backed up with the majority of the other players because if you don't, the saboteur will escalate it to the Con staffers, and without a clear plurality opinion that the player in question was being disruptive, it becomes the saboteur's word against the GM, and the Con staffers are probably going to feel compelled to side with the saboteur once he/ she/ it pulls out the "this GM was being insensitive!" card. You can't win if you let that conversation stay as the GM's word against the saboteur.

Quote from: Skullking on August 05, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

Nonsense, X-cards are exclusionary by their very nature.  They're saying, we don't want you to play these games because you're insensitive.

Quote from: Fheredin on August 05, 2022, 06:29:19 PM
I think that most of you are completely misunderstanding the point. My objective is not "safety" in the sense of protecting a snowflake. It's to protect the GM from a hostile player infiltrating a group at a Con with the specific intent of causing the GM (and by extension the group) harm. Judging from Kahoona's comment on the first page, this is a lived experience.

I suspect these people fall into three categories:

• Simpleminded SJWs who are very trigger-happy with safety tools (probably the most common),
• Following-thieves, who destroy content creators to get a boost of followers of their own, and
• Industrial saboteurs, looking to protect major IPs by creating incidents to eliminate or humiliate the competition.

The last one is probably quite rare, but also intentionally placed.

In the context of a saboteur, a lot of these decisions make sense. You aren't protecting a player; you're forcing an interaction where a saboteur is called out and exposed in a public vote. This has to be formally backed up with the majority of the other players because if you don't, the saboteur will escalate it to the Con staffers, and without a clear plurality opinion that the player in question was being disruptive, it becomes the saboteur's word against the GM, and the Con staffers are probably going to feel compelled to side with the saboteur once he/ she/ it pulls out the "this GM was being insensitive!" card. You can't win if you let that conversation stay as the GM's word against the saboteur.

Vote with your feet and wallets: Don't go to any convention gaming store that demands you use their BS "Safety Tools".

If enough people did this you'd soon find them changing their tune.

The only situation that maybe possibly an X card could he useful would be in one shot pick up games at Conventions and the like where you might want to try a game, there is a social commitment not to quit a game even if you aren't enjoying it but you are also unable to vet the GM and other players.

I'd rather that the organisers and GM at the sign up process wrote helpful sumamries with a rating system (like movies) and what themes would be in a game so other in game solutions weren't necessary. But this represents a one off and quite a curated environment.

In regular gaming groups if a game was inherently unfun for one or more players as GM I would (and have) bring the game to a close for the evening and play a board game, have a few beers etc. Then I'd have a chat with the player and discuss whether the game or rpgs was really for them.

Quote from: David Johansen on August 05, 2022, 06:50:57 PM

Quote from: Skullking on August 05, 2022, 01:47:54 PM
X-cards are part of the 'RPGs are for everybody' mantra. Once you want to include 'everybody' you have to cater to the lowest common denominator, hence the X-card.

Nonsense, X-cards are exclusionary by their very nature.  They're saying, we don't want you to play these games because you're insensitive.

I agree they are exclusionary. I never said the Leftest point of view made sense or was logical.

Their 'logic' runs thus: RPG's are for everyone, that includes snowflakes/narcissists so we need to protect them, X-cards are created to protect the snowflakes/narcissists, if you don't like X-cards you are exclusionary, therefore you should be excluded.

Their cognitive dissonance allows them to exclude people so as to be more inclusive.

X-Cards and the like enable players to flip the table on any game they want. As such, I find them a completely unacceptable prospect. I will never use them.

The solution to a player throwing a tantrum is to call security and have them escorted out of the convention. It's a simple matter. The solution is already there.

Quote from: rytrasmi on August 04, 2022, 09:32:18 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 07:42:32 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 04, 2022, 08:50:36 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on August 04, 2022, 08:29:16 AM
In my opinion, good table governance can always substitute for the situations you would actually want safety tool, but a safety tool--being a dedicated implement--can't do certain things which table governance can. The tradeoff is that it means moving past the idea that the GM is God of the Game because you have to run a formal mechanical process. I'm sure that's going to piss some grognards off.

Does not follow.  Look, being "God of the Game" means exactly that.  Within the game setting/world/rules however you want to define it, the GM has last say, and often first and middle say as well.  It's a necessary part of a traditionally run game (i.e. absent certain meta game mechanics put in place to deliberately farm some of that responsibility out to the players in a formal way) but even then, someone has to do it.

...

"Table Governance" for normal people, in normal situations, is the same as it is at every other non-gaming social activity.  Excluding the dicks, if something comes up, you talk about it, no mechanical widget necessary.

No, the GM does not have to have universal say on the game. This is literally the Divine Right of Kings argument applied to games; we do have government models which do not require a single player (and the GM is still a player) to exert perfect control.

My point in my prior post is that while play without safety tools is quite possible, it often has unspoken requirements which leverage GM experience, which puts RPGs in an awkward position where the GM (and often the players, too) need years of experience to play. Saying "don't be a dick," is useless because people can and do make mistakes. Worse, this is basically the same purity standard Woke SJWs use, it's just applied in the reverse manner. Yes, kicking players is inevitable, but you should really design your game's mechanics so its rarely necessary, and when you force the conversation to be "play with the X-Card or play without one" with no other options provided, it doesn't really matter. Both options lead to kicking players being the primary outcome.

The problem with X-Cards specifically is that the RPG market has largely either fallen into one of two categories:

• You don't think safety tools are useful or helpful, or
• You don't see the flaws with the safety tools you are using.

I think the X-Card is a useful tool, but it's also a critically flawed one. But here we're caught in a Catch-22 where the people who recognize it's flaws aren't interested in improving it because they personally are GMs of 10-20+ years experience who generally run curated groups, and they personally don't need them, preferring the freedom of manual control.

That's a valid decision on a per-group basis, but as a collective, that decision poses a problem.

The X-Card should have been a first generation tool, a temporary fill-in tool until games developed better tools. However, no one actually bothered to come forward with less disruptive tools in a reasonable timeframe, and now we're stuck with the maximum disruption X-Card as an almost mandatory fixture of public play in an environment where our SJW-ridden culture encourages creating a following for yourself by creating disruption and tearing others down. So, I've basically given up on the idea of Con-Play being of any quality for a very long time.


However, perhaps this will get you to see what I'm thinking of.

Quote from: Ruprecht on August 04, 2022, 11:22:59 AM
Each person gets 2 x-cards. They can use each once. After that they have to leave as the game is clearly overly triggering.
This is assuming a convention game or open table in which the GM has no control over who plays.

Hopefully you can get sane players to goad the x-card usage early to get the problems out of the way.

That leads me to think that Parliamentary rules might help, where generally someone has to Second the use of a game-disrupting tool. Here's a quick brainstorm.

• You start the campaign with three Call For A Vote cards. When you play a Call For A Vote card, you describe the problem with the game as is and propose an Amendment to the game's Social Contract. Other players may propose additions or changes, but it still counts as your Amendment.
• To immediately change what is happening in the game, you must call for a vote and more than 2/3rds of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Supermajority.
• To change the game in the future (but not in the present) you must call for a vote and more than 1/2 of players at the table agree with you. This is Passing with a Simple Majority.
• The GM's vote counts double.
• A Call For A Vote card returns to you indefinitely if your Amendment passes.
• You may Spend a second Call For A Vote card on a failed Call For A Vote to create a Hard Veto. A Hard Veto destroys both Call For A Vote cards used (meaning it can only happen once.) The rest of the table then (minus you) votes whether they want to Bar you from Play (requires a Supermajority) rather than accept the Veto.

Are you for real?

An entire "parliamentary" meta-game to figure out how to behave during the actual game?

Why even play elf games? Just play this governance game you invented.

This is some fucking deep-state trolling you got going on here.

Greetings!

*Laughing* Hilarious, my friend! So true, huh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Wntrlnd on August 04, 2022, 08:21:31 AM
And then I turned to the final player, a petit teenage girl. Who just completely broke down and we had to completely cancel the game. The other players (her friends) rushed to her help and comfort and one player addressed me, apologized and told me that we had to end it there. (I can only assume they were accustomed to this girls frail psyche)

WTF just happened?

So can there be players who genuinely have issues? Yeah, there is.
Would X-cards have helped here?
I don't think so.

Sounds like it was unrelated to X-card stupid and was more likely just a case of nerves or even some problem.
One of my friends from years ago had a fear of crowds and even small groups might cause them to panic.
Another friend has a completely debilitating fear of open spaces.
And another has paralyzing anxiety attacks. As in they pretty much shut down due to death spirals.
Kat had a really odd one. A panic attack induced by a 3d movie.
One time we were at the movies and a guy just flipped and ran screaming out of the blue. Not sure what the cause was.

So yeah someone just breaking down like that almost certainly has nothing to do with X-cards. Just bad luck then was the time they has an attack.

This again? I thought that had been dealt with in the past? How come it's come up again recently?

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on August 14, 2022, 08:02:36 AM
This again? I thought that had been dealt with in the past? How come it's come up again recently?

New to the world? Everything dealt with in the past will come up again even if in a slightly different form.

Not really new in the world, but I thought that that discussion was something of a few years ago when all that started.

Quote from: Kerstmanneke82 on August 14, 2022, 08:33:24 AM
Not really new in the world, but I thought that that discussion was something of a few years ago when all that started.

It was, but if it can be pulled out again and hyped up for clicks & giggles, then it will be. This is (sadly) the way.

That being said, the way I start my games: "there's not going to be any violence towards children or animals (apart from the usual enemies of course), all the rest you can tell me if you have a problem with how you run my game".

X Cards are B.S. and that's all there is to it.

I was about to pull the trigger on a game on Drivethru when I stopped to quickly look at the preview. It had a paragraph on X-cards right on the first page. Needless to say, that publisher didn't get my money.

As a GM, my policy is simple:

When I introduce a game to new players, I inform them of the overall themes of the game, including the possibility of adult content. (However I typically keep my games PG-13 anyways.)

If you have any personal issues that might cause a disruption in the game, inform me before we begin. If I can avoid the issue in the game, I will do so. If not, I'll let you know. You can choose to accept it, or leave the game.

If somehow an issue comes up that was not covered, you may power through it, OR leave if you unable to do so. However, the game will not be stopped. If you leave, there is a good chance you will not be asked back.

This last one happened with my current group of players. We were doing a Shadowrun campaign, and unbeknownst to the group, one player has a phobia about cockroaches. When they went into the sewers and found a hive of cockroach spirits, the player freaked for a few minutes and went outside. He returned a few minutes later, explained his phobia, and apologized for freaking out. He then announced he was incorporating his phobia into his Street Samurais character, and we continued playing.

I'm grateful I don't game with snowflakes.

... as an aside to all this X-card nonsense...

I've noticed that a LOT of LFG groups in my area are starting to segregate by age. Many of the LFG ads are strident on *No one OVER 35*... some as low as 30. And it's specifically to avoid "drama" about politics.

Which is funny to me - as I'm very careful about younger players (unironically under 35) joining my group because of the same reason. HOWEVER, I will often take them to lunch/dinner to get a good two-way sniff test and make sure they understand what they're getting into at my table. But I won't deny them based purely on their age, but it's something I do plan for when someone answers my occasional recruitment ads.

The X-card nonsense is so petty and silly, it's a signal for outrage performance art that have no real interest in roleplaying. But whatever, I don't do Con's anymore and have no problem getting players for my games. Let them X-card themselves into oblivion.

Everyday I feel a tiny bit more vindicated about not living in North America anymore.

I used to be neutral on X-cards (I've never personally used them but didn't care if they were used in a game) until I read about how they can actually encourage the very thing they are supposed to stop - triggering events. Having learned that, I would never now play in a game with an X card, and would suggest to the organisers of any game with them in to stop using them.
The reason is this:

What the X-card stands for (I am upset by what you said, don't say it again), and how it is used (you can't question why I used it, just accept that what you did was wrong) mimics a particular sort of abuse, almost exactly. So if you have someone at the table who has suffered this abuse, the very existence of the card is hurtful to them, and its use doubly so.

So, kids, just say "no" to the X-card, you could be hurting the very people you intend to protect.