RPG Evolution: When Gaming Bleeds

Monte Cook Games recently released Consent in Gaming, a sensitive topic that addresses subjects that make some players uncomfortable. Central to the understanding of why there's a debate at all involves the concept of "bleed" in role-play.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Bleed Basics​

Courtney Kraft explains bleed:

It’s a phenomenon where the emotions from a character affect the player out of the game and vice versa. Part of the joy of roleplay comes from diving into the fantasy of being something we’re not. When we play a character for a long time, it’s easy to get swept up in the highs of victorious battle and the lows of character death. When these feelings persist after the game is over, that’s when bleed occurs.

Bleed isn't inherently bad. Like actors in a movie, players sometimes draw on experiences to fuel their role-playing, consciously or subconsciously, and this bleed can happen organically. What's of concern in gaming is when bleed has detrimental consequences to the player.

Consent in Gaming explains the risks of negative bleed:

There’s nothing wrong with bleed—in fact, it’s part of the reason we play games. We want to be excited when our character is excited, to feel the loss when our characters do. However, bleed can cause negative experiences if not handled carefully. For example, maybe a character acted in a way that your character didn’t like, and it made you angry at the player too. Or maybe your character is flirting with another character, and you’re worried that it’s also making you have feelings for the player. It’s important to talk about these distinctions between characters and players early and often, before things take an unexpected turn.

There are several aspects that create bleed, and it's central to understanding why someone would need consent in a game at all. Bleed is a result of immersion, and the level of immersion dictates the social contract of how the game is played. This isn't limited to rules alone, but rests as much on the other players as it is on the subject matter.

One of the experiences that create bleed is a player's association with the game's subject matter. For some players, less realistic games (like Dungeons & Dragons) have a lower chance of the game's experiences bleeding into real life, because it's fantasy and not analogous to real life. Modern games might have the opposite effect, mirroring real life situations a player has experience with. There are plenty of players who feel otherwise of course, particularly those deeply involved in role-playing their characters for some time -- I've experienced bleed role-playing a character on a spaceship just as easily as a modern game.

The other element that can affect bleed is how the game is played. Storytelling games often encourage deeper emotional involvement from a player, while more gamist tabletop games create a situational remove from the character by their nature -- miniatures, tactical combat, and other logistics that are less about role-playing and more about tactics. Live Action Role-Playing games (LARPs) have the player physically inhabit their role and are thus provide more opportunities for bleed. Conversely, Massive Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) might seem like they make bleed unlikely because the player is at a computer, experiencing the game through a virtual avatar -- and yet it can still happen. Players who play a game for a long time can experience more bleed than someone who just joined a game.

Dungeons & Dragons is a particular flashpoint for discussions of bleed, because while it is a fantasy game that can easily be played with disposable characters navigating a dungeon, it can also have surprisingly emotional depth and complexity -- as many live streams of tabletop play have demonstrated.

These two factors determine the "magic circle," where the reality of the world is replaced by the structure of another reality. The magic circle is not a magic wall -- it's porous, and players can easily have discussions about what's happening in the real world, make jokes derived from popular culture their characters would never know, or even just be influenced by their real life surroundings.

The deeper a player engages in the magic circle, the more immersed that player becomes. Governing the player's social contract within the magic circle is something Nordic LARP calls this "the alibi," in which the player accepts the premise that their actions don't reflect on them but rather their character:

Rather than playing a character who is very much like you (“close to home”), deliberately make character choices that separates the character from you and provides some differentiation. If your character has a very similar job to your ideal or actual job, find a reason for your character to change jobs. If your character has a very similar personality to you, find aspects of their personality that are different from yours to play up and focus on. Or play an alternate character that is deliberately “further from home”.

Bleeding Out​

Where things get sticky is when real life circumstances apply to imaginary concepts. Bleed exists within the mind of each player but is influenced by the other players. It is fungible and can be highly personal. Additionally, what constitutes bleed can be an unconscious process. This isn't necessarily a problem -- after all, the rush of playing an awesome superhero can be a positive influence for someone who doesn't feel empowered in real life -- unless the bleed touches on negative subjects that makes the player uncomfortable. These psychological triggers are a form of "bleed-in," in which the player's psychology affects the character experience. Not all bleed moments are triggers, but they can be significantly distressing for players who have suffered some form of abuse or trauma.

Consent in Gaming attempts to address these issues by using a variety of tools to define the social contract. For players who are friends, those social contracts have likely been established over years through both in- and out-of-game experiences. But for players who are new to each other, social contracts can be difficult to determine up front, and tools like x-cards can go a long way in preventing misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Thanks to the increasing popularity of tabletop role-playing games, players are coming from more diverse backgrounds with a wide range of experiences. An influx of new players means those experiences will not always be compatible with established social contracts. The recent incident at the UK Gaming Expo, as reported by Darryl is an egregious example of what happens when a game master's expectations of what's appropriate for a "mature" game doesn't match the assumed social contract of players at the table.

This sort of social contract reinforcement can seem intrusive to gamers who have long-suffered from suspicion that they are out of touch with reality, or that if they play an evil character, they are evil (an allegation propagated during the Satanic Panic). This need to perform under a "cover" in their "real" life has made the entire concept of bleed and its associated risks a particularly sensitive topic of discussion.

X-cards and consent discussions may not be for everyone, but as we welcome new players with new experiences into the hobby, those tools will help us all negotiate the social contract that makes every game's magic circle a magical experience.

 

[Deleted member 7015506]

@Panda-s1
No I don´t have half-orcs in my games for the obvious reason (for me), that orcs are the baddies in my games and half-orcs are considered outcasts. They act as NPC yes, but are no playable race. Does this turn me into a racist? Well we talk about a fantasy game with fantasy races, sorry species (politically more correct nowadays I assume). So do we have to talk about the morality of branding a fictional species as "bad/evil" compared to the generally "good" species in a fictional game like D&D?
I am not a fan of games like "Achtung Cthulhu" or any other WWII RPG. I gave up wargaming for the simple fact, that the Shoah and the suffering of the Nazi regimes victims is always part of that period. I don´t want to minimize these suffering and killings in the slightest ways nor do I want to excuse them for one thought. But is it possible to leave out this dark chapter of history at least in FANTASY gaming? Is it possible to enjoy a game without having always Rl problems transferred to it? And that is exactly why I stated I don´t want this discussion to turn into this direction. I know there were/are discussions exactly about this subjects, but please forgive me, when I don´t want to partake in it.

Now I can´t comment on your personal experience since personal is personal. I deeply respect such things and the mentioned reaction by your DM is his thing. But in my games, it can happen once and I try to avoid such things for future situations.
But like said, if you keep your game civilized in a way, then such things should be prevented. For feedback I can only say, that a good DM is not only running the game, but also constantly observing the reactions of his players. And if necessary a good DM may alter some things, when he realizes, that players feel uncomfortable with it. But my question is, why is somebody not saying openly right at the moment of the inconvenience that he/she considers this thing to be offensive or feels unpleasant? Perhaps not everybody is made that way to speak open all the time, but is it really the responsibility of every Dm to always ask beforehand what makes a player feel uncomfortable? He won´t get a serious reply either, since it may be difficult for that person to speak openly. The basic problems persists even with the X-card, since it´s hanging like a Damokles sword over the table at every moment.

Do we really have to define the term "leisure time" in this context? If playing at my table, or any other table, is not leisure time, then I don´t know what.

 

[Lanefan]

Use myself as an example. Some years ago, I wound up playing in a game where another player (a female player whose husband was sitting at the table) really wanted to play up the romantic interests between my character and hers. I got more and more uncomfortable with the whole thing. Not that she did anything bad. Absolutely not. It was 100% my issue, not hers. I just was really, really uncomfortable playing this out.

Now, with an X card, all I'd have to do is touch that card and poof, problem goes away. We move on, and play out other stuff. If the romance stuff comes up again, I touch the X card, and we move on. I don't have to explain anything, no one has to feel like they "went off the rails" just that I DO NOT want to play this out.

OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.

With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?

Because poof, problem doesn't go away. All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.

And, frankly, that's most likely how it would come up in game. If it's coming up every single session, well, yeah, maybe it's time to part company. You obviously shouldn't be playing together if every time you sit down together, this player feels so uncomfortable that he or she needs to veto the scene, then fair enough.

But, again, let's be honest, that's not likely going to happen. It's likely some small thing (at least in the scope of the campaign) that gives that one player the wobblies. Again, I find it baffling that anyone would sit at a table knowing that someone at the table is having a terrible time and basically want to force it out of that person why. Isn't it enough to know that the person isn't having fun to the point where they are actually upset about it?

Situationally dependent, to be honest.

I've had a player in the past (but not any more!) who would now and then show up to the session upset, project it on to the rest of us all night with no explanation even if asked, and then leave. No fun for anyone, but none of us had the balls to simply tell this person to get lost - it'd be like kicking a puppy - and so we just put up with it.

In a different type of situation, where a fellow player's discomfort is obviously due to that person's prejudices being offended (be it their racism, sexism, anti-LGBTetc.-ism, or similar) then I WILL poke that bear. I'll poke it deliberately, I'll poke it with malice, I'll keep on poking it until I get a response, and then I'll poke it some more. And if all that poking ends up in a screaming argument I'm more than cool with that: I've no problem with making an idiot look and sound like an idiot; and the person's either going to end up looking in the mirror afterwards and realizing the problem lies there, or - far more likely - not want to game with me any more, or both. Either way: problem solved.

As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!

 

[macd21]

As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?

Actually yes.

Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?

Weirdly loaded way to ask that but yes. Intensely so.

What if it's never used?

Its still there and severely breaks my immersion.

Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?

Sorta already asked that but yes.

Why?

You can't make tom sawyer without prejudices (or other unsavory things) anymore than you can make a good omelet without cracking a few eggs. Powdered eggs are revolting fake food. Cant make a good sparticus without voluntary martyrdom and a slave rebellion. Cant make dantes inferno without purgatory (where babies go to exist for a while in pain and bees chase people around incessantly for years or centuries). And when these things are able to just go poof and disappear, you may still get a taste of the literary idea but its less visceral less grand less engrossing and less urgency is felt. Powdered eggs are but immitations of the real deal. An aspect of tge story is lost. Some of its vigor is suppressed. So too is a story with constraints other than those which directly serve the purpose of the story's potential.

All of which I would happily sacrifice to avoid shoving eggs down the throat of someone with an egg allergy - or hell, someone who just hates eggs.

Yes, an aspect of the story may be lost. Some of the ‘vigor is suppressed.’ That’s because someone at the table had a problem with that aspect of the story, that your ‘vigor’ wasn’t appreciated.

Maintaining some sort of narrative purity is not worth inflicting misery on a player. If some aspect of your story is lost, nothing of value has been lost.

 

[Panda-s1]

But, assuming the DM is acting in good faith and isn't presenting the X-causing scenario in a deliberate attempt to trigger the player, the question becomes simply one of what that player's best course of action is:

A - silently hit the X card (and, in effect, veto the scene or (an) element(s) thereof)
B - leave the table (with or without explaining why)
C - raise a point of privilege (i.e. initiate a discussion)
D - stick it out (always an option, though rarely the best)

In something like a con game or a one-off where time is very limited and you're only likely to ever play with those same people once, A could have its uses as could B: things need to be resolved quickly. In an ongoing home game is where C would most likely come up, as there'll be more time for discussion and the intent is to go on playing with the same people for a while; also in an ongoing home game there's the added variables of whether it's the same player always raising issues over different things and-or whether that player is consistently finding much agreement from the other players (in which case the DM needs to do some rethinking; ditto if issues are coming from multiple players) or is an outlier (in which case that player probably isn't a good fit for that group).

I hope the above ramblings make any sense.

the problem with equating A and B is B is disruptive as hell. if someone just leaves the table without explanation, people get upset that they're down a player. if someone leaves the table with an explanation, people will still get upset that they're down a player AND they'll start a debate over the veracity of this player's content issues. having the X-button can allow a player to say something without causing an even bigger disruption, and is a much more elegant solution than the long content warning lists people seem to love to groan about. also if someone sees the X-button is being used they can just choose not to play that game

I never deliberately use a scene with the intent to trigger anyone. There are certainly dms who do. That being said, the highest potential for a quality game or story is when the dm deliberately casts aside such concerns as they would constrain him. I do this. My favorite dms do this. It only works in a group of people who go in knowing that they have no protection from such events occuring. That being said some people just cant handle that, and thats ok. That's why its still good to have dms authors and other artists who do consider these things. I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge. While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity. Definitely a place for it though. But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session. Pretty simple. Flexible. And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.

so apparently the best campaigns:
-are incredibly scripted and immutable
-can only be great if they are open to all potential content (even if the vast majority of all possible content won't be used in a single campaign)
-cannot be by authors who consider content issues because of these constraints
-are somehow diminished because of the sudden exclusion of a certain theme or situation
-are written by GMs who can't handle having to change something in their game on the fly

seriously, sometimes I wonder how you guys would handle something as innocent as the party going down the wrong hallway.

You can't make tom sawyer without prejudices (or other unsavory things) anymore than you can make a good omelet without cracking a few eggs. Powdered eggs are revolting fake food. Cant make a good sparticus without voluntary martyrdom and a slave rebellion. Cant make dantes inferno without purgatory (where babies go to exist for a while in pain and bees chase people around incessantly for years or centuries). And when these things are able to just go poof and disappear, you may still get a taste of the literary idea but its less visceral less grand less engrossing and less urgency is felt. Powdered eggs are but immitations of the real deal. An aspect of tge story is lost. Some of its vigor is suppressed. So too is a story with constraints other than those which directly serve the purpose of the story's potential.

are these somehow the only good stories in existence? how can sparticus be good? it doesn't contain graphic rape scenes and limb dismemberment. how can tom sawyer be good? it doesn't feature lynching, nor does it give a fair portrayal of the adversity faced by native americans at the time. I thought the best stories are unconstrained. that all sounds like a lot of uncracked eggs if you ask me :/

Following on from this, another option is to allow or encourage note-passing during sessions - the DM passes a note to a player regarding something only that PC would know, or a player passes a note to the DM regarding an action the other PCs don't know about, that sort of thing; such that note-passing becomes commonplace.

Then, with this now an ordinary fact of life at the table, a player passing a note to the DM that says "Hey, sorry, but these spiders are settin' me off" can raise that concern even more anonymously than having to reach out and hit an X card. The DM can then pass a note back - might say "sorry, there won't be any more" or "sorry, but there's a reason that these have to be spiders, and there'll be a few more before we're done with 'em - maybe sit this one out", or whatever.

But the DM is now aware, and the ball's in her court. Further, the time taken in writing the note back to the player is time the DM can also use to think of how to fix the situation.

okay, but sometimes the entire table should know if a player has a certain issue with some content, that way they too don't bring it up. GMs aren't the only ones who bring story to the table.

For the Weird Tales covers: The portraying of women in the mentioned way was certainly not up to everybody's taste, and I can imagine, that they also contributed for such magazines as being considered trash by a many regardless of the actual content. But for how long where these kinds of covers published and openly sold? Why wasn´t there a landwide outrage from the first day? Now I am not an expert on this matter, but why did it take so long until that changed? It took a long way until such things were widely considered offensive and society in general was different back then. I would certainly be interested in reading more on this subject, since I can imagine, that the publication of magazines like Weird Tales for example rose more than just one eyebrow even back then. But the prolonged publication implies, that it was somehow tolerated for women being portrayed like the said way.

it's a lot harder to bring up an issue when you're in the minority

@Panda-s1
I am old fashioned, when it comes to portray the different races IG. So, and I may be wrong, Orcs were always the bad guys. I don´t know if Tolkien invented them this way at first or he took inspiration from some myths and legends, but in the current MM they are also portrayed as "savage raiders and pillagers ", "satiesfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement... etc.etc." (p. 244). And on page 245 under the section Orc Crossbreeds is stated: "Luthic,..., wife of gruumsh , demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races." So these two descriptions alone imply for me, that according to the basic standard orcs are not the good guys (but I may be wrong) and my remark "pretty obvious" should be backed by this and explained.
And without reading or quoting past editions of the MM, orcs are IIRC presented more or less the same.
Now that doesn´t imply, that all individual campaigns at every table are or should be played that way, and everybody is free to do otherwise, but at least the basic implication is there saying, that orcs are the baddies (for whatever reason). Perhaps a bit narrow minded from me since more modern games and takes on the game handle orcs different, but at least I see it that way.

first of all I don't have to follow what the MM says. this includes the 5e version, and even WotC has to come up with contrived reasons why all orcs are just evil.
also, the answer is basically racism. they're literally portraying an entire race as entirely evil, I don't know how else to put it.

IIRC somehwhere in 1E (Greyhawk setting?) there were percentile beakdowns of half-orc populations for each city. Now that is justified, when they are treated as a normal playable race. But already in 1E the question comes up, how half-orcs fit into societies where orcs are hated by elves and dwarves and vice versa. One of the controversal points of 1E for me.
The question for how humans come into existence? Well a very provocative question (which I like in a good discussion). As an example I amassuming, that a player may decide that his or her PC was born "illegitimate". The reasons for that may be manyfold and everyone in deciding for this path has to be answered for the player himself or herself. Otherwise I assume, and I think perhaps others too, normal RL ways apply in an RPG also with all its different aspects.

right, because it's impossible for a DM to conceive that a half-orc came about in any way other than rape.

Why I don´t want a discussion about the racism aspect towards the handling of goblinoid specimen? A perhaps one sided, very subjective answer from me:
Real life racism is an everyday all present problem that is affecting our lives in one way or the other. It is an ongoing daily struggle to eradicate it. Unfortunately I believe, that although we as a society came a good way forward, it will take still a long time until all people realize the equality of men.

And since I play for recreation and entertainment, do I have to carry all RL problems into my game? Is it necessary to be "true to reality" even in my free time? The answer for me is simply no.

okay, then what's stopping you from being racist? I'm not perfect, but come on.
also what does being "true to reality" even have to do with it? these are games with unicorns and spaceships, you can make up whatever you want.

And a question from my side: What does your remark "or maybe people are starting to question what is and isn't "obvious" and what actually makes sense in a fantasy setting. people don't shy away from all orcs being evil because they're "offended', it's because they know that idea is based in some weird ideology that turns out is not actually true." imply? Do I understand it right, that people start rethinking the handling of orcs? Well they can certainly do so, but implying that the handling/presentation of orcs always as the bad guys "based in some weird ideology" gives me the impression, that orcs are generally currently unfair treated as a kind of sub-race which needs to be totally terminated and eradicated for some obscure ideological reasons. I may be wrong in this point, but sorry that sounds for me like connecting a fantasy RPG directly to the Shoah. Or how is this to be understood, when you say it´s "actually not true"? What is the truth behind the nature of the orcs I wonder then.

in the last campaign I was in we met various orc npcs. one of them was a cheesemonger. he was affluent and fed us and let us use his bathhouse after eating. he talked a lot about trying to find a bride. way later we got a letter from him saying he finally got married to a lovely orc woman, and we all felt glad.

also in this campaign we came to a snowy town in the middle of nowhere that had been conquered by orc tribe following some orc cult leader. we helped the resistance take back their land, and many orcs died in the process, there wasn't a lot of compromise. we eventually took back the town and even managed to kill the demon prince they accidentally summoned.

 

[macd21]

OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.

With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?

Because poof, problem doesn't go away. All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.

If necessary, you can discuss it later. The point is to end whatever is making you uncomfortable without bringing the game to an immediate halt.

 

[Panda-s1]

OK, you hit the X card and shut down the scene.

With no further explanation, does that mean you don't want romance in the game at all, or just not involving that particular player's PC(s), or just not involving your PC(s), or what?

Because poof, problem doesn't go away. All you've done is called attention to highlight that there's some sort of problem in there somewhere...and quite possibly embarrassed the player of the romantic PC as a side effect.

Situationally dependent, to be honest.

y'know I'm pretty sure inter-party romance has always been one of those things you'd have to talk to the GM about and then discuss with the rest of the party, and honestly any GM who agrees to help one player without discussing with the entire party sounds skeevy as hell, and if someone does this in a public game I'd be appalled at any GM who doesn't just flat out stop it unless the game description explicitly said inter-party romance was okay.

also are you honestly telling me you've never run into the issue of having to stop something in story and rewinding to do something over again? really? is it that arduous to stop a scene and move on? (now I'm imagining a GM tapping the x-button in response to a player tapping it lmao)

I've had a player in the past (but not any more!) who would now and then show up to the session upset, project it on to the rest of us all night with no explanation even if asked, and then leave. No fun for anyone, but none of us had the balls to simply tell this person to get lost - it'd be like kicking a puppy - and so we just put up with it.

In a different type of situation, where a fellow player's discomfort is obviously due to that person's prejudices being offended (be it their racism, sexism, anti-LGBTetc.-ism, or similar) then I WILL poke that bear. I'll poke it deliberately, I'll poke it with malice, I'll keep on poking it until I get a response, and then I'll poke it some more. And if all that poking ends up in a screaming argument I'm more than cool with that: I've no problem with making an idiot look and sound like an idiot; and the person's either going to end up looking in the mirror afterwards and realizing the problem lies there, or - far more likely - not want to game with me any more, or both. Either way: problem solved.

As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!

did the GM just do nothing? that player might've wanted to discuss something but was afraid to bring it up, and yes I do believe as GM it's your responsibility to bring these discussions up.

the latter situation is best handled by telling that player they're no longer welcome if they keep bringing up their prejudices. like honestly, I thought we were supposed to avoid disrupting the game, but I guess it's okay if the results are invoking rage and not trying to respect someone's spaces.

 

[S'mon]

y'know I'm pretty sure inter-party romance has always been one of those things you'd have to talk to the GM about and then discuss with the rest of the party

I think you mean intra-party romance?

I've noticed that players IMCs basically never have their PCs get romantic with other PCs, at least in tabletop RPG play (1990s PBEMs were another matter!), but I've never seen anyone raise it as an issue either, it just seems to be an unspoken social contract thing. It's a big deviation from the typical adventure-fantasy source material, where male & female protagonists very frequently do fall in love. The rule seems to be PC-NPC only.

Oh, one exception in my Red Hand of Doom game; a married couple joined the campaign playing as a married couple.

 

[Hussar]

As for your specific situation, I think you'd hate our tables: we have in-character romances with PCs whose players aren't our spouses all the time!

Which is perfectly fair. If the table typically has romance as a thing, yeah, I'm going to recuse myself from the table. I'd say that it's not typically the thing though. I'm like @S'mon where PCC romance is almost never something that happens.

So, @S'mon, if you don't mind if I use you as an example, would you have a terrible problem if I X-carded romance at your table?

 

[Panda-s1]

I think you mean intra-party romance?

I've noticed that players IMCs basically never have their PCs get romantic with other PCs, at least in tabletop RPG play (1990s PBEMs were another matter!), but I've never seen anyone raise it as an issue either, it just seems to be an unspoken social contract thing. It's a big deviation from the typical adventure-fantasy source material, where male & female protagonists very frequently do fall in love. The rule seems to be PC-NPC only.

Oh, one exception in my Red Hand of Doom game; a married couple joined the campaign playing as a married couple.

that all seems par for the course, but something involving 2 PCs should definitely involve some sort of consent. I'm pretty sure that married couple discussed being married in game beforehand, and again someone trying to unilaterally get with another PC is just creepy.

 

[S'mon]

someone trying to unilaterally get with another PC is just creepy.

That seems to me much too much of an absolutist statement IME it's not something that happens in a D&D game, but there's certainly no reason why it must always be creepy. It depends on various factors including the table social contract and the player interaction. It's certainly less likely to be a problem if the players are already in a relationship (in my Princes of the Apocalypse game last Saturday, of the 8 players there were 3 couples, the son of one couple, and my son, so 6/8 were couples) but it won't necessarily be a problem even if they're not.

Edit: Conversely it's not necesssarily not a problem if the GM has an NPC hit on a PC - it's much more common IME but depending on various factors that could come across as creepy too. Whereas I think a PC hitting on an NPC is much less likely to seem creepy, because of the power dynamic - in a normal TTRPG the GM has a lot more power than a player, and usually has much less identification with any NPC than the player has with their PC.