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.

 

[Phion]

If it’s that central to the session or campaign, you should end the session right then and consider your options. I would have thought that was obvious. You may need to completely rewrite your campaign, or else tell your player that it’s going to feature heavily going forward, and so he may need to drop out. Personally, I’d probably just cancel the campaign and run something else.

A fellow Englishman? The sarcasm/ trolling is strong with this one, I almost took you seriously XD

 

[macd21]

A fellow Englishman? The sarcasm/ trolling is strong with this one, I almost took you seriously XD

? No, not English. And completely serious.

Edit: I find the idea that there’d be an alternative bizarre. If one of my friends is uncomfortable with the central premise of my campaign that they can’t play, then I’ll either change it, or run something else. I could run it without them, but as I like running games with my friends, I’d rather play something they’re happy to be involved in.

 

[Hussar]

Do what? Did you read Consent in Gaming? You don't have to even talk about what "this thing" is, and no one is allowed to ask.

Hussar: [Setting the scene, the BBEG and it's minions sweep in, descriptions flow, BBEG starts to monologue...]
Player X: /touches X Card. Says nothing.

What do you Hussar? Is Player X being emotionally shattered by your lurid description of the twisted deformed minions (maybe they have body horror issues)? Do they feel uncomfortable by your description of the flamboyant Tim Curryesque scenery chewing BBEG (maybe they're in the closet with their deeply bigoted family and such depictions cause them extreme panic as well as your casting the flamboyant gay as the villain)? Do they hate villain monologues (agree, X Card that right out!)? Or has Player Z been staring at them and breathing heavily just a little to long and now they're feeling very unsafe at the very table?

You don't know Hussar, Player X doesn't have to tell you, and you aren't allowed to ask.


And no, not being a mind reader doesn't make us mere mortal and imperfect GMs "oblivious". So pack your moralizing sidewise.

FINALLY. Someone actually wants to talk about how this actually works at the table instead of pontificating how it destroys things.

What would I do? Given your example? Move on.

Hussars sees player tap the X card and realizes that something in this scene has set off the player. "Ok... err, sorry guys. Can we take a five minute smoke break while I reorganize my notes? Thanks." Players come back in 5. "Ok, having defeated Timus Currius, you proceed further into the temple, and find yourselves past the main chapel and in the back portion of the temple. It looks like X, and you see painting of Y. There are two doors at the end of the hall."

Seems pretty simple to me. No mind reading necessary, and nothing to pack sideways. I dunno. I guess acting like a decent human being to other people has never really seemed all that difficult to me. Apparently it's far more challenging than I thought though.

 

[Phion]

? No, not English. And completely serious.

Edit: I find the idea that there’d be an alternative bizarre. If one of my friends is uncomfortable with the central premise of my campaign that they can’t play, then I’ll either change it, or run something else. I could run it without them, but as I like running games with my friends, I’d rather play something they’re happy to be involved in.

So in your once monthly meet up for a D&D campaign, your players are psyched up to progress the story; some have booked time off work or sacrificed another event/ occasion for this night. You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.
...
...
...
Well that's all folks pack your stuff up. I guess we have a few beers now or maybe play MTG. What? SHUT UP MIKE!!! Don't ask him why!? You awful person! Nobody cares that you missed out on a £50 shift enhancement! What if he taps X again to the next revised session? Well you will have to miss out on another £50 won't you Mike.

You know what fellows, do as you will.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.

Let's take this as a given. What happens next? If the GM is uncertain what caused the issue, how can/does play progress without discussion?

The x-card strongly resembles a safe word in execution. The problem isn't one of protection, that's good, but of context. A safe word categorically withdraws consent such that all consesual activity must immeduately stop. Thus, it protects from causing harm. A discussion must then take place before consensual activity can resume. The one who utters tge safe word has both the power and duty to define abd conduct this discussion.

In that the X-card halts consesual play befire harm occurs is good. The problem I have is that statenent that, after stopping play, there's no duty to converse so that play can continue. This turns the X-card from a possible tool to prevent harm in fraught situations (which most tables don't do) and a start point for continued discussion into a blunt instrument that impedes play.

 

[macd21]

So in your once monthly meet up for a D&D campaign, your players are psyched up to progress the story; some have booked time off work or sacrificed another event/ occasion for this night. You left on a cliff hangar due to time restraints last session; you get 3 minutes in and the big reveal begins and 1 players taps x.
...
...
...
Well that's all folks pack your stuff up. I guess we have a few beers now or maybe play MTG. What? SHUT UP MIKE!!! Don't ask him why!? You awful person! Nobody cares that you missed out on a £50 shift enhancement! What if he taps X again to the next revised session? Well you will have to miss out on another £50 won't you Mike.

You know what fellows, do as you will.

Yes? If it was central to the session, yes, of course. And yeah, I would tell ‘Mike’ to leave it alone if he tried pushing it.

Edit: avoiding the above situation is why the checklist is a good idea - it reduces the likelihood you’ll be surprised mid-session. But it can still happen.

 

[macd21]

Let's take this as a given. What happens next? If the GM is uncertain what caused the issue, how can/does play progress without discussion?

The x-card strongly resembles a safe word in execution. The problem isn't one of protection, that's good, but of context. A safe word categorically withdraws consent such that all consesual activity must immeduately stop. Thus, it protects from causing harm. A discussion must then take place before consensual activity can resume. The one who utters tge safe word has both the power and duty to define abd conduct this discussion.

In that the X-card halts consesual play befire harm occurs is good. The problem I have is that statenent that, after stopping play, there's no duty to converse so that play can continue. This turns the X-card from a possible tool to prevent harm in fraught situations (which most tables don't do) and a start point for continued discussion into a blunt instrument that impedes play.

Yes, it can impede play. That’s unfortunate, but necessary. Your game just isn’t that important. If the player is comfortable talking about the problem, great! But assuming there should be a ‘duty’ to converse is nonsense. If the player doesn’t want to talk about it, then you should accept that and move on. You are not entitled to that conversation.

 

[generic]

Yes, it can impede play. That’s unfortunate, but necessary. Your game just isn’t that important. If the player is comfortable talking about the problem, great! But assuming there should be a ‘duty’ to converse is nonsense. If the player doesn’t want to talk about it, then you should accept that and move on. You are not entitled to that conversation.

The problem here is that what you're suggesting is that asking the player, even once, why something is bothering them, is equivalent to harassment. Of course, most of us, as DMs, are not going to force a player to explain what's bothering them (I certainly wouldn't), but, can we not even ask them once?

Replacing conversation and even a simple inquiry with an 'X card' seems thoroughly inhuman to me, the opposite of what is intended.

 

[Hussar]

The problem here is that what you're suggesting is that asking the player, even once, why something is bothering them, is equivalent to harassment. Of course, most of us, as DMs, are not going to force a player to explain what's bothering them (I certainly wouldn't), but, can we not even ask them once?

Replacing conversation and even a simple inquiry with an 'X card' seems thoroughly inhuman to me, the opposite of what is intended.

Hang on a tick though. Context is important. Someone touching the X card isn't doing it just because he's feeling a bit off. This is something that is seriously impacting that person.

And it's not replacing conversation. It's replacing conversation in the heat of the moment when someone's feelings are really high and a conversation is probably the last thing they want to have right now because they're two steps away from vomiting on your shoes due to an impending panic attack.

So, we skip this scene now. Move on. And, maybe later, when we're not in the middle of a game with five or six people sitting around, some of whom that person may not know very well, maybe then try to have a conversation.

But, in the middle of a con with ten thousand people around is perhaps not the best venue to try to have a real heart felt conversation with someone.

No one is saying you can NEVER ask. What's being said is you don't ask RIGHT NOW.

 

[jasper]

No, nor should you. The fact that the player has a problem with it should be enough. If the player wants to tell you why, he can, but you should have zero expectation that he would. You aren’t entitled to that information - it’s up to him.

double taps the x card