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.

 

[generic]

Yes but I am dragon. My humans are just partners in crime until I need some snackage.

And I am an Elder God. Puny mortals bow to me, for I walk between the 4th and 5th dimensional spaces.

 

[macd21]

What is the idea, after all?

[Convention DM]: The horrible, lurching abominations drool as they lick the bones of your Dwarf friend clean.

[Player]: Raises X Card

[Convention DM]: Okay everyone, session's over. Pack up, and remember, you're not getting the 50 euro refund that you should.

The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire why it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

I think there's a missing part here. I asked how you move on after an x-card use where the GM doesn't know what prompted it. You say you just move on, no conversation needed. I don't follow. What procedure is followed to move on in this case, esoecially if the affected person employs their right to not say anything?

This is what keeps getting skipped, and tge part I don't follow. Clearly, you think it's obvious and there's a clear path forward. I'm not seeing it, or maybe, I'm missing something about the path forward? Are you saying that the rest if the table should immeduately abandon the scenario/scebe/game, reset and start something new, still unaware of the trigger? I don't see hiw that's functional or respectful of the other participants. Let's agree that we should be mindful and compassionate about player (or GM) issues and act in ways that prevent harm. Should we employ a method to do this that also acts to disregard others at the table? Again, agreed we should take steps to prevent harm in an immediate way. But, if tge solution to preventing harm causes harm to other, what's the balancing test?

And, if the counter to this is that the game has no value so nothing is lost, does this not cut both ways? Doesn't this also say that removal of the person from the gane cists them nothing of value? I believe it's a non-starter to claim that the game has no value given we're talking about oersonal choices on how to spend our time. On that axis alone there's strongly imputed value to the game. The statement, I believe, is a personal value statement that providing a safe space is paramount to other values of the game ir participants. I think this is a debatable valuation like all social interactions, and is best resolved by communication. The X-card could be a valuable first step in that comminucation as a non-negotiated hard pause in consensual play to prevent imminent ir ongoing harm, but it cannot also be the end.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire why it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.

Okay, cross-posted. You do agree the player using the X-card has a duty to start a conversation so play can continue, even if that conversational duty is only the identification of the vector of harm.

Do you believe that, in all cases, the outcome must be that the table accommodates the player, ir might there be a further discussion where the group agrees the player might find a better fit elsewhere?

 

[Celebrim]

The player raises the X card. The GM establishes what is causing distress (but does not enquire why it is causing distress). The GM then continues playing, just without that element. In the above case - is it the description of the abominations licking the bones? Then you stop doing that, and get on with the combat. Is it that something about abominations bothers the player? Then use another monster.

Speaking as a DM, sometimes this is easy and sometimes this is not. Under the pressure of running a public game at a convention, I'm not always going to be able to promptly rewrite the scenario. Many times sure. And if the X card is raised over some other player's behavior, then great, I can do something about that. But a convention is probably the time you should least expect a GM to reasonably be able to accommodate every request, simply because of the constraints of time and the need to be fair to all the other players from whom you are also asking accommodation.

And in any event, the X card does not handle the problem of a jerk GM that is refusing to follow convention guidelines such as inserting content that explicitly against convention guidelines. Nor does it handle the problem of having inserted content which in the opinion of one or more players more distasteful than should be expected from the games advertised rating.

In short, it just doesn't solve a lot of problems for me. The only thing it solves is a player that for some reason can't verbally communicate but can touch the card, and that if and only if the player is then able with some coaching to verbalize exactly what (though not why) caused the card to be touched.

 

[Umbran]

...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.

[Convention DM]: The horrible, lurching abominations drool as they lick the bones of your Dwarf friend clean.

[Player]: Raises X Card

[Convention DM]: Okay everyone, session's over. Pack up, and remember, you're not getting the 50 euro refund that you should.

Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice. It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*. This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.

I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right? The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in exactly this case... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be used at all, much less in the climax moment of the adventure.

For folks who admit that maybe, just maybe, the card might be called for - do you run games where your climatic scenes are not at all thematically linked to the previous elements of the game? Like, if your boss fight at the end is a huge gorram spider... you'd have been putting in loads of spidery stuff beforehand, right? There would have been little spiders, and egg sacs, and webs all over the place, right? And the player would have carded out earlier, not at the climax scene.

Surprise carding out at the climax scene is just as likely as surprise spider as the climax scene. You are unlikely to hit the issue only at the end. You'll have the ability to adjust, or let the player know that if the spider-stuff is an issue, this won't be a game for them, and the thing goes on without that player.




* Anyone can do it - especially among imaginative game-players. F'rex: You don't use an X-card. You freak out a player with PTSD so bad, they dissociate right there at the table. From your perspective they spend 10 or 15 minutes staring into space, not responding to you at all. You continue with the game, with them just sitting there. They eventually come out of it, and abrupltly leave the table. They are so humiliated by the experience that, combined with the depression that often accompanies PTSD, they commit suicide. Clearly, not using an X-card will KILL PEOPLE!!!1!!ONE!!

See how horrible that is? The fact is that this is so incredibly unlikely, that we shouldn't consider it an issue, or bring it up for discussion.

 

[Arilyn]

The X card has been in use for a few years. If it was bringing games to a screeching halt, then the concept would have been abandoned in favour of a different approach. I haven't heard a single story of a GM feeling forced to stop their session or feeling at a total loss as how to proceed.

If this method of consent and/or X cards proves to be a detriment as they are more widely adopted at cons, then we will adjust, come up with a new strategy, etc. It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware. Let's give it a try, gather evidence and proceed from there.

 

[generic]

Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice. It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*. This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.

I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right? The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in exactly this case... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be necessary.

For folks who admit that maybe, just maybe, the card might be called for - do you run games where your climatic scenes are not at all thematically linked to the previous elements of the game? Like, if your boss fight at the end is a huge gorram spider... you'd have been putting in loads of spidery stuff beforehand, right? There would have been little spiders, and egg sacs, and webs all over the place, right? And the player would have carded out earlier, not at the climax scene.

Surprise carding out at the climax scene is just as likely as surprise spider as the climax scene. You are unlikely to hit the issue only at the end. You'll have the ability to adjust, or let the player know that if the spider-stuff is an issue, this won't be a game for them, and the thing goes on without that player.




* Anyone can do it - especially among imaginative game-players. F'rex: You don't use an X-card. You freak out a player with PTSD so bad, they dissociate right there at the table. From your perspective they spend 10 or 15 minutes staring into space, not responding to you at all. You continue with the game, with them just sitting there. They eventually come out of it, and abrupltly leave the table. They are so humiliated by the experience that, combined with the depression that often accompanies PTSD, they commit suicide. Clearly, not using an X-card will KILL PEOPLE!!!1!!ONE!!

See how horrible that is? The fact is that this is so incredibly unlikely, that we shouldn't consider it an issue, or bring it up for discussion.

I'm not arguing that it's not needed. In fact, I'm not even arguing that it has no use. All I'm saying is that, in convention games, it may need to be reconsidered.

I'm certainly not part of the 'never X' camp, quite the opposite.

Also, if you're including intense gore or horror, I too believe that it should be fairly constant.

 

[Umbran]

Also, folks, let's dispel something...

The person who uses the X-card is not some sort of alien or freak who has managed to get into your game, knows how to use an X-card, but somehow has no sense of how games work and run, or the impact they and their action will have on play, and zero consideration for anyone else. Folks who need this are not out to ruin your game. The point of the thing is actually to help your game continue smoothly, and the person using it is going to have a sense of how likely that is.

You're in a climax scene in a con game, and need to use it? You probably tap it to indicate that there's a problem with the content, and need a pause, and say, "You folks finish up. No fault on you, but I can't do this," and use the momentary pause to gather things and leave the table, without leaving people wondering so much why you had to go.

Stop talking like your fellow players don't know what they are doing.

 

[Phion]

Humans aren't that great at risk assessment, and so we often see objections like these - where someone describes a worst-case scenario, and use that to discard an entire proposition, without a whole lot of thought to how likely that particular scenario is going to be, in practice. It is incredibly easy to imagine a scene with some catastrophic problem*. This reaches to our fear, which can be quite convincing, but without knowing the probability, that fear is irrational.

I mean, if you are in the camp that, since the X-card has never been needed in your games before, it won't be needed now, this should be a non-argument, right? The card has never been needed, so for it to come up in exactly this case... is pretty much impossible, right? You're only putting the card on the table as a pro forma nod to the comfort of others, though you know, in your heart of hearts, it won't be used at all, much less in the climax moment of the adventure.

For folks who admit that maybe, just maybe, the card might be called for - do you run games where your climatic scenes are not at all thematically linked to the previous elements of the game? Like, if your boss fight at the end is a huge gorram spider... you'd have been putting in loads of spidery stuff beforehand, right? There would have been little spiders, and egg sacs, and webs all over the place, right? And the player would have carded out earlier, not at the climax scene.

Surprise carding out at the climax scene is just as likely as surprise spider as the climax scene. You are unlikely to hit the issue only at the end. You'll have the ability to adjust, or let the player know that if the spider-stuff is an issue, this won't be a game for them, and the thing goes on without that player.




* Anyone can do it - especially among imaginative game-players. F'rex: You don't use an X-card. You freak out a player with PTSD so bad, they dissociate right there at the table. From your perspective they spend 10 or 15 minutes staring into space, not responding to you at all. You continue with the game, with them just sitting there. They eventually come out of it, and abrupltly leave the table. They are so humiliated by the experience that, combined with the depression that often accompanies PTSD, they commit suicide. Clearly, not using an X-card will KILL PEOPLE!!!1!!ONE!!

See how horrible that is? The fact is that this is so incredibly unlikely, that we shouldn't consider it an issue, or bring it up for discussion.

As I admitted to Hussar I actually think the X card has a place in conventions but more likely than not in most other settings (so mostly does not need to Incorporated as standard practice/norm). As for what I have highlighted in bold for your quote you have basically agreed at a certain level that a player may not be suited for the game if they have a number of issues which seems to be what a lot of detractors have been trying to make clear. At a certain point the individual needs to self assess if they are able to self regulate themselves in the majority of scenarios and a d&d group is not a paid professional therapy session and therefore a level of tolerance of themes can be expected.

Essentially if a individual sits down in your session THEY have chose to be there ergo they have consented.