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.

 

[jasper]

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 ...
....

I just heard of X card here last year. So I would not be too sure the concept is super dooder totally good with no problems.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

I think you keep cutting to the pithy heart of this, and I think you've just convinced me that there will never be any agreement about this.

There are two basic ways of looking at problems. One is that if there is a problem, then you should introduce a change and the burden of proof exists on the people who don't want the change. Those people have to argue why you shouldn't change, and there inclination is to assume that the people doing the argument are either part of the problem or the cause of it, and they should get out of the way or be forcefully removed. After all, there is a problem, so there should be a change.

The other way to look at problems is to assume that problems are complex solutions are difficult. An almost infinite number of solutions could be proposed, but most of them will likely be ineffectual or even counter-productive. So when someone proposes a solution, the burden of proof is on those people to prove that the proposed solution not only makes things better in some narrow way, but won't in fact make things worse in other ways. They have to show a cost benefit analysis, and then if their presentation is impressive the proposed solution should be tried on a rational basis. If they don't want to or can't show this cost benefit analysis, then the typical assumption is that the people are either ignorant or malicious.

Neither approach is entirely wrong, but people with the two different outlooks can end up completely talking past each other.

For my part, I hear a statement like, "It's a very important step, however, in making the hobby welcoming and a little more aware.", and I wonder why in the world would anyone believe anything like that. And when this topic came up, I went on the internet and read literally scores of comments and essays about the document from people who were saying that very much like what you just stated. And all of them just sort of took it for granted and offered up no compelling evidence to make me think that would actually work any of the miracles they were subscribing to an index card. But I eventually developed what I think is a pretty sound theory for why everyone was saying that it was going to do things like "make the hobby welcoming and a little more aware".

Because they'd been told that that it would.

That is to say, a large number of people believe that it makes the hobby welcoming and a little more aware, and because they believe it, when they see the card, for them it does. It's a matter of, not to put to fine a point on it, faith. For them this is a real thing. They see the card, they think, "That's a safe and welcoming place.", and for them that makes the feeling of being welcomed real.

I think the whole thing reminds me of those home owner alarm systems that you see advertised. They don't provide any security what so ever, but the home owner alarm systems aren't selling security - they are selling what the X card sells: "peace of mind". What they are selling is feelings of security which, for most homeowners in the USA, is as good as selling feelings of security since home invasion is so rare in the USA. The ads for those systems are in my opinion predatory, in as much as they aren't selling a service of real utility and they always have these unintentionally comic ads where these burglars see that the home has a home security system and on that alone are terrified and run away, but presumably for some people the "peace of mind" is enough.

Now personally, I don't think the cards are going to do a lot to help anything. I think that they are useless 99.99% of the time, and I think that they set a bad precedent for encouraging emotional and illogical thinking. However, I also think that they aren't going to do a lot of harm most of the time, and the degree that they make me feel unsafe and uncomfortable is trivial. But I do also think that not only will they not fix problems, problems are going to go up by a small but measurable degree, because I don't think they actually create a safe place in any place that wasn't already safe, but rather just the dangerous illusion of one in places that are not.

 

[Arilyn]

I just heard of X card here last year. So I would not be too sure the concept is super dooder totally good with no problems.

But people who have been using it have not seen any problems. Yes, it's a small sample, which is why I stated that collecting evidence at cons will give us the information we need to move forward. New procedures often need tinkering with. We can't change things if we don't make a start.

 

[Celebrim]

But people who have been using it have not seen any problems. Yes, it's a small sample, which is why I stated that collecting evidence at cons will give us the information we need to move forward. New procedures often need tinkering with. We can't change things if we don't make a start.

But they are not actually going to collect evidence. I mean, bad things happening at cons are already black swans as it is. For most con goers, most of the time, they see no black swans, so they would logically assume "no black swans" or "this isn't a big problem". It's only for the people it happens to that this is a big deal.

So what you are going to have is the adoption of X cards, and problems will still be black swans. Since the cards do nothing 99.99% of the time, and the odds of black swans are low anyway, the general impression everyone will have is exactly the same as before "this isn't a big problem". The results are therefore guaranteed to be perceived as a success no matter what. It could takes years to shake out in real problems in a way anyone questions the model, and then since this was a matter of faith in the first place, initially no one will believe it.

So yeah, the point is that there aren't actually going to be any scientific trials gathering meaningful data.

 

[macd21]

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?

I don’t think ‘conversation’ is the right word. The player states what the problem is, that’s that.

I think the table should accommodate the player, but it will vary depending on circumstances. In general, asking the player to leave is going to be a dick move, but I can think of some circumstances (such as at a con) where it might be necessary. That would be a pretty extreme case, however.

 

[macd21]

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.

And they are free to withdraw that consent at any time - say by tapping an X card.

 

[generic]

I don’t think ‘conversation’ is the right word. The player states what the problem is, that’s that.

I think the table should accommodate the player, but it will vary depending on circumstances. In general, asking the player to leave is going to be a dick move, but I can think of some circumstances (such as at a con) where it might be necessary. That would be a pretty extreme case, however.

I never run con games. But, if I ran a con game, and someone was tapping their X-card, assuming I was obeying the age restriction guidelines, abiding by con rules, and had been approved to run the content that I was running, I would have to ask the player to remove themselves from the session.

I've never had this problem in a home game, but it would be different then. In a home game, I might be able to discuss the problem with the player.

I still oppose the idea of an X-card on the basis of its uselessness.

 

[generic]

And they are free to withdraw that consent at any time - say by tapping an X card.

So, if I warn you that the game features intense gore and horror themes, and I present scenes of blood, brains, and organs strewn about, the player is free to suspend the session by tapping their X-card?

Furthermore, I, along with the majority of DMs, I would suspect, do not have experience in psychotherapy or psychiatry. I can help you with math, physics, or engineering, but I can't help you with your psychological issues.

Is game time therapy time, and, should all responsibility be transferred to the DM?

 

[Arilyn]

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.

Yes, exactly. This needs repeating. No one is going to sign up for a horror game if they can't tolerate the theme. No one is going to join a D&D game if swords bother them. Or if they do for some reason, I think they will pull themselves out and not insist everyone switch to an entirely different genre.

There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games. Or expect the GM to act as a therapist. Honestly, gaming is not being threatened by an index card.

I don't usually engage much in these types of threads. That was a wise decision, I'm thinking.

 

[Celebrim]

Yes, exactly. This needs repeating. No one is going to sign up for a horror game if they can't tolerate the theme. No one is going to join a D&D game if swords bother them. Or if they do for some reason, I think they will pull themselves out and not insist everyone switch to an entirely different genre.

I'm of the opinion that the best approach is to always assume that if something can go wrong it will. I'm sure that all the thing that you insist no one is going to the do someone will do. The only reason I don't consider that a valid argument against the X card is I assume all of that already is going on quite without the X card. I'm skeptical that the X card will meaningfully increase incidents of this sort of dysfunctionality above and beyond what it already does, though in may meaingfully increase the percentage of cases which aren't successfully resolved. However, those are rare cases and we are talking fractions of fractions.

Which are weighed against the fractions of fractions where it actually helps in some small way.

There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games. Or expect the GM to act as a therapist.

Oh, those things will happen too. Again, the only reason I don't consider them actual arguments against the X card is I'm sure that those things are already happening.

Honestly, gaming is not being threatened by an index card.

No of course not. It's not the card that gaming is being threatened by.

I don't usually engage much in these types of threads. That was a wise decision, I'm thinking.

I've learned that the mark of wisdom is often silence. Unfortunately, I haven't yet earned much wisdom beyond that.