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]

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

If it has been deemed appropriate to have said x card, then yes. Otherwise there is every other form of noncompliance that is typically available.

 

[Panda-s1]

What if that one thing is actually pivotal to the rest of session or in extreme cases campaign?

this reply is for everyone: you know what? I'm tired of people throwing around this edge case scenario of a an entire campaign being derailed because of x-card usage as if it's going to run rampant throughout the gaming community without bringing up an actual hypothetical scenario.

like I'm curious, what is a campaign where a major theme is both:
-so intrinsic to the campaign that it can't continue without it
-but also so important that the players haven't been informed about it beforehand?

the only scenarios I can think of off the top of my head are "the BBEG is actually X!", which like Umbran brought up with the spider boss in a single adventure, you should be dropping hints about the actual nature of the BBEG leading up to their reveal. that's not about "hurting people's feelings", that's just generally accepted storytelling advice when dealing with surprises.

the other scenario is the "bait and switch" type of campaign, which can cause a lot of headaches outside of dealing with people's phobias and other issues. if you want to run this sort of campaign then you need to at least kind of tell your players beforehand the campaign isn't gonna be what they think it is, or just spoil the basic premise of the campaign.

ANY decent GM guide will tell you that level of rigidity is just not conducive for running an adventure or campaign, and given how many experienced GMs are here I'm wondering if they just railroad their players for years or just draw the line at compromising for a player's personal problems.

Suddenly you have a great number of changes you need to make or you deprive the rest of your players an experience that they are perfectly comfortable with and they now have a diluted experience at the table.

and that's the other thing [again this is for everyone], why is it that skipping over a certain scene "diluting" or "ruining" the experience for other players? that sounds like some people here are projecting. if I'm at a game someone taps the x-card when wolves show up I'm not gonna think "ugh, I couldn't fight wolves this game is terrible!" or if it gets tapped when torture comes up "man I REALLY wanted to see torture!". I have other things about the game to enjoy, not fighting wolves or seeing torture is not going to make the game any less fun, don't rope your players into this they might not actually care if something gets glossed over.

here's a scenario no one has brought up: what if you're running a game with 4 players and tell them there's blood splatters all over the room and three players tap the x-card? do you feel like the entire game is ruined for the one player didn't tap the card? are you going to feel bad because the majority of players don't want to deal with something in your adventure?

@Phion I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but you did bring up two things that have been bothering me the entire thread in one paragraph and I want to bring these issues up.

 

[macd21]

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.

And you really don't see how that, in this example, you're the problem?

 

[jasper]

Bravo Bravo @Celebrim Like the “Black swan”. I have supported a few cons as Adventure League Person and general staff. And I helped out in various fashions for SCA, Church, and other events. If we held, and that is a big If, an after action gripe session it generally went this way. 90% of the time if the black swan was fixed, handle, etc during the event, the black swan was not brought up. If the black swan was brought up, it was treated like a rare unicorn discussed quickly and shoved out the door. A few times the black swan was reported up the chain. So I would say only 1% chance will the black swan be reported to people who need to know.

@ Arilyn I have two people in my AL group which have stated if they see a “X” card at an event they will tap it just to provoke a reaction. And I don’t think they are kidding.

 

[Celebrim]

And you really don't see how that, in this example, you're the problem?

No, I don't. Or, I really don't see that it is a simple question.

If I'm running a public game and someone X cards me, I have to do a mental calculation. Is there a cost associated with this? If the answer is, "No.", great things are easy. I breathe a sigh of relief and try to keep things on track.

But if there is a cost, then now I'm being asked to trade the enjoyment of one player against that of everyone else at the table, some of whom may be legitimately annoyed to have their experience altered - an experience that in some cases that they paid for. And there will be times that there is a cost.

As a trivial example, this could be what I have prepared to play when they X card spiders:

Iintesting ideas/monsters found in a Giant Spider Lair?

In my hex-crawl campaign, the party ran across a Giant Black Widow Lair. Next game, They're delving down in there to hopefully save someone who was cocooned and dragged in (and come across some fantastic treasure). I'm trying to create an interesting and multi-layered battle, but can't think of...

www.enworld.org

If a Con thinks that X cards are a good thing and universally X card usage should always be respected without negotiation, then they should put their money where their mouth is and refund the money of everyone else at the table as a show of good faith in the system. The person using the X card can still pay for the experience they want, but refund everyone else. Since we are assured no one will ever abuse this system, what do they have to lose?

 

[Phion]

@Panda-s1
(sorry only got access to phone so detail not going to be so great from here)

I did note that the scenario would be very extreme to derail a campaign HOWEVER its very possible that the change could a) effect the session b) cause a change in story element that dilutes the experience for everyone else at the table with half baked solutions

I have a number of sessions I DMed myself that could have caused offence to a fringe amount of people but has lead to great stories and evenings for all I did this for (I could give examples when not on phone, tomorrow if you care so much).

I grow tired of the point of view that some of you (Hussar) feel the need to point out that their stance somehow makes them a better person than me. My professional life involves the risk of bodily excrement being thrown/smeared at me, bites, thrown objects, taking said individuals out in the community to improve their quality of life, helping to learn their form of communication as many are none verbal and thats just a small tip of the iceberg without even going into my voluntary work. So have a bit more tac please.

 

[Panda-s1]

If a Con thinks that X cards are a good thing and universally X card usage should always be respected without negotiation, then they should put their money where their mouth is and refund the money of everyone else at the table as a show of good faith in the system. The person using the X card can still pay for the experience they want, but refund everyone else. Since we are assured no one will ever abuse this system, what do they have to lose?

this is disingenuous.
1) a gaming convention isn't just a single table with one adventure being played. there are other things going on at the convention. unless your entire experience is ruined you don't deserve a full refund.
2) you don't deserve a refund simply because someone tapped an x-card at your game. your game isn't ruined because an element was removed.
3) other people will be running games and if you feel compelled to leave one game there's gonna be at least a few others desperate for players.

 

[Gradine]

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.

And this cuts to the quick of it, and why you so often find yourself on this side of debates such as these.

You take it as a given that people with whom you disagree don't know what they're talking about/don't know what's actually best for themselves.

Did it not occur to you that the people behind conventions such as these (as, in at least one particular case, Shanna Germain is) would actually have done the research, and studied best practices that have mountains of clinical data behind them? The gaming community, and I see this on both sides of this argument, like to take the view that because they've never encountered trauma-informed practices that it must be some grand experiment that we think will work "just because we've told it will" and the evidence will bear out whether it succeeds or fails.

Except, that they're not that at all. They're well studied, researched, tested, understood, and supported.

Shanna Germain is studied, and has done research on this topic. She's also had plenty of personal experience with this issue as well, as have many who are saying "this will help specifically me and the specific experiences I've encountered." And yet, your base assumption is that these people are just talking out of their asses. Which is why your immediate next step is...:

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.

...to immediately fall back on the "few bad apples" defense. Because when the only horror stories to make big enough news that most people in the hobby hear about them are the handful of the most egregious examples, it's so very very easy to off-handedly dismiss them as rarities. But they're not. If you actually take the time to seek out, listen to, and believe the stories people tell, you find that it is depressingly common. And that's just from the people who are open and willing enough to share their bad experiences. In most cases involving trauma, that's usually just the tip of the iceberg.

The burden of proof that a problem large enough to warrant a solution to fix has already been met many, many times over. You've just chosen to interpret that evidence as being presented in bad faith.

 

[billd91]

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?

Intense gore and horror - OK. That's one thing and it's fairly abstract. Now, in the course of the adventure, it's made a bit more concrete in, say, the BBEG wearing a necklace of small babies strung together by their entrails. Or puppy dogs. Or whatever it is that gets people a lot more riled up than gore of all sorts of nameless adults. Knowing what something is in an abstract or generalized sense does not necessarily prepare you for the specifics that will be encountered.

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

Nobody is saying this is therapy or a replacement for therapy. Can we dispense with that useless exaggeration?

 

[billd91]

@ Arilyn I have two people in my AL group which have stated if they see a “X” card at an event they will tap it just to provoke a reaction. And I don’t think they are kidding.

Then they are the asshats who should be shown the door because they are the ones intending to be unnecessarily disruptive. They are the bad actors in this scenario, not the X-card or the people who may occasionally need to invoke it.