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.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Agreed.

However...

There seems to be a strange assumption that players will use the card to wield power or derail games.

Yes there is, in my case; because I've had players in the past who were more than narcissistic enough to do exactly this - had the option been available - as often as they could get away with it.

And if in my relatively small sample size of some few dozens I've had 'em, then gawds know how many are out there in the greater community. Either that, or I've just been woefully unlucky......

 

[generic]

I honestly find it hard to believe your average con gamer is going to leave the table because the spider became an octopus. I'm pretty sure they'd have a laugh and continue on with the encounter as usual, especially if it's played off as something weird that happened in-game.

Um... That's your opinion, not a fact. My assertion was the same thing, an opinion. As I said before, I don't think a universal standard should be applied to something as individual as D&D.

 

[Panda-s1]

Um... That's your opinion, not a fact. My assertion was the same thing, an opinion. As I said before, I don't think a universal standard should be applied to something as individual as D&D.

yes. it's my opinion. that's formed from having played many, and in a few cases run, con/public games in my time. this scenario of people leaving your table because an enemy changed isn't as common as you make it out to be. and honestly, those people who left are way more disruptive than the person who tapped the x-card.

Yes there is, in my case; because I've had players in the past who were more than narcissistic enough to do exactly this - had the option been available - as often as they could get away with it.

And if in my relatively small sample size of some few dozens I've had 'em, then gawds know how many are out there in the greater community. Either that, or I've just been woefully unlucky......

the x-card isn't a fast forward button. if someone taps it you can just rearrange what's going on in game, you don't have to remove the party from a difficult encounter because someone used it.

if people are treating it that way then that's abusing it and you can call people out if they're abusing something ("BUT I CAN'T QUESTION PEOPLE WHO USE IT!!!!!" doesn't apply in this scenario).

 

[generic]

yes. it's my opinion. that's formed from having played many, and in a few cases run, con/public games in my time. this scenario of people leaving your table because an enemy changed isn't as common as you make it out to be. and honestly, those people who left are way more disruptive than the person who tapped the x-card.

I never said that people would leave the session. I just said that I thought it was disruptive, and might ruin a session experience for someone. Also, how can I possibly trust something that you just tell me? I don't see any evidence. No one has, as far as I know, done a statistical study on this.

 

[Lanefan]

why would you need to stop combat entirely just because someone hit the x-button? really?

In the posts I was referring to, the proposed solution was that the scene causing the X-tap be skipped (in part because it wasn't 100% clear which element(s) of the scene had caused the tap), with narration resuming along the lines of "OK, you've defeated Timus Currius and moved deeper into the temple...".

So, not so much stopping combat as skipping it.

why is this hypothetical player just an issue in of themself? how is this any different than the player leaving the table in frustration? or making an obvious attempt at cheating? would they really hit the x-button if they knew you would stop the entire game because of it?

A player making an obvious attempt at cheating gives me-as-DM an obvious reason to reduce my table count by one.

A player simply leaving in frustration - yeah, that's not very communicative either, in fact even less so than the X-card in that the rest of the table doesn't know if what's being expressed as frustration stems from scene elements, actions of other players, in-character issues (e.g. frustration with too much time spent planning), a bad run of dice rolls, or whatever.

And while someone hitting an X might not know whether it'll bring the game to a halt, they have to know it'll at the very least cause a more or less minor disruption while a) the DM sorts it out and b) the rest of the players wonder what's going on.

 

[Panda-s1]

I never said that people would leave the session. I just said that I thought it was disruptive, and might ruin a session experience for someone. Also, how can I possibly trust something that you just tell me? I don't see any evidence. No one has, as far as I know, done a statistical study on this.

someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.

also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.

 

[generic]

someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.

also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.

That's your position. I'm the one arguing that we shouldn't implement things that don't apply across broadly-recognized fields.

 

[Panda-s1]

In the posts I was referring to, the proposed solution was that the scene causing the X-tap be skipped (in part because it wasn't 100% clear which element(s) of the scene had caused the tap), with narration resuming along the lines of "OK, you've defeated Timus Currius and moved deeper into the temple...".

So, not so much stopping combat as skipping it.

so then just place a new combat scenario right after that? if player enjoyment somehow equals X number of combat encounters, then you can just add one additional encounter.

again, what if the players did something as innocent as go down the wrong hallway and skip the encounter with Timus Currius entirely? I've had plenty of times where my DM said something like "oh man I had this fight set up for you guys, but you decided to do X instead", this isn't new or weird.

And while someone hitting an X might not know whether it'll bring the game to a halt, they have to know it'll at the very least cause a more or less minor disruption while a) the DM sorts it out and b) the rest of the players wonder what's going on.

minor disruptions happen all the time in con games. I'd be a little less dismissive about all this skepticism if it weren't being talked about as if similar things haven't been an issue before.

 

[generic]

someone might upend the table because they didn't like a die roll. we should make sure to bolt down every table to the floor. or just play on the floor. no one's done a statistical study on this so it could actually be very common.

also someone might have a panic attack and disrupt other players, but I guess taking steps to prevent this isn't worth it.

Also, my note on statistics wasn't about people having a panic attack. Stop being dishonest.

 

[Panda-s1]

Also, my note on statistics wasn't about people having a panic attack. Stop being dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest. but saying "there's no statistics" makes experiences meaningless. at that point I can say a moose might come and trample the table, therefore we need more moose prevention at cons. I'm just baffled at given how many different ways your game can be disrupted (that can be corroborated by the community in general) this one is getting a huge amount of push back.