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]

again, how is removing something "diluting the experience" for other players? considering all the elements that go into making an enjoyable gaming session I don't understand how removing something in an adventure can so impinge a player's overall experience.



excuse me, where did I say in my post that I'm a better person than you? people in this thread just love projecting, it seems. honestly I consider you one of the better people in the thread since you aren't trying to push weird ideas and at least agree on some points.

you don't need to talk about what you do you in your personal life either. if anything you should understand that the issues people face in your line of work might also show up in your gaming sessions and you should take that into consideration.

also re: Hussar and others, it's not just this thread. there's a number of people in these forums who seem to take issue with anything that might "ruin" their game because they might need to change something in their campaign for X reason. apparently for some player input isn't as important as seeing their game run exactly how they want it, so of course they're gonna be riled up by something like this. I've seen Hussar argue with these sorts of people in other threads.

You are right it was petty what I said, I don't normally post in forums so I think I am overthinking some comments. As for the dilution of the experience I was talking to a fellow DM in our club who agrees with you guys and he pointed out that our experiences for a decade have been in house and we typically have good practices. I have no real idea about what other communties or countries typically see in a d&d game.

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, did I offend some people's sensibilities?

I honestly don't really care at this point. Look at what's being argued - one person is so distraught and upset that they, in front of five other people (or thereabouts), reach out and touch the X card, in order to stop whatever it is that is triggering their responses because their personal trauma is bleeding over into the events of the game.

And folks are worried about ass hats weaponizing this? Or that the other five people at the table might have to spend ten or fifteen minutes being empathetic to a fellow human being while the DM rearranges his or her notes in order to proceed?

The whole "well, the one person not having a good time should leave" is horrifying. So, when those other players sexually harass that one player off the table, that's perfectly acceptable because the majority is having a good time? Someone who has sat down at a table has signaled consent but is not allowed to remove that consent later? :wow:

Do you really not see the parallels of your arguments? Seriously?

I'm being offensive and judgmental? Good! Anyone who thinks that their game of pretend elf is more important than the real life suffering of a fellow human being deserves to be negatively judged.

 

[evileeyore]

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

Move on to what? Someone is upset enough to tap out, absent any knowledge of what is upsetting them, there is nothing to move on to. I cannot in good conscience continue forward knowing something else in the next scene, or the scene after that could so easily upset them and continue causing harm.

It would be problematic and unsympathetic to do otherwise.

Reads comment. Taps X

double taps the x card

Two X Cards thrown and not a single person who is arguing for X Cards has stopped and moved on from this horrible conversation. I'd feel shame over their behavior if I were capable of that emotion.

The X card has been in use for a few years.

The X Card as presented outside of the context of Consent in Gaming, yes. And as those other presentations make it imperative that the user reveal at the minimum what is distressing them, I'm with you. Implement away.

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.

That is not how it is presented in Consent in Gaming. If you agree that that document needs to be consigned to the tire fire of bad ideas, I'm with you 100%.

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?

After reading Consent in Gaming, I have zero trust in Reynold's and Germian's ability to write a social contract that is applicable or useful outside the most toxic and dangerous of BDSM groups.

I mean multiple people advocating for the utility of the X card admit that in 100's of games they've played with it they've never once seen it touched. They just feel good about it being there even though no one ever uses it.

That is also worrisome. It tells me that those groups think that either gaming (in general) or their groups (in specific) are so emotionally dangerous that they only feel safe with an extra set of tools above and beyond conversation and the standard social contract.

Have you considered the possibility that this tool could be a multi-tasker, and help you identify people who you probably don't really want to game with? X-card as talking horse for toxic gamers....

That's a hot take... the players most likely to use the X Card will be toxic to gaming. Wow.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I dunno. If, upon informing someone (let alone two someones that I game with) of the X-card concept, their first reaction is, "Hey, I'm going to use this to screw with people", might I suggest a better quality of friends?

This is like arguing that we should never have wheel chair parking because some people might abuse it.

@evileeyore - I gave an example of how to move on. If you actually want to talk about the practicalities, and possible strategies, of how this works at the table, let's do that.

But, so far, all I've seen is people jumping up and down about how this will make gaming less fun, will hurt other people's enjoyment and should never be implemented at all. Or, at best, only implemented at con games (like there would be some sort of gaming police that would show up at your home game to make sure you had an x-card in play )

IOW, if folks actually want to discuss HOW this can work, rather than endlessly derail into "we don't need it", then fine. Let's talk about that. Otherwise, it's just a pointless conversation of endless pedantry with zero value because we can never actually discuss how this actually works.

 

[Panda-s1]

You are right it was petty what I said, I don't normally post in forums so I think I am overthinking some comments. As for the dilution of the experience I was talking to a fellow DM in our club who agrees with you guys and he pointed out that our experiences for a decade have been in house and we typically have good practices. I have no real idea about what other communties or countries typically see in a d&d game.

I get that other groups are different, sure. what bothers me most when people say "diluting the game for other players" is the "other players" part. maybe if your group is one that you know well, but for con games that's just pure projection, and shifts responsibility away from the GM.

really, I personally feel like as long as we all have fun changing a game to help a player out isn't bad, and most players would be okay with that. a player who will up and quit the game because something got changed or had a short interruption isn't one that you want to be playing with anyway, and this is generally considered bad player behavior.

ymmv, just keep in mind different players might have different wants and needs, part of being a GM is trying to balance that out.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

As far as I understand what used to be considered the unspoken social contract in gaming and such matters it kinda worked similar to the employer<>employee contract: leave your personal problems at the door. Otherwise, in the context of the gaming , the social contract would be for all parties to recognize that they are gathering to have fun and play games. It is fluid, flowing amongst themselves as a group; and thus if one felt triggered by something happening, or for some reason related to an external circumstance which boiled over during play, perhaps, would not the social contract--which involves all forms of understood responsibility as shared by and among the group as individuals--also extend to the person, then, to just say, "Hey, I have X issues that I don't feel will allow me to play" without interrupting the understood reason for the gathering and thus facing his or her own social responsibility in kind? No sympathy or empathy is lost here with this scenario, all contracts and dignities are maintained through the shared responsibility of each individual.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The satanic panic....the collapse of TSR....the stereotype of gamers as basement dwelling troglodytes....all pale in comparison to the dreaded X-Card!!!

Muhu haha hah hah gaming, your days are numbered!!!

 

[Derren]

That is also worrisome. It tells me that those groups think that either gaming (in general) or their groups (in specific) are so emotionally dangerous that they only feel safe with an extra set of tools above and beyond conversation and the standard social contract.

If someone can be put into "deep psychological distress" by make believe they shouldn't play make believe games anyway and instead spend their time and money with psychiatrists.
But the X-card system does fit into the pattern of generation trigger warning.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let's see if I can practice what I preach. Let's use a scene from an actual adventure and see if we can find some resolution strategies when someone uses an X card.

Presumption: There are 6 people at the table, DM +5 players. For the sake of argument, let's put it at a con and everyone is a stranger. ((feel free to post your own example if you don't like this one))

Scene: Ghosts of Saltmarsh - The Final Enemy

In the module, there is a drug known as Rapture Weed:

Rapture Weed: These rare plants grow along isolated stony... A creature that consumes the fronds... becomes poisoned for 6 hours, during which time it experiences occasional hallucinations and a feeling of euphoria. ...

Any creature that consumes rapture weed has a 1 percent chance of instead becoming incapacitated for the duration of the plant's effect. During this time it experiences terrifying visions of an enormous shark devouring great amounts of prey.

When the effect wears off... the creature must succeed on a DC 15 Wisdom saving throw or be afflicted wit ha form of long-term madness (see Madness in Chapter 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide)

((Note, any typos are mine))

Now, here's something that might trigger someone. It's a drug with a pretty wild negative effect. I can see how this might be an issue and I'm sure you can too. So, PC takes the drug (maybe unwillingly) and rolls the 1%. DM begins describing the horrifying visions.

Player taps the X card.

Now, what do you do? Me, I just go, oh, ok, and say, "Ok, after x hours of nightmares, you wake up". And then move on with the rest of the adventure.

----

Before anyone accuses me of cherry picking, I was just flipping through the module and that sidebar caught my eye as something that might come up. Again, if you want to discuss real situations from actual adventures, then, let's do that. If you want to continue down the rabbit hole of hypotheticals, well, I certainly can't stop you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In an attempt to rerail a bit, here's a positive use case for the X-card idea.

There are more games that D&D, and some pointedly involve transgressive or challenging themes. The point of these games is to explore these themes in the process of play. These game also tend to be much more interactive, requiring players to expose themselves more in the process of roleplaying, and tend to use narrative techniques to build play. As such, they don't follow a planned arc, but instead present a challenge and extend play along the lines of what players try to do, using mechanics to determine the outcomes and thus further the story.

Since these games can lead to some dark places rather rapidly, the X-card is a good safety valve to pause the play, step back, and assess. In this regard, it is a physical manifestation of a safe word. I see a lot of value in using X-cards in this kind of play.

As a possible negative in this, though, the presence of the safety valve X-card may actually increase the odds of things going darker than they otherwise would. The x-card represents an unspoken consent to delve darker because it exists as a safe out, meaning play might actually become more toxic than it would absent such a valve. This isn't a given, clearly there's lots of confounders, but it's a known part of human psychology that if you have a safety valve you can push the limits harder. Something to be aware of.