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.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm going to stop following this thread, it's not all that interesting anymore. Before I go, I just want to say that products like this are rare and excellent, and we should be happy that there are people out there in the gaming community who give thought to stuff like this. I mean, someone took the time to think carefully about their friends and fellow gamers, and they crafted a tool that might improve everyone's enjoyment of the game. Then they released it to the gaming community as a gift, free of charge and completely optional. We need more stuff like this, and I hope to see more in the future.

 

[Umbran]

Secondly, I don't think anyone* wanted to discuss the topics, with the possible exception of myself.

...

*And by 'anyone' I mean the people complaining about 'sea lions' and that the people who disagreed with them didn't really want to have a discussion were the ones that least wanted to have a discussion, because by 'discussion' they meant 'I only want to hear from people who affirm and validate what I've already chosen to believe'.

Mod Note:
Right. "I will besmirch everyone else as arguing in bad faith, but I, I am the one true person who wanted to discuss it!" Did you not note that, in order to say that, you had to discard the statements of people who didn't affirm and validate what YOU have already chosen to believe?

You are done in this thread.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Yes.

Years ago I was running a game in which one aspect of the play was making one player miserable. She didn’t feel she could talk about it, mostly because she felt she’d get exactly the kind of reaction some people here are insisting on - that they’d demand a ‘conversation,’ that they’d try to convince her she was wrong, that they’d tell her that the gaming table wasn’t a therapy session, that they’d tell her to leave.

Eventually it made her so miserable that she left anyway. I didn’t find out until years later why. I had no idea that aspect of the game made her uncomfortable. And had there been an X-card at the table, I would have easily excised that part of the game and moved on.

You can’t always tell what is going on with the people at your table. People don’t like admitting that they’re not happy with that scene of torture, or murder, or the beating, or the one where the child is trapped in a box, or standing in the sun for hours wondering if you’re going to die, or rape, or... do I go on? And one of the reasons they don’t like bringing it up is because they know that almost without fail, the immediate response is a question that they really don’t want to answer at a table with their friends (or worse, strangers). The X-card gives them a safe way to let raise the issue. And s vital part of it is the fact that they can do so without the fear of that follow up question.

And when you get down to it, the GM’s desire to have a spider-monster attack the PCs just isn’t that important.

Things like this are probably the biggest reason I may implement the X-Card at my home game even though I'm confident it will never be used.

I don't think it's supposed to be a tool for the majority of tables. The majority will take care of themselves.

But I will gladly bend over backwards to keep a player from leaving the game based on something I could have easily steered away from had I only known. It seems like this could help me know.

 

[jasper]

@tailen hahaaha

“…We've swung from RPGs being a fun, harmless experience to one that can be deeply engaging -- even traumatic -- for some. As I think this very long thread has demonstrated, it can be both…..”

holy BADWRONGFUN you mean when Bill gave me a wedgie back in Jan 1981 when I laughed at his pc dying it was a harmless experience? Hello some gamers had traumatic experiences in the 1960s which they brought to table in the 70s and 80s. Some people who had traumatic experiences from 1970s are bring their issues to table today.

1. I knew people who got upset in 1983 when they lost their pcs. Some the other weirdoes in 1980 wrote costumes but they were from a different high school and we knew they were crazy. So the possible level of immersion has not changed but as a whole the players are more aware of the possibility of different levels of immersion.

2. Highly tactical to VOICE actors. Did you ever play with a group of grunts, arty, a medic and army cook? Or 3 drama students and a choir member? Since I started, how tactical the game was depended on the group make up or the unofficial boss. No. Even today at my open Adventure League table how tactical a table can be, depends on who is gaming.

How about changing 2. ? To “The public at large and new players are used to voice actors showing how the game is played. This leads to different view point on how the game should be played.”

3 should be change to “1. Today, people are more aware RPGs bring people from various lifestyles, personal experience (some with traumatic and different from our own), and expectations to the table. The X card is a method for new players to your group to renegotiate the assumed social contracts that were established when you just played D&D with friends. “

 

[talien]

I like all your edits Jasper.

For the record, I don't think recognizing any one person's trauma invalidates or minimizes anybody else's.

 

[generic]

are there academic studies of whether or not D&D will harm your brain? are there unbiased surveys? man, even if there are I'm fairly certain you haven't read any, and even if you did they didn't lead to your decision to play D&D. same with the x-card.

"but I play D&D and know it's not bad!" exactly.

I have to admit, this is a good point. Bravo, Panda-s1.

 

[evileeyore]

For another, I think that they discourage verbal communication.

And that has been my objection to the X Card from CiG from jump. It's repeatedly hammered home in that document that you don't need to and shouldn't explain anything, not even a "this thing is upsetting to me". It's entire purpose is to shut down the social aspect of a social activity.

Why do we need to encourage verbal communication?

Because social activities are how you learn to communicate. Fostering an environment where communication is actively discouraged is counter-productive.

What if the person just doesn't want to talk, or, perhaps, is emotional enough, that verbalizing is more difficult?

Because if they are encouraged to never mention what the problem is, it can never be solved or even moved past. If they shut down game for the night, and then because a document said it's okay to never ever actually articulate even in the smallest what the problem is, I will not invite them back.


I don't care what their motivations are, or why they are traumatized, all I need to know is what is causing the problem right there at the table so it can either be avoided or alleviated in the future.

Or, to put it another way, did you actually need to know that your player's father had passed away recently? Or would it have been good enough for the player to just say, "Hey, you mind if we don't play through this?"

If I've gone through the trouble of crafting a plotline for someone and am told "Um, I really don't want to deal with the plot now, sorry" and that's it? I'll never bother crafting another personalized plotline for them. Not worth the effort. However, if they give me a reason*? Sure, I can see setting it aside, or even completely dropping all that work right into the circular filing cabinet and be fine with it.

But that's just my two cents.


* And mean a real reason, not just "Eh, I'm not interested anymore" or "I decided to change my backstory, so there is no estranged father".

Years ago I was running a game in which one aspect of the play was making one player miserable. She didn’t feel she could talk about it, mostly because she felt she’d get exactly the kind of reaction some people here are insisting on - that they’d demand a ‘conversation,’ that they’d try to convince her she was wrong, that they’d tell her that the gaming table wasn’t a therapy session, that they’d tell her to leave.

Eventually it made her so miserable that she left anyway. I didn’t find out until years later why. I had no idea that aspect of the game made her uncomfortable. And had there been an X-card at the table, I would have easily excised that part of the game and moved on.

Are you saying the problem was so obvious that you'ld instantly intuit it if the X Card were tapped but somehow, absent the X Card it was also simultaneously subtle and beyond knowing?

Does the X Card somehow give you and Hussar telepathy?

[/QUOTE]You can’t always tell what is going on with the people at your table.

Which is why you need to have conversations with people. Absent good communication, of course no one will trust you enough to ever mention the problems.

And when you get down to it, the GM’s desire to have a spider-monster attack the PCs just isn’t that important.

I love this bit of hyperbole. How it just ignores that you can't actually know what the problem is absent them saying what the problem is.

Again, I know for a fact it goes back to at least 1983...

It's like White Wolf and Vampire LARPing never existed...


Speaking of VLARP, yeah, okay, I've seen some groups that could use an extremely toxic sounding social contract like CiG to keep them from leaving bodies in shallow graves in the woods... huh. I wonder if the worse aspects of VLARP is where they got their warped sense of the dangers of roleplaying from.

 

[Hussar]

Does the X Card somehow give you and Hussar telepathy?

No, it really doesn't.

Which is why I keep trying to suggest possible strategies that a DM could use to move forward.

For example, if we're in the middle of that drug thing I posted earlier, and someone taps the X card, I'm going to avoid using that drug in the future. Now whether the person was triggered because of sharks, or drug use, or whatever, I don't care. I have the evidence, right in front of me, that something about that drug made a player feel very, very uncomfortable.

So, skip the drug. Easy.

Now, later on down the road, over a coffee after the session, or perhaps even later, when the player has calmed down, THEN I might ask what the issue was. Or, better yet, ask if they want to talk about about it. But, confronting the player right then and there? "Why are you stopping the game? What's wrong?" when that player is already distressed and unhappy?

Yeah, that's not a conversation that's going to go well. Either the player is going to lash out, because they're already feeling very upset and you're not helping, or they're going to clam up. Or, worse, you're just justifying their guilty feelings because now you're in their face (even with the best of intentions) forcing them to talk about something they don't want to talk about. At least, not right now.

See, you keep insisting that this shuts down communication. No, it doesn't. It gives another avenue for communication that does not force anyone to expose their personal trauma at this time. Demanding someone explain themselves, to the point where you would eject them from the group if they don't explain themselves, when they are three seconds from a full blown panic attack is just NOT the correct response. It really, really, isn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

This threads gonna end well.

Solution drink more beer

 

[S'mon]

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.

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but the implication seems to be that the X-card like the home alarm system can make anxious people feel safer, which could be a good thing in itself. If the card isn't used - thus no disruption - and its presence on the table makes people happier, that would be an argument in favour of it.

Personally though I suffer from pretty severe anxiety, enough to be on citalopram, and as GM I would find an X card on the table 'triggering' - it would make me anxious about its potential use and I wouldn't be able to GM, so it would have the opposite effect.