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.

scam-4126798_1280.jpg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Nice try. :D

I have issues, I have to deal with panic attacks. Everyone I've ever played showed understanding and good behaviour and I never felt the need for these tools.

You just can't devise tools that could (or, IMO should) replace communication between players, general good behaviour and being a bit more thoughtful and reserved if you play with strangers.

I just think, if someone is in an environment, where these tools are absolutely needed, because they can't handle gaming and the occasional problems otherwise, that's already a sign of things going south on the level of how people handle each other and the game round there.

Do you realize how dismissive this is? "I don't have this problem, so, no one else should have it"? Really, THAT'S where you draw the line?

Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?

--------

What do people think is going to happen? Imagine you are at a con where X-cards are standard at every table. What are the odds, do you think that anyone is going to use it at your particular table? Are you seriously envisioning a situation where this is going to explode across the con with players at every table vetoing every little thing their heart's whim dictates?

Or, is this a tool, just like any other tool, and it will be used when someone feels necessary, probably at a tiny minority of tables where the odds of it directly impacting you are somewhere between slim and none?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You may not know you need to make an accommodation until the topic comes up - particularly in a convention or other public space game. The X card allows the player to put on the brakes.

And allows them to put the brakes on in a way that brooks no conversation leaving it unclear why they were applied in the first place. The X card (safe word) is great for situations that inherently present a significant risk of harm through miscommunications. RPGs are not one of those situations.
 

Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?

Do you honestly think an X card makes that less likely to happen, discourages pushing boundaries, or prevents this problem?

What do people think is going to happen?

Quite obviously, not what you are imagining.

Imagine you are at a con where X-cards are standard at every table.

Sounds very unsafe to me.

What are the odds, do you think that anyone is going to use it at your particular table?

Oh no. Almost everyone I've heard advocate this have said that they've been using them for years and no one ever touched them. I'm not sure whether that's proof that they are unnecessary, or proof that they don't actually facilitate communication.

Are you seriously envisioning a situation where this is going to explode across the con with players at every table vetoing every little thing their heart's whim dictates?

No, some people envision that, but that's not how people actually work, nor is it that sort of person that I imagine is advocating for this 'tool.
 

And allows them to put the brakes on in a way that brooks no conversation leaving it unclear why they were applied in the first place. The X card (safe word) is great for situations that inherently present a significant risk of harm through miscommunications. RPGs are not one of those situations.

Anything that is a tool for facilitating a conversation, I could probably get behind. But that is increasingly and unsurprisingly not what is being pushed. When they first started they were sort of touch this and we can have a conversation, use them only if you feel they are needed. Now they are increasingly, touch this and any further conversation is wrong, and they are or should be mandatory.

And the people that think that they are a tool of "being nice" really don't get human psychology, any more than the people who honestly fear that they are a tool of censorship. I don't think that they are either thing. I ask instead the question, "Who most benefits from a device that provides the appearance of safety while giving none, that provides for a "safe space" to push boundaries and a get out of jail card for having done so, and who would most want excuse for shutting down the conversation around that and pushing forward? What is the environment and background and goals of play like for the people that need X cards and safe words?"

There are parts of the X card that I think aren't a bad thing, but they are pretty much everything but the X card. For example even the creator seems to realize that the best thing about the X card is the speech about the X card where the person moderating the game encourages everyone to speak up and communicate and that it is ok to stop something in the game they feel uncomfortable about, and that everyone should follow a golden rule to try to make this the most enjoyable game possible for everyone present. That's all fine and good. That's communication and there might be times with groups of strangers that sort of speech would be helpful.

But as soon as someone pulls out an X card, I'm going to think, "What have I gotten myself into, and do I need to come up with an excuse to find the door?"
 

I find it amusing that people still argue about this because no one has any choice in the matter. Those places that want to use X-cards or any other techniques to allow uncomfortable situations that come up to be moved passed with a minimum of disruption are going to use them. Regardless of how many people come here onto ENWorld to complain about them. As a result, each person has to decide when they either have a Session Zero or an X-card is present, or some other thing just whether or not they want to sit at the table.

You know what my guess is? At the time it occurs, very few of any of us is going to actually put up a fuss. Even those who think they are bad ideas. Because quite frankly people are right in that they actually get used rather infrequently because 99% of all of us actually know how to play games with other people with a modicum of respect.

So at that point when we sit down at a table at a con, 99% of the time the game is going to go off without a hitch... with or without a card with an X on it sitting in the middle. And we all know this. So the question is... do you cut off your nose to spite your face and get up and leave that table at the con just because a note card is there? I would be 99.9% certain that no... none of us would get up (if we really wished to play that game we signed up for.) Because that X-card really just ends up as much a part of the table background as a DM screen or a dice tower. You see it, you think 'Hmm'... and then you sit down and play the game.

So yeah, if people want to expound on the philosophy of X-cards and the like, more power to you. But enough people are seeing the value in them that they aren't just going to up and disappear no matter how much some people might say they should. And all of us will just have to deal with that truth.
 

Do you realize how dismissive this is? "I don't have this problem, so, no one else should have it"? Really, THAT'S where you draw the line?

Good grief, given reports like the recent incident at that con in England where the GM ran a surprise rape scene, much to the upset of those playing, are you really insisting that there is zero need for something like this?

--------

What do people think is going to happen? Imagine you are at a con where X-cards are standard at every table. What are the odds, do you think that anyone is going to use it at your particular table? Are you seriously envisioning a situation where this is going to explode across the con with players at every table vetoing every little thing their heart's whim dictates?

Or, is this a tool, just like any other tool, and it will be used when someone feels necessary, probably at a tiny minority of tables where the odds of it directly impacting you are somewhere between slim and none?

You're missig the point deliberately and/or skipped my earlier comment altogether.

And yes, I do think trying to replace communication and caring about the reactions of the other people around the table with safe buttons is a certain kind of infantilism and not a good direction. Also, feeling some uncomfort about something is not equals to a trauma.

Ultimately, the whole argument around these things are more than overblown, as 99.9 percent of tables and players won't need them. If one absolutely feels that they can't trust themselves, or the others to play without it, sure, use it, but then, it's already not what I'd call "good gaming environment".

As for that con thing: that was a serious miscommunication between the GM and the players. The GM wanted to play a certain kind of game and the players sit down, expecting another kind. It sucks, but the problem wasn't with the presence, or absence of any consent tools, but with the GM failing to advertise their game adequately.

Anyway, I have better things to do, cheers! :)
 


Thog the Mighty may not have an issue with, say, spiders, but Sam the Player might get nightmares from the scene you're about to put Thog in.

Yep. That one goes right to the heart of my phobias. I remember one gaming session when the GM threw spiders at us, and I responded in-character-but-not-really-in-character, and the GM said, "that wasn't a character reaction, that was a Scott reaction1"
 

Never had a bleed issue sure as a player I've gotten angry when may brilliant plan failed, the typical outcome, or or rolled 5 1s in a row, etc. I have one player who gets whiny and tries to use RPG sessions as a crutch for his self made dodgy life situation, but I don't run RPG as a therapy session so I don't worry about that very much other than to get annoyed. But mostly any bleed is my players getting angry for a few when they screw up or roll poorly.

Well there was that one time when I was a kid.

We were playing a homebrew post apocalyptic game, Endless Hell. It was 1e made into a modern game. My PC decked out in his paper plate armor was with a NPC, who was a high charisma hot chick in the game world, Blackie. She had a sweet car too. Well she got smoked and I was upset over it. Poor Blackie shouldn't have gone like that! Then I said to myself, "Flexor...what is up? She is just an NPC and you can find another one!" And all was right again in the world. Plus I got her car after she got shot. Didn't even take time to bury her...
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top