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]

okay, it sounds like you and your group have an agreement that intra-PC romance is okay. good for you and your group. not every group is the same, and assuming so makes no sense.

To say "we have an agreement" makes it far more formal than it really is: more like we've always just seen it as a fact of life that PCs in a party are inevitably going to interact with each other much like people in real life would: some will fall in love, some will become fast friends, some will become rivals or even bitter enemies - and all of this is fair game to play out.

Characters, like people, have emotions.

immediately may be a bit much, especially if its something like the player says their character is a known philanderer, but if the player at the receiving end of the advances looks uncomfortable and the GM does nothing that's a red flag.

if I were GM'ing I'd probably say something like "let's keep your philandering to NPCs only". if you're unaware, people will romance other player's characters as a means of hitting on that player.

Been there, seen that, and have also seen some perfectly well-played in-character responses.

I've also seen players have in-character romances and flings even though there's no way in hell they'd ever get involved in real life!

having a serious conversation isn't "kicking the puppy", it's dealing with the problem in a controlled manner.

Believe me, in this case any serious conversation would have been puppy-kicking. I ain't no therapist.

if the person getting hit on taps the x-button then just don't hit on that player's character? I don't understand how this "chills all PC-PC romance" unless they tap it when romantic interaction happens between other characters, and even then I'd probably imagine said advances seemed coercive or invasive.

Picture this: new-ish campaign, party still kinda getting to know each other, someone's PC tries to strike up a romance with mine, and I hit the X.

Given no more information than that (because, with the X mechanic as presented, no more is required), what borders am I trying to set?

okay if I can be honest it just sounds like you're somehow not okay with confronting issues between players, or believe that doing so is going to ruin the game. having a discussion with all the players that someone doesn't want their own character being romanced by other players should be okay? all the players being cool with that should also be okay? like do the players only value each other's characters as a means to carry out romantic fantasies or something?

Much of your position seem to stem from a foundational assumption that players cannot or will not separate themselves from their characters.

My baseline expectation is that they will. What happens in character stays in character, and whatever's happening between players in real life is left at the door on arrival to the session.

this is worse, but why wouldn't you want to referee that? maybe that player is uncomfortable with player A, but not player B. maybe they have a history that you don't know about. or maybe player B makes advances that are way less creepy. this isn't "X player only finds player B attractive and that's awkward" like it seems you're suggesting.

If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character. If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction my expectation is that it stays out of the game.

but that's all in the context of a public game, if you're just playing with an established group you have the luxury of being able to talk to the player about their issues and figure something out. the x-card is not as useful a tool in this environment as you literally have the time to have a discussion with players.

Home games with friends are pretty much all I play, other than the very occasional con game where I'm (usually) on my best behavior.

I don't think separating fiction from reality is the issue here.

I think it's a very large part of the issue here.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of empathy?

I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it. Harsh though it may sound, I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs.

 

[Celebrim]

Now, for the record, Hussar is someone that knows how to bait me.

Using a word in it's dictionary definition is now metaphor? Sorry, but, "to bleed" as in to spread outside of a certain area, is the actual definition of the word "bleed". It's not metaphor.

This is wrong in so many different ways that it took me a while to realize you were serious. How people can say things like this with a straight face is absolutely beyond me.

Let's start with two facts before we turn to one of my favorite subjects, Lexicography.

First, the definition provided for the non-dictionary jargon term bleed by the author was:

"Experiencing moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa."

You will note that this is not the literal definition bleed from the dictionary, both by your own cited evidence and that of Panda down below you. Neither of you actually showed the dictionary to contain this term. So we are already dealing with your inability to distinguish reality from fantasy.

Secondly, the definition of "bleed" that was being discussed by billd91 was "an ink or dye that expands beyond its intended space" This is an actual normal dictionary definition of "bleed" albeit it is in my dictionary definition #4.

Now if you don't know much about dictionaries, the more usual and more literal definitions tend to be listed first, while the less common and more metaphorical definitions tended to be listed further down.

Definition #1 in my my dictionary is "To lose blood from the body as a result of injury or illness".

Definition #2 is "To draw blood from someone, as in the once common method of treatment in medicine"

Definition #3 is "To allow a gas or liquid to escape from a closed system through a valve."

You'd note that definition #3 since it doesn't involve literal blood is a metaphorical definition that has become such a common metaphor as to warrant it's own entry. Bleeding literally involves blood - not say carbon dioxide or methane build up in a pipe. To call that "bleeding" is a metaphor.

Definition #4 with the ink or dye getting out of its intended space is also a metaphor. So a definition of emotions doing that is a metaphor of a metaphor. We are comparing emotions to ink in a way that was originally suggested by how inks behavior could be compared to blood.

Panda-s1 adds his own screen shot just to prove you wrong as well, but then bizarrely and in defiance of what his eyes are actually showing him, claims it proves you right.

Now I don't deny that "bleed" could be chosen as a metaphor to express something, including emotions, "that seeps out of its intended space." That would be a valid metaphor. But it would be a metaphor and not literal. My argument is not that such a metaphor couldn't be made, or even that it isn't apt. My argument is that it isn't useful. I fully agree with Billd91's claim that it is a graphic metaphor. Yes it is.

And as a point of inarguable and objective fact, the definition, "Experiencing moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa." is not a literal dictionary definition of bleed, much less one that involves literal blood unless somehow the fantasy wounds are drawing literal blood.

 

[Panda-s1]

Let's start with two facts before we turn to one of my favorite subjects, Lexicography.

yeah that's cute, let me start with one of my favorite degrees I've earned, a BA in linguistics.

Panda-s1 adds his own screen shot just to prove you wrong as well, but then bizarrely and in defiance of what his eyes are actually showing him, claims it proves you right.

first of all, I said I wanted to argue with him over the nature of metaphorical language. "bleed" as we are using is based off a metaphorical understanding of blood and liquids, but I was still sure such a definition existed in a dictionary. me posting a screenshot was more about backing up his claim more than anything.

also both definitions 2 and 3b according to Merriam-Webster very much fall in line with the way we're using "bleed" to describe this phenomenon. we're using bleed as defined by a dictionary. they even provide an example: "foreign policy bleeds into economic policy — J. B. Judis" unless you want to argue that policy is literally a kind of liquid.

 

[Panda-s1]

To say "we have an agreement" makes it far more formal than it really is: more like we've always just seen it as a fact of life that PCs in a party are inevitably going to interact with each other much like people in real life would: some will fall in love, some will become fast friends, some will become rivals or even bitter enemies - and all of this is fair game to play out.

Characters, like people, have emotions.

that's nice, but that doesn't change what I said.

Been there, seen that, and have also seen some perfectly well-played in-character responses.

I've also seen players have in-character romances and flings even though there's no way in hell they'd ever get involved in real life!

that's nice, but that doesn't change what I said.

Believe me, in this case any serious conversation would have been puppy-kicking. I ain't no therapist.

you don't have to be a therapist to have a serious conversation. you can talk about a problem without needing to do a diagnosis on someone's mental health, I do it all the time with friends.

Picture this: new-ish campaign, party still kinda getting to know each other, someone's PC tries to strike up a romance with mine, and I hit the X.

Given no more information than that (because, with the X mechanic as presented, no more is required), what borders am I trying to set?

"tries to strike up a romance" is ambiguous since there's more than one way to try and strike up a "romance" but assuming they didn't do it in a creepy or weird way then it's simple: that you don't want your character to be romanced. if it's specific to the character that's hitting on you you'd probably reject them in character instead of using the x-card.

Much of your position seem to stem from a foundational assumption that players cannot or will not separate themselves from their characters.

My baseline expectation is that they will. What happens in character stays in character, and whatever's happening between players in real life is left at the door on arrival to the session.

no? my foundational assumption is that players are generally good at separating themselves from their characters. but we're all still sitting down to play a game of pretend, and part of playing pretend is carrying out fantasies we can't irl. this includes things like romance.

also, some people very much take advantage of certain social situations to make something happen. tabletop games are one of them, and like the very subject of this thread people can very easily take their emotions in and out of the game and try and make that happen to other players.

If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character. If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction my expectation is that it stays out of the game.

your expectation isn't always going to be met. honestly it's kinda skeevy to not take these things into account when playing a game.

Home games with friends are pretty much all I play, other than the very occasional con game where I'm (usually) on my best behavior.

then it doesn't sound like you need an x-card 'cause you have the luxury of talking to players one on one.

I think it's a very large part of the issue here.

this wasn't meant for you, but okay.

I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it. Harsh though it may sound, I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs

.
people can't just decide to not have past trauma for a few hours, that's not how that works. believe me, plenty of people would love to be able to do that.

 

[Bagpuss]

Perhaps. How would you know?

The same could be asked for the arguement for.

The arguments I see against is seem to be of the forms: 1) "this infringes on MY freedom",

Not so much, "MY" as everyone else's at the table.

2) theorycraft from people who are not mental health professionals, making claims about what works or doesn't for people who have issues,

So all the people arguing for it a mental health professionals? I'm not sure they are.

3) people who outright don't want to have to deal with the fact that there are folks in our world who are injured or have problems.

Not seen many of those, I've seen people say they would use a different method to handle such issues.

While those opinons are interesting, I should hardly take them as conclusive on whether this tool works better than how these thigns were handled (or not handled) in the past.

Same could be said of the arguement for.

Meanwhile, the folks who actually have trauma or phobias or similar issues, or folks who run/play games with them, seem to like the thing.

We've had at least one person in this thread that didn't like it. And who's to say what issues other people arguing against it have.

We can think of this as a bit of assistive technology. Like, say, a wheelchair - if you don't use a wheelchair, don't assist someone who is in a wheelchair, and don't have the skills to design or build wheelchairs... how much should anyone listen to your opinion on wheelchairs?

I thought we were getting away from bad analogies?

Especially, if your basic argument is "I shouldn't see handicapped parking in lots I park in, because those are spaces I could have used," well, your opinon's probably right out, isn't it?

That's a real strawman, the vast majority of the people with issues with many of these tools aren't lacking empathy just don't agree this is necessarily the best solution.

 

[Panda-s1]

Again I see the angle that you guys are coming from but there is a point where assistant technology is either excessive or simply not effective enough. Could you provide me quotes where people are suggesting they simply just don't want to be dealing with people with phobias and disabilities? I have not read the whole thread and from what I did see nothing implied that.

I mean there's one on this page

If player A's advances are creepier in character than player B's then the place to respond to that is in character. If there's real-life stuff going on such as prior history or different levels of real-life attraction my expectation is that it stays out of the game.

I understand the concept, but freely admit that I don't often subscribe to it. Harsh though it may sound, I posit that my problems are my own to sort out (and not at the D&D table!), just as those of others are theirs.

 

[Bagpuss]

I mean there's one on this page

That's not about not wanting to dealing with the people, but not wanting to deal with the people's problems.

The problems stay out of the games not the people.

Try again.

 

[S'mon]

MGIBSTER: You made a statement in public for all to hear. Are you unable to defend the statements you make? Or simply unwilling to have a reasoned discussion?

You're Sea Lioning him?

 

[Panda-s1]

That's not about not wanting to dealing with the people, but not wanting to deal with the people's problems.

The problems stay out of the games not the people.

Try again.

oh man I can actually read :U

Could you provide me quotes where people are suggesting they simply just don't want to be dealing with people with phobias and disabilities? I have not read the whole thread and from what I did see nothing implied that.

that, or I'm not gonna argue petty semantics. sorry.

You're Sea Lioning him?

yes, questioning someone's motives once when they're being dodgy is exactly what sea lioning is lol.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*