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.

 

[Hussar]

And do you think it wouldn't come up again when you tap the X-Card the first time, when no one not even yourself knew what actually bothered you? How do you expect everyone else round the table to pick up what part of the scene bothered you?

So, let's say, three minutes into the first time the romance thing comes up between my character and another PC, I tap the X card.

You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots? That I'd have to repeatedly do it because the players are, again, so completely oblivious, that they continue to pursue a romantic plot line with my character? That even after the second or even third time, they STILL wouldn't get it?

I know that the stereotype of gamers is that we're an insensitive bunch, but, seriously?

How about "Sorry, I'm not interested." said in character? Then made clear by saying it out of character if it continues to be an issue. You don't have to mention anything that exposes anxieties.

Because, now, I'm a bad player. I've seen repeatedly on these boards that players are NEVER allowed to say that. That any player who would refuse to engage something, particularly if that something was brought in by the DM, should be ejected from the group because they are being disruptive. The notion that as soon as I sit down at the table, I'm giving consent to whatever happens at that table and I can never take that consent away unless I get up and leave that table.

THAT'S the toxic element that no one seems to want to acknowledge. I mean, @Phion flat out states it:

1.) You have told us what makes you uncomfortable, essentially your bleed. The group seem to not have an issue with it (I too find romance at the table distasteful).
2.) YOU decided you could deal with it. You were not forced. You knew what was making you uncomfortable with as shown in 1.). You of your own understanding of self thought you could get through it. Like a website or any content you click the "I agree" terms and conditions, you have consented to this.
3) "session after session". The group has made it clear that this is for better or worse what they do in their game. Whenever you show up to that table you are consenting to it like 2.). You knew that you were getting upset numerous times during sessions and yet like a moth to the flame you kept returning.
4) Taking the first 3 points to face value that is on you friend.

Why did you wear those clothes? Why did you go to that party? Why did you agree to have a drink with him? Why did you stay with your abuser? What's wrong with you?

Is that clear enough? Is that enough examples to show why I might not want to actually have to talk about my issues but, rather, have an out that lets me bypass them without comment?

 

[Phion]

@Hussar
Its enough examples to show that if thats what you focus on when your argument is broken down to such an extent and thats what you come away with, then there is literally no discussion left to be had. To prevent any further bad feelings I will be removing myself from this thread.

 

[Bagpuss]

You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots?

Well considering in your post you said even you yourself weren't sure what was making you uncomfortable until later, yeah I think other people would have a bit of difficulty.

Because, now, I'm a bad player.

Erm no, how would responding in character to unwanted advances make you a bad player?

Seriously you think you have to accept everything thrown at your character? We're currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and there is this NPC clearly written to romance female characters in the party. I'm playing the only female character, only she's a very young rogue who is small and nimble a female Artful Dodger, a character when I considered her sexuality was very much "no thanks". So she told him "Keep your smutty little ideas to yourself granddad." Never come up again.

Was I just meant to roll over and accept the idea of a significantly older sugar daddy, just because the DM put it forward? I don't think he meant to be creepy, just forgot how young the character I was playing was meant to look.

 

[MGibster]

How is it that every thread vaguely related to this topic zeroes in on and hyper-focuses solely on X-cards, over and over again? I mean, I know they were mentioned in the article, but so was a lot of other stuff, and we keep having this exact same conversation with the same participants again and again.

For two reasons: Consent in Gaming was brought up in the article as a document containing tools to "define the social contract" and emphasizes the use of X-Cards as a way to mitigate the risk of "misunderstandings and hurt feelings" during game play. The second reason people focus on the X-Card is likely because we're largely in agreement about Bleed, and in the case of Consent we were all okay with the idea of making some sort of accommodation (even if we didn't all agree on what was reasonable) when necessary, so we're focusing on the one thing that divides us. Because how long can a discussion go on where we're just all agreeing with one another?

And as happens very often, we draw lines in the sand and make assumptions about those who disagree with us. "People who use the X-Card might do so in bad faith!" "People who oppose the X-Cards care more about the game than they do about people!" Which is unfortunate.

 

[Hussar]

Real example: New player came into our group. Ten sessions in and we're all pretty on edge, the theme of the campaign this time around (albeit the Players did not know this) was 'managing failure'. So everything was stacked against us to the point of repeated and constant failure with our PCs barely escaping and scraping by. The GM had expected we'd get a few small marginal "least worst failures" here and there, but no, we exceeded expectations and had failed spectacularly in every endeavor. So, there we have it, the tableau is set:

Mid way in session ten during a downtime (the entirety of this session was our PCs dealing with 'downtime' stuff, trying to figure out how to continue even surviving, let alone figuring out how to deal with our enemies) new Player blows a fuse and starts yelling and then storms out.

Now, we knew why the Player got upset (they were quite vocal about it), but if they'd have had an X Card, we'd have never known. There was no scene to 'reset' or move beyond. No other Player was acting any differently (except a few us were way more listless and tuned out due to "bloody depressing game").

Y'know what? You're absolutely right. An X card in this situation would solve nothing.

But, you're missing the obvious question - why not? Why wouldn't it help? Well, because the situation you outline has nothing to do with the X-Card or consent in gaming or the notion of bleed. the player wasn't unhappy because of some outside emotional issue bleeding into the game because of events in the game.

No. He was unhappy with the game itself. No amount of consent is going to fix that problem. If you don't like the game, you don't like the game. But, again, and this is the key point the reason the player didn't like the game had nothing whatsoever to do with emotional bleed. So, of course an X-card or the notion of consent in gaming will help in this situation. It's entirely the wrong tool.

The failure, as you rightly note, is that the player was not informed of the major elements of the game and sat there frustrated because he was fundamentally playing a different game than the rest of you.

So, why would you apply the notion of emotional bleed and x-cards to this situation?

 

[MGibster]

You're saying that everyone at the table would be so oblivious that they wouldn't be able to connect the dots? That I'd have to repeatedly do it because the players are, again, so completely oblivious, that they continue to pursue a romantic plot line with my character? That even after the second or even third time, they STILL wouldn't get it?

The biggest problem with each of us coming up with examples is that it's so easy for us to cherry pick the ones that make our case look good. When it comes to accommodations it's not bad to have general guidelines but in the real world, where the rubber meets the road, you often have to look at things on a case-by-case basis to make a good decision. So in your case, great, let's say the X-Card is played and everyone is crystal clear on what the problematic content is and it's a trivial matter to make sure it doesn't show up in the game later.

But it's not always going to be that clear. And I think any assessment of the X-Card, pro or con, needs to acknowledge that the problematic element may not be readily obvious to all involved.

I know that the stereotype of gamers is that we're an insensitive bunch, but, seriously?

I don't know that particular stereotype of gamers. Many of my friends are gamers and I think they're decent people. You're a gamer and based on everything I've seen you post I think you're a decent person too. In reality I haven't noticed gamers to be any worse than the population at large. In fact, in recent years I've even seen fewer socially awkward people in gaming spaces as compared to 15-25 years ago.

Because, now, I'm a bad player. I've seen repeatedly on these boards that players are NEVER allowed to say that. That any player who would refuse to engage something, particularly if that something was brought in by the DM, should be ejected from the group because they are being disruptive. The notion that as soon as I sit down at the table, I'm giving consent to whatever happens at that table and I can never take that consent away unless I get up and leave that table.

You're not a bad player and anyone who would suggest that is being grossly unfair. It's okay for players to decide what they're comfortable or uncomfortable with and everyone at the table should respect that. I had a player once tell me she was uncomfortable with the playing cards we were using for the game (Savage Worlds). I immediately stopped using them and switched to a different deck. I didn't need to ask why, didn't razz her about it (as a group we razz one another quite often), and didn't question why she was okay with graphic descriptions of violence but not these cards with zombies on them. It was enough to know they bothered her so I stopped using them. But had she tapped the X-Card I honestly wouldn't have known what the problem was.

 

[Hussar]

Well considering in your post you said even you yourself weren't sure what was making you uncomfortable until later, yeah I think other people would have a bit of difficulty.



Erm no, how would responding in character to unwanted advances make you a bad player?

Seriously you think you have to accept everything thrown at your character? We're currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne, and there is this NPC clearly written to romance female characters in the party. I'm playing the only female character, only she's a very young rogue who is small and nimble a female Artful Dodger, a character when I considered her sexuality was very much "no thanks". So she told him "Keep your smutty little ideas to yourself granddad." Never come up again.

Was I just meant to roll over and accept the idea of a significantly older sugar daddy, just because the DM put it forward? I don't think he meant to be creepy, just forgot how young the character I was playing was meant to look.

Who said it was unwanted? I made it perfectly clear at the outset that NO ONE DID ANYTHING WRONG.

That's the whole point of emotional bleed. Everyone wants to point fingers and find blame. It's not about blame or responsibility. It's not like anyone is doing this intentionally. I didn't intentionally do anything, nor did the woman who was playing next to me.

But, because of my own emotional bleed, I was having a miserable time and hating this part of the game. Note, the group had been playing together for a number of years, so, it's not like we didn't know each other. This had just never come up for me before. At first it was kinda funny and I played along. The longer it went on, the more uncomfortable I got. That's the point with emotional bleed - it's not rational, it's not intentional.

Everyone seems to be acting like everyone in an emotional bleed situation is being 100% rational and logical. That's NOT how it works. And, frankly, my personal hangups are pretty bloody minor on the grand scale of things. It's not like I'm dealing with major personal trauma or anything like that. It was a fairly corner case event that had never come up before (or after) that I didn't know how to deal with because my emotions were too high and frankly I had no real experience in dealing with before.

 

[Umbran]

But it's not always going to be that clear. And I think any assessment of the X-Card, pro or con, needs to acknowledge that the problematic element may not be readily obvious to all involved.

We should note two things here:

1) The idea is that if someone invokes the card, they do not have to clarify why. They CAN, though. They are allowed to do so, if they feel okay about it Often, it will be clear in context what they are reacting to. Other times, they may well give you some basics, like your player with the cards did. The point is that they are not obligated to do so; that as the person in distress it is their choice, not yours.

The less a big deal you make of it, the more easygoing you are about it, the more comfortable you'll make the player, and the more likely you will be to get more information.

The X-card isn't intended as the first line of defense for folks who have a problem. It is, instead, one of the last. So, we are talking about the case where someone has fallen through the cracks on other measures, and the issue is so distressing or personal that they don't want to discuss it. This isn't going to happen to you every game. It is, quite frankly, an edge case. And the failure mode is, oops, your game doesn't go as well as you wanted. The world is not ending for that.

2) No tool is perfect, and nobody claims the X-card cures all ills - if you read the works from some of the early proponents of its use, they were clear that it is not a panacea or silver bullet, nor a replacement for a conversation before play, and so on. The fact of the matter is that if a person has trauma impinging on their lives... perfection really isn't a possibility! If you happen to trigger someone's phobia, it isn't like you can't make it un-happen. You can, at best, dodge the worst of it at the last moment.

So, yes, maybe you'll not have as much information as you want. Have you not caught on that, in this situation, you're the one who is in good shape? The person who has invoked the card is in a seriously bad place. Yes, you're being asked to muddle through a bit, because hopefully you are in a reasonable position to be able to take on that extra labor - they aren't. You've got spoons, they don't. Maybe the fact that they can't just give you more spoons... shouldn't be your major concern.

Many of my friends are gamers and I think they're decent people.

"Decent" is not equivalent to "sensitive". Being a basically good person does not naturally give you the skills and understanding to note the emotional states of others. You can be insensitive by not caring, or by obliviousness or ignorance.

In fact, in recent years I've even seen fewer socially awkward people in gaming spaces as compared to 15-25 years ago.

And, "we are better than we used to be" doesn't actually mean, "We are good now."

 

[evileeyore]

Y'know what? You're absolutely right. An X card in this situation would solve nothing.

But, you're missing the obvious question - why not? Why wouldn't it help? Well, because the situation you outline has nothing to do with the X-Card or consent in gaming or the notion of bleed. the player wasn't unhappy because of some outside emotional issue bleeding into the game because of events in the game.

No. He was unhappy with the game itself.

So, I'm guessing the quote above is all you read of what I wrote and you completely missed this:

"The problem the Player finally decided they couldn't take had nothing to do with the campaign, but one of the other Players."

One of the other Players behavior drove the new Player to flip out, scream at them, and storm out. Behavior that we took as completely normal as we'd all been gaming as a group for a year, but the new Player did not know and misconstrued. The exact sort of thing an X Card would have gotten played over.

The failure, as you rightly note, is that the player was not informed of the major elements of the game and sat there frustrated because he was fundamentally playing a different game than the rest of you.

Actually, we all were trying to play a different game than the GM, the Player who had a meltdown over other issues at the table wasn't upset over the game any more than the rest of us*. I set the stage to exemplify that their mood was worsening session after session, but went unnoticed as all of our moods were souring game after game. So had they played the X Card to get the other Player to stop their behavior, why wouldn't have been at all obvious.


* And probably a bit less than myself, as they stayed while I left a month later. Constant overtime and being depressed at a game on my only day off wasn't conducive to being in a good mood for me.

So, why would you apply the notion of emotional bleed and x-cards to this situation?

Who mentioned bleed? Not I. However it would be the very concept to have explored in this example. Everyone was on edge due to the game. It's even possible the Player who had the trouble might have been amenable to initiating a discussion about the problem, before it became a problem, had we not all been a bit depressed and grouchy. And likely the Player whose behavior 'caused' the problem might not have been as 'disruptive' if they weren't so checked out as well.

So, yeah, bleed is perfectly in line for discussion with this example. As for the X Card, if you can't play it stop a fellow Players actions, how in the world would it have ever been of use to yourself in your experience?

 

[evileeyore]

1) The idea is that if someone invokes the card, they do not have to clarify why.

I find this entire notion very toxic. Any GM who would continue forward to set another scene absent the knowledge of what caused the emotional turbulence is deliberately setting forward into the unknown to cause more trauma.

The X-card isn't intended as the first line of defense for folks who have a problem.

And I quote:

"By using the X-Card frequently, you demystify it. You normalize it. It becomes second nature. Thus increasing the chances it will actually be used when it is needed."

So... yeah. No, the very idea is to use it as frequently as possible.

Granted... that write up has literally no good advice on how to continue forward if the X Carder is relcantrant over why the Card was deployed. They break their own "no one needs to answer" rules by suggesting you call for a break and question them. Tre problematic.

Yes, you're being asked to muddle through a bit, because hopefully you are in a reasonable position to be able to take on that extra labor - they aren't.

'Muddle through'? Is that what you call deliberately recommencing unaware of what the danger words are?