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.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Let's get something out of the way; I understand how the X-Card functions. There isn't any significant disagreement between you and I regarding how the X-Card works in play though we certainly don't see eye-to-eye on whether it should be used at all. This isn't one of those times where the person who disagrees with you is only doing so because they don't understand how it's supposed to work. What you view as a feature of the X-Card I view as a terrible flaw. The fact that someone can tap it and there's no expectation on their part to communicate to the GM what the problem might be is the very reason I so vehemently oppose it.

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

How sad that you seem to think so little of those who share your hobby. One of the problems I have with Consent in Gaming is that the author's are approaching gaming as if it's an inherently dangerous activity. And if you view gamers are not good it really starts to make sense why they would approach gaming as though there were a reasonable risk of serious harm. We might not be perfect, and there are certainly serious problems, but most gamers are good. Most gamers were good back in the 80s and most of them are still good today.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

"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?"

The following assumes that the person giving the x card and the reason for it are both not in anyway specified/indicated as that seems to be rampantly common in this thread from watching said thread for quite a while at this point.

Yes. its delusional to believe the majority of people would inerringly know exactly what during 3 minutes occurred (or what part occurred) that precisely was the thing that caused an x-card. Find someone who has a trigger you know nothing of and ask them to tell you next time its set off a random amount of time between 0 min 0 secs and 3 min 0 secs after its set off. Hopefully they are up to the task and forgive you. You likely wont guess it. When yoi inevitably fall on your face (figuratively) and fail imagine multiplying the difficulty in discerning what the trigger was by about 5 because lacking the context of a specific person (one of your only and very small aids in this ridiculous task) and having to use theory of mind on 5 people (this is a task for emulation not empathy. People keep getting that wrong) all at once because everyone is different will be 100% necessary.

I mean all of this with respect but factually most people who believe this is reasonably something that will unerringly be discerned without anyone giving prior specification of the triggers that are had are experiencing a delusion. It is inarguably unrealistic. The vast majority of the time in such a scenario (x card given for something undeclared that happened some time in the last 3 minutes) it is solely the fault of one who will not say what the trigger is if people fail to avoid it in the future. They and only they can ensure that the trigger is avoid with near 100% a majority of occasions.

None of this is meant as insulting but im correcting the ridiculous notion that this is standardly possible. Far too many people in this thread have vastly unrealistic expectations.

 

[Umbran]

The fact that someone can tap it and there's no expectation on their part to communicate to the GM what the problem might be is the very reason I so vehemently oppose it.

Well, then we do have a difference in understanding of how it works - you are equating "no expectation" with "no promise". In practice, you'll likely get some communication. You should be prepared for the case where you don't get any, but that isn't the common operation of the thing. You seem to have glommed onto one aspect of the thing, and blown it up until it looms over consideration of the thing.

And, again - you do realize that the case we are dealing with is one in which the player is near crisis, right? You actually expect this person to engage with you at such a moment? That's not realistic, or good for them. What would you prefer they do, then?

How sad that you seem to think so little of those who share your hobby.

Um, dude. You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people in the same sentence where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine. Because, you know, insulting and ad hominem is... really sensitive?

I think you prove my point.

 

[generic]

I think that, among posters, there's a fundamental disagreement on the circumstances. Some are assuming that the person tapping the card will look calm, other than their tapping of the X card, and that it will be difficult to see what's wrong.

I think, the idea is that the X card is better for use when someone is obviously upset. If someone at my table looked obviously upset, it would be pretty reasonable to pause the game without interrogating them.

It all depends on context.

 

[dragoner]

I want to hear actual situations, I hate the war of the hypotheticals. Personally I haven't dealt with any of these, though I would be more than open to trying it. I know that inclusiveness is important so the community doesn't wind up like the hex and chit wargame crowd, lonely old men grousing about what went wrong. The community is so toxic that Richard Berg died recently and it was embarrassing the lack of nil nisi bonum I mean people had to fire off one last angry missive? STFU idiots.

 

[evileeyore]

Um, dude. You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people in the same sentence where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine. Because, you know, insulting and ad hominem is... really sensitive?

No, he's making a case that gaming and gamers aren't horrible cretins into whose midst one most tread with care and all the tools of protection at your disposal, which is the case made by CiG (and a few other sources) and that you seem to be upholding.

I think, the idea is that the X card is better for use when someone is obviously upset.

If they are visibly upset, I don't require an X Card.

And I would not game with someone who required an X Card be used before they'd call a break when a Player at their table was visibly upset.

If someone at my table looked obviously upset, it would be pretty reasonable to pause the game without interrogating them.

Agreed.

However, I consider it unreasonable to continue forward with the game absent the knowledge of how to avoid causing more upset.

 

[Arilyn]

No, he's making a case that gaming and gamers aren't horrible cretins into whose midst one most tread with care and all the tools of protection at your disposal, which is the case made by CiG (and a few other sources) and that you seem to be upholding.





If they are visibly upset, I don't require an X Card.

And I would not game with someone who required an X Card be used before they'd call a break when a Player at their table was visibly upset.


Agreed.

However, I consider it unreasonable to continue forward with the game absent the knowledge of how to avoid causing more upset.

The consent in gaming is not to paint gamers as horrible people. It's not a document that will scare off potential new players, because they are going to assume stepping into the hobby is fraught with peril. This is a ridiculous asertion, and absolutely not what the document writers had in mind.

Consent in gaming is just a social contract, which may help avoid misunderstandings. You an use it, not use it, or create your own. The X card is a backup tool. May not be perfect, but a better chance of helping than hurting. In fact, I really don't see how it would wreck a game.

This whole, "but we don't know what's upsetting the person means the game will grind to a halt, or we can't fix what we don't understand" is a futile argument. It's more information than what gamers knew before the card was tapped. It's a useful signal.

Social contracts are really common in all kinds of situations where people, especially strangers, get together for a common purpose. Gamers are not being singled out here.

 

[MGibster]

And, again - you do realize that the case we are dealing with is one in which the player is near crisis, right? You actually expect this person to engage with you at such a moment? That's not realistic, or good for them. What would you prefer they do, then?

That the X-Card tapper is a player in near crisis is an assumption on your part. The Consent in Gaming pamphlet does not say the X-Card is to be used when a player is in near crisis. In fact, the pamphlet doesn't generally describe anyone as being in crisis or panicking it typically uses terms like comfortable when it talks of consent. The X-Card could be played because the player finds something mildly uncomfortable. Which is fine. Someone doesn't have to wait until they're close to panic attack before they opt out of something.

If someone's close to a panic attack the game is over. I personally won't be in the right headspace to continue the game even if I know exactly what the problem might be. And I wouldn't be upset at the player at all. It's not like they can help that they're having a crisis.

Um, dude. You are trying to make a case for gamers being sensitive people in the same sentence where you make the discussion about a supposed personal character flaw of mine. Because, you know, insulting and ad hominem is... really sensitive?

Um, guy? You went out of your way to tell me the follwing: "And, 'we are better than we used to be' doesn't actually mean, 'We are good now.'" How am I supposed to interpret that as anything other than you thinking gamers as a whole aren't good?

I think you prove my point.

Ditto.

 

[MGibster]

Social contracts are really common in all kinds of situations where people, especially strangers, get together for a common purpose. Gamers are not being singled out here.

Can you please elaborate on what other group social situations you engage in regularly that uses an opt-in system of consent combined with safe words? Because that is not the norm I've seen nor heard of anywhere besides a very specific sub-culture.

 

[jasper]

The consent in gaming is not to paint gamers as horrible people. It's not a document that will scare off potential new players, because they are going to assume stepping into the hobby is fraught with peril. This is a ridiculous asertion, and absolutely not what the document writers had in mind.

...

Hey we can't Know what in their minds. I read the thing and it is BADLY written if it is for new players. Here are some of my initial thoughts when reading the CIG.
1. Some Freshman in his 3rd quarter of school for a pysch degree borrowed their lovers BSDM consent manual and cut and pasting in gaming jargon.
2. This is manual I would be handed in the mental health clinic after the assault.
3. Did either of these authors share the document to people not connected with mental health/gaming? Because it reads they have their blinders on and there is a PROBLEM and by the power of their degrees! They will solve it. 3 needs work but it is the best I can do.

Note My manager has my written works go through two editors (coworkers) to filter if I use too much program/system jargon. And the other to make sure I put in ALL the words in my head to the page and in good English.
The posters who read me know I don't communicate clearly most of the time.