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.

 

[dragoner]

No, that's not the logical source.

Even if it flowed though some weird sex thing you read, that is still the source. Philosophically you would have to prove that consent in the two, bear no relation.

 

[Celebrim]

Even if it flowed though some weird sex thing you read, that is still the source.

Ok, at this point I'm going to tell you for your own edification that you are embarrassing yourself and you probably should research things before speaking further. Because it's not me that brought what you are calling "some weird sex thing" into a discussion of table top RPGs.

 

[dragoner]

it's not me that brought what you are calling "some weird sex thing" into a discussion of table top RPGs.

You are the one who seems to always be steering the discussion back to that.

Consent is consent, attack it one way and you attack it in all ways.

 

[Gradine]

Interestingly, I was wrong that "Bleed" was an academic psychological term; it was coined by a game designer and speaks specifically to the nature of role-playing (I also recall bleed being a plot-relevant concept in the Assassin's Creed). Here's a good primer on the concept: Bleed: The Spillover Between Player and Character - Nordic Larp

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I can teach a little trick.

If you really want to convince somebody, the secret is never be contrary to nobody, nor to force to agree you. Don't offend if you get to get his trust and keep listen you.

And do notice when the manipulative people try to use the feelings to influence: fear, desire, resentment, pride, shame and envy. Forget that about "listen your heart" when you have to contrast the different opinions and understar the mind by the rest of people. A good debate is like a chess game where both players try to understand the thoughts by the other to give the best answer.

To know how is really somebody, look his reactions when other dare to disagree. Who really is a freethinker who knows a lot of things tries to share his knowledges, no trample who has a different point of view.

Being politically correct is totally useless when you forget the respect for the human dignity. Then the rebel against authority can fall in the dark side of the force and become a new tyrant.

* In the past the creators of World of Darkness has showed their titles aren't for people who go to church every Sunday. Maybe you didn't notice, but I am in Spain where the propaganda war is still really hard and I can see some signs in the speculative fiction by Hollywood. Why do you think there was a boycott against the movie "the golden compass"? And now Netflix is losing customers because it dared to defend its point of view about certain controversy matter. The people in the real life are rebelling against that. We don't want propaganda like the serie "the bride's tale" when we know that is happening in the real life to Christian women from Egypt or Pakistan. We don't need more characters like Margaret White, main character's mother from Stephen King's novel "Carrie". Other example is Catholic kings with the conquest of Granada in the movie "Assasin's Creed". They aren't going to tell Muslims started the war.

White Wolf are hypocrite because they use fiction to report fanaticism but their characters are monsters who can hurt innocents, and they forget certains periods of History as the genocide in la Vendée after the French revolution.

 

[Celebrim]

You are the one who seems to always be steering the discussion back to that.

Consent is consent, attack it one way and you attack it in all ways.

Well, to begin with you began this conversation with me by a blatantly deceptive edit. The noun in that clause was never "consent" in the first place, but the phrase "the language around "consent"". So I made it very clear right from the beginning that my problem was not with mutual agreements at the table in which everyone participated, but in the particulars of how this subject was being handled.

Secondly, the particulars of the document "Consent in Gaming" are in fact pertinent to a discussion around the document "Consent in Gaming", and if you are made uncomfortable about those particulars, perhaps you ought to think about that.

And thirdly, I have not attacked "consent" as a concept in the first place, and it sure as heck is not logically true that an objection against the particulars of arranging consent is attacking the concept in all ways. I'm perfectly happy to discuss how to build a consensus about a social contract, whether formal or informal, and how to tactfully and compassionately handle any problems that come up. I don't need to appropriate language about "consent" for any reason for that, whether we are talking inappropriately about importing ideas from government to a group of friends or whether are talking inappropriately about importing ideas from the BDSM community. That's because what is going on around the RPG table has only very limited and specific relationships to forming a government or ensuring safety in a BSDM relationship.

 

[Celebrim]

@LuisCarlos17f - I can appreciate your depth of feeling around these topics, but considering we already have at least two controversial issues to discuss, adding a couple more probably won't help keep the conversation on topic.

 

[Celebrim]

Interestingly, I was wrong that "Bleed" was an academic psychological term; it was coined by a game designer and speaks specifically to the nature of role-playing (I also recall bleed being a plot-relevant concept in the Assassin's Creed). Here's a good primer on the concept: Bleed: The Spillover Between Player and Character - Nordic Larp

Aside from the fact that I agree that emotions can effect how you play, and how you play can effect your emotions, I disagree with mountains of that.

I don't particularly like the term "bleed" as a term for discussing that emotional spillover, but I'll use the term for now for clarity and speed.

And I think that there is a very important discussion to be had on just how deep your investment in a character actually is and whether it is for some levels of investment even possible to avoid bleed. It's one thing to say you don't experience bleed with a character played in pawn stance in a tabletop wargame, and another thing to say you are experiencing no bleed in a LARP where your character is conceived as and inhabited as an avatar of yourself and where you are self-identifying with that character, and where - in my experiences - many participants are seeing bleed as one of the primary aesthetics of play.

I mean, fundamentally I think we are all aware that what the writers calls an 'alibi' - "I'm only doing what my character would do." - can and often is an excuse for abusive play. And a lot of the language I'm seeing around "bleed" is I think cover for abusive and manipulative actions.

 

[dragoner]

ensuring safety in a BSDM relationship.

For the wall of text smoke screen, you always end with the lurid exposition.

However:

what is going on around the RPG table has only very limited and specific relationships to forming a government

This is wrong, it does have a strong linear relevance through power structure, and everyone having a voice at the table.

 

[Celebrim]

For the wall of text smoke screen, you always end with the lurid exposition

Do you or do you not agree that specific language and ideas in the document "Consent in Gaming" were borrowed from the BDSM community? Because, for all the "wall of text smoke screen", you seem have a problem dealing with blunt fact.

This is wrong, it does have a strong linear relevance through power structure, and everyone having a voice at the table.

We aren't forming a government and power structures at a gaming table. The very fact that people are arguing about creating formal power dynamics in the name of protecting people is one of the things that makes me very leery of the actual motivations here. Governments aren't part of your daily social arrangements because in your daily social arrangements no one has to submit to anyone, no one has to reserve the right to dispense justice, no one has to be granted power over anyone else, and we don't have to reserve the right to violence to any member of the group, and so forth. We don't normally form formal contracts in order to regulate friendly behavior. We sure as heck shouldn't be adopting the norms of forming a government to our social play.