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.

 

[Isolfer]

You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok. The analogy is simple: the world is as it is, not as you want it to be. You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to. You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.



Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly. You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content. Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at. Unless the GM or the other players know specifically what your issue is and deliberately introduce that exact same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them. Hate spiders? Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games. Recently got your house broken into? Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games. Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards? That's entirely different. I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season. Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers not describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel? No - it just means I turned off that program.

Like I said on this, if there was only a handful of table tops and all of them were the same then sure this want to make everyone else accommodate one person or two would make sense, but we have hundreds now if not more. Star trek adventures is a good balance for people that want to roleplay with challenge and avoid dark themes, just write sessions in rodenberrys style, low conflict and a lot of hope.

People saying it's wrong to expect players to be okay with the themes of the game seem to be acting like that game is the only one they can play. Star wars is a good one to avoid blood, gore, and themes on as well.

If I run a dragon age game though, ho boy we going to get dark and there will be issues. My players know it ahead of time, and I work to accommodate a lot of things, and I'll find players games that fit them with other dms, but there are to many ways for players to play and game systems out there for people to derail games

You obviously completely don't understand the analogy - and that's ok. The analogy is simple: the world is as it is, not as you want it to be. You can't just "make it go away" if you have some hangup that you insist others should cater to. You as an individual don't have the right to demand that other people not do things that you alone find offensive.



Acting like an adult means that you are responsible for your own hangups and deal with it accordingly. You don't get to tell everyone else at the table that they need to cater to you at the expense of their own desires in regards to game content. Its a game - don't like the table, find another to play at. Unless the GM or the other players know specifically what your issue is and deliberately introduce that exact same scenario into a game, you really don't have any right to demand anything of them. Hate spiders? Giant spiders are a staple of low-level D&D games. Recently got your house broken into? Bandits and thieves guildmembers are a staple of D&D games. Recently got mugged where the guy put a gun to your wife's head and your GM had an identical scenario in-game afterwards? That's entirely different. I watched a documentary recently where they described the medieval torture/execution of breaking on the wheel and it reminded my of my son's dislocation of his shoulder the week prior during a football game that has ended his season, as well as his wrestling season and probably his lacrosse season. Does that mean I should have demanded that the documentary filmmakers not describe how medieval executioners would break bones and dislocate joints to weave their victims' limbs through the spokes in the wheel? No - it just means I turned off that program.

I'm over here agreeing with you, there are to many ways to game and to many systems to game in for games to follow this logic. It's what ticked me off with V5, if at some point the lore of a game and the wants of a player do not mix and that is fine, if it wasn't we wouldn't have new games being made.

 

[Hussar]

/snip



I occasionally enjoy gaming in public spaces like game stores and conventions. I'd certainly like to participate in conversations regarding what may become the expected norm in gaming.

Ok, fair enough. Let's talk about that.

You are gaming in a public space.

1. As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game? Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game? What if it's never used? Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment? Why?

2. As a DM, if you're gaming in a public space, you must abide by that space's rules and regulations. It's pretty standard practice now for any con (at least, dunno about FLGS') to have harassment rules in place. But, let's run through a possible scenario. You are running a game at a con, with an X card in place. You are doing your thing and you are doing it well. Good on you. One of the players reaches out and touches the X card during a scene. Do you:

A) Respect the feelings of that player, gloss over things and keep the game going so that everyone at the table is having fun, or

B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves? I guess I just don't see the issue here. It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM. It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.

I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't see how this is a problem. Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?

 

[Panda-s1]

B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves? I guess I just don't see the issue here. It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM. It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.

I guess, at the end of the day, I just don't see how this is a problem. Why would anyone want to continue play knowing that one of your players is hating what you are doing?

really though, I'm like wondering how much you have to love something like spiders to feel so thrown off to find out that one of your players doesn't want to deal with spiders.

that or you as a GM are that offended that someone might be offended by something in your adventure, but it's not like GMs with authority issues are uncommon...

 

[Umbran]

Just make sure it's a cheap card table, and not one of those super-fancy, felted, wooden monstrosities! Well, unless you really need to make a statement!

And that statement may be... "Please take me to the hospital!"

(Link, because I don't know if this has been directly referenced: Post | D20 News Network )

 

[Lanefan]

Though these were asked of @MGibster I think I'll have a go at answering anyway.

1. As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game? Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game? What if it's never used? Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment? Why?

I know for me that though I'm nigh-certain I'd never use it its existence would cause me to sit there all session half-wondering whether someone else would - in other words, it would be a distraction.

2. As a DM, if you're gaming in a public space, you must abide by that space's rules and regulations. It's pretty standard practice now for any con (at least, dunno about FLGS') to have harassment rules in place. But, let's run through a possible scenario. You are running a game at a con, with an X card in place. You are doing your thing and you are doing it well. Good on you. One of the players reaches out and touches the X card during a scene. Do you:

A) Respect the feelings of that player, gloss over things and keep the game going so that everyone at the table is having fun, or

B) Stop the game in the middle and begin questioning the player as to why they are uncomfortable with the scene, spending ten, fifteen, twenty minutes of paid table time tracking down the source of this player's discomfort?

Far more likely C) Stop dead and (unless it's obvious) try to determine, either through internal reflection or by cautious trial and error, where I'd gone off the rails. Is it a cumulation of things through the session (e.g. one spider too many) or a single trigger (e.g. the rising water in the closed space has triggered someone's fear of drowning); and on answering this, is it something I can easily fix on the fly (e.g. subsequent spiders become snakes) or not (how do I change the rising-water scenario that's already in place and ongoing)?

Either way, whatever flow I had going (and, quite likely, any immersion the other players had going) would take a real hit. Put another way, your option A) is an extremely unlikely outcome as I might well have no way of knowing what to gloos over.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a table where everyone is enjoying themselves? I guess I just don't see the issue here. It's not like it's a reflection on you or your skills as a DM. It's simply that the player doesn't want to deal with this scenario because this scenario makes them feel uncomfortable.

But, assuming the DM is acting in good faith and isn't presenting the X-causing scenario in a deliberate attempt to trigger the player, the question becomes simply one of what that player's best course of action is:

A - silently hit the X card (and, in effect, veto the scene or (an) element(s) thereof)
B - leave the table (with or without explaining why)
C - raise a point of privilege (i.e. initiate a discussion)
D - stick it out (always an option, though rarely the best)

In something like a con game or a one-off where time is very limited and you're only likely to ever play with those same people once, A could have its uses as could B: things need to be resolved quickly. In an ongoing home game is where C would most likely come up, as there'll be more time for discussion and the intent is to go on playing with the same people for a while; also in an ongoing home game there's the added variables of whether it's the same player always raising issues over different things and-or whether that player is consistently finding much agreement from the other players (in which case the DM needs to do some rethinking; ditto if issues are coming from multiple players) or is an outlier (in which case that player probably isn't a good fit for that group).

I hope the above ramblings make any sense.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I never deliberately use a scene with the intent to trigger anyone. There are certainly dms who do. That being said, the highest potential for a quality game or story is when the dm deliberately casts aside such concerns as they would constrain him. I do this. My favorite dms do this. It only works in a group of people who go in knowing that they have no protection from such events occuring. That being said some people just cant handle that, and thats ok. That's why its still good to have dms authors and other artists who do consider these things. I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge. While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity. Definitely a place for it though. But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session. Pretty simple. Flexible. And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Though these were asked of @MGibster I think I'll have a go at answering anyway.

I know for me that though I'm nigh-certain I'd never use it its existence would cause me to sit there all session half-wondering whether someone else would - in other words, it would be a distraction.[\quote]

I dunno. After the first session or two, I imagine it would be like anything else - something that's ignored until it comes up. Sure, it might be weird at first, but, I'm not sure that it wouldn't just become something in the background pretty quickly.

Far more likely C) Stop dead and (unless it's obvious) try to determine, either through internal reflection or by cautious trial and error, where I'd gone off the rails. Is it a cumulation of things through the session (e.g. one spider too many) or a single trigger (e.g. the rising water in the closed space has triggered someone's fear of drowning); and on answering this, is it something I can easily fix on the fly (e.g. subsequent spiders become snakes) or not (how do I change the rising-water scenario that's already in place and ongoing)?

But, there's the thing. You didn't go off the rails. You didn't do anything wrong. Why would you think that you did?

Either way, whatever flow I had going (and, quite likely, any immersion the other players had going) would take a real hit. Put another way, your option A) is an extremely unlikely outcome as I might well have no way of knowing what to gloos over.

Meh, I highly, highly doubt it. It's going to be pretty obvious in context what the problem is, most of the time. And, again, unless your next scene is identical to the current one, why not just move on?

But, assuming the DM is acting in good faith and isn't presenting the X-causing scenario in a deliberate attempt to trigger the player, the question becomes simply one of what that player's best course of action is:

A - silently hit the X card (and, in effect, veto the scene or (an) element(s) thereof)
B - leave the table (with or without explaining why)
C - raise a point of privilege (i.e. initiate a discussion)
D - stick it out (always an option, though rarely the best)

In something like a con game or a one-off where time is very limited and you're only likely to ever play with those same people once, A could have its uses as could B: things need to be resolved quickly. In an ongoing home game is where C would most likely come up, as there'll be more time for discussion and the intent is to go on playing with the same people for a while; also in an ongoing home game there's the added variables of whether it's the same player always raising issues over different things and-or whether that player is consistently finding much agreement from the other players (in which case the DM needs to do some rethinking; ditto if issues are coming from multiple players) or is an outlier (in which case that player probably isn't a good fit for that group).

I hope the above ramblings make any sense.

Again, I think these are issues that are probably nowhere near as big as people make them out to be.

Use myself as an example. Some years ago, I wound up playing in a game where another player (a female player whose husband was sitting at the table) really wanted to play up the romantic interests between my character and hers. I got more and more uncomfortable with the whole thing. Not that she did anything bad. Absolutely not. It was 100% my issue, not hers. I just was really, really uncomfortable playing this out.

Now, with an X card, all I'd have to do is touch that card and poof, problem goes away. We move on, and play out other stuff. If the romance stuff comes up again, I touch the X card, and we move on. I don't have to explain anything, no one has to feel like they "went off the rails" just that I DO NOT want to play this out.

And, frankly, that's most likely how it would come up in game. If it's coming up every single session, well, yeah, maybe it's time to part company. You obviously shouldn't be playing together if every time you sit down together, this player feels so uncomfortable that he or she needs to veto the scene, then fair enough.

But, again, let's be honest, that's not likely going to happen. It's likely some small thing (at least in the scope of the campaign) that gives that one player the wobblies. Again, I find it baffling that anyone would sit at a table knowing that someone at the table is having a terrible time and basically want to force it out of that person why. Isn't it enough to know that the person isn't having fun to the point where they are actually upset about it?

Then, maybe later, over a coffee, or outside of the immediate context, maybe then have a conversation. But in the moment? When that person is already feeling like a bag of naughty word because of the situation? Yeah, that conversation is NOT going to go well.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

As a player, does the existence of an X card reduce your enjoyment of the game?

Actually yes.

Is knowing that there is an outlet for any player at the table, at any time, to veto a particular scene reducing your enjoyment of the game?

Weirdly loaded way to ask that but yes. Intensely so.

What if it's never used?

Its still there and severely breaks my immersion.

Does it's mere existence reduce your enjoyment?

Sorta already asked that but yes.

Why?

You can't make tom sawyer without prejudices (or other unsavory things) anymore than you can make a good omelet without cracking a few eggs. Powdered eggs are revolting fake food. Cant make a good sparticus without voluntary martyrdom and a slave rebellion. Cant make dantes inferno without purgatory (where babies go to exist for a while in pain and bees chase people around incessantly for years or centuries). And when these things are able to just go poof and disappear, you may still get a taste of the literary idea but its less visceral less grand less engrossing and less urgency is felt. Powdered eggs are but immitations of the real deal. An aspect of tge story is lost. Some of its vigor is suppressed. So too is a story with constraints other than those which directly serve the purpose of the story's potential.

 

[Lanefan]

I think the best way to handle this all is probably to have an anonymous relay system by which players can communicate to dms aside from the group and outside tye group's knowledge. While it does not provide immediate results, i think the best way is during breaks fir minor things and after sessions for major things as otherwise it may become overburdonsome to a dm to make instantaneous changes as they threatem campaign and plot integrity. Definitely a place for it though. But, while i find it not ti be the option that keeps people the most comfortable, i do believe the best option is a system of anonymity that is active during interludes and post session. Pretty simple. Flexible. And this option does not derail things in the middle of the campaign.

Following on from this, another option is to allow or encourage note-passing during sessions - the DM passes a note to a player regarding something only that PC would know, or a player passes a note to the DM regarding an action the other PCs don't know about, that sort of thing; such that note-passing becomes commonplace.

Then, with this now an ordinary fact of life at the table, a player passing a note to the DM that says "Hey, sorry, but these spiders are settin' me off" can raise that concern even more anonymously than having to reach out and hit an X card. The DM can then pass a note back - might say "sorry, there won't be any more" or "sorry, but there's a reason that these have to be spiders, and there'll be a few more before we're done with 'em - maybe sit this one out", or whatever.

But the DM is now aware, and the ball's in her court. Further, the time taken in writing the note back to the player is time the DM can also use to think of how to fix the situation.

 

[Deleted member 7015506]

@Panda-s1
I am old fashioned, when it comes to portray the different races IG. So, and I may be wrong, Orcs were always the bad guys. I don´t know if Tolkien invented them this way at first or he took inspiration from some myths and legends, but in the current MM they are also portrayed as "savage raiders and pillagers ", "satiesfy their bloodlust by plundering villages, devouring or driving off roaming herds, and slaying any humanoids that stand against them. After savaging a settlement... etc.etc." (p. 244). And on page 245 under the section Orc Crossbreeds is stated: "Luthic,..., wife of gruumsh , demands that orcs procreate often and indiscriminately so that orc hordes swell generation after generation. The orcs' drive to reproduce runs stronger than any other humanoid race, and they readily crossbreed with other races." So these two descriptions alone imply for me, that according to the basic standard orcs are not the good guys (but I may be wrong) and my remark "pretty obvious" should be backed by this and explained.
And without reading or quoting past editions of the MM, orcs are IIRC presented more or less the same.
Now that doesn´t imply, that all individual campaigns at every table are or should be played that way, and everybody is free to do otherwise, but at least the basic implication is there saying, that orcs are the baddies (for whatever reason). Perhaps a bit narrow minded from me since more modern games and takes on the game handle orcs different, but at least I see it that way.
IIRC somehwhere in 1E (Greyhawk setting?) there were percentile beakdowns of half-orc populations for each city. Now that is justified, when they are treated as a normal playable race. But already in 1E the question comes up, how half-orcs fit into societies where orcs are hated by elves and dwarves and vice versa. One of the controversal points of 1E for me.
The question for how humans come into existence? Well a very provocative question (which I like in a good discussion). As an example I amassuming, that a player may decide that his or her PC was born "illegitimate". The reasons for that may be manyfold and everyone in deciding for this path has to be answered for the player himself or herself. Otherwise I assume, and I think perhaps others too, normal RL ways apply in an RPG also with all its different aspects.

For the Weird Tales covers: The portraying of women in the mentioned way was certainly not up to everybody's taste, and I can imagine, that they also contributed for such magazines as being considered trash by a many regardless of the actual content. But for how long where these kinds of covers published and openly sold? Why wasn´t there a landwide outrage from the first day? Now I am not an expert on this matter, but why did it take so long until that changed? It took a long way until such things were widely considered offensive and society in general was different back then. I would certainly be interested in reading more on this subject, since I can imagine, that the publication of magazines like Weird Tales for example rose more than just one eyebrow even back then. But the prolonged publication implies, that it was somehow tolerated for women being portrayed like the said way.

Why I don´t want a discussion about the racism aspect towards the handling of goblinoid specimen? A perhaps one sided, very subjective answer from me:
Real life racism is an everyday all present problem that is affecting our lives in one way or the other. It is an ongoing daily struggle to eradicate it. Unfortunately I believe, that although we as a society came a good way forward, it will take still a long time until all people realize the equality of men.

And since I play for recreation and entertainment, do I have to carry all RL problems into my game? Is it necessary to be "true to reality" even in my free time? The answer for me is simply no.
And a question from my side: What does your remark "or maybe people are starting to question what is and isn't "obvious" and what actually makes sense in a fantasy setting. people don't shy away from all orcs being evil because they're "offended', it's because they know that idea is based in some weird ideology that turns out is not actually true." imply? Do I understand it right, that people start rethinking the handling of orcs? Well they can certainly do so, but implying that the handling/presentation of orcs always as the bad guys "based in some weird ideology" gives me the impression, that orcs are generally currently unfair treated as a kind of sub-race which needs to be totally terminated and eradicated for some obscure ideological reasons. I may be wrong in this point, but sorry that sounds for me like connecting a fantasy RPG directly to the Shoah. Or how is this to be understood, when you say it´s "actually not true"? What is the truth behind the nature of the orcs I wonder then.