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.

 

[Umbran]

I will, separate from that, note that... the issue of consent isn't really about "bleed". Bleed is a real thing, sure, but it isn't the major issue that leads us to want to get consent.

As noted above, bleed is when the emotions of a character impact the player - you feel sad because your character is sad. That's not really what including consent is about.

Consent is needed because some things impact the player, whether or not they impact the character. To choose an example with few moral entanglements - Thog the Mighty may not have an issue with, say, spiders, but Sam the Player might get nightmares from the scene you're about to put Thog in.

 

[dytrrnikl]

Define "regular".

For some, "regular" means a group of people that they've known for 10+ years, in their own home. For others, it is a convention or FLGS gaming space, with people they've never met, and whose ideas of what makes for good gaming, and how fellow gamers should be treated, are not well-understood. For some it is G-rated D&D, and others it it R-rated Vampire.

Some "regular" tables don't need it. Mine doesn't, for example. But some people might. And that's fine. Let them use it. Don't spend energy dumping on the thing in general, just because you don't need it.



We'll get to the idea of "baggage" in a moment...



Oh?

If someone came to game using crutches, or a wheelchair, would it be "bonkers" to shift some of the chairs around to make way for them? If they had a deathly allergy, would it be "bonkers" to make sure the pizza you ordered that night didn't have mushrooms on it? If you are on meds that mean you need frequent bathroom breaks, would it be "bonkers" to pause when you needed them?

Our would it just be common courtesy?

Health is health. Mental or physical. We slap a whole lot of connotations on mental health, because most of us have not managed to learn enough about it - we place a kind of blame on the person who has the problem. Referring to it as "baggage" suggests that really, if you wanted to, you could drop it. You could, as the song suggests, just let it go.

But, you can't. That's not how it works. It is less like "baggage" and more like "that old football injury" - there to stay, or only fading after a very, very long time, and it can, at times, be very painful.

Making some accommodations for a person's mental health is not any more "bonkers" than making accommodation for their physical health. Are you required to do so? No, not really*. Is it really polite and considerate? Yes. Your choice.



With respect, when we sit down at the table, we should all be taking some responsibility for each other - we are there for a shared purpose of having a good time. If one of the players is horribly inconsiderate or a jerk, we think poorly of them for failing in this responsibility.

The X-card is not "making another responsible" for your problems. It is merely a communication tool that allows folks with a problem to communicate that with a minimum of fuss. We have socially accepted ways to say, "Hey, I need you to move that chair" or "Please don't put mushrooms on my pizza". We don't have ways to say, "That is about to freak me out, please don't do that," such that folks don't argue with you over it.

I mean, if you don't want to know when something you've done is making another person uncomfortable... or miserable or freaking them the heck out.... that's fine. You don't want to know. You keep on playing having done that to someone.

Me, I want to know, and I want to be able to make a reasonable accommodation for them if I can. There is nothing in the content of the game that is so danged important that it can't be shifted a bit for the real-world person sitting at the table. After all, the content is for those real world people.






* Though, honestly, turning away a player with an injury, because you don't want to be bothered moving a few chairs... is kinda selfish, and folks would be within their rights to consider why you would do that.

Regular for me - any game table not being run for therapeutic purposes, ie, in my own home or someone else's, at a Con.

Calling mental issues baggage is not the best turn of phrase, just how I've always viewed my own issues.

I have no problems making reasonable accommodations for those with physical injuries. AS for the mental side of things, to quote myself:

"I'm all for being mindful,..." I follow the golden rule of treat others how I want to be treated. When I am aware of something, I don't go out of my way to trigger anyone. If I do say or do something, whether in game or in real life, which triggers someone, and it was something for which I was genuinely unaware of it being a trigger until it gets pointed out, I apologize and move on; keeping in mind what I just learned so I don't repeat it with that individual.

That's as far as I'm willing to go for others. On the flip side, I do not expect anyone to make any kind of accommodation or consideration for me. If something happens which causes me to become uncomfortable, that's my problem.

 

[AriochQ]

I had an interesting session that indirectly relates to this discussion.

We have a player who plays AL at our FLGS. He is almost entirely blind. Eyes clouded over, white cane, uses an app that reads his character sheet to him and announces die rolls out loud. Normally, I just treat him like everyone else since all the issues that would require special accommodation have already been addressed.

Last week we started Decent into Avernus and in chapter one there is a pirate captain who is described with having one blind eye, clouded over. Even his name refers to his blindness. As I read the description, I thought to myself that it would inappropriate to stick to that characterization, so I changed it on the fly.

I have been DMing for a long time, so it didn't interfere much with the flow. But, I could see some DM's being totally oblivious to something like that. Personally, I don't have much need for the consent cards/questionnaires/etc., but as our hobby grows I can see them having a place at some tables.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Bleed is a fascinating thing. A little bit of bleed can be exciting, a sign that the game is coming to life for the table, that everyone is invested.

Too much bleed is an ugly thing, and can wreck a session or even the group itself.

Edited to make my opinion on too much bleed sound less like it's the player's fault. It's one thing for a player to rage out because they stuck their magic sword in the magic sword destroying machine to see what would happen, and another for a player to have been forced to confront an emotionally-triggering experience in-game.

 

[Deleted member 7015506]

In my now close to 40 years of gaming (will be somewhere in November) I never experienced such things at the table. And I´ve been DMing and playing with all kinds of people from all walks of life in many different games and systems.
Personally I have certain morale values, that I more or less transfer to the table. Those things considered "mature" content are never explicitly played out or described. it´s mentioned with a sentence or two, but in a polite neutral as possible tone. But never ever it is roleplayed. Period.
if I read "reviews" about such obviously deranged material like that OSR "Carcosa" supplement, where all kinds of sick stuff is described more or less in detail, then I have to ask myself who was writing that and to what purpose. Certainly many will know what I talk about, but I don´t want to give that piece of crap any more advertising than it deserves.
An example for me handling such things:
If for a blood sacrifice has to be made to a dark god for the sake of the ritual, then the PCs arrive just in the moment BEFORE that actually happens - the dark priest has the dagger in hand ready to strike. very cinematic, very tense, but despite everybody knows what will be coming, the actual blood shed didn´t happen yet. The perfect situation for the heroes to act quickly and without great planning and still a tense situation without the gore and splatter.
the same goes for a prostitute tallking to a PC in the streets. there is little RPing to get the PC into what he wants to do, but no big description about the actual happening.
Such mature content can be handled more the way Hitchcock did it than nowadays.
And of course examples like the last one should never ever be present in games where minor aged players are involved. Perido and no discussion about that.
but otherwise? You fear spiders? I do also, but in games they are one of my fav beasts to throw at the party and I am a true follower of the Spider Queen.

 

[Isolfer]

My very unpopular opinion on this is it had value 15 years ago and a lot less value now. Today we have new rpgs cranked out every year, some without combat, many that are kid and family friendly. This is more of an inclusion issue than a health one. Years ago when it was just Pathfinder, dnd, and white wolf for that most part this would have made sense, now we have my little pony, no thank you evil, and fate which can all be worked to be a zero gore, low violence and light conflict games.

Thus I feel this is more a gm should list out what will be in the game and players decide what they can and cannot handle. The issue is you have a lot of people who want to play x game because their friend did or they saw this video or pod cast. It's like the little kid wanting gta at game stop, if the game isn't for you then avoid it. When I want dark fantasy I run Warhammer, bonkers I go dnd, high fantasy I go to one ring, etc. When I'm running a game for people that do not want gore, violence, or adultish themes then I'll pull out my little pony or the secret life of cats.

I'll admit I can see some use for this, mainly if you have a gm that doesn't have a list of what to expect or pushes boundaries there, or a young gm, but when I first saw this idea added on to vampire 5th Ed I grew a distaste for it on the grounds of the simple fact "some games are just not for you", and players should be able to figure out what games those are.

 

[Gradine]

I have to wonder if some folks don't look at a concept like "bleed" being applied to tabletop role-playing games and see shades of the old Chick Tract or Jack Thompson arguments peeking in around the edges. And I can understand the hesitation; from a certain point of view the difference between "bleed" to Chick Tract nonsense like "you character is dead, now you must kill yourself" doesn't seem that big a logical leap. And while the reality could not be farther from the truth, even those who can acknowledge that also know that the more the hobby discusses "bleed" and particularly it's dangers, the more likely some B.A.D.D. nutter will pick up and run with it no matter illogical it is. It's easy to imagine some respectable-seeming activist on the cable news after a school shooting from an individual with an incidental enjoyment of D&D to start talking about "bleed" for the moral panic to return, especially as D&D grows more popular.

I think that fear might be a bit overblown, is the thing. While moral panics are real and have negative consequences for quite a few people they... they don't really succeed, now do they? D&D and Magic: The Gathering survived. So did Harry Potter, and Buffy. Each subsequent Grand Theft Auto game has well outsold its predecessors. The Matrix still maintains its legacy, which if anything has only grown more fondly in the interim. After all, moral panics aren't really about the tangible things, the games, books, movies, properties, etc., that they purport to be about. They're a distraction, a way for us to ignore having to address the real, deeper, more complex and troubling aspects of ourselves and our society.

My feelings about consent and trauma and content warnings in RPGs are well established by this point. I think that between Session Zeros ought to be the rule in home games for this and so, so many other reasons, and that some sort of short, anonymous forms like this or the Same Page Tool coupled with some of the more frequent specific content warnings should be considered best practice for pickup-with-strangers games like at cons and game stores. I think that we do ourselves and our hobby a favor when we couch it in terms of trauma rather than academic psychological gobbledygook like "bleed" (which is much more likely to be misunderstood and/or weaponized) but that's my two cents.

 

[Arilyn]

It's a tool. If you put an X card in the middle of the table and no one uses it, that single card is not impacting your game at all. Should be no biggie, right? If it gets tapped then the player is in distress. Why would I ignore that? Same with a social contract. It's information. It's good to know.

Scenario 1
The PC who snuck ahead in villain's lair gets overwhelmed by thugs, and is about to be locked in a small dark closet. This PC has faced far worse, but player taps the X card. I'm surprised, but can easily shift the scenario. I don't need to know details. Game isn't interrupted, and player doesn't have to leave session.

Scenario 2
My player characters are in a plane that's going down. I'm getting into all the little details, the panic, the desperate pilot, etc. Suddenly, it occurs to me I might have a plane crash survivor at my table, and maybe I'm about to freak out a player. No one is tapping X card though, so I'm good to go.

Sounds useful for all involved. I don't get the vehement criticism. I really don't.

 

[S'mon]

Feel free to disagree, but unless it's a therapeutic RPG session, I can't support the idea of the X-Card at the regular gaming table. After over 30 years of gaming, I've lost track of the number of times various GMs have run scenarios in which I got uncomfortable due to my own real life experiences. Never once when it happened, did I ever think it was their responsibility for my baggage. The idea that someone else has to worry about my issues when I game is just bonkers to me. If I get uncomfortable when I play, that's my issue, not the GM or anyone else sitting at the table. From my perspective, the x-card idea goes beyond courtesy and understanding to being responsible for another's baggage/issues. I'm all for being mindful, but that doesn't mean we should be responsible for how others respond or react to something in game.

Yes, I tend to think my issues are my responsibility, unless the GM is clearly violating social norms. I'd count "don't rape the PCs" as a social norm, though!

I was a bit uncomfortable yesterday running Red Hand of Doom when I said "the hobgoblin plans to have his wicked way with the peasant girl"; in case it offended/disturbed the only female player present, who I don't know all that well. She seemed ok but I'm definitely more mindful of this stuff than I used to be.

 

[Umbran]

In my now close to 40 years of gaming (will be somewhere in November) I never experienced such things at the table.

"I haven't seen it, so it can't be an issue!" is a common argument, whether it be about a mechanic that's found problematic, or an issue of table management. It isn't a particularly strong argument.

First, we have the issue that one person's subjective memory of things from decades ago is.. anecdote, not data. Even if you were 100% correct, you don't stand as a large enough representative sample, statistically thinking.

For another, that you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Have you considered the possibility that, for most of the past 40 years, there has been such a stigma of such stuff that, if you didn't explicitly invite people to say anything, they would just sit and suffer? Or maybe leave the table to "go to the bathroom" or "have a cigarette" as a cover to get away and gather their composure?

Most people will reject that possibility, but... well, lots of guys say they know for certain that sexual harassment doesn't happen, because they've never seen it. Guess what? It happens, and it either happens when we aren't looking, or we fail to recognize it (or dismiss it as not meaningful) at the time.

"I haven't seen it" is not an argument against the existence of ways of dealing with such issues. I mean, my house has never burned down, but I have smoke detectors and a fire extinguisher. Risk mitigation is about finding low-cost ways to handle high-cost negative events.

Consider the following - Let us say these things don't happen at your table. But, you implement the X-card (or some other communication tool). You put out one lousy index card, and spend two minutes explaining it. If, as you say, this is never an issue, then... nobody uses the card. You are out one whole index card, and whole minutes of time.

It isn't exactly expensive.