Returning to the Real World

Debriefing After Role-playing Games

Debriefing is a somewhat controversial topic in role-playing communities today. While some individuals feel that games
should remain distinct from the mundane world and debriefing is an unnecessary complication, many role-players have
grown concerned about difficulties in the process of transitioning between intense game experiences back to mundane
life.((Sarah Lynne Bowman and Evan Torner,
“Post-Larp Depression,” Analog Game Studies 1, no. 1.)) As part of our Nordiclarp.org series on emotional
safety and conflict resolution in role-playing communities, this article analyzes the various formats, benefits, and
drawbacks of post-game debriefing after a role-playing experience. Though debriefing is most often discussed in larp
circles,((Eirik Fatland, “Debriefing Intense Larps 101,” last modified July 23, 2013, The Larpwright, http://larpwright.efatland.com/?p=384; Peter Munthe-Kaas,
“Post-Larp,” last modified October 23, 2013, Munthe-Kaas.dk/blog, http://munthe-kaas.dk/blog/?tag=post-larp; Tobias Bindslet and Pernille Schultz, “De-Fucking,” Playground
Magazine 2, 2011, 30-33; Lizzie Stark, “How to Run a Post-Larp Debrief,” last modified December 1, 2013,
Lizzie Stark.com, http://leavingmundania.com/2013/12/01/run-post-larp-debrief/.))
the process can also be useful in tabletop role-playing.

Ritualized Post-game Activities

Several scholars have
noted that the role-playing experience is similar or identical to a ritual, in which participants engage in a
liminal experience.((For a few examples, see Christopher I. Lehrich, “Ritual Discourse in Role-playing Games,”
last modified October 1, 2005, The Forge, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/ritual_discourse_in_RPGs.html;
J. Tuomas Harviainen, “Information, Immersion,
Identity: The Interplay of Multiple Selves During Live-Action Role-Play,” Journal of Interactive Drama: A
Multi-Discipline Peer-Reviewed Journal of Scenario-Based Theatre-Style Interactive Drama 1, no. 2 (October
2006): 11; Sarah Lynne Bowman, The
Functions of Role-playing Games, Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2010, pp. 15, 48-53; J. Tuomas Harviainen and Andreas Lieberoth,“The Similarity of Social
Information Processes in Games and Rituals: Magical Interfaces,” Simulation & Gaming (April 10, 2011):
528-549.)) Liminality describes an in-between, amorphous, and ephemeral space where the social rules of
reality are changed and new roles are inhabited for the purposes of the ritual. Drawing upon Arnold van Gennep’s and
Victor Turner’s theories, role-playing scholars note the ways in which just as in religious or other social rituals,
role-players experience a preparation, liminal, and return phase.

In the preparation phase, individuals engage in various activities to transform themselves physically and emotionally
for the ritual. In the case of larp, for example, preparation might include creating a backstory, assigning points to a
character sheet, crafting a costume, memorizing game rules, or building character ties with other participants. Recent
larp practitioners have advocated for workshopping as another powerful tool during the preparation phase,((Jesper Bruun, “Pre-larp Workshops as Learning
Situations – Matching Intentions with Outcome,” in Think Larp: Academic Writings from KP2011, edited by Thomas
Duus Henriksen, Christian Bierlich, Kasper Friis Hansen, and Valdemar Kølle (Copenhagen, Denmark: Rollespilsakademiet,
2011), 194-215; The Workshop Handbook, last modified July 29, 2005, http://workshophandbook.wordpress.com/.)) in which players have the
opportunity to build trust with other participants, develop their character backstories through scenes, and try out
mechanics or techniques that may come up in the game.

Similarly, role-playing groups have several informal
activities for the return phase of the ritual that have emerged in various communities as needed. Examples of solitary
post-game activities include in-character and out-of-character journaling, which players may choose to share with others
as game memories or keep private. Immersion into other games, narratives, or work activities can also help people switch
gears to another mental and emotional framework. Many post-game activities are more social in nature, such as dinners or
parties, often called afters. In recent years, post-game social activities often take place on the Internet, as
players post on social media sites such as Facebook, Google+, blogs, and forums about their experiences and connect with
other participants. We can consider these emergent activities forms of informal debriefing.

The bulk of the content of these forms of sharing involves war stories, in which participants narrativize events
from game as their character experienced them.((Stark, “How to Run a Post-Larp Debrief.”)) War
stories often have a humorous or excited tone regardless of the subject matter of the story, as the process of retelling
is often experienced as exhilarating. During war stories, players do connect with their characters by reliving their
experiences, but they also are able to create a form of distance by telling the story in a humorous or otherwise
distanced way. This distance is quite healthy for the psyche by allowing for reframing. Reframing is a way for
the psyche to make sense of the amorphous, confusing, and ephemeral experiences that transpire within the liminality of
role-playing by creating a linear, controlled narrative of that gets committed to memory with each retelling. War
stories also work to reinforce social ties between others who were part of the experience as they are allowed to hear
events from the perspective of others.

Ultimately, war stories are most pleasurable for the players telling the stories; their experiences are validated when
others listen and retelling allows them to relive the intensity of both high and low moments in the game in a positive
framework. However, war stories rarely allow players to express some of the deeper emotional content that they
experienced in the game. The format of the war story focuses on “awesome” experiences and emphasizes a sort of
exhilaration in the retelling. If a player is experiencing a negative response to the game, the war story format is
generally not compatible with a more serious expression of sharing, which might feel like a “buzzkill” to other gamers.

Recent discussions in experimental groups such as the Nordic larp and freeform communities about emotional safety in
role-playing((Johanna Koljonen, Peter Munthe-Kaas, Bjarke Pedersen, and Jaakko Stenros, “The Great Player Safety
Controversy,” Panel at Solmukohta 2012,  Nurmijärvi, Finland, April 13, 2012; Johanna Koljonen, “The Second Great Player
Safety Controversy,” Presentation at Knutepunkt 2013, Haraldvangen, Norway, April 19, 2013; Johanna Koljonen, “Safety in
Larp,” Presentation at the Larpwriter Summer School 2013, Vilnius, Lithuania, last modified Aug. 1, 2013, YouTube,
Fantasiforbundet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qho9O_EMG34;
Johanna Koljonen, “Emotional and Physical Safety in Larp – Larpwriter Summer School 2014,” Presentation at the
Larpwriter Summer School 2014, Vilnius, Lithuania, last modified Aug. 3, 2014, YouTube, Fantasiforbundet, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-cPmM2bDcU.)) emphasize the
need for these deeper, serious forms of sharing, especially in powerful games where physical and emotional limits are
tested. Such forms of testing can produce the experience of bleed – where a player’s emotions, thoughts,
relationships, and physical states bleed over into the character and visa versa – which can often produce lasting
emotional impacts after the game.((Markus Montola, “The Positive Negative
Experience in Extreme Role-playing,” Proceedings of DiGRA Nordic 2010: Experiencing Games: Games, Play, and Players,
2010;
Sarah Lynne Bowman, “Bleed: How Emotions Affect Role-playing Experiences,” Nordic Larp Talks Oslo, 2013; Sarah Lynne Bowman, “Social Conflict in
Role-playing Communities: An Exploratory Qualitative Study,” International Journal of Role-Playing 4, 2013:
17-18.)) For example, if one’s character dies or the life of a loved one is threatened in game, a player may
experience those emotions of fear and grief after the game is over. Similarly, if a character has a negative interaction
in the game such as a physical or social attack, they may experience confusing feelings of anger or frustration toward
both the character and the player in question.

While the informal debriefing strategies described above may create space for people
to express these feelings and contextualize them, players may feel uncomfortable sharing, especially if the play culture
does not encourage such types of discussion. Some communities strongly emphasize the difference between player and
character, which role-playing theorists call alibi.((Markus Montola and Jussi Holopainen, “First
Person Audience and Painful Role-playing,” in Immersive Gameplay, edited by Evan Torner and William J. White
(Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2012).)) The alibi of the game allows players to distance themselves from any events
that take place in-character and in-game. Classic statements reinforcing alibi include: “It wasn’t me, it’s what my
character would have done,” “It’s just a game,” and “You can’t separate fantasy from reality.” While alibi does exist in
that role-players are distinct from their characters, statements such as these are often used to minimize or invalidate
the experiences of others in distress. If someone wishes to express their feelings in a culture where such statements
are common, they are often seen as “taking the game too far,” “having no life,” or needing to “walk it off.”

Formal Debriefing as an Alternate Strategy

As a result
of these issues, individuals in communities such the Nordic larp and American freeform traditions((Lizzie Stark, et al.,
“How to Debrief a Freeform Game,” last modified on July 15, 2012, Lizziestark.com, http://lizziestark.com/tag/freeform-debrief/)) have started
implementing formal debriefing into their games. A formal debrief – as opposed to an optional afters — is often
integrated into the game as part of the experience and is sometimes complemented by a pre-game workshop session. This
practice was adopted from theatre, educational games, and military exercises; though the learning connotation is not
emphasized as strongly in the leisure activity of role-playing, formal debriefs can certainly encourage an atmosphere of
learning from one’s experiences within the game. In a formal debrief, participants take turns sharing their experiences
from the game in a serious tone, focusing on deeply emotional moments, both positive and negative. Ideally, each player
is given the opportunity to have equal sharing time in a formal debrief and no one person should dominate the
conversation. Thus, a moderator is often necessary to maintain the debriefing format. This moderator need not be one of
the game organizers, who are often overwhelmed with other logistics, but should have at least some experience leading
group exercises.

Formal debriefs are often confused with other formalized post-game activities that have emerged in some communities.
Examples include game wraps after one-shot games, in which each player explains what secrets their character kept
from others and their true motivations,((Fair Escape, “Game Wraps,” last modified August 1, 2012, Fair Escape: LARPing
Thoughts from a LARPer Fair, http://fairescape.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/game-wraps/.))
or MVP Awards, in which each player nominates another for enhancing their experience in a significant way.
Alternately, players may critique game design or implementation in such formal settings, providing feedback to
organizers. Again, while these activities are technically formalized, they often do not allow space for individuals to
share troubling emotions and usually resemble war stories more than formal debriefs. Games that feature “lighter”
content or greater degrees of fantasy are sometimes considered safer emotionally and assumed to not need a debrief.
However, in some instances, these sorts of games take people by surprise in terms of the depth of their emotional
responses, particularly if they experienced a trigger to some past emotional trauma unrelated to the game.((Shoshana Kessock, “Ethical Content Management and the
Gaming Social Contract,” in The Wyrd Con Companion Book 2013, edited by Sarah Lynne Bowman and Aaron Vanek (Los
Angeles, CA: Wyrd Con, 2013), 102-111; Maury Elizabeth Brown, “Pulling the Trigger on Player Agency: How
Psychological Intrusions in Larps Affect Game Play,” in The Wyrd Con Companion Book 2014, edited by Sarah Lynne
Bowman (Los Angeles, CA: Wyrd Con, 2014). In press for December publication.))

No one formula exists for the length, content, or number of participants in formal debriefs. Based on personal
experience, an optional two-hour debrief after a three-day campaign game in groups of 3-6 has proven beneficial,
although we also eat dinner during this time period, which serves the purpose of afters as well. During these debriefs,
we first ask players to share the most profound emotional experiences they had in-game for one or two rounds, then ask
participants to share their happiest moment for one round in order to end on a positive note. Alternately, two Larps from the Factory instructional
videos detail a 2-3 minute debrief one-on-one followed by a thirty second debrief to the group, in which all players
must limit their discussion to a succinct statement.((Larps from the Factory, “Debrief: Make a Round, ‘Runda’ – Part01,”
last modified Oct. 25, 2013, YouTube, EidZemVideo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K11k5toOScA&index=8&list=PL5ZRxNgrfrSEx6sRyJLeiFv1TvWjVmMPC.))

Other games, such as the U.S. run of the Norwegian game Mad About the Boy, featured a
multi-tiered debrief, in which individuals shared one-on-one, in small groups, in larger groups, and then as a big group
over the course of a couple of hours.((Lizzie Stark, “Mad About the Debrief,” last modified October 22, 2012, Leaving
Mundania: Inside the World of Larp, http://leavingmundania.com/2012/10/22/mad-about-the-debrief/.))
After this debrief, compulsive sharing took place over the group mailing list for at least a week, which was compiled in
a documentation book.((Sarah Lynne Bowman,
ed., The Book of Mad About the Boy (2012 U.S. Run): Documenting a Larp About Gender, Motherhood, and Values
(Copenhagen, Denmark: Rollespils Akademiet, 2013).)) Mad About the Boy also featured de-roleing
buddies: groups of three players who exchanged email addresses and made themselves available for serious
discussion in the future.

Other de-roleing strategies include symbolically placing a personal item of the character’s into
the center of the group; describing one quality that the player likes about the character and wants to keep with them;
and admitting one quality that the player dislikes about the character and wishes to leave behind. These strategies are
helpful at the start of the debrief as a formal transition. Additionally, players can make an effort to use third-person
language to describe their character’s feelings and actions during the debrief,((Stark, “How to Run a Post-Larp Debrief.”))
which can create additional distance from the role and diffuse negative dynamics with others.

Players should also take care to avoid saying “you” when addressing other players, especially in an emotionally charged
context. After all, alibi still exists, and the character performed the action, not the player. Some advocate for
separating players in debriefing groups who have experienced emotionally-charged dynamics in games – such as victim and
villain, or lovers experiencing a difficult quarrel — allowing individuals to feel free to express themselves without
inhibition. Others suggest keeping the debriefing space open for all participants to hear, as such sharing might help
people learn from one another’s perspectives and develop empathy. In this case, the multi-tiered option might be most
beneficial, allowing players to share as little or as much as they like in small or large groups. Additionally, game
organizers may also need a formal debrief with one another, which can help curtail issues of burn-out, feelings of
under-appreciation, and exhaustion.

Critiques of Formal Debriefing and Possible Solutions

Formal debriefing is not without its
detractors. Some individuals dislike having others reframe their experience by feeling compelled to listen to another
person’s sharing. Others prefer to process their feelings independently, reaching out to others when they feel ready.
Others have felt that the formal debriefing process is too long, taking away from valuable game, cleaning, or travel
time. Some feel that debriefing encourages a “culture of victimhood,” in which individual players’ negative emotions are
disproportionally featured over the positive experiences they and other members of the group have had, which colors the
whole experience. Some feel they do not need to debrief and others dislike feeling compelled to speak.

Such problems are not, in my view, reasons to discard the debriefing process completely. Much of these issues are
resolvable through sufficient moderation. Players should be allowed to opt-out of formal debriefing, but also highly
encouraged to participate as an important part of the ritual process. They should not feel compelled to speak;
moderators should open space for individuals to share, but allow them to pass if necessary. Moderators can use a timer
to make sure that each individual has enough time to share. They should remind players to “cut to the emotional chase”
in terms of avoiding long war stories and addressing the core emotional components of the event.

Moderators should intercede if a debrief becomes too
heated or accusatory, as debriefing should feel like a safe space for everyone to share. Encouraging third-person
address for participants is a helpful strategy for reducing negative bleed, i.e. “My character felt scared when your
character screamed at her” rather than “you yelled at me, which made me feel scared.” Ultimately, encouraging players to
end debriefing with happy stories helps each individual remember why they enjoy playing the game. “Happy” stories may
include stories with darker content, i.e. “It was so awesome when your character yelled at my character! I was laughing
inside, but she was so scared!” However, ideally, “happy memories” might include moments of connection with other
people, such as, “My character was so scared, but it felt so encouraging when Johnny’s character placed a hand on her
shoulder in support.” Finally, formal debriefing should not be viewed not the only method to resolve emotional reactions
after a game, as players can also process in informal debriefs, one-on-one, or in a solitary fashion.

Feeling Heard

Ultimately, the goal of any sort of post-game sharing — be it war stories, critiques of the game, or debriefing — is
for players to feel heard. Often, groups can avoid long-standing grudges, loss of players from a community,((Bowman, “Social Conflict in Role-Playing
Communities.”)) or post-larp depression((Bowman and Torner, “Post Larp Depression.”)) if
they simply provide space for others to share their feelings. Return to the mundane world can feel alienating after the
intensity of experiences within a game. The other players who participated in that shared fiction are often the best and
most qualified individuals to help one another transition. Formal debriefing establishes a play culture in which
emotional experiences are considered valid and speaking about these moments is not only acceptable, but normative. The
more debriefing is practiced in games, the less strange or undesirable serious sharing will seem to players unfamiliar
with the process.