How to read player discomfort...?

[Wik]

Player discomfort - when the GM crosses a boundary (usually without knowing it) and at least one player is made uncomfortable by the situation. Sometimes, the GM should have known he was crossing a line and maybe should have warned the players beforehand; other times, the GM really made no mistake and just didn't know that, for example, the player in question is terrified of spiders, even in a fictional sense.

The question is, how to deal with it? How do you read it? Should a GM ask players beforehand what their discomfort zones are? If the GM wants to run a specific style of game, does he have the right to kick players out who are uncomfortable with it? Where are the "no fly zones" (ie, areas where the GM should naturally assume the players will be uncomfortable, and therefore should steer his game clear of those areas)?

And, of most interest to me, should the reverse apply? If the players do something that the GM finds squeamish or wrong, how should the GM react?

 

[Wik]

Okay, two stories, one in which I'm a player, and one in which I'm the GM.

First story happened a few years ago. Now, the guy that was running it, who we'll call "Pito" (as it was his nickname at the time) knew me fairly well, but didn't know about this one particular discomfort zone of mine. Namely, that I *hate* referencing sexual assault in any connotation.

Without going into too many details, I'll just say I know two people who have been victims of that. (For those that know me in real life and maybe are idly curious, I can honestly say it's no one you've ever met). I heard secondhand the details of both events. Thinking about it makes my skin crawl.

But I digress.

The GM at the time didn't know about my hangup, and you could tell that he didn't really think too much on the nature of that sort of violent crime. And I don't blame him - after all, we've played in D&D sessions that had gore left right and centre, dead children, zombie children, crows picking eyes out of sockets, incestful ghouls, inbred mongrelfolk, twisted genetic crossbreeding, hints of bestiality... the list goes on and on. We had previously established through play that this was a "Dark" campaign. And I had thrown some pretty nasty things at the group when it was my turn to GM. Why should this be any different?

Anyways, he set up an encounter where the PCs were supposed to be rescuing a girl from an assault.

I locked up. As the GM described the scene (and he intended it to be a short, funny scene, a fact which still makes me angry years later, even though I don't really blame him for anything), I literally went from a happy player engaged in the game to one that was really, REALLY uncomfortable. I tried dropping hints that I was uncomfortable that the GM didn't catch. When it came my time to make an action, I made choices that allowed my character to be the furthest away from the subject matter (basically, "I'll guard the back"). After two rounds, I made an excuse and left the room "Run my PC while I'm gone".

The GM never realized I was uncomfortable, although the other players did. We never spoke about that encounter, but I have a feeling they may have said something to him. To this day, I'm not upset at the GM in anyway; I am kind of upset that I never said anything. Because I really believe that, in a situation like this, where the group has already set a prior precedent for bad/"vile" situations, that the onus was on me to set up boundaries.

***

Second situation was yours truly as the GM. This actually happened last week, and it completely blindsided me - namely because what had made me uncomfortable was something I never would have thought would MAKE me uncomfortable. This time, it wasn't as big a thing, just one of those shudder/creepy crawly moments.

See, worst nightmare I ever had involved me being strangled by a garrotte. Literally, ten+ years later, I can still vividly remember the nightmare - and no, I have no clue where it came from.

So, last session, one of our PCs garrottes a harpy and my skin starts crawling. I laughed it off, because my reaction was kind of funny (I cringe when I see that on TV, but who knew it'd bug me in a game?), and then I shuddered a bit. "Yeah, that really creeps me out. Can we avoid going into the details, here?" I more or less said.

I didn't want to negate the player's actions, and just did my best not to think about the scene. Basically, on that player's turn, everything was mechanics until the deed was done (Thank god we were running 4e and not, say, Dread!) i

In this second case, I know I handled the scene right - I mentioned it made me uncomfortable, but it didn't make me uncomfortable enough to completely avoid it in game. If we were running an assassin-style game, it might be a different case, but as a one-off sort of thing, I don't really mind.

***

Here's the thing. I've been thinking that, as a GM, our boundaries/areas of discomfort often have less traction than as a player. AS a player, if I come across something I dislike or disagree with, I have the right to disengage from the situation. I don't have to stop the game to avoid this area of discomfort - I can even say "I don't like this, I'm going to leave the room while Bob plays my Barbarian" and let the GM make a future note.

As a GM, I don't have the option to disengage. If the player does something I find very uncomfortable, I can say to the player "Bob, that's disgusting." and that should be that. But if the player is doing something that isn't widely seen by the group as being something that would cause creepy-crawlies (maybe, for example, using a power or spell that might remind a GM of an unusual phobia), the GM can't really shut down the game. As a GM, all I can do is say "this makes me uncomfortable" and reduce the events to a mechanical level while letting the PCs supply the details in their imaginations.

Thoughts?

 

[Nagol]

Open communication is key. Having the ability to read body language / group interplay is very helpful for the GM, but nothing beats direct communication when one party is uncomfortable.

The players need to be mature enough / assertive enough to make the boundary known to the GM should it be crossed inadvertently.

The only 'no fly' zones are those the GM is uncomfortable running. The GM can propose any campaign he feels comfortable running. It's up to the players to make the decision as to whether to play in any particular game.

A GM should describe the specific style of game and elements he feels may be controversial to the prospective players so they can make informed decisions as to whether or not to participate. A player has little reason to complain about the campaign elements being uncomfortable if those elements were disclosed to the player in advance of play.

If a player decides to participate and then finds he is more uncomfortable than expected, he can ask the GM if some elements can be de-emphasized, but should be prepared to step aside if the GM thinks those elements are necessary for the campaign he expects to run. If a player is uncomfortable and doesn't leave voluntarily and the discomfort is affecting the rest of the group, then the GM should take action.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Here's the thing. I've been thinking that, as a GM, our boundaries/areas of discomfort often have less traction than as a player. AS a player, if I come across something I dislike or disagree with, I have the right to disengage from the situation. I don't have to stop the game to avoid this area of discomfort - I can even say "I don't like this, I'm going to leave the room while Bob plays my Barbarian" and let the GM make a future note.

As a GM, I don't have the option to disengage. If the player does something I find very uncomfortable, I can say to the player "Bob, that's disgusting." and that should be that. But if the player is doing something that isn't widely seen by the group as being something that would cause creepy-crawlies (maybe, for example, using a power or spell that might remind a GM of an unusual phobia), the GM can't really shut down the game. As a GM, all I can do is say "this makes me uncomfortable" and reduce the events to a mechanical level while letting the PCs supply the details in their imaginations.

Thoughts?

I think it's quite the opposite.

The GM designs and controls the universe. Those areas that the GM is uncomfortable with simply don't exist and the players will never have an opportunity to interact with them. How many times have you run a sexual assault encounter? (I expect the answer is zero). The only time such activities can be brought up is when the players attempt those action proactively.

If the GM has a very strong feeling about actions that reasonable players may attempt, he should inform them at campaign start (as part of the controversial nature of the campaign -- for example, "evil characters are welcome and even encouraged, but no sexual assault is allowed" (reasonable players may assume sexual assault is an option for evil characters). If the GM becomes squeamish during a session, dropping the actions to a mechanical level, fading to black, or having an abrupt change of events are tools in his arsenal that players generally don't have access to use.

 

[IronWolf]

I think this is definitely a case for how important communication is within a gaming group. Sometimes the DM can read the situation and adjust accordingly, sometimes people just miss the cues and the subject needs drawn out verbally. In either case the group needs to recognize the concern and then adjust accordingly.

To me accordingly means that the game is supposed to be fun and while exploring some subject areas can be fun from the roleplaying aspect there are times it just might cross the line of someone else's definition of comfort. In most cases I would suggest the DM steer the story away from whatever is causing this larger discomfort and carry on.

To do any of this means communicating within the group though - both to recognize and to resolve the feelings of discomfort.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

This is one of the things I find interesting about TTRPGS. They seem to evoke emotions more strongly in me than other forms of entertainment. I find I will react as if the events in the game as if they are actually happening, and act accordingly in the game.

 

[Oryan77]

I find I will react as if the events in the game as if they are actually happening, and act accordingly in the game.

This is what I was thinking.

I don't mean to downplay anyone's "hang-ups" or whatever, but it comes off as strange to me when we can pretend to murder & rob people, but then some other particular scenario is considered taboo. I can understand being uncomfortable with issues, because there are things that I am uncomfortable with. I either ask players beforehand not to delve into that issue, or I will run through the scenario as fast as I can (as DM) so it isn't a focus in the game for too long. But overall, nothing is going to cause me to be so uncomfortable that I'm going to react to it in an awkward way.

I really hate the idea of a person being raped. I think that is the worst thing that a human being could ever deal with other than child molestation. It's an act that is pretty much torture for life. I get pretty emotional seeing it simulated in movies. But heck, I ran an NPC once that was a Satyr wanted for raping women. After the PCs turned him in, he was hanged & left in town as a warning to criminals.

I wouldn't react all negatively if rape happened in game (unless if maybe it was happening to a PC) because it gives me the chance that I don't really have in real life; to stop it or get some serious revenge. Even if it happened to a PC, I wouldn't react towards it because of it being too taboo, I would be reacting towards it in the same way as a DM telling a player her PC is pregnant, it's just annoying.

I'm not a drama queen in any way and I prefer not to play with people that are. If my friend was being a drama queen, I'd probably just tell him to relax and chill out...then offer him a beer because beer fixes everything. D&D is a fun hobby for me, but I'm not going to be emotional over something in game. I see it as another challenge to deal with. Plus I think my PC torturing & killing a rapist would be a much better story to tell than yet another tale of how I defeated a big monster with my awesomeness & lucky dice rolls.

 

[Sunseeker]

I admit to be neither good at expressing discomfort as a player, or catching it as a GM. As a player, I tend to simply "close up", ya know, blank expression, crossed arms, leaning away from the gaming table, and not saying much. These are my signs, though even if someone else did them exactly, I probably wouldn't catch it. Even though from my psycology reading, I know these are common signs, but I would still undoubtedly miss them in others.

I do however, try my best to explain what players are getting into in the beginning of any campaign. How I like to tell a story, how I describe things, what I like to avoid, and I try to get player feedback THEN, so I can prepare ahead of time. Of course, best laid plans and all that.

As a player, I try to talk to the DM when they make it clear that talking to them is OK, I don't like to make my upsetness public, so I generally wait for the smoke/bathroom/food break or after the game.

Generally, I try to avoid symbolism. Yes, it's good writing, but good symbolism is often wasted on a tabletop game, which leaves only bad symbolism. If I write a character named "Sally Parlin and she stands up to the beloved king Omanka, and thus gets hung...." well that's gonna open a kettle of fish I just don't want to get into.

Though it's hardly a squeemish point, religion and politics probably makes me the most uncomfortable in any game. Political intrigue is hella fun when it's clearly limited to the game world. The occassional political/religious joke is usually acceptable, as long as it's in good taste. But when people start going off on X politician or Y religion, well, that's what makes me uncomfortable the most.

Both as a GM, since it's my job to ensure everyone doesn't throttle each other, and as a player since being very politically educated makes me prone to engaging in heated debate at the slightest hint of these things.


In response to Oryan77: It's the nature of people, we shy away from things that upset us. Most of the violence in any tabletop game is pretty mundane compared to just about any show on daytime television these days.

And lets take your rape example. What if we have an evil-aligned character(which is not uncommon in most games) who in IRL would gut anyone they saw trying to rape someone else. Unless everyone understands that they're playing their character full-hilt, then it comes off as weird when they say, let the rape happen, or even defend the rapist! Then someone comes out with that they had a friend who was raped, and even if it's in-game, now hates player X for playing their character full-tilt. Pretty soon there's a rift between the people who take role-playing really serious and the people who think some actions, be they IRL or in-game are just inexcuable.

Not everyone excells at keeping game-life and IRL seperate.

So keeping role-playing a fun hobby usually involves avoiding certain subjects to make sure everything stays fun.

 

[Wik]

I think it's quite the opposite.

The GM designs and controls the universe. Those areas that the GM is uncomfortable with simply don't exist and the players will never have an opportunity to interact with them. How many times have you run a sexual assault encounter? (I expect the answer is zero). The only time such activities can be brought up is when the players attempt those action proactively.

If the GM has a very strong feeling about actions that reasonable players may attempt, he should inform them at campaign start (as part of the controversial nature of the campaign -- for example, "evil characters are welcome and even encouraged, but no sexual assault is allowed" (reasonable players may assume sexual assault is an option for evil characters). If the GM becomes squeamish during a session, dropping the actions to a mechanical level, fading to black, or having an abrupt change of events are tools in his arsenal that players generally don't have access to use.

That's an interesting point of view. I never really thought of it that way.

What I was considering, though, were those PCs who go "off script". I haven't had any of these players in a long time, and I think they're kind of limited to the teenage boy crowd, but I'm talking about those people who often just say "I hit on the barmaid". "

What if, in a game situation, the player goes "what, the barmaid doesn't like me? Okay, well, I take her out back. I have a strength of 18"? How do you respond to that as a GM? Or if you were another player who has my particular discomfort zone?

In this case, the GM has done his job trying to avoid the issue in game, and it still springs up.

For what it's worth, my players are a pretty awesome group, and would never actually do that. But even if they did, I could simply say "no, you don't. Quit being an ass" and they'd stop then and there. So it's really a hypothetical question.

 

[masshysteria]

Everyone that mentioned open, honest communication as being key here is right on.

Oryan77 makes note of how extreme situation can make for compelling conflict. But this isn't exactly true. It is the strong emotions that get attached to these extreme situations that can create compelling conflict. And on the flip side of the coin, these strong emotions can stop a game or gamer in their tracks. The game table doesn't necessarily provide the context to explore, vent, or cope with these emotions and, as a result, people get uncomfortable.

As roleplayers though, I think we try to put everything back into the game. So an emotional response ends up an in character action. If a player starts acting out of character or going against the grain of the game, going out of their way to do or avoid certain things, that may be a warning sign of a player on the edge of uncomfortable.

Edit: That's not to say verbal and non-verbal clues aren't present, just tossing out another thing to think about.