D&D 5E Quiet players and social anxiety

[Umbran]

In my experience the quiet players are not the problem. The players who never shut up are. If only 2/4 players at your table are talking I would look carefully into these players behaviour rather than assuming that the quiet players are not interested.

I think this is a good point. Is the problem that one person is not engaged, or that a spotlight hog is getting in the way? The quiet player may have learned to find enjoyment quietly, and allow the hog their more boisterous approach.

 

[spinozajack]

In my experience the quiet players are not the problem. The players who never shut up are. If only 2/4 players at your table are talking I would look carefully into these players behaviour rather than assuming that the quiet players are not interested.

I have no social anxiety (in fact quite the contrary) but I am not at the gaming table to argue or fight for the spotlight. So if I find myslef at a table with hysterical spotlight hogs I just lean back and wait for "roll iniative". It is just not worth the hassle to try to stop these people for elaborating endlessly about how the tie their shoelaces or flirt with nameless bar maidens.

I do agree that spotlight hogs are indeed a problem, but I've seen many a session happen when the hogs were absent and that just allowed more spotlight sharing towards the other players who aren't spot-light averse. Both extremes are bad. The DM and other players should mention they don't appreciate RP Bogarting but once that's dealt with, (for the good of the group), it's still important to make sure the others all earn their keep and pull their weight.

My work when I DM is extensive, if it's not interesting enough to interact with the worlds I make, then just don't play. Once players are engaged in the story and the world, then you start to see what I'm talking about. In a long term campaign interest can wane (even on the DM's part), but having engaged players takes some active effort on their part too. A lot of time the best stories happen due to the players doing some cool stuff entirely on their own.

Even R2D2 had plenty of memorable moments and "dialogue", and he couldn't even speak english.

 

[spinozajack]

Ah, so basically it is gamer opportunity cost, then?

Sure, why not. If you can choose to invite or not invite people to play games with you based on any reason, including how much fun they are to game with, I don't see what's particularly mean about not wanting to play a roleplaying game with people who barely speak.

I will update what I said though about spotlight hogs vs silent players. The hogs are a bigger problem when it's consistent, but it's generally easier to convince them to share the spotlight if others are piping up, or visibly trying to. Even as a player, I find other players' vocalizations and roleplaying and ideas to be terrific entertainment. Those two issues aren't mutually exclusive. I could want to grab the spotlight a lot for one session because my character is more invested in some aspect of the plot, and others stand back a bit, while still wanting others to contribute and so I would cede the microphone willingly. But sometimes people get carried away and extroverts often derive a lot of their pleasure from that kind of spotlight hogging all the time, even when it's inappropriate such as a rogue interrupting a paladin's delicate conversation with his liege to make some jokes. Those kinds of things are really annoying too. But I would rather find players who are maybe a little bit too enthusiastic than those who are simply not engaged or engaging.

Silent players might be deriving a lot of fun from using their imaginations and being around all the chaos of a D&D game, but they aren't or are are barely contributing to it, then I think they're being a bit too much passive consumers instead of active producers. D&D players are also producers of content for other players to consume. If all you do is consume, you aren't filling your end of the bargain. I'm not sure what DM or group of players invites people on purpose who would sit there and not interact. Perhaps it seems a little unusual or an exageration, yet I've seen this kind of player time and time again. At first it didn't even bother me, actually for a long time it didn't. But then I found when I actively started realizing it and making player invite choices based on a variety of factors, that this was one of my criteria. I don't think I'm alone in wanting engaged players, or being a player in an engaging group with a good vibe.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Because those silent players are negating the enjoyment and benefits that non-silent players would be contributing in their stead.

There are limited seats at the table. Also, if only two people speak up most of the time, let's say, and the others are more seat-warmers, that gets tiresome hearing their voices and ideas all the time. I'd much more rather a democracy of relative equals than one in which 2/4 have the most say (because, let's say, 1/4 doesn't speak up at all, and the other isn't as assertive. Shades of grey, right?). If there is a gross imbalance of airtime spent in each session listening to a couple of the players, that's nowhere near as much as one that is more evenly distributed in terms of air time. I tire of listening to the same voices speak, sometimes you want to change the channel. A D&D player who is silent or rarely speaks is like an extra in a movie, not a headliner. Headline stars should have speaking parts, and in D&D, the players should all be the stars. I'm not discounting having a party face, like one usual RP headliner and a bunch of backup vocalists. But the backup vocalists need to contribute at least the harmony. Silence doesn't harmonize with anything, or rather, it harmonizes with everything. That is, silence is completely forgettable and discountable. And by extension, silent players are as well.

I'm not at all advocating people purge their own groups of players who contribute little, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm just saying, I consider it to be a problem in D&D, and in that respect, player types that cause problems (such as grossly unequal airtime because they never speak up) are by definition problem players. There are many other types, including the spotlight hog who always wants to be the star of the show and monopolizes the game, seeing D&D as their personal theater stage with everyone else playing bit parts and them getting all the monologues and soliloquies. Those are also problem players, too. I don't have solutions to all these issues, or even any, aside from the obvious, which is to talk to them and ask them to share the spotlight and sometimes to grab it to get their fair share. For the good of the game. It's more fun for everyone when everyone's contributing. I feel sad for those who don't contribute, and that is a detriment to my own fun, so I'd rather just not be around such players. I'd also avoid players who are jerks, immature, spotlight hogs, but if you expect perfect players you will be left alone. I don't expect perfection, or even want it, I just want an equitable share of airtime and it's everyone's responsibility at the table to not only not hog it, but also to assert it and demand it for themselves. People who don't do that, ever, or very rarely, are a detriment to the game's potential.

In an rpg session, it is up to all participants to contribute to the fun of the group. A player who does nothing but sit there like a lump and roll a die when prodded does little to add to the fun for everyone. Likewise a spotlight hog who rarely gives anyone else a chance to speak up, is denying others the chance to contribute. Both types of players may be enjoying themselves at the table, but in a cooperative social game enjoying yourself at the expense of the enjoyment of others just isn't fair.

Some players are under the impression that the DM is merely supposed to entertain them so they wait passively to be entertained. I blame too much story baloney worming its way into what is supposed to be a cooperative gamefor these kinds of expectations. Each participant should show up determined to help everyone at the table have a good time, not merely themselves. The goal is for each participant to be a fun force multiplier not a fun vampire.

D&D is a very socially focused game. It relies on a lot of communication between both player & DM and player to player. Like any social activity, a concern for the enjoyment of others improves the experience for all. Instead of showing up thinking only about " how can I have fun this session", try thinking " how can I help EVERYONE have fun this session". If all players get in the habit of approaching the game this way, there is a lot more fun to go around.

 

[spinozajack]

It's kind of ironic that we're talking about social anxiety, when just today this big news came out about treating it. A real discovery:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617115327.htm

I hope my scribbles don't come across that I'm not empathetic or compassionate towards people who have clinical social anxiety. In my time, I've tried my best but found that I can't really help.

At least we can be all happy that perhaps this will no longer be an issue for generations to come. Science FTW!

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Science? I think you'll find (he says, pulling his pince-nez to half mast and tapping the "D&D Forum" sign on the wall), it's "magic". Or "alchemy". Possibly "artificing". What is this sigh-ents of which you speak?

 

[Fralex]

I don't know how to express anger. I gave my latest character (the frying pan paladin from the campaign journal I'm keeping) the trait "I blow up at the slightest insult" thinking it would be fun, but when I actually saw opportunities to get offended I just sat there, unsure what to say. I don't know, I'm just naturally really soft-spoken and calm, and I rarely get angry in real life, so I don't really know how anger works. Are there any easy ways to act mad?

 

[Big J Money]

My advice is watch some episodes of Gomer Pyle, seriously. In just 3 episodes you'll likely see how to make a caricature out of anger without actually having to summon any real anger.

Or pick some other classically angry character from fiction that you like better and imitate the motions of that.