D&D 5E (2014) Quiet players and social anxiety

[Celtavian]

Same here. In my experience, there's usually one player at any table who's not saying much, often just enjoying the vibe and being with friends. And that's totally cool with me. As long as you can come up with "I attack for 12 damage" on your turn in combat, that's all I really ask.

If the whole table consisted of such players, it'd be a problem. But I've never yet seen that happen.

I have been at a table where none of the players were speaking and driving the game forward. It happens on occasion and it is nightmare to DM. We laugh about it on occasion. One of our buddies likes to play the lone psychopath that never speaks. In those groups that don't talk much, he becomes the party face. We always laugh when that happens because he specifically wrote a background suited to the silent loner, yet here he is doing most of the talking and NPC interactions. An amusing situation when it happens.

Fortunately I don't have that problem any longer and haven't for years.

 

[painted_klown]

As someone with severe social anxiety (I have to take meds daily, and still have my really bad days), I feel I must chime in on this (very) interesting topic.


Anytime, not just gaming, I am in a room with a lot of people (especially ones I don't know very well or at all), I will "clam up" and remain very quiet. I will take the time to "assess the room", so-to-speak. It's not that I am not engaged, in fact, I am extremely engaged. I am trying to get a feel for the various personalities in the room, I am trying to absorb the group dynamic, I am looking to see who the natural leaders of the group are, get a feel for everyone's character (in game and out), as well as trying to follow the DM and the story.

Being quiet doesn't mean dis-engaged at all for me. It means that I am just not comfortable drawing attention to myself. Speaking up would draw attention to me, and THAT, I am trying to avoid...UNTIL I am comfortable in the room, with those people. Once comfortable, however, my personality will usually begin to shine through, both in and out of character.

I used to be a "party animal" in my early 20s. I met a LOT of serious weirdos...like seriously weird people. I found when I joined a gaming group, I also ran into a lot of people with "non-traditional personalities". Being a wacky guy myself, I honestly must admit that I found it oddly comforting that those "non-traditional personality" types were there. It made me feel like it was "ok to just be me". It helped me knowing that I wasn't being judged on the fact that I'm not a "cool kid", but just on that fact that I was a nice guy there to share in a hobby that we all enjoyed.

IMO, YMMV, Etc.

 

[Riley37]

If I haven't heard much out of Player A, and I'm curious to see what Player A might add to the story, here's my go-to method:

- shut up and wait to see what Player A says or does.

If everyone else also wants to hear from Player A, then everyone else will join me in shutting up and listening.

If Player B would rather hear their own voice, and keeps talking, then what I want clearly differs from what Player B wants. *That's an issue between me and player B, not between me and Player A.*

There is a moment, in the Council of Elrond, in which Frodo says that he'll take the Ring to Mordor.
Notice that *everyone else has stopped talking* , and thus Frodo speaks without having to shout and interrupt them.
(Even Boromir manages to shut up and listen, for that particular moment.)

 

[Umbran]

I referred to DaveDash's argument as pedantic because I believe my meaning was clear regardless of using the words "shy" or "introverted" interchangeably. I was referring to someone who is not contributing to the conversation of the game. If it wasn't clear before, I hope that it is now.

It was not pedantic, insofar as how to deal with a person differs markedly depending on whether they are shy, or introverted.

Now, I know I cannot fully assess your actual approach from your description. But, taking your words at face value, what you do may work very poorly for a person with social anxiety beyond basic shyness. Specifically, such a person often does not want (or cannot make use of) someone trying to manage communications for them, or inform others of how to communicate with them. That can come across as condescending, which makes them feel stupid, which can incite anxiety. You cannot *tell* such a person that they are in a safe space. Nor can you command others to make the space safe for them.

In general, when dealing with an introvert, social power dynamics are not generally a key issue. When someone with social anxiety, social power dynamics matter a great deal - and the exact flavor of dynamic that can be a trigger varies from person to person.

 

[iserith]

I assumed you meant you try to get quiet players comfortable engaging in the game in whatever manner works for them. I usually take extra effort with quiet players because each person might respond differently. I like to get to know them a bit before engaging them. Even shy people or those with social anxiety want to interact in the game, but may not feel comfortable doing so until they get to know everyone at the table. Breaking the ice beforehand with a little DM style discussion can do that and everyone can meet each other. I usually do this every time I have a new player.

That is a good assumption on your part. I think others are taking my reference to expecting players to "hold up their end of the conversation of the game" to mean particular things like flirting with imaginary barmaids or engaging only in active roleplaying (as opposed to descriptive) all the time when that's not the case.

 

[iserith]

It was not pedantic, insofar as how to deal with a person differs markedly depending on whether they are shy, or introverted.

I disagree. I see the argument as pure pedantry.

Now, I know I cannot fully assess your actual approach from your description. But, taking your words at face value, what you do may work very poorly for a person with social anxiety beyond basic shyness.

I can only report what I see with regard to my approach: So far so good. But thanks for the advice, doc.

 

[spinozajack]

I struggle to empathize with the poster you quoted.

I assume he must have players lining up around the block for a seat at his table, if he can afford to dump friends from the game for being too quiet, so on the bright side he should never have to suffer such awful people for long.

I didn't dump my friend from my table, first off I was a fellow player and not DMing at the time, and it was I who invited him originally, and I invited him later to another game where I was also a player. Because I enjoy his company and we are old friends. However, another player at the table, when I was creating a new campaign with myself DMing, I asked what kind of game they liked to play, and who they wanted / didn't want to game with, and he brought it to my attention that in the 3 years of gaming with my other friend, he barely contributed anything to the story. Certainly nothing noteworthy. Like, "remember that time, in that campaign, when your character did this? Or said this?" Nope, not once. This was a 4th edition campaign which we were all getting tired of the combat-centricity of it (even though I generally love combat, it was getting tedious). But we've played with this player who is also a DM, and even as a DM, it's always modules and pretty much run like a videogame CRPG. Which was fine when we were 13 but not in our 30s, we've evolved from roll-playing and recognize the game for its true potential.

After my other friend brought up the idea of judging players who are near-silent during the game, in a game of social interaction, I had to concede his point. Even the disruptive player, or the rules-lawyer, had more positive moments that stood out and were memorable or even awesome. I'd rather a mix of awesome and awful than just silence. If the balance veers towards awful, then it's good to try and curb that type of behavior or just not play with them in the future. But the players who don't ever go out of their comfort zone, even in a private apartment surrounded by their closest friends, who are all geeks themselves, is just too much. It's like in the army, if you don't pull your weight you get the soap-in-sock routine. There is a D&D equivalent to that : make us laugh, make us say "awesome move!", make us cry, or ponder, or just think. But do something. If you're too shy to say something even in the midst of close friends you've known for decades, there is a problem.

D&D tables should be a safe space where you can both be yourself (within reason), and enjoy the company of others. I just find that, if you barely notice after a player has left the table (on their own), then perhaps it's better that they did leave.

D&D can be therapeutic and teach you social skills, hone your imagination, and even learn maturity, listening to others, taking turns, taking your time, adjusting your behavior to make yourself amenable to others while still being true to yourself. But if you are paralyzed in silence, then D&D isn't helping. And if it's not helping or therapeutic, and others aren't really even barely aware of your contributions to this social game, then it's rather absurd to keep playing or inviting this person. Sometimes you need to get out of your comfort zone. And D&D, while being comfortable, is also awkward. And that helps you grow as a person, and get out of your shell. Learning to roleplay cannot be done effectively in silence. And roleplaying is above else, what the game is. If you are into roll-playing only, then a CRPG or MMO is probably a better fit. There is more maths involved in MMO DPR calcs than any D&D character could ever have.

Different tools for different jobs. D&D is a social game, being anti-social and not even trying, is pointless to me. A waste of time even. I'd rather a player say stupid stuff (almost, as long as we're all having fun and said player is at least trying to contribute), than a player do nothing except attack or focus on his powers. If there is a preponderance of such players at a table, I would myself probably rather play a computer game instead. Even though I prefer D&D to computer games generally, there is good D&D and bad D&D, and no gaming is better than bad gaming. In my opinion of course.

 

[wedgeski]

I didn't dump my friend from my table, first off I was a fellow player and not DMing at the time, and it was I who invited him originally, and I invited him later to another game where I was also a player.

Fair point. I made a bad assumption there. On the general issue though, I still disagree.

 

[spinozajack]

In general, when dealing with an introvert, social power dynamics are not generally a key issue. When someone with social anxiety, social power dynamics matter a great deal - and the exact flavor of dynamic that can be a trigger varies from person to person.

Enabling shy or introverted players in a social game setting is just perpetuating their suffering and doing no one any favors. Not them, nor anyone else at the table.

Unless someone has autism or aspbergers or severe, clinical social anxiety (I know several who check those boxes), then if they play D&D they should speak up from time to time, is all my point is. If they barely even try, that's either lazy, or staying in your comfort zone. If you're not trying to expand your comfort zone towards being more at ease during human social interaction with close friends, then what's the point, right?

It's not like players need to give a rousing speech in full character voice if they don't want to.

The % of air time that each player takes at the table, shouldn't be so lopsided that one or two players steal all the daylight. But if the other players don't even try to make a peep, how can those players who do love the limelight even consider their feelings? This is an inherent problem to any round table. And in any other setting, if you have a seat at the table, it's because your opinion and your contribution should be considered, and it's up to the moderator (the DM) to make sure that everyone's voice is heard. And if you have no business being at a meeting because either you don't want to contribute, or aren't interested or motivated enough to even bother trying, then it's perhaps time to consider ceding your seat to someone who does.

This topic intersects with playstyle and DMing style greatly. The proportion of each session devoted to combat matters here. If you play, 33% of each pillar, combat, social, exploration, and contribute 0 to social, you're missing out on 1/3rd of what the game can offer. But if your game is 50% combat, and you have 6 players instead of 4, then players sharing their combat time with more players are losing 50% of their turns, and spending that much time each session twiddling their thumbs, waiting. That is a detriment to their enjoyment. Nobody likes waiting for others' turn to end.

More turns, more waiting. That's tolerable or even exciting when other players are doing interesting or exciting things on their turn. But just phoning it in, and never opening their mouth and shouting even "For Greyhawk!" once in a while, gets pretty dull after several years of that. Silent players impact every pillar of the game, not just social interaction specifically.

If you contribute 0% towards social interaction, and have no interest in increasing that to 5-10% even, then it's definitely time to play a CRPG or MMO instead, in my opinion. Just keeping a seat warm and rolling a d20 every ten minutes does not a valuable player make.

I have tried that, and found, as I was quoted in the OP of this thread, that trying to game with people you don't know can be eye-opening. You can, and probably will, find people that you barely know that you enjoy gaming more with, than the same old same old comfy shoes that maybe have a few holes in them and should probably be replaced for a fresh pair. This isn't just D&D related even. Meeting new people is great, and gaming with them can be great. Sometimes you outgrow old friends and need to make new ones, and D&D is great for that too, even in your 30s. Some of my oldest friends have turned out in the end to be some of the people I least enjoy gaming with, and some newer players I have way more fun with. It's definitely good to get out of your comfort zone once in a while and mix it up, there are billions of people on planet earth and plenty of interesting and exciting interactions and experiences to be had through gaming.

All I'm saying is, don't miss out on those experiences by staying married to gamers or tables that aren't doing it for you. And for D&D, silent players just don't do anything for me. And I know I'm not alone, because others have brought that up several times, both in this forum and in person to me. Silent players are a thing in D&D, and to me, a type of problem player.

 

[spinozajack]

If I haven't heard much out of Player A, and I'm curious to see what Player A might add to the story, here's my go-to method:

- shut up and wait to see what Player A says or does.

If everyone else also wants to hear from Player A, then everyone else will join me in shutting up and listening.

If Player B would rather hear their own voice, and keeps talking, then what I want clearly differs from what Player B wants. *That's an issue between me and player B, not between me and Player A.*

There is a moment, in the Council of Elrond, in which Frodo says that he'll take the Ring to Mordor.
Notice that *everyone else has stopped talking* , and thus Frodo speaks without having to shout and interrupt them.
(Even Boromir manages to shut up and listen, for that particular moment.)

Listen to the quiet voice! Yes.

But that doesn't negate my point. If the player who isn't very chatty, nevertheless once in a while pipes up with those surprising "I'll take the ring to mordor" outbursts, that's great.

But if those moments or contributions never happen, it's just as much of an issue as someone who's constantly blathering noise or nonsense or terrible, stupid ideas while thinking they are "the man" (like the doophus jerk player in the previous thread this one was forked from).

I enjoy people's company, I really do, even the guy who is always just fly on the wall at every party is still getting invited. But D&D isn't a big party, it's a select few. And you should have to earn your spot at a table. When I'm DMing, I'm taking lots of time to prepare an interesting story and adventure and plot, and if a player only contributes to combat and says nothing otherwise, they aren't going to be invited. The games I prefer have a healthy mix of combat and other pillars, and that's the base assumption of the game. Similarly, if a player is terrible at the combat pillar, and proverbially puts their helmet on backwards and holds their sword by the shaft, they will get killed in combat. Over and over. If your character doesn't speak up, they will also likely get into situations where it will negatively impact their PC's survival or their entire party's, so there are ways to force people to interact once in a while. If social interaction is literally painful to such players, I recommend therapy instead of D&D. But if D&D's to be used as a form of social therapy or just training or practice, then that muscle has to be exercised. You don't get to join my boot camp and not do any pushups or chin-ups or laps, just because you are out of shape. Same thing with conversation, if you can't hold a conversation in character to save your PC's life, that PC will probably die eventually. Sometimes you do need to be able to talk your way out of certain death. D&D is good to practice that. So allowing someone to staying in their comfort zone of silence is not helping them, it's hurting them. They need to practice themselves out of that narrow zone so that their new norm includes being able and willing to assert themselves in social interactions. And if they can't even do that, they should play MMOs instead I think.