A player feeling attacked.

[Red hat]

In one of my recent online sessions I run things where going well and people were enjoying them self with the normal banter joking with each other and ribbing each other as they often do. there is no malice to it but people like to have fun. This is also a campaign where by it's nature the player characters cant necessarily trust each other. The party is understandably concerned that there may be a traitor in there midst. ((truth is they are almost all traitors in one way or another but they don't know that.))

For example

Player one I thought it was a good idea.

Player two: You think hugging a wild bear who cant see you is a good idea. your judgement is hardly a high threshold.

This all seemed fine and friendly banter until one of my players excused himself abruptly in a after session discussion. (lets call them player blue) He informed (and I am glad he did) that he couldn't handle the feeling of being attacked like that and while he is sure nobody ment anything by it he may have to quit if this continues.

Worth noting this player is hardly the parties punching bad by any means. in fact there is a character with particularly bad wisdom who is the most joked about but he sees it all as good fun and understands the separation from him and his character. (lets call them player red.)

Now player blue is the first to jump in for jokes about player red and there are laughs all around the table. Blue jokes at his expense like how bad he is at certain skills and how he is likely to set the whole party on fire in the attempt.

Now to be clear I don't blame any one for this and I think the player coming to me with this problem was the mature and right thing to do.

Honestly I feel like I feel like I have failed at a dm that one of my players has left a session feeling hurt.

So my question is what is the best way for me to deal with this? If it was one person being a bully I could take them aside and tell them to reel it in and if they can they are out. or If I could point out any really unacceptable behaviour I could address it.

But here I am at a cross road. I don't think this campaign can survive without banter. I am thinking of bringing the campaign to a close and moving on. after all if not every one is having fun I feel there are plenty of other games and campaigns we could be playing where eveyone can enjoy themselves.

a kind of if not every one is enjoying rugby we can play tag instead kind of thing.

Thank you for taking the time to read all this and I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Wizard_Lizard]

maybe ask everyone to tone it down a littlw bit?

[DeTess]

Can player blue give any specific examples as to what made them feel bad? If they can, it could give you something to work with.

[Nightgaun7]

He informed (and I am glad he did) that he couldn't handle the feeling of being attacked like that and while he is sure nobody ment anything by it he may have to quit if this continues.
...
Now player blue is the first to jump in for jokes about player red and there are laughs all around the table. Blue jokes at his expense like how bad he is at certain skills and how he is likely to set the whole party on fire in the attempt.

Honestly I feel like I feel like I have failed at a dm that one of my players has left a session feeling hurt.
...
I am thinking of bringing the campaign to a close and moving on. after all if not every one is having fun I feel there are plenty of other games and campaigns we could be playing where eveyone can enjoy themselves.

Tell Blue to either learn to take what he dishes out or not show up. No reason to ruin everyone else's fun for someone too sensitive.

[Aett_Thorn]

Do you know if this is one of blue’s trigger areas? Some people have some deep insecurities in certain areas, and while they can joke and enjoy 99% of banter, jokes directed at a certain aspect of who they are might make them feel more attacked.

In this instance, they might have felt like they were being called stupid, which could make them shut down if that’s an area of insecurity.

It might just be that this person can’t take what they dish out, but it might be something else.

[War_lord]

Tell them to either develop thicker skin or leave. If the group dynamic involves banter, and this player can't handle it, it means they don't fit the dynamic.

[Shuruke]

So this might just be me

Buy blues jokes toward red are about character stats etc

The comment to blue was about player decision. In which the player thought something was good idea and something was said.

I'd just bring it up that u wanna be able to have fun but the ribbing needs toned down

[The Kool]

Alright so I noticed a couple things here.

Blue isn't being singled out, but rather everyone is ribbing on everyone.
Blue is jumping in with the banter... possibly forcing himself to keep up with it?
Blue did not accuse anyone of anything, kept it personal (their own interaction with and reaction to the group, not the group's interaction with them).
Blue came to you in private and raised his concern before anything became a group problem.
Everyone else seems to be having a great time, and the banter seems to help the group thrive (you should check in on this with each player!).

Here are my conclusions:
Blue is a very mature player. There's no 'suck it up, cupcake' that needs to happen here. It's very important to note that some people cannot abide banter like this for long periods of time. I'm one, I would know. It's not that the banter itself is a problem, it's just that it gets to them in a not good way. Unfortunately, the answer isn't just "tell everyone to tone it down" because that can easily sow resentment among the group and throw a wet blanket on the game, which is a lightning fast way to kill a group. You can absolutely check in with each player and see if they're cool with dialing it down a notch, but to establish some kind of ban on banter would kill the dynamic and I can tell you know this. The truth is, some people just don't work in some groups, and I'm not sure this player is a good fit for this particular group. They're mature enough to see it, so I don't suspect any hard feelings if you leave over a handshake and a promise to include them next time you can pull together a fitting group. Excluding them is obviously not ideal, but it may be the best answer. Also worth noting: Nothing you have done here is a failure. You are not personally responsible for the actions and attitudes of your players. As you said, if there was some uncool behavior you could put your finger on that would be different. As far as I can tell, you're running a group with a certain set of humor, and one player has realized that he doesn't mesh with the group dynamic. This happens.

Here's what I recommend:
Check with Blue. Is there anything specific that they have a complaint about? Were there any comments that stood out? How do they feel about things? It sounds cliche, but it can help you zero in on the issue.
Check with every other player. Are they cool with toning it down a notch, in light that the banter may be getting a little too personal or straying into some sensitive territory? If they're reluctant, don't force the issue, see the aforementioned wet blanket.
Let it run another session, and see if it smooths out. If it does, keep an eye on things and check back in with Blue every so often to make sure you've still got a thumbs up. Make sure he knows you're willing to find another solution if it didn't work.
If another solution presents itself, I don't want to hold you back from it, but if all else fails then make sure Blue leaves on good terms.

[Keravath]

I think we and you probably need more information.

I also think it is possible you can identify the problematic issues just by listening to the "banter".

Comments can be in character and out of character. Sometimes folks will make comments that are ambiguous and they may smile/smirk or do something else to make it more ambiguous.

Joking about a character's low wisdom stat will get pretty boring after a while but it is pretty clearly in character.

However, it sounds like some of the comments are not directed to the character but the player or are intentionally ambiguous so it can be hard to tell. Some folks intentionally like to tease others.

The comment about the bear is a good example. The player who suggested it might have thought it sounded like a fun and cool thing to do. The other player essentially called it a stupid idea bringing the player's judgement into question.

Maybe the character who wanted to hug the bear has a particularly low intelligence and they were role playing. However, if the player wasn't role playing that then the other players comment becomes an attack on the other player's judgement and not on the character's judgement. Alternatively, even if they were role playing, the players comment could have been interpreted as a criticism of the player and not the character.

This is made even more difficult by it being online where it is harder to see every nuance in how the other players are communicating things and what they really mean.

Anyway, as a DM, try to listen carefully to the "banter" and see if there is any subtext. Does one or more players make comments that are ambiguous as to whether they are referring to character or player actions? Do they address these to one player in particular? Does some of the "banter" amount to teasing or subtle bullying? or not? Try to listen to the comments from the perspective of the speaker, the person the comment is addressed to and as a 3rd party listening to the exchange.

P.S. These kinds of issues can develop between players with different approaches to the game. Some folks like to optimize, some folks like to roleplay, most are somewhere in between. However, when one player asks another about their choices (especially optimization vs roleplay ... eg 14 or 12 primary stat, unusual multiclass combinations, wanting to split the party for roleplay reasons due to the situation set up by the DM) then the comments can move out of character role play into criticisms of the player choices. You need to figure out what category the "banter" in this game falls in to ...

[SirGraystone]

First nothing in this is your fault as a DM, or mean that you are a failure in any way. As far as you knew everyone's was having fun and the game was going well.

Now that you know that there's a problem, what you need is more information. You need to know more about what exactly is bothering Blue, was it a specific insult that happened? Peoples get upset for lots of reasons, some who have nothing to do with the game, maybe he's just having a bad day at home, maybe a comment in game was close to bullying he got at school. The best way to see how to fix this is communication.

Once you have more knowledge on the problem you can try to fix it. Which maybe letting Blue leaves and keep going with the rest of the group.

[KorvinStarmast]

Talk to blue some more. There may be some real life things going on and that frustration bubbled over during the game session. Seen it before.

[darknite]

Not all groups are good for all people. D&D is a social game. We live in a society that increasingly asks people to accommodate the feelings of an individual over the comfort zone of the group. Sometimes that's a good thing if things are indeed going too far. And sometimes the individual needs to realize that the group is fine and it's their personal issue to own and move on.

[The Kool]

Not all groups are good for all people. D&D is a social game. We live in a society that increasingly asks people to accommodate the feelings of an individual over the comfort zone of the group. Sometimes that's a good thing if things are indeed going too far. And sometimes the individual needs to realize that the group is fine and it's their personal issue to own and move on.

And sometimes it's not an issue, just an incompatibility. Nothing wrong with that.

[darknite]

And sometimes it's not an issue, just an incompatibility. Nothing wrong with that.

Quite right.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Another reason to never run a game/table that allows PVP. Now that this has come up, its real hard to fix because the culture allows PVP. I declare it in Session 0; no PVP.

Now you gotta fix it. It will be tough, and may never really be as good as it was before. Sadder but wiser you will be. And you will grow.

Character vs Character is ok, with all die rolls in the open. Secrets can be kept from characters, but never between players.

I will go on to say you also broke my second Session 0 ultimatum. Characters must work well with others towards a commonly agreed upon (not just your personal) goal. Keep your antisocial dankstalords and other incomprehensibly motivated anime concept characters for that new DM who will let you wreck their game. Your character doesn't have to be 100% trustworthy, but I need to have a reason to believe your motivations are pushing all of us to the same goal.

[darknite]

Absolutely agreed. I've seen PvP work exactly once in a campaign in 40 years of RPGing. It's a group-killer and those who look for reasons to do this are usually squirrelly little jerks who are looking for a venue to let their passive-aggressive tendencies run free. Does this mean no inter-group conflict? Absolutely not. But PvP opens the door to in-character bullying and harshes everyones' experience, IMHO.

[Segev]

If you're concerned about letting it continue, don't know how to get more information without singling people out, and don't want Blue to feel singled out, I suggest starting the next session - or even a gathering that isn't in-session - with mentioning that you've had concerns brought to you about things feeling too hostile. Mention that you know nobody meant anything by it, and that the concerned parties didn't feel it was intentional, but that it was bothering them. Either go around the table, or ask everybody to write down, one or more things that they find upsetting. If they have nothing, that's fine, but if everybody (which may happen if Blue feels intimidated by everyone else not having a problem), you can switch to the writing-it-down method. Read them anonymously.

You can't give guidelines without specifics; "Do less banter" will just kill the fun of the group, it sounds like, as people walk on eggshells without even knowing what they're trying to avoid.

If Blue is a little more comfortable later, you can ask him if he'd be comfortable talking to the group about his issues with what upset him. This would be the best, in terms of laying things out. Knowing "oh, making fun of Blue's character doing XYZ is the kind of thing that upsets him" is the best thing for everyone. But I do understand why Blue may feel insecure standing up for himself to everyone.

And Blue may have to make concessions of his own; if he's not able to take things, he needs to not dish them out. But that's not a "how dare you" thing so much as a "please don't start the political/religious conversation when you're the one who gets mad in them" thing. If he wants not to be a valid target in the ring, he shouldn't enter it. If there are special rules of engagement, he should respect that he shouldn't set things up so that his special protections let him be unkind without repercussion. He doesn't mean to be unkind, I'm sure, but the risk is there.

This sounds harsher on Blue than I mean it to. All I'm saying is that it will involve some give and take and conversation.

[The Kool]

If you're concerned about letting it continue, don't know how to get more information without singling people out, and don't want Blue to feel singled out, I suggest starting the next session - or even a gathering that isn't in-session - with mentioning that you've had concerns brought to you about things feeling too hostile. Mention that you know nobody meant anything by it, and that the concerned parties didn't feel it was intentional, but that it was bothering them. Either go around the table, or ask everybody to write down, one or more things that they find upsetting. If they have nothing, that's fine, but if everybody (which may happen if Blue feels intimidated by everyone else not having a problem), you can switch to the writing-it-down method. Read them anonymously.

This is actually very likely to be counterproductive. If the group dwells on the type of humor and banter that I'm guessing at, then they are exactly the kind of people to (intentionally or unintentionally) cause strife when you try to do this. Groups like this tend to thrive on and feed off of each other, so you have a high likelihood of people poking fun at the anonymous person who raised the concern and making fun of whoever they thought it was (or pretend to think it was), calling them a wimp in some form or other. They may think it's all in good jest, but it's a quick way to isolate the one who did raise the concern. I personally find that concerns like this are much more effectively raised in private, where you can get someone to reflect on what they've said and maybe admit to being a little out of line, or possibly even admit to being uncomfortable. In the group, they have their image to uphold. They don't want to be the next target, after all, or even if they're not concerned the social chameleon effect kicks in and people are more likely to behave a certain way when around that behavior.

[Lupine]

Tell Blue to either learn to take what he dishes out or not show up. No reason to ruin everyone else's fun for someone too sensitive.

That's honestly the worst possible solution.

You'll lose the player, you'll lose the friend, and you'll lose the respect of the other party members because they'll see you as being without compassion.
That last point is because player blue saved their feelings until the session's end, which indicates that he's interested in playing, and isn't saying this for drama. Thus, since this was brought up at the end, it can reasonable be assumed that Player blue is requesting aid, and the other players will likewise see it as such (even if they don't admit it). If you immediately tell player blue he'll get none, it makes the others unwilling to confide when they're not at the top of the game, and removes you as the person who will give the players a fun time. That can be group killing.

Whatever you end up doing, you absolutely must make it clear to the group that they are openly encouraged to share their feelings with the rest of the group, and make it clear that player blue's feelings are valid, and not to be discounted.


I say this having just come out of a conflict in my group that nearly ended the group because one player felt he was being betrayed by another (for the record, this feeling was meta-gamed). the two fought and if I had reacted similarly to what Nightgaun suggested, the group most likely would have broken apart.

[Nightgaun7]

snip

You can roll Persuasion to put it more diplomatically, but ultimately if someone can't take what they dish out I have short shrift for them.