How to deal with a very sensitive player who gets easily triggered?

[paladinofshojo]

Okay, {scrubbed}…. I am going to clear the air that I have repeatedly tried to work with this person.

She’s a friend of one of the regulars players who wishes to try D&D…. But she seems to be unable to tolerate any kind of sexual abuse within the game, I was told by the regular that she had suffered some sexual abuse in the past and he wants her to actually start hanging out with other people again.

Now, I tried to remove any sexual abuse elements, but apparently when we entered the Underdark and started to go through the Drow cities… she was visibly offended by the Drow’s treatment of their men. As well as the fact that the Duergar having a slave markets… now this is fine, as I made sure that the party didn’t get close to any of the more… unsavory aspects… of the city via some light DM railroading.

However, the main problem is that she is offended by another player’s character backstory…. His backstory is a CE half-orc paladin of slaughter with the usual implications…. She said she’s not comfortable with that and the player playing the half-orc said he’s not changing his character’s backstory to accommodate her personal feelings, as he’s been playing in this campaign since November and this new girl only showed up three weeks ago.

The regular who invited this girl also seems to go along with whatever her demands are and tries to tell everyone to just “suck it up for her sake”. While, I sympathize with her situation… I feel like I have been more than accommodating enough and it’s getting a bit ridiculous.

[Darth Credence]

Throw out 90% of your post, because it's irrelevant. What you have is a new player who has come to the game and demanded a change to the character of a current player. This is a pretty clear conflict with an easy resolution.

I'd bring it up to the table. Perhaps others agree that the background is troublesome, and would prefer it not be there. Or perhaps everyone else is fine with it, has been enjoying the campaign, and wants it to go on as is. Ask! If most of the table is fine with the backstory, tell new girl that nothing is going to change and this is not the game for her. If BF leaves over this as well, so be it. If the majority agrees that the backstory is a problem, take that player aside, tell them that the new girl brought to light that most were uncomfortable with the character, and he should create a new one. If he leaves because of this, so be it. (I'd count people who say they don't care as fine with the old status quo when counting votes.)

Of course, you will want to recognize that the campaign you are running will be attractive to a smaller percentage of players as time goes on. I would not be surprised if other members of your group tell you that they are indeed uncomfortable with some of the elements of the Underdark. Most people I know have long passed the point of wanting to play in a world where slavery is accepted - if there are slaves, the game becomes one about freeing slaves. That you had to "try to remove any sexual abuse elements" indicates that this has been a thing in the past and you would prefer it be a thing in the future. Anything like that will require a pretty specific group of people that have the same attitude to it as the rest to work - otherwise, the possibility of fights at the table is pretty high.

[OldTrees1]

1) You want the campaign to be something the playgroup will enjoy. When this adventure/campaign started you considered/checked whether the playgroup would be okay with a game that included SA and malicious PCs*.
2) The group (to various degrees) wants to include this new player in the playgroup.
3) You are finding the current campaign was not a good fit for the new player

* A PC Paladin of slaughter tends to mean the party will do more, and more severe, evil actions than the typical evil PC in a party.

The solution is weighing how much the group wants to include the player, how much it would take to adjust the current campaign, and the alternative of starting another campaign.

I suggest having another session 0 and then running a one shot. Find out what kind of games the new group (including the new player) would enjoy together. Then see if there is a reasonable way to bend the existing campaign to that style of game. It is possible that the new player is not a good fit for the playgroup. It is also possible the current campaign is not a good fit for the new playgroup. Finally it is possible that the current campaign can be modified to fit the new playgroup.

[Unoriginal]

Now, I tried to remove any sexual abuse elements, but apparently when we entered the Underdark and started to go through the Drow cities… she was visibly offended by the Drow’s treatment of their men. As well as the fact that the Duergar having a slave markets… now this is fine, as I made sure that the party didn’t get close to any of the more… unsavory aspects… of the city via some light DM railroading.

Was she offended at the NPCs for being evil, or offended at *you* for letting those evil persons be evil in this particular way?

However, the main problem is that she is offended by another player’s character backstory…. His backstory is a CE half-orc paladin of slaughter with the usual implications…. She said she’s not comfortable with that and the player playing the half-orc said he’s not changing his character’s backstory to accommodate her personal feelings, as he’s been playing in this campaign since November and this new girl only showed up three weeks ago.

The regular who invited this girl also seems to go along with whatever her demands are and tries to tell everyone to just “suck it up for her sake”. While, I sympathize with her situation… I feel like I have been more than accommodating enough and it’s getting a bit ridiculous.

Again, what kind of "offended" are we talking about?

Did she demand the player change the backstory?

Did she say she would leave the group if it wasn't changed, because she was that uncomfortable?

OldTrees1 is right that this should be stuff covered in and cleared by a session 0. The fact that she's a player who arrived after the session 0 means that the group has to present to her everything that was agreed upon during session 0, including "my character is the result of SA", and essentially new terms have to be negotiated.

If the group can't agree on new terms, then the new player should seek a different group that would agree, and your group should default back to the previously agreed terms.

Have you asked her if she really thinks one player should be able to unilaterally decide which thematics and narratives other players get to use during their artistic process?

[stoutstien]

I mean I looks like everyone is in the wrong here lol.
You introduced a new player that would potentially deadhead the game.

The mutual friend is putting their relationship with the new member over the game.

You have a CE PC which is a time bomb regardless if you do want to enforce any sort of moral boundaries.

You don't owe any player anything but you are likely the elected game manager by nature of being the GM. This mean open frank communication outside of the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

I suggest having another session 0 and then running a one shot. .

Agree with the former, not with the latter. This small group has already formed. A new member has not gone through the forming storming, norming, performing steps and yet she demands that her preferences dominate the group's established norms.
Textbook case of a toxic player. (It may be unintentional, but it is what it is).
BF: enabler of a toxic player.

Step 1: talk to the BF, and explain what has been done to the harmony of the group. Ask if he is aware of what he's doing. Ask him to be your advocate as campaign manager. She's the newbie, her first appeal needs to be to him, and he needs to have your back.
Step 2: talk to her, and explain that no, she does not have veto rights over other characters created by other players nor your NPCs. She has rights over her character.
Step 3: Explain that you will tailor your descriptions to avoid certain triggers. You have already done so, sure, but making a commitment to keep your descriptions in PG versus R level should help some. Ask that all players do the same as the example you set.
Step 4: Discuss with the whole group the ways to use the X card, and make sure the whole group is in on that conversation. Find out of the whole table is on board. (Some people find the X card to harm table culture/norms, some folks find it a great tool, separate topic).
Step 5: Find out if they are willing to accept those limitations.

If yes, proceed.

If no, your group is now fundamentally dysfunctional: sorry DM, but it's gonna be a crap show. Been through variations of this before as SOs of players join a group (or leave a group) and the tension between the old group assumptions and new group assumptions change. A good portion of those games broke up, unfortunately.

If the group can't agree on new terms, then the new player should seek a different group that would agree, and your group should default back to the previously agreed terms.

Have you asked her if she really thinks one player should be able to unilaterally decide which thematics and narratives other players get to use during their artistic process?

Great post in general, but in particular I like how you presented these points.

[Biggus]

However, the main problem is that she is offended by another player’s character backstory…. His backstory is a CE half-orc paladin of slaughter with the usual implications…. She said she’s not comfortable with that and the player playing the half-orc said he’s not changing his character’s backstory to accommodate her personal feelings, as he’s been playing in this campaign since November and this new girl only showed up three weeks ago.

You say this character's backstory is being a CE Paladin of Slaughter. For clarity, are they still CE and still upholding their PoS oath?

If so, and if that kind of thing (and generally dark themes like slavery and gross inequality) are fairly common in your games, it sounds to me like this is probably not the group for her. If not and this adventure just happens to be unusually dark, maybe suggest she comes back when the next adventure starts?

[Anymage]

My hunch is that the paladin's issue is less about being a CE paladin of slaughter, and more about a a common problematic half orc background. Which if that's the case, and it comes up often enough to be relevant and the player isn't willing to write off the circumstances of their conception as immaterial to the current game, makes me wonder what a night at OP's table would look like.

Fundamentally this is two people with different outlooks and expectations what they consider fun. In principle not that different from someone who likes intrigue and another player who thinks noncombat scenes are a boring waste of time. Either somebody's going to have to give or somebody's going to have to go. I'd be curious what the other players think and want. Ideally with OP reaching out to the other players individually first so he can get peoples takes without them feeling like they have to pick sides. Then have a full table talk about themes and tones everybody wants in their game before the next session. If the rest of the group likes dark and gory, the new player can be directed elsewhere. (Hopefully with a bit of direction to help her find groups with less disturbing content and an interest in safety tools). If not, that's good to know so the group can pivot. This is as good a reason as any to check in on the rest of the group for feedback, and progress from there.

[Witty Username]

My first instinct, is that adding a new player will always require some adjustment.

If I had a spider themed priestess, and we got a new player that was arachnaphobic or something, I would be inclined to shift to accommodate. I have seven billion character ideas so one being back-lined doesn't worry me much.

General tone of the game is harder, but not impossible. Again, I am a bit more lenient with new players, although my stuff is more being flexible with world building rather than sidestepping problematic content.

What I would ask is how important for the playgroup is the people? If everyone wants to play together, then do what you gotta, if not and the game is the main draw, then this may be a case of the wrong fit. Like, does the table actively enjoy darker themes, then people that can't dark themes aren't going to have fun at that table.

Also, does an accommodating game sound like fun for you to run? if not, hard stop. DMs are beholden to no one if it would cost their own fun to do so.

[King of Nowhere]

if the player is bothered by treatment of men in drow cities, that's fine; they are supposed to be the bad guys, and acceptable targets.
but if you have a paladin of slaughter, it makes me think you may be running an evil campaign. meaning your party is the one expected to be enslaving and raping people. in that case, i just think it may be the wrong campaign for her

[Mastikator]

I agree with the session 0 concerns. Run a new session 0. Make sure EVERYONE speaks at the session 0. She might not be a good fit for that campaign. But she might still be a good fit for the group, in which case I think you should put forward the idea that she becomes a DM for her own campaign with ya'll as players.

If she's not a good fit for the group then you have to kick her out.

[KorvinStarmast]

If she's not a good fit for the group then you have to kick her out.

Which means that her BF goes too. I don't think that is an objective here.

[Unoriginal]

Which means that her BF goes too. I don't think that is an objective here.

Not an objective, but it won't be avoidable if everyone camps on their current positions.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm late to the party, but:

Paladinofshojo, this new player joining your existing game made about as much as sense as someone with severe gun-related issues trying to play Counter Strike.

It would've been much better to start a new game on the side that acknowledged this player's restrictions from the beginning.

As is, my recommendation still is two separate games. If you cannot do that, I suggest directing the new player to another group.

In general, trying to include people with special needs into an activity already done in defiance of those needs is a bad idea, as it sabotages the activity for everyone. You wouldn't let someone with an injured leg join a half-marathon already underway, or wouls you?

[Jay R]

Everyone seems to be focused on the symptom, not the underlying problem.

Immediate Symptom: the current campaign and PC choices don't work for everyone.
Underlying problem: Not all players are willing to play a game that is good for everyone.

Specifically, the player with the Paladin of Slaughter is not willing to play a PC that will make a good game for everyone. And possibly the new player is not willing to consider other people's feelings.

As long as that is the case, there is *no* solution. Even if you try to accommodate the new player, the fact that (at least) one player is not willing to play a game that everyone will enjoy will re-surface in another form.

[icefractal]

Even if you try to accommodate the new player, the fact that (at least) one player is not willing to play a game that everyone will enjoy will re-surface in another form.

IDK, while the Paladin doesn't sound like my cup of tea either, I wouldn't take it as a given that "refuses to change an existing character that's had some history as part of the campaign" is the same as "not willing to make a character that fits the group from the start".

Like, if I go to sit down in a restaurant, and somebody at a neighboring table says "Oh hold on, my friend was going to sit there" then sure, I'll pick a different table, not a problem. On the other hand, if I've already got my food laid out, I'm in the middle of eating, and then somebody walks over and says "Could you move? I want two adjacent tables for me and my friend" then I'd be a lot less inclined to do so.

Incidentally, count me among the people who wonder how TF the Paladin's method of conception is coming up more than like, once? It's not the kind of thing that makes sense to be randomly bringing up.

[Vahnavoi]

@Jay R: nobody in this situation has pitched or even identified a game that would be good for everyone. It's not given there is such a game for the involved people at all. Unwillingness to commit to individually unsatisfying compromises is not generally the same as unwilligness to commit to collectively satisfying compromises.

[Lemmy]

IME, someone who joins in and immediately starts making demands is highly unlikely to become more accommodating or accepting of other people's opinions. Quite the contrary, actually... Enable her now, and she will only grow more demanding and self-righteous, eventually to the point of extreme selfishness.

Kick her out.

Do it politely... But do it.

If you don't, you'll eventually lose the interest of the whole group anyway, and at that point, it won't matter if her bf wants to leave.

Sometimes there isn't a perfect solution... Sometimes you have to be firm and cut your losses.

Just go to her and say something like:

"Sorry. I don't think you're a good fit for our current group. You wouldn't be comfortable with some the themes and stories we're interested in exploring. I hope you find a group more in line with your prefered experience."

[Unoriginal]

Everyone seems to be focused on the symptom, not the underlying problem.

Immediate Symptom: the current campaign and PC choices don't work for everyone.
Underlying problem: Not all players are willing to play a game that is good for everyone.

Specifically, the player with the Paladin of Slaughter is not willing to play a PC that will make a good game for everyone. And possibly the new player is not willing to consider other people's feelings.

As long as that is the case, there is *no* solution. Even if you try to accommodate the new player, the fact that (at least) one player is not willing to play a game that everyone will enjoy will re-surface in another form.

Everyone was wiling to play a game that is good for everyone until a new player showed up and disagreed with that.

The new player is just as unwilling to play a game that is good for everyone.

[JusticeZero]

She wants to play a different game. What she wants isn't bad, but it's not what you are running. She shouldn't be in your current game; maybe someone else knows a game she would fit better, or one that hasn't started that she can get in on the session one for.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not an objective, but it won't be avoidable if everyone camps on their current positions.

We are in violent agreement on that.

Paladinofshojo, this new player joining your existing game made about as much as sense as someone with severe gun-related issues trying to play Counter Strike.

Nice analogy.

It would've been much better to start a new game on the side that acknowledged this player's restrictions from the beginning.

That's a fine suggestion. If the aim is to preserve the cohesion of the player group, this offers many options to do that.

Paranoia might be a great ice breaker.