Possible imminent party falling out, help!

[Sipex]

Alright, everyone here knows the 'Habits that Kill fun in a gaming session' thread, yes? Well, particularily I have one player who fits A LOT of the complaints found within (including every single complaint I've made), we'll call them Bob.

Now, this wouldn't be so bad if it was just me, I'm the DM and I can deal with it and that's been the plan up until now. One member of my party (Andrew) has noticed a lot of the things that make Bob a very annoying person to play with (seriously, this player has probably 15 different items off that thread which are all repeated nearly every session) and their patience is thinning.

Now here's the part where I'd love to say "I need to kick Bob out and I want to be tactful about it." but no, that's not an option and I'll explain why. Bob is dating another player, one of my best friends (We'll say Jack). If Bob leaves then Jack also leaves because Bob is kind of controlling and Jack is kind of spineless when it comes to Bob.

Also, I'll stop you there, but we're not convincing Jack to leave Bob. If Jack didn't love Bob he'd have no problem leaving. This is a road that won't get explored unless Bob gets worse in personal ways.

Anywho, this means my campaign essentially falls apart and it will be particularily messy. Ignoring the friendship stuff that will have to be dealt with, how do I go about handling this (increasingly possible) situation?

There's no ifs, ands or buts about the campaign being dead. I know Bob well and I know the other players. Jack won't be allowed to play (simple as that, even if he says he doesn't want to) and our final player (Jim?) will feel bad about playing the campaign because Bob will make him feel bad about it. This just leaves Andrew and I'm not going to run the campaign without the party.

In addition, Bob may try to convince me to run the campaign without Andrew ("Since Andrew has the problem he should be the one that doesn't play.") and I won't want to do that either because in reality, it's Bob who's the bad player, we all know it, just Andrew has the least patience of us and is going to snap first.

Any advice at all? I know it's confusing but anything will help, even stuff I should look out for if this happens.

[arguskos]

Walk away and let it die. Yeah, it sucks horribly, and I feel for you, but this isn't a situation with a good end. Just end it now and don't play with Bob in the future.

[Sipex]

I was afraid of that but to be honest, I'm not hopeful that this campaign will survive if this happens.

Currently Andrew is trying to limit his contact with Bob out of game to see if that helps so I'm not about to premptively end it just yet.

Any advice for stuff I should look out for if and when this happens?

edit: Still a tad reluctant to let it die sadly. We're in a campaign which is 3 years of play so far, has the story all planned out and has very intricate character stories.

Also, it's my first campaign (run and played in) and you know how that is.

[Kylarra]

Well... you could always talk to Bob, see if he'll change some of those annoying habits. If not, you are pretty SOL.

[arguskos]

edit: Still a tad reluctant to let it die sadly. We're in a campaign which is 3 years of play so far, has the story all planned out and has very intricate character stories.

Also, it's my first campaign (run and played in) and you know how that is.

I've been down this road before man, trust me, it's not gonna end well.

If you think that everyone else can just ignore the ******* in the room, then go ahead and try it, but be prepared for the blow-up when someone with less patience than you just flat explodes at Bob.

If you absolutely 100% have to keep going, then you need to talk to Bob, Jack, and Andrew. Bob to tell him to chill the hell out, Jack to tell Bob to chill the hell out, and Andrew to gauge just how far his patience goes. If you can get Jim on your side too, you might be able to pressure Bob into calming down a little and being less of an issue. If he refuses... eeeeeeh, good luck at that point.

Sorry to hear it man, it's a rough situation, you've got my sympathies.

[gbprime]

Bottom line... if you have a problem player, you need to talk with problem player or kick them out if the talking doesn't help. If that player also has "authority" over several other players such that they will not show up if problem player doesn't want them to... then it wasn't a viable gaming group in the first place.

Congrats on having fun despite the dysfunctional situation, but a situation like that won't last. Problem player will either drive everyone away or will quit and take other players with him. Cut to the chase, deal with the problem, and get a new group together sooner rather than later.

And who knows, the other two players might surprise you and come back around despite the one player's objection.

[Gullintanni]

Bob may not even be aware that he's falling into these pitfalls. Has anyone pointed out to him that his style of play is disruptive? If not then it may be beneficial to have someone pull him aside and do so.

If it's the first time someone's pointing it out, then try to have just one person talk to him. Otherwise he might feel blindsided by everyone dumping on him all at once.

If Bob is aware that he's irritating other players and has not intention of changing the way he plays then...chances are pretty good that things are going to fall apart. If you consider yourselves good friends with this person, then perhaps you should walk away from the campaign for a while for the sake of the friendship...

Maybe pickup from where you left off in a few months or a year or whatever time it takes for everyone to relax and maybe develop some perspective.

That's about the best I've got though...good luck

[Sipex]

I should've added this caveat to my first post.

I've talked to Bob before, he's oversensitive (despite claiming the opposite) and it only marginally improved his performance (which quickly reverted).

Had I known Bob was like this 3 years ago when I met him I wouldn't have started the group with him because I've got an amazing group...minus Bob.

Good news is once the fallout is completely over I'll be able to run a campaign with Andrew and Jim at the very least and Jim has good connections in our gaming world for other players. I'm just sad that I can't take my original campaign and finish it. Sadly we'll never be able to play with Jack again because...as I said before, Jack won't be allowed to play or will be heavily guilt tripped if he did.

You guys seem to have had Bobs in your group before, any advice on what I should look out for if this explodes?

[arguskos]

You guys seem to have had Bobs in your group before, any advice on what I should look out for if this explodes?

Denial of responsibility, attacking your reputation outside of the game, angrily challenging your sexuality/relationships/character, endless insults, attempted sabotage of your other friendships that Bob is aware of, and possible violence (depending on the manner of explosion) are all things I've personally seen/been subject to.

People like this are just PROBLEMS. Get rid of them. Sorry about Jack, but if he can't figure it out... well, that's his issue.

[Vladislav]

Do the right thing.

The game isn't worth it. Kick Bob out, let Jack deal with the results of his own spinelessness, and stay friends with Andrew and Jim as much as possible. Who knows, maybe, free from having to spend time to endlessly cater to Bob's needs and worry about him, you will discover some new friends, new players!?

[Sipex]

Oh yeah, friendships shouldn't be at risk here (except Bob will stop talking to whoever snaps first, no question but I doubt that person will care too much) and I'll still be able to play video games with Jack over live so it's not a total wash.

Starting a new group without Bob sounds like heaven though.

[Pentachoron]

If you've spoken to Bob and Bob seems unwilling to change behavior, then that's that. If it's bad enough that it's eventually going to cause the end of the campaign you really have two options: 1. End the campaign before the meltdown, 2. Just let it happen.

I would heavily suggest option 1. Either ending it naturally, or just stopping the campaign and I do want to put emphasis on ending it. Don't just ride it out because nothing bad is happening yet. If you know it's going to explode cut it off as soon as you can before friendships are permanently ruined. RPs are never worth losing friends.

It sucks yes, but the alternative sucks harder. Significant others, in my experience, tend to be the biggest killers of campaigns and you may want to in the future consider only ever playing with one person out of a couple to avoid situations like this. That's the rule I've established, I've made it well known that my SO will not be playing with the group and neither will anyone else's. I've never had it be an issue with anyone that's listened to my reasons.

[Gullintanni]

If you've spoken to Bob and Bob seems unwilling to change behavior, then that's that. If it's bad enough that it's eventually going to cause the end of the campaign you really have two options: 1. End the campaign before the meltdown, 2. Just let it happen.

I would heavily suggest option 1. Either ending it naturally, or just stopping the campaign and I do want to put emphasis on ending it. Don't just ride it out because nothing bad is happening yet. If you know it's going to explode cut it off as soon as you can before friendships are permanently ruined. RPs are never worth losing friends.

It sucks yes, but the alternative sucks harder. Significant others, in my experience, tend to be the biggest killers of campaigns and you may want to in the future consider only ever playing with one person out of a couple to avoid situations like this. That's the rule I've established, I've made it well known that my SO will not be playing with the group and neither will anyone else's. I've never had it be an issue with anyone that's listened to my reasons.

I second this. Don't let this explode. Just walk away from the game...tell your players you are bored or some such thing, and then invite Andrew and Jim back for another game a week or two later. You can even plug their characters back into another campaign, if they're attached. They'll understand the break in service.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Let's look at the dynamics:

Spoiler

Show

Bob: Problem Player. Everyone hates playing with him.
Jack: Dating Bob. Otherwise decent Player.
Jim: Good Player. Emotionally victimized by Bob
Andrew: Decent Player. Shortest fuse.

This campaign is going to implode (if you're lucky) or explode (if you're not). You can't finish this campaign unless you have exactly one session remaining - either Andrew will explode or Jim/Andrew will stop coming to the game due to sheer annoyance.

Spoiler

Show

Kicking Bob and politely dis-inviting Jack ("we like you, but Bob's a real problem. If you'd like to keep coming we'd love to have you, but we understand if you have to leave too") will make Bob angry at you and - apparently - cause Jim to feel crappy as well. That's a bad situation as well.

Best to just kill your campaign. Tell everyone that you're having trouble dealing with the party dynamics and you'd rather just let the thing die. This "ambiguous" ending should forestall Bob getting enraged, since he thinks Andrew is the problem. Next, a few weeks later, invite Jim, Andrew and some other guys to start a new campaign.

An important question is whether Bob is otherwise your friend. If he is, then you have more to deal with later. If not, then you only have to deal with Jack. If Jack asks why he wasn't invited to your new game explain that you don't feel comfortable DMing for Bob and you wouldn't want to put Jack in an awkward situation.

That's the best I can come up with. Good luck

[Gamer Girl]

I've gamed with too many Bobs. And if you can't talk to them or avoid them, there is the easy solution:control them.

1,If it's out of game stuff, like he is always texting. You can just skip his turn or better yet set a time limit(say 60 seconds). For example, we had a Ted for a while, who literally every five minuets had to go out on the deck to smake and use his phone. He would say ''just tell me when it's my turn'', but even if we did, he would not come in and play for about 5-25 minutes(until he finished his cigarette/phone call). So the simple solution was to 'forget to call him'. After three games where he sat on the deck for six hours on his phone, and not playing the game even once...he simply left the group as his life was 'too busy' to play.

The point is that simple(playground level) rules can help a lot.

2.For the in game stuff, you can ignore at least 50% of it. If his character randomly kills people, just let him...but have it have no effect on the game. Should he pants the king, just have the king laugh it off. And so forth. Often a person will stop when it's 'no fun'.

3.Make the actions pointless. If he wants to spend an hour breaking into the town bank, let him. And then let him find the town bank has 25 copper coins and one IOU. Meanwhile the group kills a dragon and gets 100,000 gold.

4.A very, very poor world can work. A place where there is nothing much to 'do'. Where the average towns folk has 'wood coins'(100 wood=1 copper) and people buy 'A quarter rotten apple chunk for 25 wood coins'.

5.High fantasy and magic. This is the one I use the most. Make the world awesome.

[Jolly]

Were it me, I'd give Bob a stern talking to and a single "last chance" to reform, tell Jack what is happening and why, and go from there. If Jack and Bob leave, you might be able to save the campaign with a tragic assassination of their characters, with the remaining party swearing vengeance and meeting any new recruits along the way.


Gaming stuff aside, it sounds like J and B have a really, really unhealthy relationship. If you are good friends with Jack, a conversation about how he is being treated (and how it's not ok) might be in order. Probably won't work, but it seems like trying is the right thing to do.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I've gamed with too many Bobs. And if you can't talk to them or avoid them, there is the easy solution:control them.

IMHO, the worst thing you can do is this.

Rule #1 for troubleshooting RPGs: Never Use In-Game Mechanics To Solve Out Of Game Problems

At its core, you (as the DM) are using the special power inherent in the DM-Player relationship to coerce another person. Using games to control people taints the game and turns it from a fun activity into an instrument of manipulation. Don't be that guy.

Gamer Girl's first suggestion is OK, but it would have simply been better to kick Ted in the first place, rather than invite him to your house for weeks only to have him stand out on the deck for hours doing something else.

EDIT:
Oh, and rule #2: Interfere With Someone's S.O. At Your Own Risk

Nobody likes hearing people rag on their S.O., ever. Personally, I'd only step in if I strongly suspected an abusive relationship or if I were asked for advice. But that's something that should take place outside of the concept of the game anyways.

[Gamer Girl]

Rule #1 for troubleshooting RPGs: Never Use In-Game Mechanics To Solve Out Of Game Problems

I simply don't believe in this so called rule. Mechanics can solve just about any Out of Game Problem.

A good 60% of people do respond to 'positive in game mechanics' and will change their ways, and at least another 20% will simply go along with them. So that is a good 80% of players that you can 'fix'.

Sure you could follow the 'rule' and hop up on a soapbox and decree ''Thou Shalt Not Game At My House Evermore!''. Or you can take 1.2 seconds to put a little mechanical fix in the game and have a happy player and game.

[DabblerWizard]

From what you've said OP, it sounds like Bob is willing to change (some of) his behaviors, when they're brought up to him, but he's not very good at keeping up the change. Frankly, that's not so bad. For example, few former smokers can quit at the drop of a hat and never relapse.

If you're still considering about working on Bob's bad behaviors, patience, gentleness, and straightforward ideas are helpful.

I feel X when you do Y, and Z may happen if Y continues.

As for the relationship between Jack and Bob, I think a good friend would share their perspective and support, without imposing their values and forcing their point of view. To me, this means that no longer inviting Jack would be heartless and would send the wrong message. You've got not issues with Jack. Let him decide his own actions for the future. That means giving him the chance to decide for himself if he'll continue playing in your (same / new) campaign, and let him decide to put up with the consequences from Bob if that's what he chooses.

[Sebastrd]

I've had this situation come up before (although in my case Bob wasn't solely responsible for conflict at the table).

In my case, I met with Jack outside the game, explained that I didn't want to put him in a difficult situation, and booted them both.

There were no hard feelings, and I have had plenty of amicable encounters with both Jack and Bob since.

[Sipex]

I'm happy to see the support and that I'm not the only one who's experienced this. Putting the campaign 'on hold' sounds like a good alternative, maybe pick it up in a year.

As a bit of a measure, let me tell you about Bob. Not to claim that he's worse than your Bobs or anything, just because it'll quell the minor outrage of me realising that Bob killed my campaign.

edit: I will also consider talking to Bob in a calm, rational matter. He might just accuse me of taking the game too seriously again though.

Bob is a D&D 4th edition fighter

Spoiler

Show

1) Bob doesn't know his class. He knows what it's called but he doesn't actually know how to play despite numerous training attempts and 3 years of playing.

2) Bob is the player who takes up 1/2 the table with his stuff and is confused when people ask him not to.

3) Bob used to play 2 characters back when I was a fledgling DM and didn't realise this was bad. As things went along I realised the ramifications of this action and retconned it, first in a way that shifted the blame (I can't handle more than 5 characters) then, when I realised that he'd jump at the first opportunity to pull his spare back in when a player had to miss a session, for good (It's not fair to the other players. You get two turns while they only get one). Bob frequently forgets the second ruling with the most recent occurance being two sessions ago.

4) Bob makes a ton of characters and tries to get them incorporated into the game in hopes that I'll overlook the above point.

5) We're all pretty sure Bob has a learning disability but won't accept help when we offer it. This means anything new slows the game down significantly and we can't do anything but watch.

6) Bob is horrible at rolling dice. I could split this up but I'll make it all one point. He'll roll his D20 and tell me what he rolled without stating what he's doing. After being asked what he's doing I have to remind him to give me the modifier as well. Typical turn for Bob:
Bob: "I rolled an 18!"
Me: "What are you doing?"
Bob: "Attacking the monster?"
Me: "I mean, how are you doing it?"
Bob: *checks his sheet for a minute* "With my sword."
Me: "...what power?"
Bob: "Oh!" *Another minute of getting his cards out and checking them* "This one!"
Me: "What's you modifier?"
Bob: "Oh!" *has to get his character sheet out again* "Plus 14."
Me: "Okay, that hits, did you roll damage?" (Protip: We constantly ask everyone to roll damage with their attacks to save time)
Bob: "No, what do I need to roll?"
...

7) Bob does the above as his first turn to every battle. He's refused help on tactics or speeding up game play and when we try to get him to set all the dice he'll need into easy to grab sets, he refuses because "I might want to use different ones."

8) Bob doesn't leave his character sheet out for easy access, nor his power cards. They're all tucked away in plastic until needed. This is a problem in battle and he resists our urges to act otherwise.

9) Bob gets upset with me when a monster does anything effective. This makes running a challenging battle impossible because he'll eventually sulk and blame me. Reminder, Bob is the fighter and is built to grab aggro.

10) Bob is a lite cheater. We have a dice box and he's good about rolling in it but in the cases where the dice bounces out he'll check the result. If it's high he'll try to pass it off, if it's low "Oops, out of the box. Let me try again."

11) Bob tries to steal the spot light from everyone. This is Andrew's most recent peeve. Bob won't let you have your sole 5 minutes of just you being useful and insists on rolling on everything, even when another member is better suited for the task.

12) Bob plays his character badly and gets upset with the other players when they out perform him. He doesn't have a bad character, he just frequently makes bad choices. Like never using anything stronger than an at-will and using a great spear when all his feats and paragon path revolve around dual wielding blades.

13) Bob tries to homebrew or negotiate overpowered stuff and then gets upset when I turn it down. I trust him not to use the stuff in a disabling manner (he's good like that) but it's not fair to the other players (who use every advantage they have to the fullest, as per the norm) when he requests an at-will teleport power or a homebrew race which has double the advantages over other races.

14) Bob metagames in a negative way. We had a fun mini game for Jack (our rogue) where he infiltrated a gang and had to play liars dice with them to impress the leader. Since everyone else couldn't join in they got to play players at the table. Near the end of the game Bob purposefully lost so Jack could win.

15) Bob sulks for 30 minutes at a time if he doesn't get things his way. If the party doesn't choose his plan he gets upset, even if we try to incorporate pieces of his plan. It has to be 100% or he'll get upset and the majority of his responses for the next bit will be "Fine..." and "Whatever..."

16) Bob scares the party. Bob constantly berates Jim and until recently (an earlier thread actually) he had a ruler which he'd hit Jim with if Jim talked to much. Bob missed a single session of D&D (due to work) in our 3 years and had a total fit (this is actually when I talked to him and put my foot down). He scared the entire party (minus Andrew, this was kind of the starting point for him, about 6 months ago) into inaction and even got Jack to speak with me about it.
Please note that everyone (except me, being the DM) has missed at least 1 session due to life stuff and none of them acted this way ever.

17) Bob needs everyone to be quiet and pay attention 100% of the time or else he stops everything and has to shout "Guys! Pay attention!" etc...
Innocent sounding at first but this usually happens in situations where everyone DOESN'T need to pay attention so the characters who aren't involved are roleplaying between each other or doing something to stay from being bored (usually productive too, which is why it hurts to lose the game. I've heard horror stories about players who get lost in video games and such).

18) Bob is a defeatest. When things turn ugly, Bob goes "I give up, I can't do this." and sulks.

Sorry, I really really really needed that. Ranting always helps.

[Vladislav]

he had a ruler which he'd hit Jim with if Jim talked to much.

I'm sorry, is this for real?

You have a player in your group who was habitually beating another player, and you're asking us for advice? Come on, the obvious decision should have been made months, if not years, ago.

[Sipex]

I should clarify since Beat was a bit of an extreme word which implies extreme violence and possibly a much more extreme picture of what was happening. This doesn't make it any better but for sake of accuracy he'd snap the ruler on the table and sometimes get Jim's arm with it.

That was a short addition to the campaign. Bob never liked it when Jim talked too much (it's one of Jim's problems that we work on) and eventually bought the ruler which he just found out could make the snapping noise too. It lasted 2 sessions before we told him it wasn't okay and then subsequently had Jack hide it as an additional safety measure.

edit: The party (minus Bob) asked me to keep the campaign running after that, this is why it wasn't the original campaign ender it could have been.

[olthar]

Just end it. If you don't want to end it in confrontation, then deus ex machina it and give them some quick closer to whatever is going on in like 2 or 3 sessions. Tell Andrew and Jim why it is happening ahead of time so they don't complain, and then just don't invite bob or jack once it's done. Bob/Jack complains about the quick deus ex machina type ending, then handwave it in some way.

Obviously, you're better off with a conversation about why it isn't working out, but that kind of thing is easy to avoid.

[Jolly]

Interesting.... From your description, it sounds less like "Bob is a jerk" and more like "Bob is mildly retarded." And I mean that in a clinical not pejorative way. If someone is mentally incapable of playing a game, and socially incapable of understanding appropriate behavior then I don't think there is a happy solution. Perhaps try to persuade Bob to quit on his own? Doesn't sound like he enjoys things that much.

[AFS]

Just boot him, no reason why the game can't continue with just jim and andrew.

Post places for new players and incorporate them into the campaign. Don't let your story die because of someone. The introduction of new players isn't that hard. A little rough at first but that is when you can "test" the new player.

Seek the perfect group. Keep the good, banish the bad.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Sure you could follow the 'rule' and hop up on a soapbox and decree ''Thou Shalt Not Game At My House Evermore!''. Or you can take 1.2 seconds to put a little mechanical fix in the game and have a happy player and game.

Well, the patent-pending Oracle_Hunter's Method of Dealing With Problem Players is as follows:

(1) Identify the Problem

Spoiler

Show

Not all problems in your game are the fault of other Players. It can be you are doing something that is annoying one or more Players. Fixing yourself is always easier than fixing other people. Of course, if the problem is another Player, it's helpful to figure out exactly what it is the Player is doing that is causing the trouble and in what situations it arises in. Most Problem Players are normal Players who are dissatisfied with the game somehow.

(2) Talk With the Problem Player and Find Out What is Wrong

Spoiler

Show

Taking your Problem Player aside and talking with them about what they're doing is a quick and easy way to resolve most problems. At the very least you can get some confirmation for your intuitions as to the problem, and a discussion can narrow down the exact cause of the problem.

(3) Either Ask the Player to Alter His Behavior, or Alter Your Game to Accommodate Him

Spoiler

Show

Some Problem Players have bad habits that they can work to correct if you point them out to them. They're not features of their playstyle - just things they've picked up over the years that are harming your game. Alternatively, there may be some bad habit you've picked up over the years that is really bothering the Player - fix it, and you've fixed the problem. Occasionally the Problem Player is becoming bored and you can fix that by adding more things that interest the Player into the game.

Naturally, don't alter the game if you think the alteration would ruin the game for the other Players or for yourself.

(4) If All Else Fails, Boot the Player

Spoiler

Show

In the end, the fun of everyone else must win out over the fun of one disruptive Player. If the game collapses because of one Player being booted, then you might as well just kill that game and start another without the Player.

N.B. Compare the sort of "altering the game" I propose from that suggested by Gamer Girl. Here, I encourage DMs to alter their game to make it more fun/less annoying for Problem Players. In my experience, most Problem Players are people who have gotten bored/annoyed with your game and turned disruptive to entertain themselves. They're not bad people; they're just acting out. Gamer Girl's suggestions are tailored towards sidelining or punishing Problem Players - using the power of the DM to coerce a Problem Player to change his ways. This is using a game to make someone's life more difficult; I can only see this making the Problem Player lash-out more (in-game) increasing their disruptive behavior in an attempt to throw off the shackles of DM oppression.

Someone like Bob is not going to respond well to coercive actions like ignoring his in-character actions or using fiat to sabotage his character's actions. Admittedly, it doesn't look like he's a salvageable Player, but at least Step 4 of the Oracle_Hunter Method won't make things worse for everyone else.

[Flame of Anor]

Interesting.... From your description, it sounds less like "Bob is a jerk" and more like "Bob is mildly retarded." And I mean that in a clinical not pejorative way. If someone is mentally incapable of playing a game, and socially incapable of understanding appropriate behavior then I don't think there is a happy solution. Perhaps try to persuade Bob to quit on his own? Doesn't sound like he enjoys things that much.

That was definitely my impression. And though I wouldn't advocate being mean to disabled people, it's not fair to make your other players have to play with him. Just get Bob out of the game as nicely as you can, and don't let him back in.

[eepop]

How often do you all go do stuff as a group outside of playing D&D?

I've found that occasionally getting out and doing something else (watching a movie, playing mini golf, etc) can help settle these kind of conflicts down a bit.

When all the time you spend with the person is filled with them doing the things that annoy you, you can tend to turn that person into a caricature that just focuses your ire on them.

This works best if you can find an outside activity that can let them get some problem things out of their system. If for example the problem person talks way too much, they probably see D&D as one of the times when they get the most human interaction. Finding an activity where they are actually encouraged to talk a lot (like going to see a bad movie that you can all make fun of during it) can help them purge some of it from their system.

Not sure what would help Bob in this manner though. But a lot of the issues with him are very game specific, so just getting away from those things for a change of pace might help things settle down.

[Jay R]

You have the wrong thread title. The issue isn't the party falling out. It's your friends falling out. Stop "ignoring the friendship stuff that will have to be dealt with". Deal with it now. Stop trying primarily to save the game. THE GAME IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS YOUR FRIENDS.

The solution isn't hard to find. It's just unpleasant to do.

You can see a situation growing worse and worse, with increasing probability of hurting several of your friends.

You have two choices:

1. Make popcorn, and watch with lurid curiosity, because you don't care how badly people get hurt, or

2. Talk to them. Each of them individually and all of them as a group.

Bob deserves to know his actions are hurting people. Jack deserves to know that Bob's actions are hurting people. Andrew deserves to know that his attempts to fix the game will hurt things bigger than the game.

If these friends can't play D&D together, don't ruin friendships over D&D; play something else.