Drama at the Gaming Table

[Lord of Shadows]

Our group swaps out DM's every so often to give everyone a break from the hot seat. Two in our group have become embroiled in a spat. One is now refusing to play when the other DM's, and the other is refusing to participate at all (player or DM) if the first is going to be present. (Another player had already quit this DM's campaign, but that didn't seem to get this reaction from this DM). The reasons for the spat are many, but seem to boil down to each being greatly annoyed by the other's play (or DM) style. We other players are still friends of both of them (at least for now), even the one who quit this DM's game a while ago.

This causes a bit of a problem for whoever else is DMing. Do they:

• Let them sort out among themselves who is going to play and who isn't? (Perhaps resulting in both showing up and one leaving in a huff)
• Choose one over the other, and thereby make the loser disappointed
• Decide that they can either both show up, and play, or neither of them can show up, and if one of them does they can only watch

Or something else? Any input from others in groups that have "gone south" like this is appreciated.

[gbprime]

the other is refusing to participate at all (player or DM) if the first is going to be present

Sounds like he just solved the problem for you. Tell them they're both welcome to game and bank on one of them no longer showing up.

I'd recommend that someone besides either of these fellows GM for a while, though.

[Lord of Shadows]

Yes, our next session is tomorrow, and thankfully it is with another group member DM-ing. It seems like it will be hard for him to not be put on the spot no matter who shows up or who plays. Unless the unthinkable happens and they have this all sorted out by then (this has been brewing for a few weeks).

[arguskos]

It's their problem. If they show up to GM 3's game and start causing some ****, that GM needs to tell them to take it elsewhere and handle it. Seems easy to me.

[Calanon]

Our group swaps out DM's every so often to give everyone a break from the hot seat. Two in our group have become embroiled in a spat. One is now refusing to play when the other DM's, and the other is refusing to participate at all (player or DM) if the first is going to be present. (Another player had already quit this DM's campaign, but that didn't seem to get this reaction from this DM). The reasons for the spat are many, but seem to boil down to each being greatly annoyed by the other's play (or DM) style. We other players are still friends of both of them (at least for now), even the one who quit this DM's game a while ago.

This causes a bit of a problem for whoever else is DMing. Do they:

• Let them sort out among themselves who is going to play and who isn't? (Perhaps resulting in both showing up and one leaving in a huff)
• Choose one over the other, and thereby make the loser disappointed
• Decide that they can either both show up, and play, or neither of them can show up, and if one of them does they can only watch

Or something else? Any input from others in groups that have "gone south" like this is appreciated.

Is there any particular reason why he doesn't like this other player? if you can enlighten us on this situation then we would PROBABLY be better equipped to help you

[Lord of Shadows]

I will try to sum it up in the proverbial nutshell, though it will be glossy...

The player who refuses to attend this particular DM's sessions takes a long time on his turns, and sometimes messes up on rules. He also seems to like to play "complicated" characters, but then gets frustrated when he messes up. He has been like this as long as we have known him (several years in most cases).

He alleges that the DM has insulted him, to the point of calling him stupid (much of this has happened just between them, apparently in e-mails, texts, and phone calls). He says the DM ignores any arguement he puts forward, regardless of its merits. He can be a bit annoying at the gaming table, but no one else who DM's (including myself) have this much trouble with him. He announced in a posting on our message board that he was no longer going to play under that DM and some reasons why.

The DM in question is quite the opposite when it comes to both preparedness and rules. He expects the players to be ready when he comes to them in the rotation. As both a player and a DM he looks for loopholes and nooks and crannies in the rules that can be taken advantage of.

He claims that he can "no longer tolerate this player's ways" and basically says he just cannot stand to be around the player. Period. On a message board we are using, each DM has their own forum, and this DM just a few days ago deleted all of this players posts from "his" forum. He claims that since that player no longer participates in his campaign, nothing he says is relevant to it. There were ongoing discussions regarding strategy and options in the campaign that the player was contributing to, without any disruption.

That was the last straw for me, and why I am seeking advice here.

If we tell the DM to hit the road, there are one or two others who may follow, and the whole group could fall apart. Perhaps we need a "Time Out"

Also, there was a player who refused to participate in this DM's campaign a few weeks ago and that did not cause this level of conflict. But that player may have handled it differently, just bowing out instead of making a public posting announcing it.

[Lord of Shadows]

It's their problem. If they show up to GM 3's game and start causing some ****, that GM needs to tell them to take it elsewhere and handle it. Seems easy to me.

Yes, that solution has occurred to (most of) the rest of us... We are all friends, too, though, which is putting some added tension on things.

[The Reverend]

Aaaah I understand. One is a rules lawyer and the other is a story bore. This kind of disagreement is normal between these play styles as the two play types view their paradigms as the basis from which the game flows. The story bore views the rules as a way to translate and play the story and narrative. The rules fir them are the vehicle that moves the story, a mechanical necessity. The rules lawyer views the rules as the bounds of the game, the provider of goals, and the origin of reason for character action, what drives their abilities, and what is allowed. The story is a narrative structure that simple ties together the die roles.

I suggest alternating between complex board games foe the rules lawyer and Mage The Ascension for the story bore as reward and visa versa to teach lessons.

[valadil]

Personally I think the rules lawyer is being the jerk here. He's the one I'd ditch.

Could they alternate participation? Let them each run a game on a bi-weekly basis. The rest of the party (minus the other GM of course) plays both games.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Oookay, the Rules Lawyer is acting like a jerk, but that doesn't mean he's the one that needs to be dropped. It does mean that he has antisocial tendencies so keep an eye on him for the future.

Presuming that you want to keep doing this rotating DM thing, you can just announce who is DMing for whatever given stretch of time. The aggrieved Player can sit out that week and come back later. That's the easy way to do it, if you all want to be friends.

Personally, I'd ditch the rotating DM seat -- if they're all running the same game. Far better to have each person DM their own game with their own Player list and, if time is an issue, rotate through the games over the course of a month. That way nobody has too much downtime, nobody's DM-toes are getting stepped on, and everyone can just simmer down.

Plus, if the Rules Lawyer finds out that nobody wants to play in his campaigns, he might decide to re-examine his style; perhaps ask the people who quit why they did so.

Remember: No DM is good for all Players. No Player is good for all DMs.

[arguskos]

Yes, that solution has occurred to (most of) the rest of us... We are all friends, too, though, which is putting some added tension on things.

It doesn't have to. I game with friends, and have told people in a snit to take it somewhere else. This is meant to be FUN, not STRESS.

[Lord of Shadows]

Personally, I'd ditch the rotating DM seat -- if they're all running the same game. Far better to have each person DM their own game with their own Player list and, if time is an issue, rotate through the games over the course of a month. That way nobody has too much downtime, nobody's DM-toes are getting stepped on, and everyone can just simmer down.

Sorry, I kinda glossed over that part. Each DM does have their own campaign, we are not all doing the same thing.

Plus, if the Rules Lawyer finds out that nobody wants to play in his campaigns, he might decide to re-examine his style; perhaps ask the people who quit why they did so.

Well, he has had two players (plus one player's girlfriend, who plays only part time anyway) all quit his Campaign and from the looks of it, more people quitting is causing a Berserker rage... I keep hoping that he will wise up and realize what effect this is having, and after this last outburst (deleting messages) there are more people questioning his ability to DM.

Remember: No DM is good for all Players. No Player is good for all DMs.

Good advice, thanks!

[Lord of Shadows]

Could they alternate participation? Let them each run a game on a bi-weekly basis. The rest of the party (minus the other GM of course) plays both games.

Yes, that is kind of what we are doing now, although this latest incident just happened this week, and tonight is the first time we would be playing since then. The question bugging me (as one of the DM's in the rotation, thankfully not tonight) is how to not come across as the bad guy when one of them doesn't play and thinks (for whatever reason) that they were "screwed" by that DM.

[Dr.Epic]

Tell them to sort it out or their both out of the campaign. If they can't put things aside why should it interfere with your fun?

[Lord of Shadows]

We are in session tonight with a different DM. The rules-lawyer did not show up, but the other player did. All is well, tonight..