Now, I don't really want to be hitting this too hard but as it's an issue that DOES come up so frequently I think it does need to be emphasized.
A gets along well with B, C, and D, but for whatever reason B and C can't stand D. D is oblivious to B's and C's dislike of him.
Is A doing anyone any favors by continuing to host social occasions to which B, C, and D are all invited?
Of course not.
The nicest thing for A to do is to be honest with D.
And A should do so by speaking with B, C, D, F and everyone else involved indicating that D's behavior is a problem and requires correction - and this should take place LONG before so much time has passed that the situation has reached a crisis point. It should take place IMMEDIATELY upon the problem being recognized.
This is what I was trying to achieve. There was also E who is the DM, who is a too nice guy and didn't want to get messed up with it all. He has thanked me yesterday for asking Flumph (D) to leave. He acknowledged that the situation was getting out of hand.
Situations are going to vary, (yours obviously does) but quite often the DM is also the host. Also the DM is widely considered to be generally in charge of the game and it is the DM who ultimately decides who he wants playing in his game or not. The players participate in the game at the
invitation of the DM, not another player. If the DM doesn't have a house or someplace of his own to hold the game then it is still generally the DM who makes arrangements for where the game will be hosted. If the host doesn't want a player present for some reason then, yes, the host has the ability to prevent his participation, but it is still the DM who typically retains the right - and responsibility - of deciding who plays and who doesn't.
There will inevitably be conflicts in various groups with some people at the table not wanting others at the table. By default it falls to the DM to decide who is permitted to stay and who is permitted to go. Players, however, obviously get to vote with their own feet. Thus, COMMUNICATION is required among ALL participants at the table WHEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE - as soon as it starts to heat up, not when it is boiling over.
Even though I'm not the GM, I do plan all the gaming meetings, coordinate the communication etc.
Which is a bit unusual but not unheard of. Still, as the "coordinator" it should then have been you who speaks with the complaining players, the DM, and the offending player so that everyone knows what's going on and why. Without talking to everyone about it you're just letting the problem fester, probably in futile hope that it will just go away, and when it unsurprisingly doesn't resolve itself you find that you're in an even WORSE position to deal with a now escalated situation.
COMMUNICATION. It isn't just a matter of telling everyone the date and start time for the game. SOMEBODY has to be willing and able to handle inevitable real-world people issues.
Just after F quit our gaming group (the guy who had introduced Flumph), they told the DM and me that they didn't wan't to play with Flumph anymore.
But they didn't tell him or act upon it. They assumed the DM would fix this. The DM said: "I don't see the problem, I'll stop inviting him, but when he asks to play, he's welcome." A few months later, he moved away, so we didn’t feel any action necessary at that time.
We did tell Flumph off when he did something we really didn't like on several occasions. He laughed everything away, and even when we told him we were serious, he thought we were joking. Some of their issues I personally never noticed before they spoke out.
all of which demonstrates the LACK of communication. With Flumph being oblivious (perhaps even deliberately) to criticism it should have been a red flag that direct and open communication was required.
I'll just give some examples of stuff I have to agree with where annoying, but to me were not worth booting the guy. To note, he played a Lawful Good City Guardsman, most of his actions weren’t very lawful or good
And don't get me started on alignment. Alignment behavior IN PARTICULAR is an issue which too frequently DEMANDS more communication between everyone at the table.
When discussing in-game tactics and we all agreed on a plan. Upon execution, he tended to abandon these plans at first chance. This had had several severe in-game consequences (character deaths included, never his).
And should have precipitated a conversation with the player immediately.
He always wanted to pick a fight with the NPCs. Always. Even when they are Archons and Angels.
Which should precipitate a conversation with the player immediately.
He wanted lots of loot and xp, even for battles he did not participate in. And whined about it.
Which should precipitate a conversation with the player immediately.
He rewrote his character sheet before everytime we played. Changed his character name, stats, his abilities, everything except the fact that he still was the Lawful Good City Guardsman we new previously.
Conversation IMMEDIATELY and BOOT on the 2nd offense. This, to my thinking, is blatantly intolerable.
He made jokes nobody thought were funny, and didn’t get any of the jokes the rest of the group made.
Even so simple a thing as, "I don't get your humor, you don't get my humor," can be enough to declare that someone just doesn't fit with the rest of the group.
These and other problems which I gathered B and C had with Flumph combined spoiled their evenings. They also said they just didn’t like the guy. When he was there the atmosphere soon got grimmy, so that started to spoil my evenings too. (Flumph however didn't notice).
Again, somebody needs to be the personnel manager for the group. It shouldn't matter that you personally don't have a serious problem with the player. When any person at a game table has issues with any other then the real-world personal communication process ought to begin.
