Sticky situation

[Trellian]

OK, short backstory.

Two people (a married couple) left my group for a year's time, but recently returned to the city I live. Meanwhile, I recruited another player (a friend of player A). We switched to 4th edition, a game the married couple had no intentions of playing.

Just before the couple returned, I told player A that they were returning. He thought they would be gone permanently and told me he wouldn't play with them (contrasting play styles and personalities and all that). Now, I was in a pickle, as I think player A is an awesome player who brings a lot to the games. I feel the same way about the woman in the couple (who also happens to be my cousin). But as long as we played 4th edition, I didn't have to choose..

My plan was to try and start up a campaign with the returned couple as well, bring in a few new players while playing with the other group too. If I gave the GM reins to someone else in at least one campaign, it could work - I thought. But now we've decided to play something else than 4th edition, and the returned couple have said they're interested.

I don't know how to avoid explicitly saying that player A won't play with you guys, sorry. I don't want to hurt anyone or step on anyone's toes, and I really want to play with both. Am I a coward for not telling the truth right upfront?

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Tell both factions that they are both invited, and to either suck it up or not bother to show up.

Let the three of them decide who is showing, and who is not.

You may find that one of the couple will show, and the other won't, which was my experience when something similar happened in my game about five years back. (Two couples, of the four three showed up, and played together with no problems.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Trellian]

OK, now she actually asked me directly if I didn't want them back into the old group. I told them I wanted to try playing with new players without ditching the old ones... gah.. the lies! No wonder I want to try Conspiracy X.

 

[S'mon]

Tell both factions that they are both invited, and to either suck it up or not bother to show up.

I agree. If you yourself don't have a strong preference, let them decide.

If the couple aren't obviously horrible people then player A may be the one to lose (IME players who object to other players are often themselves the problem), but you know them better than we do.

 

[Trellian]

Yeah, it's player A who'll drop out if I "pit" them against each other. The couple don't mind him. Player A has been very straight and open with me about it, and has also said he won't blame me if I choose to play with them instead of him (them being family and all).

I agree that they player who has a problem with someone should be the one to leave. None of them are really problem players (well, the husband is a rules lawyer and is a sore loser, even though I try to tell him there are no losers in RPGs), they're just very different people.

I seem to have managed to go forward with two groups, but it remains to be seen if it'll work out schedule-wise and so forth.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

This brings up an interesting question...

Is the GM responsible for playing host/hostess to the players, smoothing over schedule and personality conflict?

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

 

[Trellian]

Interesting question.. now I happen to have been both the host and the GM for the past year or so (we usually played at the married couple's house before they went away for a year). Since I'm stepping aside for some time to let two other players run shorter campaigns in two various systems, I really don't feel the same urge to be the organizer. On the other hand, since I've been the GM for the last 3-4 years, I think the players expect me to take charge and fix things.

I just sent out an e-mail suggesting that we might invite one more player to our campaigns as soon as we wrap up our 4th edition campaign, but realize now that I might have overstepped my mandate. I'm not to be the GM for a while, maybe the GM(s) need to do this.

 

[DumbPaladin]

You really just have to pick somebody. It doesn't matter whether or not you actually are honest with these people -- though it is of course preferable -- but you really must decide whether you want Player A or The Couple. Pick a horse and place your bet. The fact that the woman is your cousin, to me, is irrelevant. If it's extremely relevant to you, then it seems you've already made your choice: it's The Couple.

If you want Player A, then The Couple can't join. You can tell them whatever you like, including a white lie. If you want The Couple, then tell Player A he's now out because they're in. He won't argue with you; he's told you he plans to do this very thing.

I disagree with the "invite them all" theory: ultimately, that will lead to ALL of them joining, and some huge, crazy, drama queen fight at some point 3 - 6 months down the road.

 

[TarionzCousin]

1. You're stepping aside. It's not quite your problem, exactly. Is the game always held at your house? If so, you need to work with the other GM(s) and let them know about Player A's unwillingness to play with the couple.

2. Your cousin's husband sounds like he may be the problem. If so, invite the cousin and disinvite the husband. This will probably cause the best 'game environment' but also probably cause social problems. If you don't care about how the husband feels, this may be your best bet.

3. If your social relationship with the cousin and husband is more important, let Player A bow out gracefully and invite them.

4. There is no fourth option.

5. Make all three potential players fight it out, like Kirk vs. Spock. Ponfarr! This would be the most fun for the spectators, but you will need to spend some money on giant metal Q-Tips.

 

[Trellian]

I think option 5 seems like the most prudent one

Yeah, the husband might be the biggest problem, but I'm not quite sure if I can have the one and not the other. They do have two dogs, so maybe one needs to stay home with them (one of my other player's also have a dog, and my apartment isn't that big.. it would be a veritable zoo).