D&D 5E Dealing with a trouble player and a major blow up

[Sacrosanct]

Interesting. I would normally think that the person who has so little emotional control that they storm out is probably the one more at fault for the disruption, and who should be blocked from participating.

Normally you're right. But this is a problem of not just the guy who threw a temper tantrum. The girl refused to talk to him and yelled at him too. All three have some sort of drama going on outside of D&D. If I'm a player not involved in any of that, I don't care who's the bigger jerk. All three are letting their personal drama affect the game for everyone else. And that's the last thing D&D needs as a brand is for new players to be subject this Jerry Springer stuff for something that's supposed to be fun. Talk about putting a bad first impression out there. I think we've all been at a game table where there was obvious tension going on between two people, and it's no fun to be part of that table.

D&D isn't going to fix their issues, nor should it. Personally, if I were the OP I would simply refuse to game with these two until after any non-gaming issues have been resolved. Doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon. So they shouldn't be gaming together and punishing all the other players.

Yeah, I know at that table what the guy did was unacceptable. I get that. But you know what else I find unacceptable? A DM talking crap constantly about a player and then is put in a position of power over that player. There is no way the DM can be fair and objective in this situation. And I know this next part is speculation, but I have a strong feeling this is a situation where the DM is using his power in the game to hurt the guy he has no power over outside of the game (bitter because she chose the guy over him). I've seen that waaaaay too many times, and it's toxic as hell.

So the bottom line is they all need to stop playing with each other. I care less about their own drama, and more about the impression they are giving all the other players who have nothing to do with this mess.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is no way the DM can be fair and objective in this situation.

I disagree: maintaining one's impartiality in the face of personal dislike of a person under your power happens every day in this world. Judges do it. Arbitrators & mediators do it. Umpires & referees do it. Parents do it. Teachers do it.

So it IS possible.

 

[neobolts]

My mantra:
"D&D is not a charity."
As a grownup, you don't have to play with someone unless you want to. This is a leisure activity.

 

[Celtavian]

Interesting. I would normally think that the person who has so little emotional control that they storm out is probably the one more at fault for the disruption, and who should be blocked from participating.

Have you reached the post in the thread where Majoru informs us he called this guy stupid behind his back to the guy's GF who is also his friend. The GF who is a mutual friend of both informed Mr. Outburst that Mr. Majoru called him stupid. Once you reach that point, it starts to make more sense. If someone called you stupid or said you set off his "stupid" meter, would you want to play with that guy as DM?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I disagree: maintaining one's impartiality in the face of personal dislike of a person under your power happens every day in this world. Judges do it. Arbitrators & mediators do it. Umpires & referees do it. Parents do it. Teachers do it.

So it IS possible.

but not in THIS situation, I don't believe. Especially knowing the background of all three, in my opinion. And especially if the OP has a crush on the girl who chose "that idiot" over him

 

[Bawylie]

I disagree: maintaining one's impartiality in the face of personal dislike of a person under your power happens every day in this world. Judges do it. Arbitrators & mediators do it. Umpires & referees do it. Parents do it. Teachers do it.

So it IS possible.

But there's also a word for what they do when they cannot do it: Recusal.

Since you really only have control over your own behavior, sometimes the best thing to do is recuse yourself.

 

[Sunseeker]

Have you reached the post in the thread where Majoru informs us he called this guy stupid behind his back to the guy's GF who is also his friend. The GF who is a mutual friend of both informed Mr. Outburst that Mr. Majoru called him stupid. Once you reach that point, it starts to make more sense. If someone called you stupid or said you set off his "stupid" meter, would you want to play with that guy as DM?

The problem with this question is that you're assuming the "problem friend" is a rational actor. Clearly, he is not. He's not being called stupid because MajorO thinks he's a moron, he's being called stupid because he acts like one. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, you know the drill. I agree that there are certainly external problems beyond the table, the problem friend is obviously immature as evidenced by the fact that he left without his friend and girlfriend in a hissy fit. The girlfriend is clearly untrustworthy because as a mutual friend to both MajorO and Immature Player she violates MajorO's trust and blabs to the boyfriend everything MajorO said to her about him.

You can't really say "The Dm shouldn't call him stupid behind his back!" when the player actually is acting stupid. You could argue the DM should say it to his face instead, but I doubt the player would take that any better. This problem has clearly been going on for years and the player has yet to evaluate their playstyle or get over their apparent problems with the DM.

Dunno much about the "other friend" here, seems to be just a tag-along who got caught up in the drama. Probably declined a ride from MajorO to stay in good graces with Obviously Untrustworthy Girlfriend and Problem Player. I mean, if this is the way the guy reacts to MajorO personally, imagine how he'd react to people who accepted help from MajorO.

 

[steeldragons]

Have you reached the post in the thread where Majoru informs us he called this guy stupid behind his back to the guy's GF who is also his friend. The GF who is a mutual friend of both informed Mr. Outburst that Mr. Majoru called him stupid. Once you reach that point, it starts to make more sense. If someone called you stupid or said you set off his "stupid" meter, would you want to play with that guy as DM?

As I read it, MO telling the girl-friend his views on the guy occurred during some time in the years prior to the girl-friend becoming the tantrum-thrower's "GF". AFTER they began dating/living together (which sounds like it was a nearly simultaneous) the now-GF told the tantrum-thrower all of the stuff MO said about him BEFORE they were dating.

So she's as much "trouble/drama maker" here as the angry-guy. Whether he is justified in being "angry" or not does not justify the somewhat disturbing [and/or disturbed] behavior he exhibits, according to MO, with everyone...it's just exacerbated with him...thanks to her, ultimately.

The gall that she has to say 'this is what you should do/how you should act when we see you tomorrow to game as normal" is absolutely gobsmacking...and the occasions one has to use "gobsmack/-ing/-ed" in a sentence that really fits/works are few and far between, let me tell you!...It reveals that she has some kind of indication/experience to believe that MO's compliance is assumed/assured.

She needs an awakening as much as, if not moreso than, the emotional/behaviorally inappropriate tantrum-thrower. Neither of these folks should be welcome back at any table without the explicit understanding that the next time they want to act with this kind of adolescent emotionally-unbalanced drama will be their last time in the game with MO. Period. End of story. Get your therapies or hold your grudges or conduct your "friendships" however you like. But none of this belongs at or underlying the table. Don't game with them again...I say now, but in the interest of open communication and "being nice/one more chance" [which I have no doubt will be squandered], let's say TO THEM "one more time and that's it" and then...trick is...stick to it/you have to MEAN it and ENFORCE it.

 

[Celtavian]

The problem with this question is that you're assuming the "problem friend" is a rational actor. Clearly, he is not. He's not being called stupid because MajorO thinks he's a moron, he's being called stupid because he acts like one. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, you know the drill. I agree that there are certainly external problems beyond the table, the problem friend is obviously immature as evidenced by the fact that he left without his friend and girlfriend in a hissy fit. The girlfriend is clearly untrustworthy because as a mutual friend to both MajorO and Immature Player she violates MajorO's trust and blabs to the boyfriend everything MajorO said to her about him.

You can't really say "The Dm shouldn't call him stupid behind his back!" when the player actually is acting stupid. You could argue the DM should say it to his face instead, but I doubt the player would take that any better. This problem has clearly been going on for years and the player has yet to evaluate their playstyle or get over their apparent problems with the DM.

Dunno much about the "other friend" here, seems to be just a tag-along who got caught up in the drama. Probably declined a ride from MajorO to stay in good graces with Obviously Untrustworthy Girlfriend and Problem Player. I mean, if this is the way the guy reacts to MajorO personally, imagine how he'd react to people who accepted help from MajorO.

Is there some kind of consensus as to what constitutes "stupid"? Some people are goofy or lack great social skills. Doesn't make them stupid or mean someone else gets to sit in judgment of them. It's gaming. I've met so many odd personalities in gaming that if I judged people in the fashion Majoru appears to judge them, I have rid myself of numerous gamers at conventions or game stores.

Calling someone else stupid behind their back and talking about "stupid meters" and the like is immature and gossipy.

 

[Celtavian]

As I read it, MO telling the girl-friend his views on the guy occurred during some time in the years prior to the girl-friend becoming the tantrum-thrower's "GF". AFTER they began dating/living together (which sounds like it was a nearly simultaneous) the now-GF told the tantrum-thrower all of the stuff MO said about him BEFORE they were dating.

So she's as much "trouble/drama maker" here as the angry-guy. Whether he is justified in being "angry" or not does not justify the somewhat disturbing [and/or disturbed] behavior he exhibits, according to MO, with everyone...it's just exacerbated with him...thanks to her, ultimately.

The gall that she has to say 'this is what you should do/how you should act when we see you tomorrow to game as normal" is absolutely gobsmacking...and the occasions one has to use "gobsmack/-ing/-ed" in a sentence that really fits/works are few and far between, let me tell you!...It reveals that she has some kind of indication/experience to believe that MO's compliance is assumed/assured.

She needs an awakening as much as, if not moreso than, the emotional/behaviorally inappropriate tantrum-thrower. Neither of these folks should be welcome back at any table without the explicit understanding that the next time they want to act with this kind of adolescent emotionally-unbalanced drama will be their last time in the game with MO. Period. End of story. Get your therapies or hold your grudges or conduct your "friendships" however you like. But none of this belongs at or underlying the table. Don't game with them again...I say now, but in the interest of open communication and "being nice/one more chance" [which I have no doubt will be squandered], let's say TO THEM "one more time and that's it" and then...trick is...stick to it/you have to MEAN it and ENFORCE it.

The girl is definitely a troublemaker telling the other guy what Majoru said. No doubt.