How do I handle: 2 players want same game, but won't play with each other?

[Oni]

I'd shrug, tell player A if he didn't want to play it was his decision, and move on.

 

[(un)reason]

If you keep saying things like this, you'll have to change your user name.

That's what the brackets are for. You can apply or ignore the prefix as you choose. I knew what I was doing when I chose this username.

 

[Dausuul]

If I understand this correctly, player A doesn't like player B, but player B has no issues with player A.

If that's correct, I'd say run the game, invite them both, and let player A decide if he's going to get over his issues or not.

This.

Player A is the one with the issues here (I'm assuming you and the rest of your group have no problem playing with Player B), so it's up to him to decide what he wants to do about it. If his issues are big enough that he doesn't want to play, so be it. If not, that's cool too.

 

[Wolfwood2]

General rule: don't play games with uptight people. If Player A dislikes Player B for reasons that you think are invalid, that is a reason to disqualify Player A. If they are valid, why are you playing with Player B?

It's possible for A to dislike B for reasons that are valid, but don't necessarily mean that B is a bad person or that anybody else should dislike B. Sometimes other people just grate on your nerves.

 

[frankthedm]

Both of these people are my friends.

How do I handle this?

By reading this:

Five Geek Social Fallacies

Geek Social Fallacy #4: Friendship Is Transitive

Every carrier of GSF4 has, at some point, said:


"Wouldn't it be great to get all my groups of friends into one place for one big happy party?!"


If you groaned at that last paragraph, you may be a recovering GSF4 carrier.


GSF4 is the belief that any two of your friends ought to be friends with each other, and if they're not, something is Very Wrong.


The milder form of GSF4 merely prevents the carrier from perceiving evidence to contradict it; a carrier will refuse to comprehend that two of their friends (or two groups of friends) don't much care for each other, and will continue to try to bring them together at social events. They may even maintain that a full-scale vendetta is just a misunderstanding between friends that could easily be resolved if the principals would just sit down to talk it out.


A more serious form of GSF4 becomes another "friendship test" fallacy: if you have a friend A, and a friend B, but A & B are not friends, then one of them must not really be your friend at all. It is surprisingly common for a carrier, when faced with two friends who don't get along, to simply drop one of them.


On the other side of the equation, a carrier who doesn't like a friend of a friend will often get very passive-aggressive and covertly hostile to the friend of a friend, while vigorously maintaining that we're one big happy family and everyone is friends.
GSF4 can also lead carriers to make inappropriate requests of people they barely know -- asking a friend's roommate's ex if they can crash on their couch, asking a college acquaintance from eight years ago for a letter of recommendation at their workplace, and so on. If something is appropriate to ask of a friend, it's appropriate to ask of a friend of a friend

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

One player in our group insists on playing every character as a joke character... to the point where he creates "broken," often ineffectual, characters in order to point out flaws in the game. What's worse is that he insists on playing such characters even though they undermine the game, particularly when his character refuses to enter dangerous situations because he is ill-prepared to face them and, as such, has no motivation to "adventure".

This would, and even has at one point, solve itself in my group. One guy doesn't want to go adventure? Seeya! We're going to the Dungeon 'o Death with or without you. One player had his character sit at the entrance to the proverbial DoD for almost an entire evening, while my players trusted I would adjust the difficulty of said DoD due to their "shortage." Didn't stop everyone else from having fun while dumbass sat there with his arms crossed and moping the whole night.

 

[Betote]

I've been player B. I'm also the GM, so it makes things easier for me

 

[timbannock]

As far as I know, player B has no problems with player A.

Thanks for the answers so far, everybody!

EDIT: Just to add to the discussion, I will ask: Has anyone ever actually been in this situation? If so, how did you handle it?

Too many times to count.

The one universal truth: if one person has a problem with anyone else in the group, get rid of the one that the most people bitch about (even if it's just minor quibbles).

I didn't follow this advice, and watched groups fall apart because of it. Several groups. Long-term friendships snuffed out. When I finally did it, it was like I'd found Shangri-La.

If there's no clear "winner" -- which is hard to believe -- then toss 'em both until they grow up. And know that not everyone grows up. Sad but true.

 

[Kzach]

If I understand this correctly, player A doesn't like player B, but player B has no issues with player A.

If that's correct, I'd say run the game, invite them both, and let player A decide if he's going to get over his issues or not.

Life's too short for drama.

That's messed up.

It reminds me of a work situation I was in recently. One of the guys is an alcoholic (he brags about drinking 4 litres of cask wine a day) and out of the blue and with zero provocation, snapped at me in a very vicious manner.

Having worked as a security guard and handled violent situations before, I recognised in him the potential to do some real harm. He was obviously in withdrawal and was already a very aggressive person.

So I asked not to work with him. I don't want to be around him when he snaps. All my bosses not only ignored the request, but actually had the gall to make me out as the bad guy. I could've gone to the union about it but I'm quitting soon anyway, so I've just put up with it.

Point is, you haven't a clue about the actual situation and yet you take the side of the potential aggressor. If anything, by default, the non-aggressor who feels grieved should be the one who gets the spot. The other is possibly a trouble-maker who causes conflict.

 

[Asmor]

Point is, you haven't a clue about the actual situation and yet you take the side of the potential aggressor. If anything, by default, the non-aggressor who feels grieved should be the one who gets the spot. The other is possibly a trouble-maker who causes conflict.

With all due respect, you're assuming way more about the situation than I did. Why do you think either person is being aggressive? People not getting along is not commonly attributed to one fearing the other might inflict bodily harm upon them...