Should I take a side in an external player conflict, or let my game die?

Question

I'm the DM for a Homebrew campaign that I've been running for about 2 years. Our group is me plus four players and we've been lucky enough to meet fairly consistently on a weekly basis, so I'm loathe to be asking this question at all.

The situation

We meet at an apartment shared by two of my players (let's call them Jack and Jill), who were dating when we started the game. They broke up about a month ago but we were still playing up until now. However, today Jack messaged me saying he's no longer on speaking terms with Jill and never will be again. He is looking to move out as soon as their lease ends.

Obviously this creates a difficult and awkward atmosphere for all involved, and playing with both of them will be impossible. But I really don't want to have to scrap my game entirely. I also don't want to seem like I'm "taking sides" (even though I don't even know what happened). Our party has generally all been good friends outside the game up to now, as well. We frequently hang out together for board game and movie nights outside of the campaign.

I do not want to scrap my game, but I also don't want to cut ties with my friends Jack and Jill. What can I do to salvage my game at this point? Should I jump ship and get two new players entirely, or pick just one player to "keep"?

Answer 1

Let's look at the options

1. Jack & Jill keep playing. Jack says this is impossible.
2. You keep playing with Jack but not Jill.
3. You keep playing with Jill but not Jack.
4. You keep playing with neither Jack nor Jill. Presumably, this would involve finding a new venue.
5. You stop playing with everyone in this group and find/build a new group.
6. You stop playing altogether and join the French Foreign Legion. Or become a world-famous scent designer. Or something.

Now, look at the list and say to yourself "Screw every other bastard; which one would make me happiest?" Then do that.

People come, people go. That's just how it is.

Answer 2

You cannot make plans without talking to the people involved.

Speak with both Jill and Jack, seperately, and ask them if they want to keep playing. If they had a falling out, they'll probably ask about the other person or say something like "only if X isn't there", but keep your options open.

Now you go from there. If both want to quit, you anyway have to find new players. If one of them wants to quit and the other wants to keep playing, you don't have a problem. If both of them want to keep playing, only then do you have a problem that requires you to take a side.

What about the other two players?

Are they equally fine with both Jack and Jill? If not, or if you don't know or aren't sure, make it a group decision.

You are the GM only inside the game. I know that often much of the team management work is also left to the GM, but why should it?

If all of that doesn't give the answer, do what is best for the game. From your wording it seems that you're not close friends with either of them outside the game, so decide based on the effect on the game. Do you have another venue? Does one of them contribute more to the game or the pleasure of playing? Make a decision, then stick to it and defend it. The person excluded might be offended, you'll have to deal with that, but it will be easier to know that that was coming either way, you only picked which one you want to offend.

Answer 3

Short answer: No game is better than a bad game

On the people side, taking no positions at all is not a good idea.

Longer answer:

From what I read, you are in a bad situation, but there are ways to solve the problem:

1. Pick two others players to replace Jack and Jill. It looks like it's a good option but you penalize Jill for the situation, which might end up with bad things for your relationship with this person.
2. Let Jill play but not Jack. After all, he is the one that said that he doesn't want to play with Jill. It's not better, because you might look like you are taking Jill's side.
3. Let Jack play but not Jill. To me that's even worse because you are taking sides, and it's unfair. Jack was the one who said that he didn't want to play with Jill, so why penalize Jill?
4. Wait a few: say that since you are friends with both, you want to await what will happened before making a decision. Pause the game. People change, and Jack and Jill might team-up again, or even get back together. If you desperately need to play, go back to option 1, or make a new game without Jack and Jill but keep the possibility open of going back to the original game (that your group has had for two years).

If you absolutely want to not take sides, the 4th option is the best. What I would do if I was in this position (and I was) is to gather information about what happened (from both sides), and take the side that looks better in my own view.

Answer 4

Some of the other answers are on the right track, but I'd go a step further:

It's just not up to you.

These people share an apartment and a D&D game, among (presumably) other things. The apartment doesn't pick which one of them keeps it, and neither do you.

What specifically you do from here will depend on J & J's personalities and maturity level, but the key takeaway is that this is not in any way a decision for you to make. The two of them need to decide how/if they want to continue in the game.

Option 1: Ask them who will be continuing in the game.

Depends on how you normally communicate with these folks, but the key is to ask them both together (so email, or group text, something that's a three-way conversation - although you won't be participating in the discussion!). They'll figure out what they want to do between each other.

Option 2: Select an alternate venue, schedule the session, and see who shows up.

I'd probably give a heads up to the other two players, and prepare a one-shot to run in case it's just the three of you at the session. I'd also suggest setting the venue at a neutral third party site in case J & J both show up and things get ugly - you'll want to have the ability to perform a strategic withdrawal if necessary.

In other words: You don't get to negotiate the terms of their breakup. They do.

Source: Have experienced breakups in friend groups

P.S. If they mutually decide that they both want to continue (or neither of them is willing to give up the game), and it doesn't work out at the table, well, then you've got a whole other problem to solve...

Answer 5

Have you asked both players who likes to stay? Ultimately, I don't see this as your responsibility - them breaking up has caused the situation, so they should agree who (if any) of the two will continue playing. If they really both insist that the other person needs to drop out, then you can make a decision to exclude them both.

Experience with this kind of situation

In my limited personal experience with these situations, the most likely outcome is that both withdraw at least temporarily, if for no other reason than to not make the situation awkward for everybody else. Given some time, one - or maybe even both - may return to the game.

Answer 6

I think you'll have a very awkward experience if you try to bring up Dungeons and Dragons with them right now. They're both hurting, and I think that they both have more 'real world' stuff on their mind than the game. I think you'll need to give them both a little while (probably a few months) to come to terms with what's happened and what they're going to do moving forward. It's human nature that their perceptions of one another are going to change for a little while as time passes. I think we've all been there-- your ex fluctuates between being a perfect angel who could do no wrong and was the best thing that ever happened to you/evil incarnate who literally woke up every day seeking to suck all of the joy out of your life and also probably kicks puppies in their free time even though you never saw it.

For the foreseeable future, the game's just gonna be too darned volatile to have them in it, and neither one of them is likely to be pleased if you suggest that they figure out their personal life for the sake of a game. My advice is to give them a little while (minimum of a month) to let the dust settle and decide how they feel about one another a little bit better. Then you can bring up the idea of the game and have a better idea of where everyone is long-term.

Answer 7

If they cannot stand to talk to each other, it's going to be almost impossible not to end up picking one of them. I suggest talking to the other 2 players from the perspective of "This is what is happening, how do we handle it as a group?"

The key thing is that, whatever is decided, is decided by the three of you, rather than just by you alone. Otherwise you run the risk of choosing Jill, when the other two would rather keep Jack (or the other way around), which could wreck the group.

Answer 8

First of all, I second everything else said here.

What I would like to contribute is the notion that you do not need to decide on a course of action right now. Call off the game this weekend and for the next few weekends - put things on hiatus for a little while and let everyone cool off. Explain the situation with the other two players in the mean time, and perhaps run a side quest / beta campaign with them if they are interested.

Once a week or two has passed, THEN maybe start thinking about resolving this situation, taking into account everything else said here.

I wish you luck and hope your group resolves this conflict!

Answer 9

Tell Jack and Jill the game is still on, and it's up to them to decide who is playing. It shouldn't be up to you, but you feel they have a responsibility to the remaining three of you to help maintain some continuity in a years-long campaign. It's their game too, and if they show up they're welcome to play; but leave the interpersonal ugliness at the door. Whatever they decide, they need to decide, and let you know what's going to happen.

That said, maybe best to find a new venue, so the venue itself doesn't become part of the issue.

(I had an experience like this where two friends of mine met, after I'd known them separately for years. They hit it off and started dating, then had an ugly breakup. Some months later they -- on their own -- recognized this put me in an awkward situation, and made peace specifically so I didn't have to pick and choose between my friends. What can I say... I have good friends.)

Answer 10

You didn't say which game you're playing or which version, so I'm not sure if my experience is applicable.

This may well sort itself out. But if it doesn't, eventually someone will make an ultimatum to the effect of "them or me". The person making the ultimatum is the one who goes.

This is interpreted as a voluntary quit by Jack (to use your names).

Why must it be that way? Because the only other possible interpretation would be Jack ordering us to expel Jill, extorting us into choosing sides, and throwing a gigantic tantrum until we do that. Obviously, if that were happening, that would be completely unacceptable drama, unfair to Jill, a bad precedent, and really not the kind of energy we want in the group.

Of course, it would also be discourteous to Jack to infer such foul and indecorous conduct. So we gracefully accept the first interpretation.

Thanks for playing, Jack, best of luck.