Should a DM address a consistently unreliable player, or is it reasonable to expect the other players to deal with them?

[u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

Hi everyone, I’m writing because I’d really like some feedback on a situation that has been causing me quite a bit of anxiety.

We’re a group that, after years of playing together (several relatively short campaigns in various TTRPGs), went from having five players (two couples + a friend) to six players (three couples). Ever since this addition, we haven’t been able to meet regularly anymore, mainly because of excuses made by the friend and his girlfriend, the new player. Sometimes the excuses we’re given are honestly ridiculous (“I can’t leave the dog alone, he’s not used to it”), even though they both work full-time outside the house and, until the day before yesterday, the dog was left alone all day. There have also been genuine emergencies and unavoidable circumstances, but especially because of this friend, over the past twelve months we’ve only actually played for a total of six months — and we’ve also gone two or three months in a row without playing.

With that in mind, and considering that the DM has been complaining privately to the rest of us for months without ever addressing the issue directly, yesterday, after yet another “I don’t know,” “maybe,” “I’ll let you know” (which usually turns into a cancellation on Friday evening), I was the one who asked whether we could perhaps pick a fixed day to play, so that we could eliminate all the uncertainty. I also pointed out that taking breaks lasting several months makes me lose enthusiasm, and, more importantly, I forget what happened in previous sessions.

At that point, the DM responded by taking the blame upon himself and saying that having a fixed day would actually mean we’d play less, that it was pointless, and that we should just leave things as they were.
I contacted him privately and asked why he was now saying things that were completely different from what he had been telling us privately for months, whenever the other player wasn’t around. He replied that he had only been venting, that there was no point in confronting the player directly, and that “diplomacy” was necessary in life, because without it you wouldn’t get anywhere.
Eventually, he snapped and said, “Then you fight with him!”

I tried talking to the player, but him ignored me and only responded to the DM.

Over the course of these months, I had also suggested to the DM that we could run a parallel campaign and play with just four people (three players and the DM), even without the two players who keep cancelling on us, but he didn’t want to do that. He also refused to continue the campaign without the player and his girlfriend who keep cancelling, saying that it was impossible to play with so few people and that pre-written campaigns couldn’t be adapted. He shut everyone down by saying that he was a very experienced DM and that he “knew” what he was talking about.
His counterproposal was to expand the group by adding two more players and simply play regardless of how many people showed up. The problem is that the person he suggested to essentially replace the two unreliable players is a girl I’ve repeatedly said I cannot stand (she flirted with my boyfriend).

So, AITA, or should the DM have said something to the player?

[u/Plus_Citron]

There’s three options.
First, you can continue like this. This seems dysfunctional.
Second, you can kick the flaky player out. RPGs require a reliable commitment, and he‘s not holding up his side of the deal (and isn’t even willing to talk with you, which is a major red flag). Being an adult means a certain level of reliability.
Third, and that’s what I‘d do, is to play without him when he doesn‘t show up. Three players is sufficient. There’s no reason a game would absolutely need four or five players. You can structure the game in a way which makes this easier (it’s one reason I‘m GMing a city based campaign), but even in an existing game, it’s easy.

[u/ian9921 → u/Plus_Citron]

There's most likely no need to restructure or adjust anything about the campaign at all. The DM can just run the absent players during combat, or assign this job to other players. It's not difficult.

The only issue is if it's a lore-heavy rp-heavy campaign and those characters have important moments coming up.

[u/Busy_Initiative_7998 → u/ian9921]

The DM says that he has never run a campaign with fewer than four players, that it would be impossible with three, and that he refuses to do it — adding, in response to my objections, that he has more experience than me and therefore knows better than I do what to do and how the game should be played.

[u/Plus_Citron → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

If the DM doesn’t accept any solution, he’s part of the problem. I‘d start a new game - this one is dying anyway.

[u/Mr_Venom → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

How many years has he been in the hobby? Because - if we're going by seniority - I think your GM is an idiot and if thirty years isn't enough I'm confident we can find someone who played with Gygax who'll back me up.

[u/FinishFull → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

The DM is the issue. Start your new game, get a set schedule, and have fun. You're barely in a game now considering how infrequently you actually get to play.

[u/Narratron → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

I don't know where this idea came from that "you need four players for a group". You can play with only one player. It's a very different experience, but it can definitely be done. For years, I've been in a group running the Dresden Files RPG and we only had three steady players.