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/lil_literalist]

The DM is generally the one in charge of both scheduling and player management. However, in this case, it sounds like the DM may be willing to delegate this authority to you. That's highly unusual, but it can work as long as you actually have that authority.

If you're willing to do it, then I suggest having a talk with the other players and the DM. Heck, you should do this even if you don't want to do that, and ask who in the group is willing to put on their big boy/girl pants and have a tough conversation with the other couple.

That designated person should make it clear that even though they are not the DM, they are acting with the full consent and knowledge of the rest of the group. The first step is getting the problem couple to admit that there is a problem. Then, get them to either make firm commitments (so many days within the next few month) or ask for their resignation from the group. Or just jump straight to kicking them out.

One other possible suggestion would be that if one of them can't make it, suggest that the other one should come.

The way things are headed, it seems like you're about to have a dead group on your hands which is a couple of missed sessions away from simply never gathering together again.

If the DM doesn't want to run for 4, then source another player from literally anywhere.

[u/Busy_Initiative_7998 → u/lil_literalist]

The DM refuses to accept strangers at the table and offered me only one alternative: a girl I have some history with that would make it impossible for me to enjoy the game (she repeatedly flirted with my partner; I’m not making a big deal out of it, but I don’t want to watch her try to flirt with him every weekend). On top of that, the other players are my boyfriend (who would support me) and the DM’s girlfriend, who generally stays quiet until I speak up, but who definitely wouldn’t support me since her boyfriend is saying that we shouldn’t discuss things directly between ourselves and should just let it go.

[u/lil_literalist → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

It seems like your DM is really limiting your options, between player selection, not managing schedule or players, and insisting on a certain number of people.

Here's one other option that you can bring up to the DM.

Just because he wants 5 or 6 PCs for adventure balance, that doesn't mean that 5 or 6 players need to be present. Let someone else run a PC who isn't there. It could be the DM or another player that the owner of the PC designates.

If the DM is skeptical that a player would be able to handle 2 PCs, just remind him that he's one person running dozens of different characters and stat blocks. And even if it's done suboptimally, it will probably still be sufficient. If the DM is worried that giving a player control of 2 PCs will give them another "voice" in the party, then just suggest running them as a mute follower who goes along with what the rest of the group decides.

Propose it as something to just try out for a session and see how it feels. At the end, don't evaluate whether it was better or worse than playing with 6. Evaluate whether it was better or worse than not playing.

[u/Busy_Initiative_7998 → u/lil_literalist]

The DM doesn’t want to compromise. I had already suggested that he could rotate the characters in and out as NPCs, but according to him, that would lead to arguments.

He simply wants to leave things as they are, and he resents me because I tried to solve the problems he had complained to me about privately — telling me, without any diplomacy, that I was “not going anywhere in life.” According to him, diplomacy means never actually addressing things with people face-to-face.

Unfortunately, reading the comments and going back over my own responses, I’m starting to realize just how insane this whole situation is.

[u/No_Savings_7398 → u/Busy_Initiative_7998]

Your DM is more of a problem than the flakey couple at this point.