Hi, I could use some advice. (Long timer reader, first time poster.)

We have had a DnD group for almost two years with a couple of friends from college. The guy with the most experience was the DM, the rest had little to no experience. We played once a month and it was nice. I really liked it, I even started my own group with other friends and DM'ed a few times the Dm couldn't prepare anything.

So, we're with 7 players and a DM. That's a large group and I completely understand that the DM has a tough time controlling all of it. There were a few more things I can complain about the DM (rail roading, slow story progress, unpreparedness etc) but I liked spending time with my friends. And most of the sessions I had fun.

Now the DM had complained before about the workload. I have helped him a few times by DM'ing a side mission, or creating maps for him. I also tried to talk with him about the slow story progress, working on ideas. But he takes pride in his work.

But then he decided that he no longer wanted two players in the group. Because they did not fully understood the rules, weren't that much into roleplaying and "he did no longer wanted to babysit them, to spend his energy more on the other players". These players always showed up at sessions, never caused any real problems. Sure, sometimes they used a spell, only to figure out later that it had different effects. Or they got a single piece of important information that they did not share with the group, such that the DM could not continue with the story as planned.

The DM spoke with one of the players about kicking her from the group. She reluctantly agreed as she knew her participation was low and she quite often did not know what to do. 

I heard that she was asked to quit and asked how she felt. She then told me that she wanted to keep hanging out with her friends, but that the story did not really interest her anymore. However, if I had been DM and we would play like my sessions, she said she wanted to keep playing.

So.. I made an appointment with my DM, close friend of mine, and told him that I wanted to take over DM'ing for the group, so that all eight of us could remain together. He asked what was wrong with his DM style and I told him everything. I might have been tactless and rude, but I tried to be straightforward.. It was perhaps a shitty move to ask him for more preperation and guidance for the players, but that's how I felt.

He proposed to force the two players out of the group and see if he could change his DM style. If not, he could after a few months make me DM. I said no, as I did not wanted to break up our group. So I told him that either I would become DM or leave the group as well. He said he had to think about it.

He replied with a personal text telling that I was a shitty friend, that I gave him no opportunity to grow and that it was better if I would leave the group. He did not respond to my apology or questions anymore.

Was I wrong? Was he wrong? Were we both wrong and how should we proceed? Next week is the next sessions and I don't know where we are standing or how we should handle it. Any outside advice?

I know that the player who was asked to leave wants to stay if I DM. I know that one of the players hates the fact that the DM would forcefully break up the group, but she'd still stick. I don't know whether the second player who the DM wants to kick was already aproached and how she will respond. She always says: 'I know I am not a good roleplayer, but I like the combat'. Should I contact her and the other players behind the DM's back? I haven't taken any actions to avoid escalation.

TLDR; The DM did not have enough energy for our large group of college friends, so decided to kick two players. I did not agree as they did not create any problems, so I told the DM that I would take over the role as DM or I would leave too. Who was wrong? How should I proceed, as the DM won't respond to me? What happens next session?

Situations like this are rough. There are different ways to go about having the difficult conversations but seeing as you have hit a bump maybe take a break for a bit.

I would recommend you take the two players who were getting kicked but still want to play and form your own group.

Excuse me; I don't mind causal players but 2 years and not knowing the rules for your pc is too long. I have ran 8+ tables before. i would take over the group but. No story line involving the casuals. Babysitter for those who have troubles with the rules. Turn the group into a beer and pretzels game style. That is if you all legal to drink. 

We really can't say who was "right" or "wrong" from your story. Especially since we only have your side of it. As Matt Colville once said when being asked advice, none of us can audit what is going on at your table.

I think the first problem is that your group is probably too large. It is VERY difficult to keep things running with such a big group of players. I have never tried it in D&D, but every summer when my old high school friends came back from college I added them to the existing group of friends (kids still in my old high school, since I lived at home while in college and ran for them), and although it was fun, it was extremely taxing on me as a GM. I was able to handle it for 2 months, but I could not have handled it long-term for years. I would have had to stop GMing.

I think what you did was good, in the sense that you offered to DM. I have no hesitation in saying that I would probably take you up on it, were I in that DM's shoes. You wanna DM for 7 people, including 2 people who don't seem to want to engage? Have at it. Here's to your health... can I play a Bard in your game? LOL.

I think to be honest you could have probably handled this a little better by not being quite so brutally honest. Since that DM had wanted to bounce 2 players, and you did not, you could have said that your reason to want to take over as DM was not that you disliked his DMing style but that you wanted to keep the group together. And since he only wanted to DM for 5 people and you wanted to DM for all 7, you were perhaps a better fit. If you could have emphasized it was just a numbers thing and NOT about his DMing style, it would have been less adversarial and you might have gotten him to agree, especially if he has been struggling to do all the work of DMing.

But that ship has sailed now, and what I expect from your story is that this group will ultimately break up. I'm not sure if you can stop it now. And I don't really have any good advice for how to patch everything up.

Having the most D&D experience doesn’t necessarily make you a good DM. It’s hard work especially for large groups. So maybe he’s over his head or the group expects something different. 

The player asked to quit says she doesn’t like role play much but likes the combat. How much RP does your table do?  Not all players fit every table and if your table and DM’s style is more RP oriented then it might not be the best fit even if you are all friends. 

I’m not sure what you said and how you said it but it seemed that the DM was maybe willing to make adjustments to play. But it can be hard for some to take criticism especially if it really hasn’t come up over two years and then all of a sudden dumped on. I think trying to talk to them privately again and see if there can be a compromise might be helpful. Maybe the DM would be ok wrapping things up and handing over the reins and becoming a player, maybe not. 

In the end it might be better to split the group then trying to force everyone to play together. Not all players are a fit for all tables. 

Good luck. I hope you can work things out so you all can stay friends. 

I agree that maybe splitting is a good idea. 

I know you are all friends but you can find other things besides D&D to do as a group and then have the folks who are compatible play D&D together.

Since we don't know the whole story, none of us can really give perfect feedback, but this is what my advice and interpretation is based on what I read. 

First, the DM was probably exhausted. I have run tables with 7+ people at once, and it is awful. It's fun, but I would be lying if I said it was easy or something I would like to do. I understand him wanting to get rid of 2 players, but I also feel for them. If the DM truly thought that they could change up their DMing style if they had the newer players gone, I could see why they were adamant about them being gone and insulted when you told them you didn't like certain ways about how they DMed. It is hard to DM, and dropping a group from 7 players to 5 could help them if they were feeling a bit of burnout, but I don't think that asking a player to leave because they are new and don't roleplay a ton was a good thing to do. They were wrong in that aspect, but they're only human. I imagine with 2020 being an awful year, and other stresses he may have been overloaded an unable to continue with the two players that he thought were dragging behind the campaign.

Second, I understand your point of view. I've been there. I have kind of done what you did, but in an easier way. My first DM (my cousin) was always ill prepared, always showed up late for the session, even when it was at his own house, and was overall not a good DM. When I started, I bought the books and began to teach myself how to DM through experience and hard work. He eventually learned that I was a better DM for the group, and I took over full time as the DM. I don't know if this would've been a viable solution for you, and it almost definitely is not anymore. I'm sorry if you were disappointed by his DMing style and that he wanted to split up the group. I would recommend that if you really want to DM, take the two other players who are also getting kicked out, and start your own table. You don't want to start drama in the previous group, but if you really think you could be a better DM for them, go for it. 

Overall, I think you both did things incorrectly. The past is the past. What happened happened. Understand if they don't ever contact you about D&D again, that is due to the events that occurred. You can move on from this, though. 

Noting all the other "D&D Relationship Problems Advice Column" caveats mentioned (we can't really judge interpersonal conflicts, etc.), maybe here's a Solomon's solution:

Rather than have an all or nothing (either "those two go" or "we all stay and adopt a new DM").  Maybe rather than remaining as a one group table, go for a more fluid two table club?  It seems there's two players who the DM take great issue with, and at least one player is findng the current DM a frustration.  You all still meet up collectively and do the communal pizza and chips and drinks and stuff, take breaks together so you all can stretch and swap war stories, but simply have two tables and maybe some sort of static or sliding or rotational system for who sits at what table.  Maybe the two players your current DM has issues with are permanently assigned to your table at least at the onset and you can help develop them as players and maybe they'd gain the skillset the current DM believes is lacking.  If you're all a group of friends, that's what matters first.  It would be sad if friendships fell apart over a pastime, though it sounds like some members of the group need to develop some flexibility into how this group of friends play that pastime.

Honestly, in this scenareo:  Find a new group.  You've got a winy DM, and you're obviously probably not one to soften your words.  Find a new group.  Your one is probably not going to continue working for you... they may be your friends, but if they are making sessions a problem, have a good time with them on something else.  D&D obviously isn't their jam (especially the DM's).  But then again, you attempted a coup, and if you talked to him like you did in the message, you were unfortunately extremely rude and not a terribly good friend... You're going to have to try and apologise in person if possible, because... well... "friends" are weak slimy things.  I should know.  I ate mine.

#Beholder

I think your best move is to put it behind you, wait a couple days and tell him you are sorry for not being more diplomatic or something, and that you didn't go into it wanting to pounce on him.  Then Start the new game if the other two want to play, or find a new game.  Remember, away from the session, you're still friends.

Quote from BioWizard >>

We really can't say who was "right" or "wrong" from your story. Especially since we only have your side of it. As Matt Colville once said when being asked advice, none of us can audit what is going on at your table.

I think the first problem is that your group is probably too large. It is VERY difficult to keep things running with such a big group of players. I have never tried it in D&D, but every summer when my old high school friends came back from college I added them to the existing group of friends (kids still in my old high school, since I lived at home while in college and ran for them), and although it was fun, it was extremely taxing on me as a GM. I was able to handle it for 2 months, but I could not have handled it long-term for years. I would have had to stop GMing.

I think what you did was good, in the sense that you offered to DM. I have no hesitation in saying that I would probably take you up on it, were I in that DM's shoes. You wanna DM for 7 people, including 2 people who don't seem to want to engage? Have at it. Here's to your health... can I play a Bard in your game? LOL.

I think to be honest you could have probably handled this a little better by not being quite so brutally honest. Since that DM had wanted to bounce 2 players, and you did not, you could have said that your reason to want to take over as DM was not that you disliked his DMing style but that you wanted to keep the group together. And since he only wanted to DM for 5 people and you wanted to DM for all 7, you were perhaps a better fit. If you could have emphasized it was just a numbers thing and NOT about his DMing style, it would have been less adversarial and you might have gotten him to agree, especially if he has been struggling to do all the work of DMing.

But that ship has sailed now, and what I expect from your story is that this group will ultimately break up. I'm not sure if you can stop it now. And I don't really have any good advice for how to patch everything up.

 Are you actually Matt Coleville in disguise?  Or a big fan?

I am a big fan of his. 

But then, if I were Matt Colville in disguise, I would probably say that. MUH-hahaha.

I dunno man.  While I think you likely handled things poorly, just wanting to kick people out of your group, friends no less...that's just a total dick move on the part of the DM.  I'd hope that I'd be willing to stick up for my friends too.  I'm not sure I have any good advice, but it looks like your game is close to breaking.  You're out, your friend is out and it sounds like one more is out.

What I think is important is that you try to fix your relationship with your DM whom you said was a close friend.  You need to apologize and fix that.  Beyond that, invite the other people who got kicked and run some simple stuff for the two of them, and if the rest of the old campaign disintegrates, bring some other folks in.

On the one hand, I agree that kicking friends out of a D&D group is not very nice.

On the other hand, I have had a lot of RPG groups, not just D&D but Champions, Rolemaster, and others -- that really suffered because we all put up with a single player who was messing up the actual in-game play, but was a friend of ours otherwise. Nobody wanted to say anything because he was our friend. And surely nobody would kick him because he was our friend. But he made the game much worse, and we would probably have been wiser to actually kick him. Yes, in the short run, painful. In the long run, it's better that than everyone being different shades of miserable for months or years.

I'd rather not play than to do a friend like that though.  I might end the campaign, then restart a new game a few months later and simply not invite them back, but to actually ask them to leave?  I could not do that. 

RL friends > D&D

Based on what information you have provided, it seems to me that a number of things went wrong and they all piled up on top of each other.

First, your friend the DM has been curating an experience for 7 other people and themself for two years? There are a couple things right there: Group Size + DM burnout.

That’s a large group. I was DM for 6-7 pre-COVID and that is rough sometimes. Trying to keep all of those disparate pieces in the air at once takes a lot of work. A disproportionate amount more than 4-5 players in fact because not only are there two more PCs with their own issues that you have keep juggling, but on top of that, you have to split “Camera Time” for all of them, and they will each have their own complaints to drop on the DM too so instead of just adding two more balls to juggle its more like adding a running chainsaw and a live chicken.

Add to that, running any campaign for two years can start to lead to DM burnout for some people even if they only have to keep 4-5 balls in the air without the chainsaw and the chicken. It can wear one thin sometimes. And the extended pandemic has bean wearing on all of us. Even if you are hopefully somewhere in the world that’s fairly stable, the energy right now is taking its toll on the world.

You even mentioned that sometimes the pacing would drop off. Well, ahem... keeping it up for two solid years can be challenging. And some of that was possibly due to the 1ce/month schedule since, at least for me, it’s easier to keep the energy of the campaign going without such a big cool-down period between sessions. Of course that also has to be balanced against the necessary prep time too, and that balance gets more difficult to find with that many players too.

You also said that there were times when the other players noticed a lack of preparation, there were times you would step in, and at least one of the players mentioned being rather disinterested in the story. That sounds to me like the DM was either starting to get a little disinterested too, or maybe they were struggling for inspiration at times. I gotta tell you that knowing one has to meet that deadline every session even when you don’t really have it can also be a bit stressful.

But when a DM keeps making it under those circumstance and it feels like some of the players are just phoning it in starts to chafe. No DM expects the players to know everything, but they should at least be expected to know the general rules and their own characters. That’s not to say that mistakes don’t still get made, but when it’s every session.... But a DM’s time investment between sessions can conservatively be calculated at around 2 hours per Player per session. It’s not an exact science, but that rule of thumb is usually in the right ballpark. But the players only have to show up and participate for a few hours and then they’re off the hook until next session. And when everyone leaves, the DM still has to clean up after their guests.

And you even mentioned that the one player was less interested in the story than the combat, but that the DM had certain expectations of RP. That leads me to believe that if there was a session 0, some things were not made clear at that time. It sounds like there were 8 different people trying to play at least two different styles of D&D in the same campaign. Maybe the DM was less clear than they could have been, or maybe the players were unaware of what they were being told and what that meant, but more than likely both.

And don’t underestimate how much more challenging all of that can make it for the DM to do their job. So constantly having to do all of that, and keep giving everyone an equal amount of time and attention, when those very limited commodities are constantly being eaten into by having to explain the same rules over and over... And when the task of getting at least one of the players involved with all of that effort every session, it can make one feel some type of way.

You also mentioned a fluctuation between railroading and unpreparedness. Now, that might have been exactly what happened. But on the other hand, many DMs’ greatest challenge most of the time is to craft a story framework that is simultaneously constructed enough to prepare, but flexible enough to play. That’s because, to paraphrase one of the DM’s that I particularly look up to around here “Sooner or later the players will smash the DM’s railroad into a sandbox.” The point made there is simply that the DM has to build a framework upon which the campaign can sit, but it’s the whole table of people combined that really tell the story. The “railrady times” were quite likely the occasions when the DM was preparing too much of the story, and the “unprepared times” were likely the times the DM tried to compensate and accidentally swung too far the other direction. It takes some practice to find that Goldilocks zone and practice takes time.

So while I’m sure that a significant part of the problem was the DM understandably getting a bit fried from the workload. I’m also fairly sure that it was not the only reason for the frictions.

Basically, this brings it back to what I consider to be the three legs upon which every D&D group must stand:

• The Game (rules, mechanics, etc.)
• The Narrative
• The Table (more accurately the group of people together)

Go set up a tripod and make one leg twice as long as the other two. What happens?

That doesn’t meant that narrative, game, and table all need to be in perfect exact rigid balance. It just means that the three of them have to be close enough in balance to keep the thing from falling over. As long as it’s still standing, you’re good.

The Game is a lot of rules, and the DM needs to know more of them better than all of the players combined. So if everyone is kinda loos with the rules because the story is the important part, no problemo. But if a number of the group are relatively unconcerned about the Rules compared to the others, there’s an imbalance.

If a number of the group care a lot about the story you are all telling each other, and a few are  in the group care way less about the Narrative and care more about he Game, that’s just another imbalance. For instance, RP is mostly telling a narrative, and combat is mostly about “playing the game.” And then there are the players who just enjoy the communal activity with people they care about. So that pulls the game in three different directions at once. When different players show up every session looking for something different, that could always lead to a situation that can become untenable and the whole thing can collapse as it seems it might have done for your group.

I’m willing to bet that the DM also feels just as bad about everything. Look at it from their perspective: they work themselves ragged for two years trying to please 7 other people who are all looking for something different from the campaign, and no matter how many adjustments they have made, people are more than like approaching them after or between sessions with stuff like:

• I barely got to do anything last session while Player X hogged the spotlight. If they want to just play by themselves why don’t they?
• Combat drags everything down because players Y and Z are never prepared for their turns, and even when when they are, the keep getting stuff wrong.
• I know everyone else like to RP a lot, but can we maybe get a little more combat in the sessions?
• Etc.
• Etc.

And even if nobody is saying that kinda of stuff verbally between sessions, they say it with their attitudes and actions during sessions. And since the DM is doing everything they can the whole time, it really starts to feel like a judgement on themselves as the DM. Because when some of the players are having fun most of the time, and all of the players are having fun some of the time, but no matter how hard they work the DM cannot make it so that at least the majority of players are having fun at least most of the time, it kinda sucks.

That’s because the only real measure of how good a DM is, is how much fun our players are having. That’s a DM’s report card. Feeling unappreciated no matter how hard one works sucks. Many DMs will even put aside their own fun for the sake of the players’. But the thing is that the DM is a player too. Only they’re the Players that has to do the vast majority of the work and it feels like pulling teeth. When that DM vents to their close friend, and then catch an earful of the same things they’ve probably been thinking about themselves for months....

It’s easy to see how a situation like that can lead to an outcome like this.

More than likely, if Session 0 had gone better two years ago, then the players who weren’t a great fit for the campaign that DM was planning to run, then those players might not have necessarily joined if there was another more compatible campaign to join. The players that were having the least fun (and therefore inadvertently also putting the most stress on the DM) would have probably had more fun, and the DM would have likely felt less stress this whole time.

If you all can shake hands and make up as friends, you will still all probably be happier in separate campaigns.. That’s okay. In my local group there are enough players and DMs of different tastes that there have been up to for separate campaigns going on concurrently, and very few of us could (or should) be in all of them. Not all players are going to fit into all campaigns.

I hope that helps.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Based on what information you have provided, it seems to me that a number of things went wrong and they all piled up on top of each other.

First, your friend the DM has been curating an experience for 7 other people and themself for two years? There are a couple things right there: Group Size + DM burnout.

That’s a large group. I was DM for 6-7 pre-COVID and that is rough sometimes. Trying to keep all of those disparate pieces in the air at once takes a lot of work. A disproportionate amount more than 4-5 players in fact because not only are there two more PCs with their own issues that you have keep juggling, but on top of that, you have to split “Camera Time” for all of them, and they will each have their own complaints to drop on the DM too so instead of just adding two more balls to juggle its more like adding a running chainsaw and a live chicken.

Add to that, running any campaign for two years can start to lead to DM burnout for some people even if they only have to keep 4-5 balls in the air without the chainsaw and the chicken. It can wear one thin sometimes. And the extended pandemic has bean wearing on all of us. Even if you are hopefully somewhere in the world that’s fairly stable, the energy right now is taking its toll on the world.

You even mentioned that sometimes the pacing would drop off. Well, ahem... keeping it up for two solid years can be challenging. And some of that was possibly due to the 1ce/month schedule since, at least for me, it’s easier to keep the energy of the campaign going without such a big cool-down period between sessions. Of course that also has to be balanced against the necessary prep time too, and that balance gets more difficult to find with that many players too.

You also said that there were times when the other players noticed a lack of preparation, there were times you would step in, and at least one of the players mentioned being rather disinterested in the story. That sounds to me like the DM was either starting to get a little disinterested too, or maybe they were struggling for inspiration at times. I gotta tell you that knowing one has to meet that deadline every session even when you don’t really have it can also be a bit stressful.

But when a DM keeps making it under those circumstance and it feels like some of the players are just phoning it in starts to chafe. No DM expects the players to know everything, but they should at least be expected to know the general rules and their own characters. That’s not to say that mistakes don’t still get made, but when it’s every session.... But a DM’s time investment between sessions can conservatively be calculated at around 2 hours per Player per session. It’s not an exact science, but that rule of thumb is usually in the right ballpark. But the players only have to show up and participate for a few hours and then they’re off the hook until next session. And when everyone leaves, the DM still has to clean up after their guests.

And you even mentioned that the one player was less interested in the story than the combat, but that the DM had certain expectations of RP. That leads me to believe that if there was a session 0, some things were not made clear at that time. It sounds like there were 8 different people trying to play at least two different styles of D&D in the same campaign. Maybe the DM was less clear than they could have been, or maybe the players were unaware of what they were being told and what that meant, but more than likely both.

And don’t underestimate how much more challenging all of that can make it for the DM to do their job. So constantly having to do all of that, and keep giving everyone an equal amount of time and attention, when those very limited commodities are constantly being eaten into by having to explain the same rules over and over... And when the task of getting at least one of the players involved with all of that effort every session, it can make one feel some type of way.

You also mentioned a fluctuation between railroading and unpreparedness. Now, that might have been exactly what happened. But on the other hand, many DMs’ greatest challenge most of the time is to craft a story framework that is simultaneously constructed enough to prepare, but flexible enough to play. That’s because, to paraphrase one of the DM’s that I particularly look up to around here “Sooner or later the players will smash the DM’s railroad into a sandbox.” The point made there is simply that the DM has to build a framework upon which the campaign can sit, but it’s the whole table of people combined that really tell the story. The “railrady times” were quite likely the occasions when the DM was preparing too much of the story, and the “unprepared times” were likely the times the DM tried to compensate and accidentally swung too far the other direction. It takes some practice to find that Goldilocks zone and practice takes time.

So while I’m sure that a significant part of the problem was the DM understandably getting a bit fried from the workload. I’m also fairly sure that it was not the only reason for the frictions.

Basically, this brings it back to what I consider to be the three legs upon which every D&D group must stand:

• The Game (rules, mechanics, etc.)
• The Narrative
• The Table (more accurately the group of people together)

Go set up a tripod and make one leg twice as long as the other two. What happens?

That doesn’t meant that narrative, game, and table all need to be in perfect exact rigid balance. It just means that the three of them have to be close enough in balance to keep the thing from falling over. As long as it’s still standing, you’re good.

The Game is a lot of rules, and the DM needs to know more of them better than all of the players combined. So if everyone is kinda loos with the rules because the story is the important part, no problemo. But if a number of the group are relatively unconcerned about the Rules compared to the others, there’s an imbalance.

If a number of the group care a lot about the story you are all telling each other, and a few are  in the group care way less about the Narrative and care more about he Game, that’s just another imbalance. For instance, RP is mostly telling a narrative, and combat is mostly about “playing the game.” And then there are the players who just enjoy the communal activity with people they care about. So that pulls the game in three different directions at once. When different players show up every session looking for something different, that could always lead to a situation that can become untenable and the whole thing can collapse as it seems it might have done for your group.

I’m willing to bet that the DM also feels just as bad about everything. Look at it from their perspective: they work themselves ragged for two years trying to please 7 other people who are all looking for something different from the campaign, and no matter how many adjustments they have made, people are more than like approaching them after or between sessions with stuff like:

• I barely got to do anything last session while Player X hogged the spotlight. If they want to just play by themselves why don’t they?
• Combat drags everything down because players Y and Z are never prepared for their turns, and even when when they are, the keep getting stuff wrong.
• I know everyone else like to RP a lot, but can we maybe get a little more combat in the sessions?
• Etc.
• Etc.

And even if nobody is saying that kinda of stuff verbally between sessions, they say it with their attitudes and actions during sessions. And since the DM is doing everything they can the whole time, it really starts to feel like a judgement on themselves as the DM. Because when some of the players are having fun most of the time, and all of the players are having fun some of the time, but no matter how hard they work the DM cannot make it so that at least the majority of players are having fun at least most of the time, it kinda sucks.

That’s because the only real measure of how good a DM is, is how much fun our players are having. That’s a DM’s report card. Feeling unappreciated no matter how hard one works sucks. Many DMs will even put aside their own fun for the sake of the players’. But the thing is that the DM is a player too. Only they’re the Players that has to do the vast majority of the work and it feels like pulling teeth. When that DM vents to their close friend, and then catch an earful of the same things they’ve probably been thinking about themselves for months....

It’s easy to see how a situation like that can lead to an outcome like this.

More than likely, if Session 0 had gone better two years ago, then the players who weren’t a great fit for the campaign that DM was planning to run, then those players might not have necessarily joined if there was another more compatible campaign to join. The players that were having the least fun (and therefore inadvertently also putting the most stress on the DM) would have probably had more fun, and the DM would have likely felt less stress this whole time.

If you all can shake hands and make up as friends, you will still all probably be happier in separate campaigns.. That’s okay. In my local group there are enough players and DMs of different tastes that there have been up to for separate campaigns going on concurrently, and very few of us could (or should) be in all of them. Not all players are going to fit into all campaigns.

I hope that helps.

 You gonna write a book Sposta?  'Cause, while that was wordy, it was still a great read! 

Thanks. Lol

Maybe Matt Colville BioWizard and I should collaborate?

PS- Come to think of it, probably the two most common adjectives people use to describe me are “verbose” and “entertaining” or at least synonyms of those words.

Unless of course, you ask my wife. 😂

It stands to reason that if he won’t respond to you now and calls you a bad friend, there is no ‘behind his back’. However, shoot him an email and tell him you’re going to ask your friends who wants to join a game that you run as DM. If you truly value his friendship, offer him a seat...but you must really want to.

Thanks all for your replies. It made me realise (once more) that I have been acting too arrogant. I thought/hoped that people would react with answers like 'The DM can not kick players for such a small reason.' Or 'Kicking friends should be a group decission.' Or 'I had done the same in your case.'

But most of you applaud his perserverance, and most of you think that splitting up the group has become necessary. The situation was already breaking and my actions made it unrepairable..

*Sigh* When I signed up for DnD, I never realised that the game would become so personal.

While I love MidNightPlat's idea of two fluid tables, I don't think it is really up to me anymore to decide, right? The DM doesn't respond to me. I should just wait to see what he decided next game?

I am taking MusicScout advice and just wait a few days. And thanks for all the thorough analysing answers. 

Also, next time I plan a coup, I'd first get your advise..