I have a DMs question that isn't about the rules of D&D.
There was an incident between players at my last session. Not the characters... the players.
I run an... adventure's league-ish game at the local game/comic store on Wednesdays. It is an open game for anyone to join and learn how to play, although I have a large core of regular players, ranging from ages 21 to the mid 50s. We stick with official content, but not necessarily AL-approved. My group has grown thanks to a lack of DMs but no lack of players, but nobody seems to mind other than the fact that combat takes forever because there are long waits between turns.
After this last session, one of the players, L, stated that he was uncomfortable with some of the discussion that was going on between players/characters, which mostly happened while the players were waiting their turn in combat (which I largely tuned out because, as DM, it is always my turn in combat, if not as the attacker then the attackee). The discussion was started with player J making a sexually-charged, off-the-cuff comment, and then many other players picked up on it and it escalated quickly, as happens occasionally in TTRPGs. L pointed out after the session that we were in a public and family-friendly environment, and added that his regular job is working with children and that if someone reported him taking part in this discussion, he could conceivably lose his job.
Most of my players agreed, saying that they had gone too far and promised to avoid that line of conversation in the future. And I made a mental note to better monitor that type of content in the future.
Story over. Or so I thought.
This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out. Apparently, J took L's content discussion as a personal attack because J was the one who started the discussion.
As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us.
J is saying that this was a culmination of bad blood that has been building between him and L for months, and this incident just finally pushed him over the edge. J insists he never would have complained about another player if they had brought up a content issue, only L.
Part of me wants to ban J from the table because his reaction came as a result of a legitimate, and respectful, content warning, and I want everyone at the table to feel like they can call for a content warning whenever and whyever they want without worrying about being attacked for it. But J insists his reaction had more to do with stuff that happened elsewhere, including other games in which they are... were?... participating in.
It doesn't help that I've been friends with J for about two years while L has been my longest player for a year and a half and has also become my friend. But as DM, I'm not trying to mediate between them as much as decide what is best for the table as a whole.
I don't know what to do.
When I "signed up" to be DM, this is not the type of drama I was hoping for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
So, if the conversation could realistically result in somebody losing their job, it was way, way over the line, and you should've stepped on it, but so should the other people involved. Even if L was being hyperbolic, it's hard to believe it wasn't out of line.
But that aside, one player, for whatever reason, just harassed another player out of the game, and that's an appropriate reason to bounce them. There doesn't even seem to be a dispute that J did so, just an argument that it was justified by past history, which I find unpersuasive.
Going forward, there are a lot of resources out there on how to accommodate people's boundaries in RPG play. Since you're playing in public, I would think you would be justified in setting a baseline rule of "no explicit sex or violence".
Well, from what you've described I would be inclined to eject J; even if you weren't really monitoring the other players, if you're in a game and the other players agree that your behavior was over the line, your acceptable options are
Persuade them that it's actually fine (if successful, most likely L would leave the game, but irreconcilable differences in gaming groups do happen).
Agree to modify your behavior.
Bow out of the group.
There is a role for private contact, but that role should be trying to peaceably resolve the dispute, not continue it.
L is gone. Unless you are trying to bring L back by kicking J out of the group then there's no reason to kick J. J may have started it with the initial comment but others joined in. But let him know harassing other players out of the game is not going to be tolerated. Leave it with a "This better not happen again or you're gone!" warning and move on.
That being said, you're not running a day care center. You're running a D&D game. You're not going to effectively run the game and monitor all OOC conversations with a large number of players. Set everyone down and clarify what is and is not allowed. Since this is a private space open to the public, ask for the game store employees' opinions. Since this is a space where kids might overhear that all conversations need to be family friendly. That's pretty obvious. But are innuendos allowed? They're adults, they can self-police. And if they can't then they don't need to bother showing up.
It's not the DM's job to investigate or entertain accounts of what happened in the aftermath of a game that seemed reasonably handled at the table, where it seems someone did express a boundary, and the troubling conduct was stopped with consensus, or at least agreed the table would try better going forward.
That said, the DM especially at store games is the de facto administrator/manager for the table, and you're facing one player's out of game conduct driving another player from your table. I would say L should be welcome at your table if willing to attend. J in pursuing the matter, which had been settled at the table, further is the problem actor and should be if not banned, at minimum suspended from your table till they come to their senses. If you let L leave the table and keep J there, in your local TTRPG gossip community your table now looks like a table where J's pursuits of other player's outside of game is accepted behavior. It shouldn't be.
You may, actually I feel you should, take this up with the store. Many stores, all the ones I play at, have formal/written or casual/informal policies that outline expected behavior at store hosted events and also say when stuff likes this situation arises (often because they're aware it happens and store owners will also talk even at places like GAMA on how to make sure it doesn't happen or best respond when it does), the GM should let the store know, and the store can enforce a ban/suspension. The logic is, that while you're facilitating the store's community at these events, it's ultimately the store's responsibility to maintain a welcoming and safe space for its clientele.
None of this is your fault, or your responsibility. It sounds like it was handled adequately at the table, and it's not anyone's fault a player decided to make a beef out of it. It's not what you or anyone signed up for, and the best way to go forward is to isolate the problem till the problem adequately repairs the harm they've done (this would be a simple apology for the post game escalation harassment).
Gut reaction I'd say is to kick J. What exactly was their "inappropriate sexually charged comment"? Or maybe I don't want to know - you only have one problem player, and it's not the one who asked to keep things civil.
The fact that the person was afraid they'd lose their job if word got out about the conversation...I shudder to think what the comment was, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
The party was exploring a dungeon and encountered a trio of owlbears, and the druid managed to placate them rather than fight them.
The initial comment was innocuous enough. As the party moved on to the next area, the druid, played by J, said his companion bear decided to stay behind with the owlbears and... sorry, I honestly don't remember the language he used... but the bear was going to try to mate with the owlbears. As I said, it started off simple enough.
From there, it grew to an intense side discussion about how bears and owlbears would mate, positions, enthusiasm, dominance, possible aphrodisiacs, etc.
I don't want to put words into L's mouth, I think what tipped it over the edge for L was when one of the other players, M, perhaps thinking the discussion had ended, expressed interest in trying to tame an owlbear, at which point I remember hearing someone (I'm not sure who... maybe Z?) comment along the lines of, "Why, you want in on the action?" Cue M denying that was his intent over the sound of much laughter and a few comments about how that might work.
On M's turn, he decided the party was doing well in the fight they were in and decided to go a different direction than the rest of the party and nearly ended up fighting, and likely would have been killed by, four very strong enemies by himself before managing to successfully retreat, but his potentially lethal decision kicked off a new discussion that ended the previous one.
As I indicated, my attention was largely elsewhere so I more than likely missed some things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
The conversation as described here could be anywhere from "kind of out of line for a group playing in public" to "WTF is wrong with you people?"
But it doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter if L's reason for complaint is objectively valid or not. L was uncomfortable, and said something after the fact. J responded by attacking L. J's behavior is 100% out of line.
I would say this is a question to put before the larger group; just because you're the arbiter of the rules in-game doesn't make you responsible for interpersonal disputes outside of it. I don't think deciding what's best for the table as a whole is part of the job of a DM; you're not your players' mom. Find a safe way to bring this up before the group (try not to blindside J with it, especially not in person) and hash out what everyone wants to do.
Personally, I don't think I'd be comfortable sharing a table with someone who just harassed another player out of the game, but your players will probably have a more nuanced view of the situation than a bunch of online randos.
Also, separately from your role as a DM, how do you feel about this as J's friend? Was he out of line? Are you worried he'll do it again? Part of being someone's friend is calling them back in when they get out of pocket. If you think J is wrong here, you do him no favors by not saying so.
Also, separately from your role as a DM, how do you feel about this as J's friend? Was he out of line? Are you worried he'll do it again? Part of being someone's friend is calling them back in when they get out of pocket. If you think J is wrong here, you do him no favors by not saying so.
Was J out of line? Yes, I believe he was. Will he do it again? No, I honestly don't think he will. Tensions between J and L have been building for a while now, and I believe J when he says this was simply the proverbial straw. That doesn't make it right or excuse him, but I believe him.
Will this incident stop someone else from speaking up if they become uncomfortable at the table for fear that they might be similarly treated? That's what I've been asking myself for days.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
I would say this is a question to put before the larger group; just because you're the arbiter of the rules in-game doesn't make you responsible for interpersonal disputes outside of it. I don't think deciding what's best for the table as a whole is part of the job of a DM; you're not your players' mom. Find a safe way to bring this up before the group (try not to blindside J with it, especially not in person) and hash out what everyone wants to do.
That is very likely to turn into "who do you like better? J or L?" That will not improve matters. (Also, as described, there is no coherent group to ask.)
It's also, ultimately, a cop-out. If the group decides somebody's behavior is fine, but you, the DM, don't want to play with them because of it, are you supposed to just cope? You still need to decide for yourself if you're willing to play with that person, and if you're not, one of you needs to leave. It doesn't even have to be because of game-related behavior. If player X is cheating on your sister, or screwed you over in business, or whatever, you are within your rights to not play with them. Because you're the DM, that amounts to forcing the rest of the group to pick between you or X if X makes it difficult. This happens a lot in social groups that aren't D&D as well, and it sucks, but sometimes the answer to "can't we all just get along?" is "no".
Given the particular setup of this game, it's actually easier. It's an open game they run at the store. OP can inform J they're not welcome, and whoever else comes to play can play. This in no way means there won't be personal drama; it's just that there isn't a coherent group to blow up. (It's also entirely likely that this isn't the only person J's driven away from the game.)
The game session itself "handled" the problem. Someone after the fact mentioned things made them uncomfortable. it sounds like the consensus at the table was that in hindsight the joke in-session was out of line, no one meant to harm anyone, and the consensus was not to do that again. If that's all there was there'd be no issue with this group or drop-in event. The problem comes in when J, after the session, pursues L over phone or social media or whatever channel to harangue them about their complaint. No real or perceived history makes that sort of conduct acceptable. Your game isn't really the problem, J's developing and pursuing a grievance predicated on what happened at the game is a problem. Again, the fact that this occurred not at someone's basement or kitchen table but a store sort of raises the standard of what behavior and post game behavior history is welcome at the table. That conduct would get you kicked out of and possibly banned from conventions etc. There's an easy remedy, J realizes they were out of line and sincerely apologizes to L, but it's not your job as DM to hold their hand to realize that. Suspend J from the table with the explanation that his game predicated conduct just wasn't cool and its on him to fix things with L. Of course as DM it doesn't feel good to be in that position, but this is not the DM's fault, this is on J.
That is very likely to turn into "who do you like better? J or L?" That will not improve matters. (Also, as described, there is no coherent group to ask.)
It's also, ultimately, a cop-out. If the group decides somebody's behavior is fine, but you, the DM, don't want to play with them because of it, are you supposed to just cope? You still need to decide for yourself if you're willing to play with that person, and if you're not, one of you needs to leave. It doesn't even have to be because of game-related behavior. If player X is cheating on your sister, or screwed you over in business, or whatever, you are within your rights to not play with them. Because you're the DM, that amounts to forcing the rest of the group to pick between you or X if X makes it difficult. This happens a lot in social groups that aren't D&D as well, and it sucks, but sometimes the answer to "can't we all just get along?" is "no".
Given the particular setup of this game, it's actually easier. It's an open game they run at the store. OP can inform J they're not welcome, and whoever else comes to play can play. This in no way means there won't be personal drama; it's just that there isn't a coherent group to blow up. (It's also entirely likely that this isn't the only person J's driven away from the game.)
I disagree; I think what you're describing is the cop-out. Banning J from the game unilaterally is just "choose between me and J" obfuscated behind a layer of presumed authority. The only power the DM actually has over the group is the power to run or not run the game. When you "ban" a player, what you're saying is "I will not run the game for you". Well, what if the other players want to play with the banned person? They'll have to find another DM to do it. That's "choose between me and X". It may feel nicer to not literally ask people to make a conscious choice, but it's not. If the DM decides they can't play with J any more, that's completely their prerogative, but they should be honest with their core group about what's going on.
The out of line discussion sounds like it was handled by the players and DM at the table after L mentioned that they weren't comfortable with it. J may have started that discussion with some suggestive remark but the table ran with it. It's a public place, it makes folks uncomfortable, it sounds like it was addressed by the group.
However, the issue is really that J subsequently " ... contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out." No one deserves a verbal assault after mentioning something made them uncomfortable, no matter what sort of history they might have. From the sounds of it J may not even have made the worst comments even if he made the first one. It doesn't really sound as if L's comment was even directed at J but at the disturbing topic of conversation. Perhaps J was feeling guilty, didn't like L anyway and reacted by lashing out. That is an explanation of behavior that is still unacceptable no matter which way you look at it. It would be unacceptable in a close friend group and is even more unacceptable in a public game of D&D at a game store.
My opinion is that you should ask J not to come back.They burned their bridges by taking a perfectly reasonable request to moderate off-topic and off-colour discussion personally and then "cussed out" the person requesting the moderation out of game and through out of game channels.
Despite the history between J and L and promises "it won't happen again" ... unless J is asked to leave, the end result it J keeps playing, L has left the game and J gets their way. Folks may be a bit leery of raising issues in future since from the perspective of the other players, the DM doesn't want to deal with it ... J was allowed to do whatever they like, verbally attack another player forcing them to leave the game and then continue to play with no consequences.
The bottom line in this case is that J verbally attacked (cussed out) L, out of game about an in game discussion, creating a situation where L decides that they just can't play in that environment with J.
-----------------
You could privately discuss it with all of the other players where each could express their own opinion in a way that neither L nor J will ever hear it. Perhaps consider what they have to say since they may have a different perspective, though you should have decided your course of action before having these discussions, the purpose of the discussion is to keep everything transparent.
Unfortunately, dealing with this type of situation is one of those less desirable DM responsibilities.
If this was a personal home game you might have more leeway in dealing with it ... however, again in my opinion, for a public game at a game store (Adventure's League ish), a verbal attack/harassment (definitely harassment since the interaction made L decide to not play) against another player should be an automatic ban from play.
Also, to make this easier on yourself in future, I'd suggest creating an explicit code of conduct (if you don't have one already - many public venues already have one - and WOTC has an example for applying to play of their games in public spaces - you could ask the store since if they are part of the Wizards Play Network they may be required to have a code of conduct).
Essentially - unless you have all the facts - you can't pick sides here.
There's a sensitive topic, you don't mention which one. But it's clear that L and J don't agree on whether or not that's something that can be made jokes about. Whenever there's a sensitive topic, whenever someone is uncomfortable with basically anything, it becomes a question of which way the consideration should go: Should everyone else show consideration to the guy who's uncomfortable - or should, perhaps, the person who's uncomfortable realise that being uncomfortable doesn't really mean he can dictate what everyone else is allowed to talk about.
In this case, I'd inform the group that at this table, everyone needs to show consideration to everyone else - that if anyone has issue with anyone else, they should resolve it away from the table (and maybe you're willing to mediate) - but that if such issues are not resolved, both should play at some other table.
What you might call a fairly robust neutrality.
That is, unless you feel the topic in question was really off the rails. But in this case, you shouldn't ban one player - but everyone who took part.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Essentially - unless you have all the facts - you can't pick sides here.
There's a sensitive topic, you don't mention which one. But it's clear that L and J don't agree on whether or not that's something that can be made jokes about. Whenever there's a sensitive topic, whenever someone is uncomfortable with basically anything, it becomes a question of which way the consideration should go: Should everyone else show consideration to the guy who's uncomfortable - or should, perhaps, the person who's uncomfortable realise that being uncomfortable doesn't really mean he can dictate what everyone else is allowed to talk about.
In this case, I'd inform the group that at this table, everyone needs to show consideration to everyone else - that if anyone has issue with anyone else, they should resolve it away from the table (and maybe you're willing to mediate) - but that if such issues are not resolved, both should play at some other table.
What you might call a fairly robust neutrality.
That is, unless you feel the topic in question was really off the rails. But in this case, you shouldn't ban one player - but everyone who took part.
1) The OP added some details about the discussion ... however, the discussion wasn't the issue and that was resolved by the group at the table.
2) The real problem that you seem to have missed is: "This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out."
The real issue wasn't the discussion at the table but J taking the discussion offline and private and verbally assaulting/harassing L to the point where "As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us."
In my opinion, this is the unacceptable behavior in this situation. The off-colour topic of discussion was handled by the folks at the table.
I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
The GM has the ultimate authority -- nobody can make them run a game. It's not even normally a job, just something they do for fun. If the owners want to run games where only those they choose to ban are banned, they should run the games themselves.
Also, if they don't want interpersonal conflicts driving paying customers away, cracking down on players like J who drive others away is the bare minimum they ought to be doing. That policy pretty much guarantees you'll have some regulars who are passively driving other players (and GMs) away through various forms of unpleasant behavior, but as long as they're polite to the owners, they get to play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have a DMs question that isn't about the rules of D&D.
There was an incident between players at my last session. Not the characters... the players.
I run an... adventure's league-ish game at the local game/comic store on Wednesdays. It is an open game for anyone to join and learn how to play, although I have a large core of regular players, ranging from ages 21 to the mid 50s. We stick with official content, but not necessarily AL-approved. My group has grown thanks to a lack of DMs but no lack of players, but nobody seems to mind other than the fact that combat takes forever because there are long waits between turns.
After this last session, one of the players, L, stated that he was uncomfortable with some of the discussion that was going on between players/characters, which mostly happened while the players were waiting their turn in combat (which I largely tuned out because, as DM, it is always my turn in combat, if not as the attacker then the attackee). The discussion was started with player J making a sexually-charged, off-the-cuff comment, and then many other players picked up on it and it escalated quickly, as happens occasionally in TTRPGs. L pointed out after the session that we were in a public and family-friendly environment, and added that his regular job is working with children and that if someone reported him taking part in this discussion, he could conceivably lose his job.
Most of my players agreed, saying that they had gone too far and promised to avoid that line of conversation in the future. And I made a mental note to better monitor that type of content in the future.
Story over. Or so I thought.
This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out. Apparently, J took L's content discussion as a personal attack because J was the one who started the discussion.
As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us.
J is saying that this was a culmination of bad blood that has been building between him and L for months, and this incident just finally pushed him over the edge. J insists he never would have complained about another player if they had brought up a content issue, only L.
Part of me wants to ban J from the table because his reaction came as a result of a legitimate, and respectful, content warning, and I want everyone at the table to feel like they can call for a content warning whenever and whyever they want without worrying about being attacked for it. But J insists his reaction had more to do with stuff that happened elsewhere, including other games in which they are... were?... participating in.
It doesn't help that I've been friends with J for about two years while L has been my longest player for a year and a half and has also become my friend. But as DM, I'm not trying to mediate between them as much as decide what is best for the table as a whole.
I don't know what to do.
When I "signed up" to be DM, this is not the type of drama I was hoping for.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
So, if the conversation could realistically result in somebody losing their job, it was way, way over the line, and you should've stepped on it, but so should the other people involved. Even if L was being hyperbolic, it's hard to believe it wasn't out of line.
But that aside, one player, for whatever reason, just harassed another player out of the game, and that's an appropriate reason to bounce them. There doesn't even seem to be a dispute that J did so, just an argument that it was justified by past history, which I find unpersuasive.
Going forward, there are a lot of resources out there on how to accommodate people's boundaries in RPG play. Since you're playing in public, I would think you would be justified in setting a baseline rule of "no explicit sex or violence".
Well, from what you've described I would be inclined to eject J; even if you weren't really monitoring the other players, if you're in a game and the other players agree that your behavior was over the line, your acceptable options are
There is a role for private contact, but that role should be trying to peaceably resolve the dispute, not continue it.
L is gone. Unless you are trying to bring L back by kicking J out of the group then there's no reason to kick J. J may have started it with the initial comment but others joined in. But let him know harassing other players out of the game is not going to be tolerated. Leave it with a "This better not happen again or you're gone!" warning and move on.
That being said, you're not running a day care center. You're running a D&D game. You're not going to effectively run the game and monitor all OOC conversations with a large number of players. Set everyone down and clarify what is and is not allowed. Since this is a private space open to the public, ask for the game store employees' opinions. Since this is a space where kids might overhear that all conversations need to be family friendly. That's pretty obvious. But are innuendos allowed? They're adults, they can self-police. And if they can't then they don't need to bother showing up.
It's not the DM's job to investigate or entertain accounts of what happened in the aftermath of a game that seemed reasonably handled at the table, where it seems someone did express a boundary, and the troubling conduct was stopped with consensus, or at least agreed the table would try better going forward.
That said, the DM especially at store games is the de facto administrator/manager for the table, and you're facing one player's out of game conduct driving another player from your table. I would say L should be welcome at your table if willing to attend. J in pursuing the matter, which had been settled at the table, further is the problem actor and should be if not banned, at minimum suspended from your table till they come to their senses. If you let L leave the table and keep J there, in your local TTRPG gossip community your table now looks like a table where J's pursuits of other player's outside of game is accepted behavior. It shouldn't be.
You may, actually I feel you should, take this up with the store. Many stores, all the ones I play at, have formal/written or casual/informal policies that outline expected behavior at store hosted events and also say when stuff likes this situation arises (often because they're aware it happens and store owners will also talk even at places like GAMA on how to make sure it doesn't happen or best respond when it does), the GM should let the store know, and the store can enforce a ban/suspension. The logic is, that while you're facilitating the store's community at these events, it's ultimately the store's responsibility to maintain a welcoming and safe space for its clientele.
None of this is your fault, or your responsibility. It sounds like it was handled adequately at the table, and it's not anyone's fault a player decided to make a beef out of it. It's not what you or anyone signed up for, and the best way to go forward is to isolate the problem till the problem adequately repairs the harm they've done (this would be a simple apology for the post game escalation harassment).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd boot J. They'll do this again otherwise. I don't have time for that kind of drama.
Gut reaction I'd say is to kick J. What exactly was their "inappropriate sexually charged comment"? Or maybe I don't want to know - you only have one problem player, and it's not the one who asked to keep things civil.
The fact that the person was afraid they'd lose their job if word got out about the conversation...I shudder to think what the comment was, lol.
I know what you're thinking: "In that flurry of blows, did he use all his ki points, or save one?" Well, are ya feeling lucky, punk?
I don't think "I wouldn't have done this to just anyone, I just really hate L" is the defense J thinks it is.
Insert The Good Place meme of Chidi going "ok that's worse... you get that that's worse, right?"
The party was exploring a dungeon and encountered a trio of owlbears, and the druid managed to placate them rather than fight them.
The initial comment was innocuous enough. As the party moved on to the next area, the druid, played by J, said his companion bear decided to stay behind with the owlbears and... sorry, I honestly don't remember the language he used... but the bear was going to try to mate with the owlbears. As I said, it started off simple enough.
From there, it grew to an intense side discussion about how bears and owlbears would mate, positions, enthusiasm, dominance, possible aphrodisiacs, etc.
I don't want to put words into L's mouth, I think what tipped it over the edge for L was when one of the other players, M, perhaps thinking the discussion had ended, expressed interest in trying to tame an owlbear, at which point I remember hearing someone (I'm not sure who... maybe Z?) comment along the lines of, "Why, you want in on the action?" Cue M denying that was his intent over the sound of much laughter and a few comments about how that might work.
On M's turn, he decided the party was doing well in the fight they were in and decided to go a different direction than the rest of the party and nearly ended up fighting, and likely would have been killed by, four very strong enemies by himself before managing to successfully retreat, but his potentially lethal decision kicked off a new discussion that ended the previous one.
As I indicated, my attention was largely elsewhere so I more than likely missed some things.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
The conversation as described here could be anywhere from "kind of out of line for a group playing in public" to "WTF is wrong with you people?"
But it doesn't actually matter. It doesn't matter if L's reason for complaint is objectively valid or not. L was uncomfortable, and said something after the fact. J responded by attacking L. J's behavior is 100% out of line.
I would say this is a question to put before the larger group; just because you're the arbiter of the rules in-game doesn't make you responsible for interpersonal disputes outside of it. I don't think deciding what's best for the table as a whole is part of the job of a DM; you're not your players' mom. Find a safe way to bring this up before the group (try not to blindside J with it, especially not in person) and hash out what everyone wants to do.
Personally, I don't think I'd be comfortable sharing a table with someone who just harassed another player out of the game, but your players will probably have a more nuanced view of the situation than a bunch of online randos.
Also, separately from your role as a DM, how do you feel about this as J's friend? Was he out of line? Are you worried he'll do it again? Part of being someone's friend is calling them back in when they get out of pocket. If you think J is wrong here, you do him no favors by not saying so.
Was J out of line? Yes, I believe he was. Will he do it again? No, I honestly don't think he will. Tensions between J and L have been building for a while now, and I believe J when he says this was simply the proverbial straw. That doesn't make it right or excuse him, but I believe him.
Will this incident stop someone else from speaking up if they become uncomfortable at the table for fear that they might be similarly treated? That's what I've been asking myself for days.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
That is very likely to turn into "who do you like better? J or L?" That will not improve matters. (Also, as described, there is no coherent group to ask.)
It's also, ultimately, a cop-out. If the group decides somebody's behavior is fine, but you, the DM, don't want to play with them because of it, are you supposed to just cope? You still need to decide for yourself if you're willing to play with that person, and if you're not, one of you needs to leave. It doesn't even have to be because of game-related behavior. If player X is cheating on your sister, or screwed you over in business, or whatever, you are within your rights to not play with them. Because you're the DM, that amounts to forcing the rest of the group to pick between you or X if X makes it difficult. This happens a lot in social groups that aren't D&D as well, and it sucks, but sometimes the answer to "can't we all just get along?" is "no".
Given the particular setup of this game, it's actually easier. It's an open game they run at the store. OP can inform J they're not welcome, and whoever else comes to play can play. This in no way means there won't be personal drama; it's just that there isn't a coherent group to blow up. (It's also entirely likely that this isn't the only person J's driven away from the game.)
The game session itself "handled" the problem. Someone after the fact mentioned things made them uncomfortable. it sounds like the consensus at the table was that in hindsight the joke in-session was out of line, no one meant to harm anyone, and the consensus was not to do that again. If that's all there was there'd be no issue with this group or drop-in event. The problem comes in when J, after the session, pursues L over phone or social media or whatever channel to harangue them about their complaint. No real or perceived history makes that sort of conduct acceptable. Your game isn't really the problem, J's developing and pursuing a grievance predicated on what happened at the game is a problem. Again, the fact that this occurred not at someone's basement or kitchen table but a store sort of raises the standard of what behavior and post game behavior history is welcome at the table. That conduct would get you kicked out of and possibly banned from conventions etc. There's an easy remedy, J realizes they were out of line and sincerely apologizes to L, but it's not your job as DM to hold their hand to realize that. Suspend J from the table with the explanation that his game predicated conduct just wasn't cool and its on him to fix things with L. Of course as DM it doesn't feel good to be in that position, but this is not the DM's fault, this is on J.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I disagree; I think what you're describing is the cop-out. Banning J from the game unilaterally is just "choose between me and J" obfuscated behind a layer of presumed authority. The only power the DM actually has over the group is the power to run or not run the game. When you "ban" a player, what you're saying is "I will not run the game for you". Well, what if the other players want to play with the banned person? They'll have to find another DM to do it. That's "choose between me and X". It may feel nicer to not literally ask people to make a conscious choice, but it's not. If the DM decides they can't play with J any more, that's completely their prerogative, but they should be honest with their core group about what's going on.
The out of line discussion sounds like it was handled by the players and DM at the table after L mentioned that they weren't comfortable with it. J may have started that discussion with some suggestive remark but the table ran with it. It's a public place, it makes folks uncomfortable, it sounds like it was addressed by the group.
However, the issue is really that J subsequently " ... contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out." No one deserves a verbal assault after mentioning something made them uncomfortable, no matter what sort of history they might have. From the sounds of it J may not even have made the worst comments even if he made the first one. It doesn't really sound as if L's comment was even directed at J but at the disturbing topic of conversation. Perhaps J was feeling guilty, didn't like L anyway and reacted by lashing out. That is an explanation of behavior that is still unacceptable no matter which way you look at it. It would be unacceptable in a close friend group and is even more unacceptable in a public game of D&D at a game store.
My opinion is that you should ask J not to come back.They burned their bridges by taking a perfectly reasonable request to moderate off-topic and off-colour discussion personally and then "cussed out" the person requesting the moderation out of game and through out of game channels.
Despite the history between J and L and promises "it won't happen again" ... unless J is asked to leave, the end result it J keeps playing, L has left the game and J gets their way. Folks may be a bit leery of raising issues in future since from the perspective of the other players, the DM doesn't want to deal with it ... J was allowed to do whatever they like, verbally attack another player forcing them to leave the game and then continue to play with no consequences.
The bottom line in this case is that J verbally attacked (cussed out) L, out of game about an in game discussion, creating a situation where L decides that they just can't play in that environment with J.
-----------------
You could privately discuss it with all of the other players where each could express their own opinion in a way that neither L nor J will ever hear it. Perhaps consider what they have to say since they may have a different perspective, though you should have decided your course of action before having these discussions, the purpose of the discussion is to keep everything transparent.
Unfortunately, dealing with this type of situation is one of those less desirable DM responsibilities.
If this was a personal home game you might have more leeway in dealing with it ... however, again in my opinion, for a public game at a game store (Adventure's League ish), a verbal attack/harassment (definitely harassment since the interaction made L decide to not play) against another player should be an automatic ban from play.
Also, to make this easier on yourself in future, I'd suggest creating an explicit code of conduct (if you don't have one already - many public venues already have one - and WOTC has an example for applying to play of their games in public spaces - you could ask the store since if they are part of the Wizards Play Network they may be required to have a code of conduct).
https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/code-conduct
Essentially - unless you have all the facts - you can't pick sides here.
There's a sensitive topic, you don't mention which one. But it's clear that L and J don't agree on whether or not that's something that can be made jokes about. Whenever there's a sensitive topic, whenever someone is uncomfortable with basically anything, it becomes a question of which way the consideration should go: Should everyone else show consideration to the guy who's uncomfortable - or should, perhaps, the person who's uncomfortable realise that being uncomfortable doesn't really mean he can dictate what everyone else is allowed to talk about.
In this case, I'd inform the group that at this table, everyone needs to show consideration to everyone else - that if anyone has issue with anyone else, they should resolve it away from the table (and maybe you're willing to mediate) - but that if such issues are not resolved, both should play at some other table.
What you might call a fairly robust neutrality.
That is, unless you feel the topic in question was really off the rails. But in this case, you shouldn't ban one player - but everyone who took part.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
1) The OP added some details about the discussion ... however, the discussion wasn't the issue and that was resolved by the group at the table.
2) The real problem that you seem to have missed is: "This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out."
The real issue wasn't the discussion at the table but J taking the discussion offline and private and verbally assaulting/harassing L to the point where "As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us."
In my opinion, this is the unacceptable behavior in this situation. The off-colour topic of discussion was handled by the folks at the table.
I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
The GM has the ultimate authority -- nobody can make them run a game. It's not even normally a job, just something they do for fun. If the owners want to run games where only those they choose to ban are banned, they should run the games themselves.
Also, if they don't want interpersonal conflicts driving paying customers away, cracking down on players like J who drive others away is the bare minimum they ought to be doing. That policy pretty much guarantees you'll have some regulars who are passively driving other players (and GMs) away through various forms of unpleasant behavior, but as long as they're polite to the owners, they get to play.