Much easier to prematurely end the campaign because the DM is "busy with a lot of stuff" but then he does a one shot with the exact same group minus one person - Then what do you know - The one shot went so well that they want to turn it into a full campaign. Oh but, they invited a new player who is joining their new campaign and its the "just right" amount of players and they can't really add anyone else right now, especially the person excluded, but maybe next time?

That actually sounds like 1000x more work, with the side effect of killing a campaign people were probably enjoying

I always see these "how do I ditch this annoying player I absolutely hate". I rarely see anyone consider why this person was in the group to begin with. Is this the younger sibling or always-around cousin of the DM / game host? The best friend of a person you *don't* want to lose from the table? The next door neighbor you roped in specifically because you wanted more than two other people at the table? The kid at the comic book shop you invited in because they were giving you puppy-dog eyes for weeks prior? Someone you otherwise enjoy being friends with except when they're playing this particular board game? I mean, yeah. Its trivially easy to ostracize or freeze out a person from a social group. But there's usually a reason this person was included. And friendly players / skilled DMs can often find a way to make the game fun for more people. Once your solution to a frustrating player is to invent an elaborate way to boot them (in my experience) the table doesn't last very long afterwards.

The situation I got to witness was the player was upset with the DM for personal out-of-game reasons. To be petty and spiteful, they started to do many actions to derail as much as they could. Eventually the DM pulled the player aside and they had a talk but the enthusiasm for the campaign was gone and everyone just kind of dropped out.

I mean, the first part seems to be the root of the problem. By the time you're talking about booting this player, the game is already on life-support. I've had games disintegrate because of out-of-game beef between players. But that signaled the collapse of the whole social group, not just the D&D table. So much of D&D is just an excuse to hang out with your friends. If your friends hate each other, there's not a lot about hanging out that's attractive.

Or don't even tell the other guy. Just make a new group chat and invite the new player into the existing campaign. If they behave badly enough to kick them from the table, ghosting them in general doesn't seem unreasonable tbh.

It can also backfire if the other players decide they like them more than you, so they refuse to join the new campaign since the removed player isn't there. You could lie and tell them the removed player just decided to back out, but since the players like each other, it won't be long until they start asking why they left, and then everyone knows the truth.

As a person who spent a lot of time feeling rejected and unsure of why people were happy to be my acquaintance but not my friend, never getting any explanation why I wasn't good enough (the answer was undiagnosed autism and the trouble with social skills that comes with that), ghosting with no explanation hurts me in my soul. I get why people do it though. How do you know if it's a person who was clueless to what their bad behavior and is desperate to have literally anyone tell them what they do wrong so they can change, or someone who will flip out and get violent or stalkery or super spiteful towards group members once ejected from the group? How do you know it will not spiral into some giant drama, especially if you were wrong or others disagree about if their behavior was objectionable? Conflict avoidance, whether for justified reasons or not, is very very common.

120 feet seems pretty far. I guess you could shout, awkwardly.

In retrospect its obvious. At the time it happened, it just seemed like this player was just suddenly mid-campaign throwing a wrench in everything. No one knew about the personal beef, not even the DM it was directed at. Everyone in private said they were enjoying the game but this one player kept ruining the fun. DM said he'll talk with him (which is how he found out about the personal beef) but they couldn't resolve it amicabily. So hence the very awkward campaign-ending-but-actually-a-new-one starting without that specific player. You are correct though, the 'new' campaign went on for awhile but then the social group eventually went their separate directions anyways and it ended for good.

I think ghosting is a bit much. I know it sucks to bring the player aside and have the talk if something isn't going quite right, but I'd usually much prefer to allow them to try and course correct a bit. One of the first times I ever joined a DnD campaign I got ghosted and it sucked. I wouldn't want to inflict that feeling on other players if I could help it.

Is that backfiring, though? You decided that you don't want to play with that person, so if they are a package deal with other players, then you're going to lose all of those people no matter what you do. If you'd rather suffer the one bad player than lose the other people, then you need to understand that dynamic before acting unilaterally. You know, it's a social thing so you need to actually talk to people.

Hey, I play in D&D games without my bestie no problem. However, I don't play in D&D games with people who gaslight my bestie in an attempt to ostracise them. If you didn't do that, I wouldn't have left. You don't need to play with them. You don't get to decide that I don't play with them.

I guess the point is that either way an undesirable gets removed from the group and you wouldn't have to play with that person anymore. Only, the undesirable might be you. Seems to work as intended.

Nope, you just don't realize that people come in all sorts of personality types, and many will just throw you away, once they have no use for you. So, it's a picking better groups to be with problem.

I thought the power words were something like: Next session we will be using pathfinder.

I think one needs to address other issues if they are afraid that the entire group prefers the one they deem "toxic" over themself. If the entire party is willing to ditch one for the sake of another, I don't think that implies a fault with the latter.

It is also something I also want to avoid as much as possible. I'd rather have the uncomfortable conversation with someone than ghost them and I have actually walked that walk before, having uncomfortable conversations I wanted to avoid in order to not ghost someone else. Just wanted to show empathy for people who do it and maybe provide an explanation to the rest of us wondering why others hurt us that way.

*Grew a mustache and a mullet* *Got a job at Chick-Fil-A* *Citing "artistic differences"* *The band broke up in May* *And in June reformed without me* *And they got a different name* *I nuked another grandma's apple pie* *And hung my head in shame*