PDA

View Full Version : I just kicked out a player from my group, what point do you draw a line?



DontEatRawHagis
2015-03-26, 10:45 PM
I kicked out one of my players out of my game for various reasons(ie http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404566-DM-Struggle-Finally-got-one-of-my-players-to-have-Agency ).

I didn't want to kick them out of the campaign without some conclusion so today was the last session. In two weeks we are starting a new one, sans the player.

I did a bad thing and decided to not lie to my player at the end of the campaign.

I called an end to the storyline once the BBEG was defeated and we packed up. The player then asked are we starting a new one, what I should have said was no, but what I instead did was say "yes, but I Won't be asking you to come back."

No one knew about this beforehand except me. Everyone was in shock.

I'm slowly picking up the pieces now and making sure they know it was nothing g against them personally, but we'll see how things go.

They are trying to convince me they should be allowed back into game. I'm sticking to my decision.

Gritmonger
2015-03-26, 10:56 PM
You were honest, which is more than I can say about myself. I've had supposedly experienced players at times, and between extreme shocking behavior and total ineptitude (not the same person) I have generally allowed some campaigns to die a slow natural death from simple inattention which is also a not very nice thing to do.

Honesty can be the difficult route, but you get the pain over with up front rather than staging a ruse and dealing with the feelings of betrayal as well as roping several other people in on the deception.

Rad Mage
2015-03-26, 11:17 PM
Reading the other thread, I believe you were justified in your decision.

The rest of the group didn't seem to want to play with them either. The fact that you actually finished out the campaign with them proves that you are a better man than I. I don't think I would have lasted that long.

I have dealt with similar problem players and it is best to be upfront with them. Note that being upfront doesn't mean lacking in tact. I will add that you should at least tell them why your group does not want to play with them anymore as that will give them an opportunity to reflect on what happened and how they can avoid it in the future.

Beta Centauri
2015-03-27, 12:04 AM
I stopped inviting someone to my game because they had sort of dropped away. But I told them they had been dropped so that I felt free to do what I wanted with their character.

I draw the line when the idea of running the game with them feels like work and the idea of running the game without them feels like joy.

Geddy2112
2015-03-27, 12:31 AM
I did a bad thing and decided to not lie to my player at the end of the campaign.
it was nothing against them personally

They are trying to convince me they should be allowed back into game. I'm sticking to my decision.

You were honest, and it might have been harsh, but it was not bad. Personally, I can understand why you would kick said player from the game, but before I kicked them I would have sat them aside and told them their playing is making everybody else unhappy. Giving them at least a session or two to turn that kind of behavior around; often times players are totally unaware how their actions are affecting the group.

There are only 2 reasons I would ever kick a player from a game. The first is an in game problem that has the possibility of being solved, the second is out of game and cannot be solved:

1. They cannot play the way the group plays due to a radically different playstyle. Some people want deep political intrigue and serious characters, while others can't avoid falling into hack and slash. If you cannot play to the setting, it is not because on is right, but that you just don't want that type of game. This is a non personal kick, so long as you gave the player warning they are not playing to the group dynamic. All parties should be frank and open about in game problems, because most to all are a simple fix. However, if a player will not change, it is time for them to go.

2. They are flat out toxic to be around. Out of character, this person is just a nightmare. They are mean, rude, horribly inattentive, or some combination of traits that makes them somebody you don't want to be around. These players should be kicked immediately without question. You simply do not play games with people that you don't like.

Lacco
2015-03-27, 05:14 AM
You were honest, and it might have been harsh, but it was not bad. Personally, I can understand why you would kick said player from the game, but before I kicked them I would have sat them aside and told them their playing is making everybody else unhappy. Giving them at least a session or two to turn that kind of behavior around; often times players are totally unaware how their actions are affecting the group.

There are only 2 reasons I would ever kick a player from a game. The first is an in game problem that has the possibility of being solved, the second is out of game and cannot be solved:

1. They cannot play the way the group plays due to a radically different playstyle. Some people want deep political intrigue and serious characters, while others can't avoid falling into hack and slash. If you cannot play to the setting, it is not because on is right, but that you just don't want that type of game. This is a non personal kick, so long as you gave the player warning they are not playing to the group dynamic. All parties should be frank and open about in game problems, because most to all are a simple fix. However, if a player will not change, it is time for them to go.

2. They are flat out toxic to be around. Out of character, this person is just a nightmare. They are mean, rude, horribly inattentive, or some combination of traits that makes them somebody you don't want to be around. These players should be kicked immediately without question. You simply do not play games with people that you don't like.

I could not agree more with the first paragraph. Discussing what went wrong can help in many cases.

My line is quite easy to find - everyone at the table is responsible for enjoyment (hope this is a correct term) of all participants. If one distrupts the enjoyment, we discuss it. If he does it voluntarily, he is asked to stop. If it's the matter of playstyle, he is asked for inputs - what would he find enjoyable. If he does continue, he is asked not to come until he gets better. I usually use three strike rule.

I have stopped inviting only four players this way.
Number One - a murderhobo I think is the appropriate term - who continued despite protests of other players. He was asked to stop disrupting the game. Three strikes and I stopped inviting him (he did not try to contact me).
Number Two - a psychology student who hogged the spotlight, disrupted the game due to very different playstyle (imagine quite realistic, low-magic, high lethality, sword & sorcery game... she went for anime/JRPG approach). Even her boyfriend asked her to stop playing in the middle of the game (they were both newbies, he was dramatically different type of player). We discussed it, she told me my playstyle was horrible. I asked all other players, they backed me up (they usually have no problem calling me out if they dislike the game/rules/anything). She was informed and no longer invited.
Number Three - Hannelore. She is an entry for "Worst player". Unfocused. No attempts on roleplay. No inputs into the game. Lots of funny stories though (funny in the "if you were there, you would also try to kill her, but now we laugh about it"). I'm no fan of PvP, but I was seriously tempted when one of my players asked me if he could attack her... ... ... so, after three years of trying to get her to roleplay, play or at least to try anything, I stopped inviting her. Talked it out, she came only for the company, not the game. Could have said it sooner... but the stories are enjoyable.
Number Four - well, I didn't even invite this guy. He was introduced by a player. I was told he was experienced roleplayer, fun to be around guy. We chatted online for a while about the game, system, everything. We got into violent discussion about game rules and I was told my games must suck (he never actually played with me) because I don't usually allow PvP and I never did TPK or kill off character because of bad roll (the system allows rerolls with consequences) and finished the discussion with "you play the game wrong, so either you change the way you and your players game or I won't play". Guess which choice it was...?

As for the form of "kicking out", I am usually polite and up front. Saves time and nerves later.

So OP, you did the right thing. I would maybe invite discussion with group at first. Then, discuss it with her - and group - together. If she understands, try it. Give her only one strike. And then thank her.

Mr Beer
2015-03-27, 05:23 AM
Kicking the player is fine, IMO it's better to have some kind of discussion if you're at that point though, unless they do something that's horrible enough that it's automatic revocation of house entry e.g. real life violence, theft, egregious rudeness etc. The problem with bottling it up until you basically tell them you don't want them back doesn't give them a chance to fix the problem, which is unfair I think. Of course if you already had that discussion it's fine.

The only person I ever kicked got several warnings and at least one final warning. I got solid buy in from the other players as well first, so it was a done deal and he had no shoulder to cry on, at least in group.

Mr.Moron
2015-03-27, 06:33 AM
Reading your first post it seems more like a problem with you than them: You let someone get attached to an inappropriate character concept. You also didn't handle the outs properly by my reading. She literally told you in no uncertain terms that she wasn't going to try and cure her character and that you were welcome to do so. Yet apparently you kept putting in cures that required action/confirmation on her part something that you were told going in wasn't going to happen.

This whole thing should have never gotten that far, and near as I can read you never even tried to nip it in the bud.

First you have to set expectations. When the player says "I'm going to have multiple personalities" you either say "No. That's totally off tone" or ask "Hey - what will their goals be?" followed up with "It's important that all or most of them align with the party goals, you can switch off if you want but this is a cooperative game, so your head should be full of team players". By giving the concept an pass in you were basically saying "It's OK to be disruptive", because from the get-go that's red flagging all over the place as a possible disruption.

Secondly once it became disruptive you should have just cured it with no action/input on her part, she already said that was how it would have to go down. The player gave you explicit permission to unilaterally kill the multiple personalities and you didn't.

EDIT: Certainly if things had played out the same way in light of these kind of steps, or a serious direct OOC sit down like outlined in a few posts above I'd probably agree with your decision. With the current reading though you
A) Green lighted something disruptive,
B) Only gave outs the player said ahead of the time they wouldn't take.
C) Only addressed the behavior with mid-session arguing instead of reasoned, direct and honest discussion.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-27, 07:18 AM
Good job. I wish I had done this sooner with some people.

The most awkward time we had was when one guy who we intentionally didn't invite back showed up unexpectedly on game night.

We never told him he was a bore, who always had to have play-disrupting goals and/or disabilities and always had to be center of attention, among many other RL interpersonal social problems. Just when I was talking with a few of guys about starting a new campaign, one looked at me and said, "no Greg, right?". The rest were in solid agreement. It was a relief to me to find out everyone else felt the same way I did.

So I happily didnt send him an invite to the new game. We started a the campaign and after a couple sessions the poor guy stopped by. He came in, saw us gaming and stood talking to us expectantly, waiting to be invited in.

After a while it became apparent that no one was going to ask him to join. There was some open hostility from one player who flat out hated the guy. So Greg eventually tucked tail and slunk out.

I still feel bad that I took the coward's way out and didn't tackle this head on. If I had been honest earlier it could have allowed him to save face and not be shamed in front of the group like that. But his exclusion really made the game a lot more fun for everyone.

Tengu_temp
2015-03-27, 07:43 AM
Over the last several years, I explicitly banned three players from my games, though there would be a few more who wouldn't be allowed to join if they expressed interest, which admittedly is not very likely.

For two of these players, the case was simple: the player was a disruptive jerk who had an unpleasant personality and kept getting into big OOC arguments with other people. They were asked to stop that, promised to straighten out their behaviour, didn't. Several strikes more, and I had a polite but stern talk with the player on the topic of "why shouldn't we kick you out of the group". They couldn't provide a good answer, and they're out.

The third guy is a more special case: he was actually a DM in a multi-DM game. And he was a really bad one; his vision of where the game should go was very different than what everyone else expected, he played favorites like crazy, he was very bad at running a fan game, had an abrasive personality, and was a liar who kept telling me and other DMs things about how some things in the game went that weren't true, simply so he'd look like the right party. He drove a few players out of the game, at which point I and another DM got fed up and we pretty much took the reins from him hands. The guy left on his own soon after that. Later, when I was running another game, he said he's interested in joining; I told him that, due to his behaviour in the previous one, he can't.

BWR
2015-03-27, 08:04 AM
We've never had to ban anyone from our games. A few people tried gaming with us once were disruptive jerks, but left on their own accord after one session because they didn't think the game was fun.
We've had people drop out after gaming with us a while because of lack of interest, other priorities (other games being more interesting, sometimes) etc. but never had to kick anyone for being bad for the game.

DontEatRawHagis
2015-03-27, 08:21 AM
It's getting easier to see that I did the right thing. I did sit her down a couple of times during after game sessions to ask her to tone it down. I spent a lot of time to try and fix this as any talk out of game would result in the player saying they would change. After a week or two the changes didn't stick or I could see the player get frustrated with adhering to the change. Every session they would message me with what their character was doing without consulting the other players.

I have had players do this sparingly, but the player was doing this every session multiple times. Made me question if they even wanted to play with these people.

One of my other players has messaged me asking about plot points that the problem player derailed for them. I assume that there are few questions the players will ask me as well.

Gauging those reactions I don't think I'll have a problem keeping the group together. But I'll be sure to let everyone come to me with questions or concerns. I'd like to nip problems early to fix them so I never have to ask a player to leave again.

comicshorse
2015-03-27, 08:22 AM
I draw the line when the idea of running the game with them feels like work and the idea of running the game without them feels like joy.

I know this feeling, when you start making excuses not to run the game 'cause they're going to be a part of it it's time for them to go. (Though being a bit of a coward I wrap the game up and then don't invite them back. Only had to do that with two players so far but the games were so much better for their absence)

Broken Twin
2015-03-27, 08:33 AM
Personally, you definitely did the right thing in this situation. She wasn't a good match for your group, and attempts to compromise didn't work.

In general, I draw the line when a disruptive player refuses to adapt after being warned. I'm a fan of the three strikes method, and I can honestly say I've never had to kick someone from the group. Really though, the biggest problem player I have wouldn't have gotten invited back if it hadn't have been for outside factors. And even then, he's tolerable. Aggravates me on occasion, but knows to reel it back in when I frustrated with him.

Galen
2015-03-27, 11:02 AM
Not saying you shouldn't have kicked them out, but it was handled very poorly.


I called an end to the storyline once the BBEG was defeated and we packed up. The player then asked are we starting a new one, what I should have said was no, but what I instead did was say "yes, but I Won't be asking you to come back."

No one knew about this beforehand except me. Everyone was in shock.
That's a really bad thing that you did. You basically humiliated the player in front of the group. You should have conveyed the message that they're no longer invited privately. Meeting with them in person, if you can stomach it, else by phone or email. All of those would have been better than taking the dispute between you and the player public. And now the rest of the group are involved, and are in a way forced to take sides. In summary, nothing good can come out of this faux honesty.

The correct answer to the question "are we starting a new campaign" should have been "yes, let's talk details later".

When a manager has to fire an employee, does he call the employee to a personal meeting, or does he fire him in front of the whole company? Well, sometimes they do the latter (http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a-patch-employee-snapping-a-photo-2013-8), but that's an exception rare enough to produce a massive outcry.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-27, 11:13 AM
Not saying you shouldn't have kicked them (don't know reasons), but it was handled very poorly.

That's the only thing I had a problem when I first read the story too. The maxim "praise in public, criticize in private" should be followed when possible.

But then I thought maybe there was something else going on here. The OP might have needed the moral support of the group to make that announcement. He may not have felt comfortable telling her in private or may have thought he would falter/be talked out of it. Sometimes when it's an abusive situation you need the strength of a group to help you out. He already knew they didn't want her there so it was a relatively "safe" move.

I'm sure it wasn't pleasant for this woman. It's hard to hear the harsh truth, but sometimes that's the only way the message can get through.

SowZ
2015-03-27, 11:43 AM
I think you handled this poorly. The way she acted was certainly not horror story. It was disruptive, sure, but if you never talked to her about it and didn't use your authority as DM to fix it that's on you. You didn't communicate with the player. The player communicated with you just fine, told you what she wanted, you said it was okay, but then were upset when she did exactly what you oked.

I'm sure you just wanted to resolve the problem and did what you thought best, but that doesn't mean your judgement was good here.

It seems you were less than honest when you should have been forthright, and brutally honest when there was no reason to.

If I was another player, I might drop myself for fear that the DM might arbitrarily ban me from the game in a publicly humiliating manner. I'm not saying your reasons were arbitrary, but if you didn't communicate/give them an opportunity to fix it, it would certainly appear that way to me. As a a DM, one of your jobs is to create a safe space where people can talk about their concerns with the game openly. Embarrassing someone with a revelation that is already hurtful, as well as organizing players behind their back to see if they didn't like her there whilst she thought everything was okay and you weren't honest enough to tell her the truth earlier, is a somewhat hostile atmosphere.

It would be somewhat different, though not entirely, if the player was truly terrible. So she made a stupid character and hogged the spotlight. You basically told her that it was okay to do these things, though. Maybe with different expectations she wouldn't have been as bad. If she was blatantly abusive and mean to the other players, sure, give her the boot. But as far as bad RPG experiences go, this one is fairly mild.

Now your players want this person invited back. If that's the case you really should as it is a chance to fix these mistakes, apologize for your rude and sort of backhanded behavior, but this time explain what they did that hurt the enjoyment of the other players. She very well may fix it.

Lord Torath
2015-03-27, 12:13 PM
Not saying you shouldn't have kicked them out, but it was handled very poorly.

That's a really bad thing that you did. You basically humiliated the player in front of the group. You should have conveyed the message that they're no longer invited privately. Meeting with them in person, if you can stomach it, else by phone or email. All of those would have been better than taking the dispute between you and the player public. And now the rest of the group are involved, and are in a way forced to take sides. In summary, nothing good can come out of this faux honesty.

The correct answer to the question "are we starting a new campaign" should have been "yes, let's talk details later".

When a manager has to fire an employee, does he call the employee to a personal meeting, or does he fire him in front of the whole company? Well, sometimes they do the latter (http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-audio-listen-to-aol-ceo-tim-armstrong-fire-a-patch-employee-snapping-a-photo-2013-8), but that's an exception rare enough to produce a massive outcry.I have to agree with this. Tell her "Yes, I'm working on a new campaign. Can you hang around after everyone else leaves so I can talk to you about it?" and then break the news to her privately.

DireSickFish
2015-03-27, 01:47 PM
I've only kicked one player from my groups. It was because he did not mesh well with the other players and was very hard to keep on track. I was also a bit stressed running it, so wasn't thinking on my feet fast enough to accommodate the divergent play-styles.

I talked it over with the rest of the group, and they thought he was being disruptive. So I talked to the player in private and said he wasn't meshing with the group and I couldn't handle running for him. He took it well and we're still friends. I've DM'd for him since and played with him, it just wasn't working out in that game. He was very mature about it actually.

The only other player you could say I kicked was really more him quitting. I just had beat him to saying he should go so that I could hold some semblance of order over the proceedings. Everyone else wanted to keep going after he left even though I was feeling super not confident. So I stuck with it and had a great session.

I'm surprised you didn't talk to the other players about how the player you are kicking is getting on your nerves.

Kid Jake
2015-03-27, 02:31 PM
I'm surprised you didn't talk to the other players about how the player you are kicking is getting on your nerves.

In the other thread I think he mentioned that the rest of the group was also hoping he'd kick her.

DontEatRawHagis
2015-03-27, 02:55 PM
I have to agree with this. Tell her "Yes, I'm working on a new campaign. Can you hang around after everyone else leaves so I can talk to you about it?" and then break the news to her privately.

If I could go back and change it I would do it in private. But what happened happened. If there is a next time I will be taking a player to the side.

While I had support from my players the problem player had none and felt betrayed. And that might be the worst part.

Metahuman1
2015-03-27, 03:17 PM
What annoy's me about this set up is I actually like the multiple personality's trick in systems that can allow for it. I usually run it as them being experts in different things.

One personality's a Ninja, One's a top shot with a fire arm, one's a paramedic.

Or one's a hacker, one's an expert in Parkour, one knows something about magic (If setting appropriate, obviously.)

Or maybe there's a theme, like, there all a master of a different style or a couple of different styles of martial arts.




Seeing it used badly to be disruptive irks me.

Lord Torath
2015-03-27, 03:40 PM
If I could go back and change it I would do it in private. But what happened happened. If there is a next time I will be taking a player to the side.

While I had support from my players the problem player had none and felt betrayed. And that might be the worst part.You might try calling up the offended player and apologizing. Tell her you were caught off-guard by her question, and you're sorry about how things played out. You still stand by your decision, but you feel bad about the public shaming. She still might tell you to drop dead, but she might be willing to forgive you. Invite her over for board game night to play some Order of the Sitck - The Dungeon of Dorukan with the rest of the group.

I've had to kick one of my daughters out of our group. She just couldn't handle anything bad happening to her character, and let's face it, much of roll-playing is bad things happening to your character. You get hit in combat, you get framed for murder, you wake up and find yourself in a weird castle surrounded by a horrible grey mist with no obvious sign of escape. She's just not cut out for role-playing (or competitive sports, for that matter). Luckily, it's mostly just a matter of not inviting her to the table when her brothers and younger sister come play, so no hard feelings.

Beleriphon
2015-03-27, 04:11 PM
I have to agree with this. Tell her "Yes, I'm working on a new campaign. Can you hang around after everyone else leaves so I can talk to you about it?" and then break the news to her privately.

The only issue I have with this is 1) you aren't a disruptive force's boss, mother or anything else and 2) if you'll never see them again, why do you care what they think or feel at that point. I've been called a bit harsh in that regard, but it isn't anybody's job to hold another person's hand when you want them gone. There's no duty of care to a player in a game, unlike your boss.

There's a difference between rude, and just telling somebody they aren't invited. Too bad, so sad and all that.

Mr Beer
2015-03-27, 06:02 PM
The thing is, it's not like OP planned this out, gathered round a bunch of witnesses and then ritually humiliated the problem player.

It was thrown in his lap, he went for being honest, yes that probably embarrassed the person and they feel bad, but it's far from the worst choice he could have made on the spot. Bandaid has been ripped off, it's done now, time to move on.

BootStrapTommy
2015-03-27, 06:08 PM
I draw the line when the idea of running the game with them feels like work and the idea of running the game without them feels like joy. This. This is where you draw the line! :smalltongue:

Solaris
2015-03-27, 06:40 PM
The thing is, it's not like OP planned this out, gathered round a bunch of witnesses and then ritually humiliated the problem player.

It was thrown in his lap, he went for being honest, yes that probably embarrassed the person and they feel bad, but it's far from the worst choice he could have made on the spot. Bandaid has been ripped off, it's done now, time to move on.

This is an excellent point. Complaints about humiliating an unpleasant player aside, DERH committed a minor faux pas, not a planned attack.

Another point is that she ruined the game for all of the other players. Sometimes, a little public humiliation is in order for someone whose behavior is unacceptable. It hardly ever does any lasting harm, and it can make someone who's proven themselves resistant to more subtle forms of manipulation re-examine their play styles.

Aasimar
2015-03-27, 07:09 PM
Actually, you can't draw a line on a point, as by definition a line is 1-dimensional, but a point is 0-dimensional.

Cikomyr
2015-03-27, 08:45 PM
In the other thread I think he mentioned that the rest of the group was also hoping he'd kick her.

But then, he mentions.in the OP that it came at a shock to other players.

While its easy to criticize with hindsight, id recommend to the OP that next time, he should simply not let the situation develop to such a point. There should be a relatively early point where you can decide that you arent having fun anymore with a concept, and ask the player to drop it.

Certain topics are more sensitive or turn out to vavuum the fun out of the game for somes. It happens. Be clear about these things as they turn up. I certainly drew my lines early on during my gaming career (first rule is no cross playing. Except maybe the Edwina scenario "man who has been turned into a woman against his will")

Kid Jake
2015-03-27, 08:53 PM
But then, he mentions.in the OP that it came at a shock to other players.

While its easy to criticize with hindsight, id recommend to the OP that next time, he should simply not let the situation develop to such a point. There should be a relatively early point where you can decide that you arent having fun anymore with a concept, and ask the player to drop it.

Certain topics are more sensitive or turn out to vavuum the fun out of the game for somes. It happens. Be clear about these things as they turn up. I certainly drew my lines early on during my gaming career (first rule is no cross playing. Except maybe the Edwina scenario "man who has been turned into a woman against his will")

I figured it was just the bluntness that shocked them; rather than some desire to keep gaming with an annoying spotlight hog.

Kalmageddon
2015-03-27, 08:54 PM
I only ever kicked out two players in my entire career.
One was someone that had some pretty noticeable temper issues IRL and basically was unable to take "no" for an answer or face any IC challenge without feeling it was a personal attack of some kind. Like, for example, an enemy manages to take down his character (not by killing him, merely temporarely disabling him), he would literally rage-quit the session and walk away, often while spewing insults at the rest of the group.

The other was someone I mentioned a few times in other threads already, basically this is someone that lives in his own world and is IRL pretty much incapable of mediating between what he wants or thinks should happen and what is actually feasible. This translates into the game with a complete inability to understand that it's the GM and the rules that decide the outcome of an action, not just his own imagination. Completely incapable of learning even the basic rules of the game, of understanding that in a typical rpg you need to pass some kind of test in order to obtain the outcome you wish for and that often rules have restriction and black spots where you are supposed to just play along so that you don't become a chore for the GM.
I got a migrane multiple times from even simply trying to understand what his actions were trying to accomplish.

Seerow
2015-03-27, 08:57 PM
My group has kicked out 5 players over the last decade or so of playing. All 5 were due to certain felonious actions regarding minors (either past or present) coming to light that made the rest of the group uncomfortable to continue being around them after knowing.

Frankly I find it disturbing that we've encountered that many in our pool of potential players. On the other hand we have never had to kick someone out for problems actually relating to the game itself, which is more than a lot of people seem to be able to say.

themaque
2015-03-27, 09:38 PM
WE have kicked people out of games, but it was rarely for just ONE issue. It very often comes to one final straw, but the end line is, do they get along with the group?

If someone is a friend, and they are good to be around, then you are willing to look past difficulties. "Yeah he may be a @#$% but he's OUR @#$%".

If you can't stand to hang around them in a social setting, then you shouldn't allow them in the game. Most reasons recently has been they made the women in the group feel uncomfortable with their presence or their anti-social behavior got so bad that spending any time with them was a chore.

I try to be forthright but honest with them. Tell them what the problem is and why we had come to that point. Typically it was not the first time I had talked with them about said behaviour, so it wasn't a surprise.

Feddlefew
2015-03-28, 12:24 AM
I've asked people to find a new group a few times, or told them I would not DM for them. Mostly it was for breaking social conventions that made them unpleasant to be around, like The Guy Who Would Not Bathe Between Practice and D&D*. But there is one particular incident that still makes me feel uncomfortable just thinking about it.

I have booted a player, mid session, exactly once.

We'll say that it involved a 100% new to table tops players, one of whom might have been stalking another one. The guy started being creepy and making in-character passes at the character of another (male and openly bi) player which, despite repeated warnings about his behavior and the player he was hitting on asking him to stop, quickly escalated into a 5 minute long, extremely graphic tirade about what he wanted his character to do to the other player's character.

And then he dropped pretenses and it became a tirade about what he wanted to do to the other player.

I remember slamming shut a book, pointing at the door, screamed at him to GTFO. He stopped, but only because he seemed to remember he was in a public space (a small club meeting room), and noticed there were people gathering outside to see WTH was going on.

After he left and we closed the door I started crying because A) I was FURIOUS, B) the game was ruined and my player's were going to walk away thinking that table top gaming was for psycho creeps, and C) I was afraid the other player was going to be murdered by the creepy player. I had an untreated anxiety disorder, so I don't know if any of those things were okay to cry about, but I was crying to hard to pick up where we left off. I probably couldn't have salvaged the session even if I wasn't an emotional wreck, come to think about it.

As for what happened after: The remaining players and I met up after we'd all calmed down and had a good brain bleaching to do a different one shot. We continued doing one shots with me on and off, creepy guy quickly gained a reputation as being someone you didn't even want in the room with you during a session and eventually dropped out, and I started making players read and sign a basic civility rule sheet at the beginning of the first session.

* We talked a little, and it turned out that he would literally run from the locker room to the game location, stopping by his room to pick up snacks. He agreed that maybe he should look for a group that fit his scheduled better, and he did after about a month of looking.

Edit for context: I used to run a lot of newbie friendly one shots, so I got a lot of odd people, weird people, and people that no one else would game with.

comicshorse
2015-03-28, 07:56 AM
, and I started making players read and sign a basic civility rule sheet at the beginning of the first session.


Care to share that ?

D+1
2015-03-28, 10:48 AM
No one knew about this beforehand except me. Everyone was in shock.
THAT was your mistake. The mistake wasn't in choosing to be honest.

Read the other thread and it needs to be said that, all things being equal, players do not have a right to create characters that serve to disrupt the game. DM's have an obligation to OTHER PLAYERS to prevent it from happening in the first place and to bring it swiftly to an end when it does happen. Yeah, if everyone agreed ahead of time that, "anything goes," or some such thing, then you all deserve what you get. Barring that, players have an obligation to create and run characters who have a reason to continue to work with the party, generally get along, and to not be a pain the the arse - IN OR OUT OF CHARACTER. DM's have an obligation to everyone at the table not to let one PC control and disrupt the whole game. Creating a character with multiple personalities might have been allowable but when none of the personalities turned out to work well with the party then it's the DM's job to bring the player/PC in line and to cease just being a disruptive jerk.

But even players who are being jerks (by having their PC's be jerks) don't necessarily realize how obnoxious they're being. COMMUNICATE dangit! Players don't read minds any more than YOU do. If a player is being a problem SAY SOMETHING. At least give them the opportunity to redeem themselves. You can't just spontaneously announce, "HA HA! You have FAILED the Double Secret Probation that I put you on! Get out and never return!" Even if the player deserves no more than that it makes YOU look like just as big of a jerk.

If a players behavior or their PC is unsatisfactory then say so and give them the chance to stop, change, or perhaps even justify it. Only if they THEN fail to do what you have reasonably asked them to do should you be resorting to disinviting them. Either that or their actions need to be so offensive and intolerable that no second chance is given.

D+1
2015-03-28, 10:56 AM
Care to share that ?
Here's one that I hand out to players:
http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/manifesto.htm
I don't run public games, but if I were to do so for any length of time - I'd have every participant sign it after discussing it or at least reading it aloud so there's no argument about expectations.

Maglubiyet
2015-03-28, 12:09 PM
I'd have every participant sign it after discussing it or at least reading it aloud

You might need to pare it down a bit if that day ever comes. Your manifesto is about 3500 words -- average speaking speed is 100 words per minute.

It's good stuff, though. Most of it I would only address if it ever came up because most of my players don't read much.

Feddlefew
2015-03-28, 07:32 PM
Care to share that ?

Someone PM'd me earlier about this, so here's what I sent them.



I actually write a new one for each group, usually with the group during the preliminary session. ^_^;

If you're doing an open sign up one shot, that's a bit trickier.

However, I always have the following for campaigns:

1. Stay in touch.
--Players make certain the DM or game-organizer has your contact information, and confirm if you can or cannot attend at least a day before the session.
--The DM or game-organizer will always arrange sessions at least N days in advance.
--The DM will be available for questions via email. Do not abuse this.

2) Everybody brings food.
--Host supplies beverages, unless otherwise arranged.
--Now is a good time to mention food allergies.
--If we order pizza/ takeout / whatever, we work out how much it'll cost and how we pay for it ahead of time.
--Host gets first pick of any leftovers.

3) Basic social gathering rules still apply!
- Game time is like a potluck or other informal party, and should be treated as such.
- [If your group needs elaboration and you don't have members from significantly different cultural backgrounds, you've got problems to address ASAP.]

4) Game Rules
- If anyone isn't enjoying an aspect of the game, the DM and the player(s) can talk it out, as a group or in private .
- After each session, DM and players discuss how the game went.
---Does anything need to change?
- Early Installment Weirdness Rule: Player are allowed to change any aspect of their character between the first full game session and the second.
- [House rules and etiquette should go here, such as how dice are handled, PvP rules, ect ect.]

5) DON'T BE A CREEPER
-[This is about setting boundaries with what is and isn't acceptable behavior. Obviously, sexual harassment falls under unacceptable, but so might torture, gorn, body horror, sociopolitical topics, and so forth.]


.....


I'm probably forgetting things, but there you go.

For open table games you're going to want to focus more on the later 3 sections and try to keep it <500 words. At the same time, you also need to make it VERY CLEAR that some behaviors are not acceptable up front. Without, uh, scaring away new players.

It really depends on your venue, and I mean the individual but I don't have much experience outside of running newbie-friendly one shots at college and "entertain your cousins for a few hours dear".

DMing for my cousins is great. :smallbiggrin:

DontEatRawHagis
2015-03-29, 10:19 PM
I didn't want to update this, but my player has messaged me the passed few days with personal issues that they are working out with a professional.

Im still sticking to my decision, but this is where I feel less like a DM and more like a Psychologist. I don't want to be responsible for the "only" relief someone has from reality.

Mr Beer
2015-03-29, 10:27 PM
I didn't want to update this, but my player has messaged me the passed few days with personal issues that they are working out with a professional.

Im still sticking to my decision, but this is where I feel less like a DM and more like a Psychologist. I don't want to be responsible for the "only" relief someone has from reality.

Even more reason to stick with your decision IMO. It's possible for someone's unlikeable behaviour to become both more forgive-able and simultaneously even more of a reason not to have them back.

Mr Beer
2015-03-29, 10:28 PM
My group has kicked out 5 players over the last decade or so of playing. All 5 were due to certain felonious actions regarding minors (either past or present) coming to light that made the rest of the group uncomfortable to continue being around them after knowing.

Do you game next to a halfway house for criminals re-entering society or something?

Seerow
2015-03-30, 12:17 AM
Do you game next to a halfway house for criminals re-entering society or something?

Nope. It was even in two different cities. Admittedly it isn't as bad as it sounds when I say 5 people, since it was two groups of people who happened to be living together and charged for the same things.

First time was a group of 3 guys who lived together. That one shocked everyone because several of us had known them for years and never suspected until the FBI raided their apartment. They made up half our group at the time. It took some time to recover from that.

Second time was more than 5 years later, and was a couple of guys we met on craig's list while trying to recruit new members. They seemed nice enough, and we gamed with them for a couple of months before finding out one of them had a criminal past. He gave us some excuses to make it sound less bad than it was, but some looking into public records showed it was in fact far worse than he led us to believe, plus the other guy had been charged for the same crime around the same time. So we abandoned them as well.

Galen
2015-03-30, 10:45 AM
I didn't want to update this, but my player has messaged me the passed few days with personal issues that they are working out with a professional.

Im still sticking to my decision, but this is where I feel less like a DM and more like a Psychologist. I don't want to be responsible for the "only" relief someone has from reality.
You are not responsible for their relief from reality. You do owe them basic human courtesy, but you don't owe them a D&D game. If you don't want to spend time with that person, you don't have to.

But I'd still recommend you apologize for the public humiliation, if you haven't done so already. And make it clear that while you're sorry for that part, that doesn't mean you're taking them back. Let them work those issues with a professional.

SowZ
2015-03-30, 11:34 AM
I still see no reason to kick the person from the group, especially since the other players asked you to give them another chance. The DM is at greater fault then the player, the player committed no action that warranted being booted like that, and was then publicly humiliated for no good reason. What are the rest of you seeing that I'm not seeing?

Yoachuallathui
2015-03-30, 11:42 AM
I'd like to think i'm a pretty lax GM, but i've kicked a few people from certain campaigns, albeit more rarely the group entirely.

The first that comes to mind is a long term friend. He used to be fine, but his lack of attention and repeated non-attendance caused one campaign to end. I was slightly bitter over this, and didn't invite him back to the replacement one. In the intervening time, he's decided that he is in love with my partner, and has shouted at me more than once about how she should be with him instead. A while after, i was persuaded by the other players to give him another go. He played for two sessions before informing me that he would be late for the forseeable future due to wanting to watch a TV show that was the same time as the game (Which is freely available online the second it is broadcast). I gave him a month to actually show up, which he didn't, and then kicked him.

The second was always wanting the spotlight, and would argue with me over what characters they could and couldn't build in the setting (E.g. in a historically accurate game, they insisted on having a 10-foot long scythe). For hours. In games, they would constantly describe how attractive their character looked, and often be outright hostile to other players. Wasn't invited back.

The third was terrible at attendance. We even moved the game to the house he shared with another player, and somehow his attendance dropped even lower. He hasn't been formally removed, but since he's so rarely there i haven't needed to talk to him

The fourth was the worst player i've ever come across. Refused to read the rules, constantly had to ask me what their own stats were, spoke over other players, would bait other players into arguments like it was the most fun thing ever, insisted on being an orphan raised by pirates when the game took place in a landlocked country, actually outright copied another players character buildwise (Rogue/Wizard), moaned for minutes on end every time their character took damage or wasn't in the spotlight, spent a lot of time trying to "flirt" with me, said some really horrible things to me as part of that flirting that i won't repeat, but nearly made me vomit in disgust. In the end, i couldn't take it anymore and outright asked them to leave, explaining exactly why. Another player told me they're still "Trying to figure out what they did wrong" to this day.

Generally, that's not bad for years of being in 3+ groups at once, i'd consider myself lucky. Sorry for the rant, but it was very therapeutic :smalltongue:

Rad Mage
2015-03-30, 11:58 AM
I still see no reason to kick the person from the group, especially since the other players asked you to give them another chance. The DM is at greater fault then the player, the player committed no action that warranted being booted like that, and was then publicly humiliated for no good reason. What are the rest of you seeing that I'm not seeing?

I recommend that you read the thread OP link to at the beginning of this thread. It provides a LOT of context including the fact that many, if not all, members of the group wanted the problem player removed and she was making the game unfun for everyone at the table.

Galen
2015-03-30, 12:01 PM
I may be wrong, but seems the only reason the other players now want the problem player back, is because they feel guilty and somewhat involved in her removal - ie., because the DM made the removal a public act. If the player would have been removed in a private conversation, none of that guilt-ridden "let's take her back" pushback would have happened.

mephnick
2015-03-30, 12:11 PM
Only kicked out one person and it was mainly for "not fitting in with the group." Nothing major, the game just wasn't flowing as well as it could have.

I guess I have less concern telling people "Hey man, it's not really working out." than others.

Trevortni
2015-03-30, 12:42 PM
I still see no reason to kick the person from the group, especially since the other players asked you to give them another chance. The DM is at greater fault then the player, the player committed no action that warranted being booted like that, and was then publicly humiliated for no good reason. What are the rest of you seeing that I'm not seeing?


I may be wrong, but seems the only reason the other players now want the problem player back, is because they feel guilty and somewhat involved in her removal - ie., because the DM made the removal a public act. If the player would have been removed in a private conversation, none of that guilt-ridden "let's take her back" pushback would have happened.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but where did the OP say anything about the other players wanting to let this player back in? The only thing I'm seeing on the matter is:


While I had support from my players the problem player had none and felt betrayed. And that might be the worst part.

SowZ
2015-03-30, 12:44 PM
I recommend that you read the thread OP link to at the beginning of this thread. It provides a LOT of context including the fact that many, if not all, members of the group wanted the problem player removed and she was making the game unfun for everyone at the table.

Yes, but the player was acting precisely how she told the DM she intended to act. The DM gave full approval to the behavior beforehand. The player was very honest and forthright with the DM, the DM was not forthright in return. The proper course of action would be to, as soon as the DM realized the behavior was disruptive and ruining everyone's fun, tell the player OOC the issue. Instead, the DM allowed the player to continue thinking it was okay and enact a bunch of passive-aggressive in game methods to solve the problem.

It would be like if I asked a group their thoughts on PvP and was told there is no expectation of group cohesion, each player is going for their own goals and player killing is acceptable and then, when I acted that way, was told I am being disruptive and I have to leave. Yes, that play style is disruptive in most groups. But if I am told it is acceptable behavior by the DM, it falls on the DM if I act that way.


Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but where did the OP say anything about the other players wanting to let this player back in? The only thing I'm seeing on the matter is:

He said now the other players are telling me to give her another chance but I am sticking to my decision.

Anyway, unless a player has harassed or been violent with anyone, there are very few incidents where someone should just be kicked out without being told what they are doing and how they can correct their behavior beforehand.

I don't see a table with very open communication, here. OOC discussions about play style aren't had and happiness about the game and other players is discussed in discrete meetings. That's the issue, and if that issue wasn't here none of this would have happened. I think the DM needs to work on cultivating an open, honest environment where people's concerns are expressed directly and where the expectations the DM has are plain and obvious.

As it stands, the DM has expectations that are secret and sometimes the opposite of what they say and if they aren't met you can be booted. I doubt the DM is dishonest in general and probably thinks his expectations are self-evident and don't need to be said directly. But this incident proves that false. Clearly, the player didn't know your expectations, (or thought she knew based on your first conversation about them,) and if you had told her your expectations everyone probably could have stayed happy.

Rad Mage
2015-03-30, 12:51 PM
Yes, but the player was acting precisely how she told the DM she intended to act.

But she did not. Her stated goal was to cure her condition, which the OP bent over backwards to offer her. She then willingly ignored input from both the OP and the other players who also tried to aid her character towards this goal. From what has been presented she made no effort to work towards her stated goal, and in fact seemed to actively resist.

She wasn't playing her character as they were described to the DM.

johnbragg
2015-03-30, 01:08 PM
They are trying to convince me they should be allowed back into game. I'm sticking to my decision.


It's getting easier to see that I did the right thing. I did sit her down a couple of times during after game sessions to ask her to tone it down. I spent a lot of time to try and fix this as any talk out of game would result in the player saying they would change. After a week or two the changes didn't stick or I could see the player get frustrated with adhering to the change. Every session they would message me with what their character was doing without consulting the other players.

One of my other players has messaged me asking about plot points that the problem player derailed for them. I assume that there are few questions the players will ask me as well.



If I could go back and change it I would do it in private. But what happened happened. If there is a next time I will be taking a player to the side.

While I had support from my players the problem player had none and felt betrayed. And that might be the worst part.



Yes, but the player was acting precisely how she told the DM she intended to act. The DM gave full approval to the behavior beforehand. The player was very honest and forthright with the DM, the DM was not forthright in return. The proper course of action would be to, as soon as the DM realized the behavior was disruptive and ruining everyone's fun, tell the player OOC the issue.

According to OP, he did that. From what I gather, the player agreed to the story goal of fixing her characters' multiple personality disorder. Then did nothing to fix it in-game, despite opportunities to do so.


He said now the other players are telling me to give her another chance but I am sticking to my decision.

No, I think that's a misunderstanding based on OP's clumsy attempt to use gender-neutral language. Should read


She is trying to convince me she should be allowed back into game.


Anyway, unless a player has harassed or been violent with anyone, there are very few incidents where someone should just be kicked out without being told what they are doing and how they can correct their behavior beforehand.

I don't see a table with very open communication, here. OOC discussions about play style aren't had and happiness about the game and other players is discussed in discrete meetings. That's the issue, and if that issue wasn't here none of this would have happened. I think the DM needs to work on cultivating an open, honest environment where people's concerns are expressed directly and where the expectations the DM has are plain and obvious.

As it stands, the DM has expectations that are secret and sometimes the opposite of what they say and if they aren't met you can be booted. I doubt the DM is dishonest in general and probably thinks his expectations are self-evident and don't need to be said directly. But this incident proves that false. Clearly, the player didn't know your expectations, (or thought she knew based on your first conversation about them,) and if you had told her your expectations everyone probably could have stayed happy.

Except that, according to what OP's said, none of that is true. He talked with her OOC. Multiple times. Didn't help.

Player is having OOC emotional problems that she's seeing a professional for. That inclines me to believe that she was expressing some emotional problems in-game, or that hier OOC problems were impeding her ability to role-play.

Trevortni
2015-03-30, 01:10 PM
He said now the other players are telling me to give her another chance but I am sticking to my decision.

Are you maybe misreading where the OP said


They are trying to convince me they should be allowed back into game. I'm sticking to my decision.?

That has the "sticking to my decision" bit, but it seems to me that it's the person who was kicked out who is trying to get back in.

OP, can you clear this up one way or the other?

SowZ
2015-03-30, 01:38 PM
According to OP, he did that. From what I gather, the player agreed to the story goal of fixing her characters' multiple personality disorder. Then did nothing to fix it in-game, despite opportunities to do so.



No, I think that's a misunderstanding based on OP's clumsy attempt to use gender-neutral language. Should read





Except that, according to what OP's said, none of that is true. He talked with her OOC. Multiple times. Didn't help.

Player is having OOC emotional problems that she's seeing a professional for. That inclines me to believe that she was expressing some emotional problems in-game, or that hier OOC problems were impeding her ability to role-play.

Oh, there are some misunderstandings, then. If everyone is glad she is gone, that is a different story. If I missed the bits where the GM did tell her OOC on multiple occasions that she was being disruptive, that changes everything and I apologize. If, however, the player wasn't told they were being disruptive, I stand by what I said.

Jay R
2015-03-30, 03:04 PM
I've never had to kick anybody out of a game, but I had known everyone in my current game for years before we started playing. There were no potential surprises.

DontEatRawHagis
2015-03-30, 04:18 PM
I still see no reason to kick the person from the group, especially since the other players asked you to give them another chance. The DM is at greater fault then the player, the player committed no action that warranted being booted like that, and was then publicly humiliated for no good reason. What are the rest of you seeing that I'm not seeing?

They never asked me to. In fact the reason I went with the ban was because 4 of my players have complained and 1 was tp afraid to speak up.

Original post has more info.

Yes I was using Gender Neutral they.

SowZ
2015-03-30, 07:59 PM
They never asked me to. In fact the reason I went with the ban was because 4 of my players have complained and 1 was tp afraid to speak up.

Original post has more info.

Yes I was using Gender Neutral they.

Allright. As I said, I take back most of my points if you did indeed talk to the problem player OOC and they didn't correct their behavior.

Lord_Viper_69
2015-03-31, 05:24 PM
OP, you did the right thing. It was not bad at all.
To hide your intent, to veil the truth, harms far more. Conflict is not a bad thing; to force conflict to just have it exist is negative.

Assuming you explained everything to said player, she should have understood, at least partially. Feelings may be hurt but such is life; you meant no harm and there was no personal attack.

You did what was best for your game and group.