How to ditch a player

[strangebloke]

One of my players invited a pair of his IRL friends to my table. They are fine people. I would love to go to the movies with them or play board games with them (and have invited them to both of these events, although they almost never come since they live over an hour away.)

They are much less fun to play TTRPGs with. At first, I chalked it up to 'new players.'

We've been playing a year. I won't go into too much detail, but while the two of them had gotten better about some things, they are still deeply lessening the fun that the players (who are not them) are having in the game. Two of my players hang around after each session until they're gone and complain for several hours.

Some of this is stylistic differences. They play really cute characters. Not neccesarily LG, but very simplistic fairytale-style characters. The setting is fairly bleak, and the other players play black company-esque characters. (I made a separate thread about this) There have been multiple 4-hour arguments that started IC and ended OOC with hurt feelings.

Other than that... One of them hogs the spotlight, to the point of talking over the sorcerer in a social encounter with the sorcerer's father, even though the sorcerer is on paper the party face.) The other one will not roleplay at all unless explicitly told by other players or me to do something, will do the thing with very nearly the minimum amount of actual play, (would rather just roll the skill and not have to roleplay using the skill.) shows up half an hour late to most sessions, and usually goes to sleep for the last hour of each session. (this campaign is over Roll20) Spotlight Hog takes over the other player's character whenever the other new one isn't there. (and sometimes, when she is, but is distracted.)

We've talked extensively about both stylistic issues and more basic issues. They are trying.

Nonetheless, when the campaign wraps up within the next three months, we don't want to play with them. Personally, I can deal with them. They aren't that bad. But most of the other players are seriously bothered by their playstyle.

I tried to let them down easy. I basically said:

'Not that I'd never want to play with you guys again, but I don't think our group is a good fit for you. You will probably be able to find a group that you enjoy playing with much more. I really want you to play with other people.'

'But we have no way of finding other groups/we enjoy your games much more than the one AL game we played twice.'

Now, what I should have said is: THIS IS A ROLL20 GAME. THERE ARE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF GAMES OUT THERE.

what I did say was nothing. Awkward silence prevailed.

The guy who's DMing our next game, who is seriously bothered by both of them but very adverse to conflict, then says. '...So, I have these ideas for our next game, which sounds most interesting to you all?' He really doesn't want them to play, but he feels obligated to be nice. (he was the one who invited them in the first place.) He deliberately came up with game concepts that he thought would be unappealing to them, but they went along with it anyway.

I really want to just be a jerk about it and say: 'No. You're not invited,' but I can't do that. It's not my campaign and the next DM is far too conflict adverse to shut them out. He has considered letting the next campaign 'die' only to immediately start a new campaign without telling them. I hate this idea. He probably isn't going to do this.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I feel for you, I've been you before. When you don't want to hurt feelings, you don't want to stop playing, but there's problems and you can't solve them. Sucks, right?

There's really only two things you can do, from a macro perspective. Do something, or do nothing.

Let's start with doing nothing. This is a real option. None of this is your fault. If you're still enjoying the game and want to play despite everything and you decide you can tolerate what's to come, there's no shame in throwing up your hands. You be you, let them be them.

But- don't do this if you can't enjoy the game like this and can't tolerate what's happening. You'll be miserable for trying.

If you've decided to do something, your realistic options fall under these categories-

1.) Leave the game.
2.) Try to work more with the DM.
3.) Try to work more with the offending players.
4.) Try to work more with the other players.
5.) Try to remove the offending players.

You can do multiple of these, of course, but it's going to be a lot easier to deal with and be more likely to succeed if you zero in on a single category. I can't tell you if any of them are necessarily better than the others. Give serious consideration to each, and you're likely to find that you want to do one over the rest. Trust your gut here.

Then you can start formulating a strategy based on your objective.

[Big Papa Turnip]

Are they really trying to improve, though? You say you've had these conversations multiple times and they always say they'll do better. There's no brownie points for promising to try to improve. If Spotlight Hog keeps on hoggin' that spotlight even though they they say they won't time and time again, then...yeah. Heck, Other Guy doesn't even seem to be having fun, per your descriptions. Shows up late and leaves early (by falling asleep at his keyboard, for pete's sake). I can't imagine he's having a good time.

Time to dump these chumps like a bad ex. At the VERY least, give them an ultimatum and tell them to shape up or ship out. And if there's no concrete results by the end of your current campaign, give them the boot.

[SiCK_Boy]

It's always much easier to give advice on those kinds of situation on an Internet forum than actually having those conversations in person. Whatever you end up choosing, good luck.

Still, I think your options are pretty limited. The DM should take responsibility regarding who he accepts at his table; as such, for that "upcoming" campaign, I think your decision should be limited to whether or not you will accept to be a player at the same table as these two other players; if you decide you won't do it, you should still let the DM know why you chose to not participate in his game so that he can realize the consequence of his choice of allowing these people in the game in the first place. If you accept to play, then so be it (you can still try to help the people improve, or get the rest of the table to better accept them, but ultimately, that should put an end to any talk of kicking them out).

One thing you could do in the meantime, however, is to just kick them out of your current game (since you indicate it still has 3 months of play left). You're the DM and that should be your call to make; and it could somehow force the hand of whoever is scheduled to be the DM next.

[strangebloke]

If you've decided to do something, your realistic options fall under these categories-

1.) Leave the game.
2.) Try to work more with the DM.
3.) Try to work more with the offending players.
4.) Try to work more with the other players.
5.) Try to remove the offending players.


Yeah...

I'm not leaving. I'm basically looking at 'nothing' or 'remove the players.'


Are they really trying to improve, though? You say you've had these conversations multiple times and they always say they'll do better. There's no brownie points for promising to try to improve. If Spotlight Hog keeps on hoggin' that spotlight even though they they say they won't time and time again, then...yeah. Heck, Other Guy doesn't even seem to be having fun, per your descriptions. Shows up late and leaves early (by falling asleep at his keyboard, for pete's sake). I can't imagine he's having a good time.

Time to dump these chumps like a bad ex. At the VERY least, give them an ultimatum and tell them to shape up or ship out. And if there's no concrete results by the end of your current campaign, give them the boot.

What constitutes 'concrete results'?

They've objectively gotten better. WAY better. Initially spotlight hog was off his ADD meds, and some of the original players couldn't get a word in edgewise.

But he's gone from 65% of all player conversation (OOC and IC) to more like... 40%. If I bring it up again he'll back down a bit for a while.

Sleepy has mostly been missing session time like this since we switched which weekday we met on. The current time doesn't jive with work too well. So I'm actually somewhat understanding there... but that only reinforces my argument: find another group.

[willdaBEAST]

I would ask all the other players and the DM if they want to exclude the two disruptive players. If there's a unanimous decision, get rid of them. A year is an extremely long time to give people a chance. Saying "no, you're not invited" isn't being a jerk. It's cold and unnecessarily curt, but it's not being hurtful. Repeatedly making a gaming session tedious for the majority of players is being a jerk.

The OP mentioned that one of the other players invited both of these players to the group, so why are you the one taking responsibility for getting rid of them? If all of the players agree that these two are disruptive and don't like playing with them, shouldn't the person who invited them be the one to tell them they aren't welcome? You say he's adverse to conflict, but there seems to already be conflict every session these players play. Telling the disruptive players to find another game might be more awkward in the short term, but think of all the future angst that you're avoiding.

[strangebloke]

One thing you could do in the meantime, however, is to just kick them out of your current game (since you indicate it still has 3 months of play left). You're the DM and that should be your call to make; and it could somehow force the hand of whoever is scheduled to be the DM next.

That is a nuclear option, I guess. With only a little bit of time left, they'd be pissed at missing out on the climax. These are guys that one of my players (nextDM) has known since gradeschool. It would have a decent chance at ending any friendship outright, and possibly causing drama throughout his social circle. I can see my friend folding and allowing them into the next campaign just to avoid the awkwardness.

[Breashios]

I can't speak from personal experience. My worst case required a simple calm conversation where we agreed the group wasn't working with the certain individual, everyone remaining friends afterward.

If I was in the described situation I think the biggest problem would be spotlight hog. The other player should actually be hurting his/her own character.

In my campaign, for instance, if another person has to play your character, that character automatically gets the short straw anytime prisoners have to be watched or provisions need to be purchased, etc. and I get them off screen as quickly as possible. (Not always possible - I don't want to gimp the party right before a deadly but balanced encounter.) A quiet character is never a problem and if another player/character wants to prompt that player to do something, that is fine. If not - definitely don't allow the spotlight hog to have any say in what that character will or will not do. Another player or the DM should be given that control when necessary.

Further, I don't give xp when a character is not present in an encounter and only HALF xp when the character has to be played by another player. That is motivation enough for my group to arrive on time and attend when they can. That was established from the beginning so no would have a problem with it (everyone assuming they would be available as often as anyone else).

The spotlight hog might just have to be reminded politely when he is overstepping. IF the new DM is not comfortable in that role, he should say at the beginning of the campaign, that he is asking a certain player to take on that role. Everyone should know that it has been an issue (NOT presented as something horrible, just as a way to improve everyone's already enjoyable experience) and it should remain polite and friendly.

The reason I think this will work is that I am likely to be that person in the groups I play with. It is not my intention to steal anyone's time or glory, I just tend to fill in gaps and have ideas I like to share. When I do go overboard I feel bad about it without someone telling me, but since I know this about me, I don't get defensive when someone points it out. To the contrary, I apologize and thank the person that asks me to step back for keeping the game fun for everyone.

Hope this helps. Bottom line is I am not sure you need to ditch either player. They might leave on their own if my suggestions are too rough for them. But as team standards, that apply to everyone, they should not feel particularly singled out - though those standards were adopted because of them. Just be sure you don't apply them unfairly. When another player has to miss a few sessions, their character will have to be missing some xp as well.

[strangebloke]

The OP mentioned that one of the other players invited both of these players to the group, so why are you the one taking responsibility for getting rid of them? If all of the players agree that these two are disruptive and don't like playing with them, shouldn't the person who invited them be the one to tell them they aren't welcome? You say he's adverse to conflict, but there seems to already be conflict every session these players play. Telling the disruptive players to find another game might be more awkward in the short term, but think of all the future angst that you're avoiding.

The guy who invited them is the next DM. The two players are a childhood friend of his and her boyfriend. If he shut them out in nuclear fashion, there would be shockwaves bad enough his parents would hear about it.

So I still want to be nice. :smallsigh:

Current plan is: call them into a private chat, explain the long-term issues. Currently I'm thinking something to the effect of 'I wasn't clear yesterday with what I said. I think that you should sit out of the next campaign. I think there are serious issues that at this time appear irreconcilable.'


maybe don't ditch

With all due respect, I'm not asking you to question the thread premise.

That said, I'll address what you bring up. The issue isn't that Sleepy doesn't show up to sessions, the issue is that Hog plays her character when she doesn't show up. This makes him twice as much of a hog.

Hog is trying. Hard. He vaguely reminds me of a dog desperately trying to sit still, but has a tail wagging so hard that his whole butt is gyrating. As an experiment, one of the other players who sort of hogs the spotlight took a backseat for a session. Almost no one other than Hog and I talked for that entire night, despite me giving multiple reminders that 'you shouldn't hog the spotlight.' Getting him to wait his turn might be possible, but I don't have the patience.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Yeah...

I'm not leaving. I'm basically looking at 'nothing' or 'remove the players.'
I'd second the 'talk to the other players about ditching these two' idea. If you find some collusion with everyone else, it becomes that much easier to end things. It'll also give you some insight into how difficult this will really be, letting you back down into the 'do nothing' strategy instead. You've got no responsibilities here except unto yourself, remember that.

If you find it's doable, you can do things hard or soft.

If you choose hard, you've decided that you don't really care about their feelings or any fallout associated with tossing them out. This way is fastest and most likely to succeed. You can do it by threatening to leave the game (passive aggressive style), throwing them out of your current game (overt aggressive style), making demands of the DM (hardline approach), or making the game miserable to play for the other players (passive aggressive again). I don't recommend that last option, but it is a viable solution. You're liable to make everyone else miserable in the process though, including yourself.

If you choose soft, you've decided that you do care about their feelings and don't want any drama to result from your actions. This way requires time and patience, and is less likely to succeed overall. You can do it through distraction (offer them a different game/activity that interferes), deception (lie about the game), honest but compassionate discussion (moral high road), dishonest but compassionate discussion (scapegoating), convincing them they wouldn't like the game (sour grapes), or try to get the game times moved to days when they'd be unavailable (passive aggressive once more). I'm not a fan of dishonesty and it can backfire horrifically if you fail, but that can sometimes get you results where all else fails. Don't even bother if you're not the dishonest type, you'll be incapable of doing it convincingly.

There are other options, of course, but the hard or soft decision remains. Decide how much you care about them and the possible drama all this might cause, then act accordingly. You might change your mind as the process wears on, in which case you should recognize the change and re-strategize accordingly.

[Contrast]

The guy who invited them is the next DM. The two players are a childhood friend of his and her boyfriend. If he shut them out in nuclear fashion, there would be shockwaves bad enough his parents would hear about it.

So I still want to be nice. :smallsigh:

Current plan is: call them into a private chat, explain the long-term issues. Currently I'm thinking something to the effect of 'I wasn't clear yesterday with what I said. I think that you should sit out of the next campaign. I think there are serious issues that at this time appear irreconcilable.'

I'm a little confused. He's going to GM and is prepared to DM for them. You have another group who don't want to play with them. The gaming is done over Roll20 so scheduling can be reasonably flexible.

Could you not just have him run a game for them (and yourself if you fancy it seeing as you don't seem too bothered) and run a separate game for your current group (either the new DM or someone else if he doesn't fancy running two games at once)? The hours you save listending complaining about them from the other players could be spent playing a whole other campaign!

Or is my 'has plently of spare time' single childless status showing through there? :smallbiggrin:

[strangebloke]

If you find it's doable, you can do things hard or soft.


I probably need to go the moral high ground route.

I'm just trying to find the words.



Or is my 'has plently of spare time' single childless status showing through there? :smallbiggrin:

Married, but the wife is one of the players. I could do this, but the net effect is probably the same as cutting them out of the group altogether.

[Breashios]

Current plan is: call them into a private chat, explain the long-term issues. Currently I'm thinking something to the effect of 'I wasn't clear yesterday with what I said. I think that you should sit out of the next campaign. I think there are serious issues that at this time appear irreconcilable.'

That said, I'll address what you bring up. The issue isn't that Sleepy doesn't show up to sessions, the issue is that Hog plays her character when she doesn't show up. This makes him twice as much of a hog.

Hog is trying. Hard. He vaguely reminds me of a dog desperately trying to sit still, but has a tail wagging so hard that his whole butt is gyrating. As an experiment, one of the other players who sort of hogs the spotlight took a backseat for a session. Almost no one other than Hog and I talked for that entire night, despite me giving multiple reminders that 'you shouldn't hog the spotlight.' Getting him to wait his turn might be possible, but I don't have the patience.

Well, I agree with a one on one discussion directly with spotlight hog. I wouldn't call the issue 'irreconcilable', but expressing the issue as difficult to resolve because it would be asking him to be not himself. Point out what you appreciate, but that it doesn't make up for the lost enjoyment of the rest of the players (or yourself if you don't have permission to speak for them corporately).

In the meantime, I stick with my suggestion to disallow him to run her character, even if it is just for a couple more months - might help him when he hooks up with another group. Conflict of interest or whatever you want to make up about it.

Good luck.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Ah, yes.

I've had problems with one or two players to draw all the attention, do all the taking, make all the decisions, etc. [and sometimes, I can be that player].

My approach as GM was to, in dialogue scenarios, have some NPC's specifically address certain PC's, and react differently, usually worse for the party or interrupting character, if someone else pipes up. A lot of times I just get blank stares from the addressed players, who are just waiting for the talky guy to be done talking so they can get back to stabbing, but other times it does help to get other players engaged.

And, if someone else is taking over other characters in combat, I either decide that it's a free action to shout something out on your character's turn, or a half or full action to give orders depending on how long you spend talking, but when it's not your turn you don't get to talk.


It's not perfect, because a lot of times people are deer in the headlights when specifically addressed, or are otherwise afraid of messing up the ideal plan of the one who seems to be plotting the course by opening their mouth, but it does at least manually force some of the attention to less-focused on players.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I probably need to go the moral high ground route.

I'm just trying to find the words.
It's an excellent decision, really, but also one that requires a shocking amount of bravery. People don't like talking in realistic terms to people that may not hear them reasonably. Part of this fear comes from recognizing that your own reasoning might not actually be reasonable when said out loud, and could be thrown right back in your face for all your troubles. Get ready for this. Consider bringing your mutual friend along, provided he agrees with you.

You could combine this with an honest distraction technique, calling it exactly what it is. Let them know you don't enjoy D&D with them but do like them as people, and would like to do something else with them. It'll work even better if you start your conversation in the middle of doing exactly this, as they'll see it as you being true to your word. Go get dinner with them, perhaps catch a movie.

Start your conversation by talking about what you like about them, and how they've improved. Leave an air of hope. They'll want you to look a little guilty, but not too angsty. Don't ask them anything until you've already got them looking from your point of view- position it by first stating things they like in ways they'll agree with, then slowly pivot the conversation. Be agreeable, never get defensive, under any circumstance. If you get defensive, you've lost.

Make the idea of not playing an ideal one by the end. Take some time off from this group, let everyone else have their moment to breathe, try out some other games online so they can get some experience interacting with other groups and improving, and perhaps once they've gotten other games under their belt, you can all try again on a few one-off sessions and see if things can work out again.

If you keep your demeanor steady and pull this all off right, they'll actually like you better while simultaneously leaving the game in a good mood. It's a textbook sales pitch.

Speaking of, this method is very much cribbed from Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's worth a read before you go through with this.

[strangebloke]

DM fixes

I'm not really looking for solutions on how to fix my players in this thread. Truthfully, I already made that thread several months ago.

This was one of the proposed solutions. I've implented it to some degree, but frequently there is no real reason for an NPC to address someone specifically.

I also briefly tried implementing 'social initiative' to force players to give precedence to the characters who on paper should have dominant personalities.

In practice, forcing a roll is the same as stopping the player in their tracks and asking 'is there anyone who wants to take this social encounter.'


Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People
Aye, I've read it. Ironically, I'll be using it to push friends away.

[willdaBEAST]

Current plan is: call them into a private chat, explain the long-term issues. Currently I'm thinking something to the effect of 'I wasn't clear yesterday with what I said. I think that you should sit out of the next campaign. I think there are serious issues that at this time appear irreconcilable.'

That's clear and direct. I would include something about the group as well though, so it doesn't sound like it's only coming from you (otherwise their likely course of action is to private chat with their friend who wants to avoid confrontation). Changing your last line to "The rest of the group agrees with me that there are serious issues which at this time appear irreconcilable" will carry a more weight (make sure it's true).

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you considered finding a new group? If playing with these folks results in you experiencing bad gaming, then I'll offer you a thought about that. Bad gaming isn't generally better than no gaming.
Beyond that, this is one of those tough social dynamics things that, not knowing all parties, I'll just offer my best wishes for.

[latebloomer]

Have any other players spoken up during the game? A kind of peer pressure thing?

I definitely advise against fabricating an excuse (I don't think you're heading there). It seems like the other players have a bigger problem with it than you or the next GM, so you're in a rough spot, either way, listening to hours of griping, feeling like you have to resolve this whole thing. I wish you the best.

(I am feeling even more relieved that 2 surprise invitees didn't show up for our second session! The table doubled that time as it was. 2 flakey friends of a friend... no, thanks!)

[strangebloke]

Have any other players spoken up during the game? A kind of peer pressure thing?

I definitely advise against fabricating an excuse (I don't think you're heading there). It seems like the other players have a bigger problem with it than you or the next GM, so you're in a rough spot, either way, listening to hours of griping, feeling like you have to resolve this whole thing. I wish you the best.

(I am feeling even more relieved that 2 surprise invitees didn't show up for our second session! The table doubled that time as it was. 2 flakey friends of a friend... no, thanks!)

Everyone's voiced concerns at the table multiple times. Next dm is actually one of the most vocal complainers, he just doesn't want to actually ban them.

[strangebloke]

Have you considered finding a new group? If playing with these folks results in you experiencing bad gaming, then I'll offer you a thought about that. Bad gaming isn't generally better than no gaming.
Beyond that, this is one of those tough social dynamics things that, not knowing all parties, I'll just offer my best wishes for.

Nah we're all still having fun.

Just less fun than we could. And the original three are all great. I've been playing with them for six years. Very good group. (Married to one of them!)

Well, one of the original three is a major complainer. But he's very creative and socially aware. (Ironically, he's the opposite of spotlight hog, who is very easy to please but uncreative and completely socially blind.)

[Sigreid]

The way I see it the best path forward, assuming the majority of the players truly do not want to play with these two anymore, is for the players that are not having what they consider an acceptable amount of fun to grow a backbone and say something like "I'm sorry guys, I'm just not having fun with the current gaming situation. I'm going to have to drop." If they're really ruining everyone's fun, the game will die and in a few weeks a new game can be started up with the original group.

Frankly, they should be made of stern enough stuff to politely give their grievances, if asked.

It's unlikely that the spotlight stealer is going to change enough to work in the group. Since you mentioned their ADD meds, it sounds like the person has a condition and that's just who he/she is. It doesn't make them a bad person, but there's no reason for the rest of the group to have to suffer.

So it boils down to the other people in the group deciding how bad it is to have these two and taking action. It can't just all be on you.

[Vaz]

Just straight up, out of character say "Are you going to hog spotlight again?"

Or have the other character involved in the conversation say "Excuse me, I was talking with my son. I was not addressing you. Please wait your turn. Good day. *Motion to guards* Please escort this gentleman/lady to lodgings where she may rest her feet. He/She is tired and wishes to eat." And next time the party take a short rest, out of character, do the whole "Dude, what the ****, we talked about this? Not meaning to be rude, but seriously, learn your place within the group of characters. If you think your character is a social hog, then you really need to get it to adapt and learn. If it's yourself, well that's a different set of social skills."

Be straight up and honest. This is fun for everyone, but if someone is specifically playong a character to stop others having fun, intentionally or otherwise, it has come to this.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nah we're all still having fun.

Just less fun than we could. And the original three are all great. I've been playing with them for six years. Very good group. (Married to one of them!) ) Then play on and set the best example that you can. If you have constructive suggestions for the ones annoying you, provide feedback/suggestions in private, not in front of the group. Things may change.

[MaxWilson]

Aye, I've read it. Ironically, I'll be using it to push friends away.

Specifically, to push people out of a game without turning them into something besides friends.

Good luck!

[Sir cryosin]

It just like breaking up with your boyfriend or girlfriend. You don't want to hurt them but you can't keep doing this dance called a relationship anymore.

No matter what you do they will feel hurt. So just like taking off the band-aid just get it over with. Feeling will be hurt but they will go away quickly. But if you prolong this it will just get worst and worst. These are people that don't Jive with the group. You must politely tell them to leave before the put stress on the group and splet it up.

[strangebloke]

Followup. It went pretty well. Thanks for all the moral support guys.

Going to play in a game with them so that they don't totally lose contact with the group. So, a time commitment, but at least we have peace, and I won't be playing in a game where the DM is severely annoyed by his players.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Followup. It went pretty well. Thanks for all the moral support guys.

Going to play in a game with them so that they don't totally lose contact with the group. So, a time commitment, but at least we have peace, and I won't be playing in a game where the DM is severely annoyed by his players.
Excellent work. Glad to know it all worked out!

[Delicious Taffy]

Nice reverse Mike Birbiglia reference (I think it was, anyway).


Regarding this, it kinda sounds like the players in question don't want to find another group. Which, under different circumstances, would probably be fine. However, you've already stated that their style of play does not fit with the group or setting. Back in the days of old, I imagine it was a much more severe action to remove a player from a group (or move the group away from the player), since there were less people playing overall and if you were out, you probably couldn't find a group. However, here in the present, physical limitations basically don't exist when it comes to these games. As you also stated, all these people have to do to find another group is to look up one with similar preferences to theirs, and they'll probably get at least dozens of matches. If your other players don't want to go lighter, these two don't want to go darker, and you don't want to mediate, nobody has to do any of it.