Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[RobbyPants]

2) Do not tell people to kick them out of the group

Is this something we're never supposed to tell them, or is this something we shouldn't resort to untill needed?

I know there are certain "standard" responses on various boards, like the oh so popular "Your DM's stupid for using that house rule.  You should quit his game.", but sometimes good can come from having someone leave.

I'd say a better way to handle it (in a generic situation) is to tell the DM and players to be up front with the problem player and not resort to passive-aggressive crap.  Tell the player what the problem is and maybe why it's a problem.  If the DM's done that and it still hasn't fixed the problem, then I think we should be able to tell him/her to boot the problem player.

Other than that, I agree 100% with the other posting rules.

[Josh]

2) Do not tell people to kick them out of the group

Is this something we're never supposed to tell them, or is this something we shouldn't resort to untill needed?

I know there are certain "standard" responses on various boards, like the oh so popular "Your DM's stupid for using that house rule.  You should quit his game.", but sometimes good can come from having someone leave.

I'd say a better way to handle it (in a generic situation) is to tell the DM and players to be up front with the problem player and not resort to passive-aggressive crap.  Tell the player what the problem is and maybe why it's a problem.  If the DM's done that and it still hasn't fixed the problem, then I think we should be able to tell him/her to boot the problem player.

Other than that, I agree 100% with the other posting rules.

Out of the now hundreds of times I have seen people consider kicking people out of their games, for in game reasons, I have not found one case with anything approaching merit. 

Before you respond to this statement consider 2 points:

1) You may have kicked someone out of your game for no good reason, tough shit.  You did something wrong, like everyone else.  Trying to justify wrongness does not get you anywhere.  You screwed up, get over it.

2) "In game" is key.  People have said to me "Oh yeah well we had to kick a guy out because he showed up stoned to every game, is that wrong?"  No.  But you kicked him out for being an inconsiderate human being, not a bad gamer.  Other examples were the guy who kicked someone out who kept swearing in front of his kids or the guy who was kicked out because he was stalking one of the other players.

People have problems when they are dissatisfied.  Deal with the issue is my advice.

In the generic example there is no conflict.  Everyone hates a guy, what is the defense for that?

[AndyJames]

Even for in-game reasons, there is a time when "remove the kid" is good advice.

For example, a person that plays PCs that causes problems for the rest of the party every single time. You play a campaign where there is a Paladin or an Exalted character and he does everything to pull the guy down. You have VoP? He slips trinkets in your pocket. You play a Paladin? He kills bad guys in cold blood because he is "chaotic".

Another example is a player who likes to dominate the game. You want to play a relaxed game of fun characters rather than fully optimised ones, he brings Pun-Pun to the game. You want to play hack and slash dungeon crawls, he brings in a drama queen Bard.

How about one that holds grudges. In the previous campaign, someone stabbed him in the back. In this campaign, he hates your character for no reason and does all he can to frame you, cause you grief, etc., in game. You kill his character, he comes back with another with the same disposition.

While there are out of game issues as well, all of these happen in game. I think it is good advice then to say "Boot the guy". It is fairly simple, IMO: If one guy is causing grief for three other guys, he should go.

[PhoenixInferno]

Shouldn't boot him until you've at least tried to resolve the issues.

[Josh]

Even for in-game reasons, there is a time when "remove the kid" is good advice.

For example, a person that plays PCs that causes problems for the rest of the party every single time. You play a campaign where there is a Paladin or an Exalted character and he does everything to pull the guy down. You have VoP? He slips trinkets in your pocket. You play a Paladin? He kills bad guys in cold blood because he is "chaotic".

Another example is a player who likes to dominate the game. You want to play a relaxed game of fun characters rather than fully optimised ones, he brings Pun-Pun to the game. You want to play hack and slash dungeon crawls, he brings in a drama queen Bard.

How about one that holds grudges. In the previous campaign, someone stabbed him in the back. In this campaign, he hates your character for no reason and does all he can to frame you, cause you grief, etc., in game. You kill his character, he comes back with another with the same disposition.

While there are out of game issues as well, all of these happen in game. I think it is good advice then to say "Boot the guy". It is fairly simple, IMO: If one guy is causing grief for three other guys, he should go.

If you think those are good reasons, you found the right podcast to straighten yourself out.

PVP or character conflict is a type of gameplay.  Some people like it some don't.  Everyone needs to play in the same game.

Pun Pun is an illegal character, no one can bring him to the table.  As for everyone wanting to play "relaxed" characters that is not true, one player didn't.  

The revenge guy.  So let me get this straight, someone stabs his character in the back and you are getting mad at the victim?  Good job.

None of these problems is even difficult for an experienced GM to deal with, hardly something for booting a player.  And if you want to know how, ask here.
  

[j0lt]

People have said to me "Oh yeah well we had to kick a guy out because he showed up stoned to every game, is that wrong?"

LOL!  In my old D&D group, of the three of us, only one didn't game stoned!  (and he wasn't the DM)
It worked fine though, the DM and I stayed by the open window so the non-smoker didn't have to deal with the smoke so much.  Well, my characters had a nasty habit of doing something less-than-clever and dying, but I'll chalk that up to my lack of tactical common sense. 

[AndyJames]

Even for in-game reasons, there is a time when "remove the kid" is good advice.

For example, a person that plays PCs that causes problems for the rest of the party every single time. You play a campaign where there is a Paladin or an Exalted character and he does everything to pull the guy down. You have VoP? He slips trinkets in your pocket. You play a Paladin? He kills bad guys in cold blood because he is "chaotic".

Another example is a player who likes to dominate the game. You want to play a relaxed game of fun characters rather than fully optimised ones, he brings Pun-Pun to the game. You want to play hack and slash dungeon crawls, he brings in a drama queen Bard.

How about one that holds grudges. In the previous campaign, someone stabbed him in the back. In this campaign, he hates your character for no reason and does all he can to frame you, cause you grief, etc., in game. You kill his character, he comes back with another with the same disposition.

While there are out of game issues as well, all of these happen in game. I think it is good advice then to say "Boot the guy". It is fairly simple, IMO: If one guy is causing grief for three other guys, he should go.

If you think those are good reasons, you found the right podcast to straighten yourself out.

PVP or character conflict is a type of gameplay.  Some people like it some don't.  Everyone needs to play in the same game.

Pun Pun is an illegal character, no one can bring him to the table.  As for everyone wanting to play "relaxed" characters that is not true, one player didn't. 

The revenge guy.  So let me get this straight, someone stabs his character in the back and you are getting mad at the victim?  Good job.

None of these problems is even difficult for an experienced GM to deal with, hardly something for booting a player.  And if you want to know how, ask here.
 

Josh, you need to learn to understand sarcasm and hyperbole.

1) PvP is irrelevant. The fact is, it is an in-game issue.

2) Pun-Pun is not illegal. It is just stupid to bring. Thus, it is a hyperbole. I was hoping you'd get the general idea.

3) He got stabbed in the back in another game (which could be an Evil game for all you know). He brings it to this game (which isn't). Yes. He gets booted. Leave your baggage somewhere else please. Don't bring it into another game.

It is not difficult to resolve. Boot the problem player. The thing is, the GM is there to have fun too, and if you have one guy that constantly tries to derail things for you because of his fragile ego, he has to go until such a time as he grows up.

[Josh]

It is easy but unnecessary to boot the problem player. 

Think of it in another way.  On this board people are looking for solutions.  Everyone knows they can kick someone out of the party.  If someone asks for help and 10 people say "kick the guy out" they have not helped.  This board is for advice, not to rally a bunch of people so you feel justified in being mean to your friends.

I have studied the issue for years, I was, in fact, a GM at the gaming club who would take anyone.  I took in some of the "worst" players and never had a problem.  Part of it is attitude.  In Gattica the main character out swims his brother because he does not hold anything back.  In gaming if kicking a person out is not an option you learn to deal. 

Other than specific examples there is not much more to say.  So if you have specifics, let me hear them and I can explain.

1) PVP is an in game issue.  Give an example and I can explain.
2) I get the general idea.  People still can't play illegal characters or should play non sequiter characters.  Give an example and I can explain.
3) If someone is upset because they were stabbed, resolve it.  Give an example and I can explain.

[SillyRobot]

Even for in-game reasons, there is a time when "remove the kid" is good advice.

For example, a person that plays PCs that causes problems for the rest of the party every single time. You play a campaign where there is a Paladin or an Exalted character and he does everything to pull the guy down. You have VoP? He slips trinkets in your pocket. You play a Paladin? He kills bad guys in cold blood because he is "chaotic".

Another example is a player who likes to dominate the game. You want to play a relaxed game of fun characters rather than fully optimised ones, he brings Pun-Pun to the game. You want to play hack and slash dungeon crawls, he brings in a drama queen Bard.

How about one that holds grudges. In the previous campaign, someone stabbed him in the back. In this campaign, he hates your character for no reason and does all he can to frame you, cause you grief, etc., in game. You kill his character, he comes back with another with the same disposition.

While there are out of game issues as well, all of these happen in game. I think it is good advice then to say "Boot the guy". It is fairly simple, IMO: If one guy is causing grief for three other guys, he should go.

Booting a player happens when you don't want that player at the table and is always an out-of-game solution.  As such, it won't fix issues that exist inside the game only.

Your examples are out-of-game issues.

If player A is always making disruptive characters, either he enjoys the drama of intra-party conflict or he has personal issues with another player.  Find out what the problem is and get a resolution.  If people in the group have different expectations for intra-party conflict, a discussion as to the rules of engagement at the table is in order.

Game dominators come in a variety of flavours. The example you use is someone who brings characters inappropriate to the game.  They one of the easier ones to control.  Say 'no' and re-explain the game flavour until an acceptable concept is forthcoming.

The grudge-match is another out-of-game issue that needs to be taken care of out of game.

If this forum is going to restrict advice about removing players as a possibility, perhaps it should focus on in-game problems and leave social dynamics for a different area?

For the first example above, would the advice of "Person A seems to have a different tolerance for slimy actions than the rest of your players.  Have a sit-down and develop a set of rules of engagement for fun playing that everyone who is playing must abide by." be acceptable?

If the above advice is acceptable, what would be the advice for the follow-up question "We hashed out the problem and determined no party slimes were tolerable.  Everyone agreed.  Person A tried to slime Person B in the last session.  His behaviour hasn't changed at all since the discussion.  What should I do?"

[RobbyPants]

I still stand by my initial assessment of first trying to handle the problem in a non-passive-aggressive way, and then booting if that doesn't help.

In all the games I've played in, I never had to boot a player.  I did have to have a one-on-one discussion with a guy who kept cheating, but it seemed to generally solve the problem.

Pun Pun is an illegal character, no one can bring him to the table.  As for everyone wanting to play "relaxed" characters that is not true, one player didn't.  

I only agree with this to a point.  It's obvious the one guy didn't want to play a relaxed game; however, if he wants to play something different than the rest of the group, the group needs to decide if he's a good fit.  It's one thing if the group decides to comprimise in some way, but there's nothing wrong with a DM saying "I want to run game X".  If everyone agrees to play game X, then that's the game they're playing.  The other guy either has to play that, or find a new game.

[AndyJames]

It is easy but unnecessary to boot the problem player. 

Think of it in another way.  On this board people are looking for solutions.  Everyone knows they can kick someone out of the party.  If someone asks for help and 10 people say "kick the guy out" they have not helped.  This board is for advice, not to rally a bunch of people so you feel justified in being mean to your friends.

I have studied the issue for years, I was, in fact, a GM at the gaming club who would take anyone.  I took in some of the "worst" players and never had a problem.  Part of it is attitude.  In Gattica the main character out swims his brother because he does not hold anything back.  In gaming if kicking a person out is not an option you learn to deal. 

Other than specific examples there is not much more to say.  So if you have specifics, let me hear them and I can explain.

1) PVP is an in game issue.  Give an example and I can explain.
2) I get the general idea.  People still can't play illegal characters or should play non sequiter characters.  Give an example and I can explain.
3) If someone is upset because they were stabbed, resolve it.  Give an example and I can explain.

Actually, there are a lot of people who needs the... "reassurance" that they are doing the right thing in kicking someone out of their game. It is a trend that I have noticed time and again. There seems to be a taboo of sorts attached to the action. Telling someone that it is OK to kick someone out if they think they can't get through to the disruptive player is a valid option. Note that I have never advocated it as a first option, just an option.

[Kari]

I can't believe how many of you are essentially saying it's never okay to kick someone out of the group.

Kicking someone out of the group isn't even a last resort thing. There are times and reasons when it's entirely appropriate. If a player is overly disruptive and refuses to stop being disruptive, refuses to even try to play with the premise of the game, has objectionable habits that he will not try to stop or moderate, etc...

I do not see a reason to spend eight gaming sessions, spending half the time in them, trying to convince this one player to change what he's doing, whether it be smoking, being a disruptive player, whatever - there's no reason for it. It's detracting from my fun, and the fun of all of my other players. I can, and have, requested players leave my group. I'd do it again. (Alternatively, you can just not invite them back to the game, which is effectively the same thing.)

If you want examples of people I've kicked out... I had two cheating players who refused to stop when caught, and simply got defensive when I asked them to play fair. I had one player who was constantly bumming cigarettes off of my (non-gaming) roommate, which annoyed said roommate. I had one player who was constantly getting into arguments about things, often being extremely rules-lawyery but going far, far beyond just that. i had a pair of players at one point who treated my (serious) campaign as a total joke, and were constantly doing things to totally derail it (I'm not talking minor things, or the usual stuff players will do to mess with a DM's plans, either.) I had one player who was a drug addict, and refused to take his pot outside to smoke, when the entire rest of the group wanted nothing to do with said drug and asked him to go outside.

There may have been a couple of others, but I don't recall them right off-hand. In every single case, I made at least one attempt to get them to correct their behavior. But I didn't try more than twice.

[PhoenixInferno]

I can't believe how many of you are essentially saying it's never okay to kick someone out of the group.

Kicking someone out of the group isn't even a last resort thing.

stuff

All of your examples demonstrate that you should attempt to resolve the issues before you drop them.  Thanks for proving our point

[yellerSumner]

What if you're pressed for time?

Say your group's about to move all over the country and you don't have enough time to talk with the problem player outside of the time you're getting together to play?

[Josh]

This thread demonstrates why DoW could be important because it is all over the place. 

One of the biggest indicators that an argument is without merit is it being all over the place.  People who are right can be clear and concise.

Say your group's about to move all over the country and you don't have enough time to talk with the problem player outside of the time you're getting together to play?

Theoretical corner case.  What if the house was on fire?  What if pandas attacked? 

Give an actual case.

Actually, there are a lot of people who needs the... "reassurance" that they are doing the right thing in kicking someone out of their game. It is a trend that I have noticed time and again. There seems to be a taboo of sorts attached to the action. Telling someone that it is OK to kick someone out if they think they can't get through to the disruptive player is a valid option. Note that I have never advocated it as a first option, just an option.

No.  Lets be clear, kicking people out of a group, for in game reasons, is wrong.  There is no excuse for it, if you do it you are a bad person and frankly you disgust me.  You should know better.

I do not see a reason to spend eight gaming sessions, spending half the time in them, trying to convince this one player to change what he's doing, whether it be smoking, being a disruptive player, whatever - there's no reason for it. It's detracting from my fun, and the fun of all of my other players. I can, and have, requested players leave my group. I'd do it again. (Alternatively, you can just not invite them back to the game, which is effectively the same thing.)

OK.  It takes generally a few minutes to get results.  So I guess you are right here.  Don't take so long, fix the problem faster.  Of course that has nothing to do with kicking people out.

A) I had two cheating players who refused to stop when caught, and simply got defensive when I asked them to play fair. 

B) I had one player who was constantly getting into arguments about things, often being extremely rules-lawyery but going far, far beyond just that.

C) i had a pair of players at one point who treated my (serious) campaign as a total joke, and were constantly doing things to totally derail it (I'm not talking minor things, or the usual stuff players will do to mess with a DM's plans, either.)

First off, try reading what has been said, many of your examples were irrelevant. 

So now explain the exact situations more clearly in the examples above.  Make sure to explain what techniques you tried and how there was no possible solution but the boot.

I still stand by my initial assessment of first trying to handle the problem in a non-passive-aggressive way, and then booting if that doesn't help.

In all the games I've played in, I never had to boot a player.  I did have to have a one-on-one discussion with a guy who kept cheating, but it seemed to generally solve the problem.

So you have never actually kicked anyone out.  What kind of proof would satisfy you if that doesn't?

[CountArioch]

Allow me to try to interpret the rules here.

(Correct me if I'm wrong here, guys.)

Basically, too many people use "kick the bastard out of the group" as a knee-jerk reaction to any post about a player issue.

If a DM posts and asks for advice for a player issue ranging from powergaming to breaking wind, there's about fifty morons screaming "kick him out kick him out hurrr!" (and I can only assume this, but they're probably masturbating furiously while doing so.)

That is not conducive to a good discussion.

That is my interpretation of the need for the rule.  That being said, I have kicked people out of the group, but it has been an entirely personal decision on when, where, and what for.  (For example, I decided to kick one player out of the group a few minutes after a discussion that started with a debate over druids and ended with me slamming him into a wall.  I am positive I made the right decision.)

Now, perhaps the rule is a bit heavy-handed, but I do agree that "kick him out of the group" isn't a thoughtful answer.

[jcm]

I've "broken up" with my GM  a few times and kicked someone out of my group once, but it was because I didn't want to spend time with those people, not because I didn't like the way they gamed.

So if someone is a thief, or a malicious gossip, or backstabber or violent drunk or whatever, then I'd say "kick the player out" might be a reasonable response. It's not about gaming at that point though, it's not like you'd want to spend an evening hanging out with the person, so why would you want to spend an evening gaming with them.

[Arcane-surge]

At the risk of derailing the thread, CountArioch, I have to ask. What kind of crazy full-contact D&D do you play where you live? Part of the idea of tackle Dungeons and Dragons appeals to me, but at the same time, I think it would end up with a great deal more D&D players getting arrested and winding up on the news. Years of roleplaying has given me the ability to imagine a discussion about druids ending in violence and exile, but I can't quite fit that into the scope of my reality. I'm not trying to namecall or say you're a bad guy for it, I'm just wondering...What the hell?

[CountArioch]

Basically, he was acting in a way I felt was unreasonable, I asked him to leave the apartment, he continued to scream at me.  I told him to leave again, he left, but poked his head back in the door to say a smartass comment then slammed it as hard as he could.  At that point I chased him down, slammed him into the wall, and called him a spoiled fucking brat.

[Arcane-surge]

Well that seems reasonable, though I can't say I've ever had a D&D discussion (or, come to think of it, any other discussion), end in a screaming match. Still, I had this horrible mental image of the show Cops breaking up a D&D game, chasing a pasty-skinned, overweight guy with an unkempt beard and no shirt down the street while he screams "Expeditious Retreat!"