Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[AfterCrescent]

***EVERY MENTION OF THE WORD YOU IS METAPHORICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED***

A) Being told to shape up or ship out is not in any way shape or form an attempt to resolve an issue. It's you being a douche.

B) Who decides who is causing problems? You? Maybe the other four guys aren't bothered by the guy you are annoyed with. Maybe you are the problem child. The GM can be the problem just as easily as one of the players. Hell if a game is established with parameters X, Y, and Z and four of the five players are ignoring them, one could argue that THEY are causing the problems. Who is causing the problems is very much relative and never just the result of one person. It takes TWO to tango. One to 'be annoying' the other to 'be annoyed.'

C) You, AJ, mention a mentally unstable patient. That references an example. If there's not one, that sentence is moot. For all anyone on an internet forum could know, you (the person asking for advice) is the mentally unstable one.

D) In reference to point 1 - It is a game. A communal game. Not the military. Not a job. Shape up or ship out and all that jazz is bullshit.

E) In reference to point 2 - That is not it. That is but one thing you can do. There are lots of options.

Problems can be solved.

F) In reference to point 3 - You are playing with said player. Therefore, while he may be responsible for his actions, YOU do deal with it, because you are there gaming with it. And if it is bothering you, it is, in fact, YOUR problem, not his. Two to tango and all that jazz.

G) In reference to point 4 - If you truly believe playing a table top, communal game, designed to allow EVERYONE at the table to have fun results in some manner of 'entitlement,' then I reiterate:

So you (metaphorical again) stop GMing and that player stop playing.

[AndyJames]

First: Mentally unstable patient is part of a sentence: "I am not playing the psychiatrist to his mentally unstable patient." That is a generic analogy, not a specific one.

Now.

I am not attempting to resolve the issue. I told you that. I tell him what the issue is. If he wants to resolve it, fine. If not, he gets booted. Let me reiterate (again): I am not solving his issues for him.

The question of who gets to decide is a strawman. If it comes to a point where a guy is in danger of being booted, then discussions would have already occured. Please note that we are talking about a mature group of players here, not your kindergarden variety. I don't know about you, but people I play with tend to bring up issues if they feel like it is an issue. I get to be the middle man if I am the DM. Because of that status, I get to know the general feeling, and will be the one to initiate a group-wide discussion of the issue. Things go from there based on majority opinion.

A game has to be fun for all. If one guy makes it unfun, he will have to ship out. Because it is a voluntary game and not the military or a job, he doesn't have rights if the others says he doesn't. It will be shape up or ship out.

There are a lot of options. However, I resent that I am being de facto told to take those other options or I am a bad parent. Anyone who resorts to that type of attack is a frakktard, if you will pardon my French.

Once more, I will repeat: "If *ONE* person is making it unfun for the *OTHERS*, he gets the shape up or ship out speech." Clear enough? The game must be fun for "everyone" is a load of tosh if *ONE* is causing problems for the *OTHERS*. In a community, you (singular) abide by the community's laws. The community does not abide by yours (again singular).

[Josh]

AJ, your problem solving ability is non-existent.  If you would like to improve, we can certainly help.  If you would not, that is your choice. 

I advise you to change or not GM.  Players need leadership, not abuse.

[AndyJames]

*sighs*

Getting rid of a problem is problem solving. It may not be the kind of problem solving what you expect, but it is a form of problem solving.

What you mean to say, Josh, is that I am not being nice and PC and coddling the problem person. I am not trying to understand him and solving *his* problem for him. And you are right. I'm not. I do not subscribe to that line of pseudo-bleeding heart crap. However, I am solving my *group's* problem, which happened to be said player.

We are approaching this from two completely different directions:

You take the stance that I must somehow include the problem guy. You think that it is my responsibility to somehow make him conform to the group's way of thinking, or change that way of thinking to include him. You seem to think that just because the problem player is in my group once, he must somehow stay in it for life.

I take the stance that if my group is not having fun because of x, x will either change or get excluded. My stance is that I don't *have* to play with a person if that person annoys me. I extend that to the group.

My view might not align with yours, but kindly stop being a douchebag over it. You are not God and your views are not truth. Deal.

[Shadowhowler]

Over my 18 years of running/playing games I have had to give many players the boot. However, 99.9% of them (Don't you LOVE made up statistics?   ) were booted from my LARP games... which were sometimes as large as 100+ players and the dynamics of which are VERY differant from a PnP Tabletop game. So, I'll leave out the LARP boots and go with one of the last tabletop boots as an example.
 
I was running a 2nd Eddition Vampire WoD game for 5 players. 4 of the 5 players cam to me one day and asked me to give player 5 the boot. When I asked why, all 4 of them said because he is bringing down the game with his inability to roleplay and thus all of his characters actions are annoying and disruptive to their enjoyment of the game. We had all played D&D with the 5th player before, and in those games he was by FAR the least character-focused of the group... but it didn't matter as much in D&D... because our D&D game was more relaxed and less roleplay intensive then our Vampire game. I asked them if they were all SURE this was what they wanted... after all, player 5 was a nice guy... and even the best friend of one of the 4 players who were asking me to boot him. They all assured me that yes, in their estemation it was nessacary for them to enjoy the game. They simply could not enjoy the game if he contenued to be in it, disrupting it for them.
 
So I asked player 5 to leave.
 
So... am I a complete Douchebag?
 
 
Ironicly... later when player 5 asked the other 4 players why he was asked to leave... they chickened out and told him they didn't know why, but that *I* must have hated him or something... and that I made up the story about them asking me to ask him to leave. Go figure.    He didn't talk to me for awile... but years later we had a chance to talk... and no he and I send each other e-mail from time to time and get along fine. He has no contact with any of the other 4 chickenshit coward asshats from that game tho.  

[Josh]

*sighs*

Getting rid of a problem is problem solving. It may not be the kind of problem solving what you expect, but it is a form of problem solving.

What you mean to say, Josh, is that I am not being nice and PC and coddling the problem person. I am not trying to understand him and solving *his* problem for him. And you are right. I'm not. I do not subscribe to that line of pseudo-bleeding heart crap. However, I am solving my *group's* problem, which happened to be said player.

We are approaching this from two completely different directions:

You take the stance that I must somehow include the problem guy. You think that it is my responsibility to somehow make him conform to the group's way of thinking, or change that way of thinking to include him. You seem to think that just because the problem player is in my group once, he must somehow stay in it for life.

I take the stance that if my group is not having fun because of x, x will either change or get excluded. My stance is that I don't *have* to play with a person if that person annoys me. I extend that to the group.

My view might not align with yours, but kindly stop being a douchebag over it. You are not God and your views are not truth. Deal.

We have different problem solving skill sets.  I have them and you do not, that we can agree on.  I don't think I'm God, I don't even think I am that great a problem solver.  I do however have enough skill to make it happen.  If you tried you could probably be better at this than me, of course that involves trying.

If you would like to give an example of a problem player great, if you would like me to go over your technique, also great however if you want to keep making off base general statements in a field you know nothing about, go ahead, but it is not helping you much. 

[Josh]

Over my 18 years of running/playing games I have had to give many players the boot. However, 99.9% of them (Don't you LOVE made up statistics?   ) were booted from my LARP games... which were sometimes as large as 100+ players and the dynamics of which are VERY differant from a PnP Tabletop game. So, I'll leave out the LARP boots and go with one of the last tabletop boots as an example.

LARPs suffer from a huge problem.  There is no mechanically good LARP game.  So it comes down to the skill of the writers and implementers.
 

I was running a 2nd Eddition Vampire WoD game for 5 players. 4 of the 5 players cam to me one day and asked me to give player 5 the boot. When I asked why, all 4 of them said because he is bringing down the game with his inability to roleplay and thus all of his characters actions are annoying and disruptive to their enjoyment of the game. We had all played D&D with the 5th player before, and in those games he was by FAR the least character-focused of the group... but it didn't matter as much in D&D... because our D&D game was more relaxed and less roleplay intensive then our Vampire game. I asked them if they were all SURE this was what they wanted... after all, player 5 was a nice guy... and even the best friend of one of the 4 players who were asking me to boot him. They all assured me that yes, in their estemation it was nessacary for them to enjoy the game. They simply could not enjoy the game if he contenued to be in it, disrupting it for them.
 
So I asked player 5 to leave.
 
So... am I a complete Douchebag?
 
 
Ironicly... later when player 5 asked the other 4 players why he was asked to leave... they chickened out and told him they didn't know why, but that *I* must have hated him or something... and that I made up the story about them asking me to ask him to leave. Go figure.    He didn't talk to me for awile... but years later we had a chance to talk... and no he and I send each other e-mail from time to time and get along fine. He has no contact with any of the other 4 chickenshit coward asshats from that game tho.  

Yep, you handled that poorly.  You secretly ganged up on #5 with everyone else and made no attempt to reconcile the situation.

"I was running a 2nd Eddition Vampire WoD game for 5 players." Frankly, this game sucks and creates numerous problems for people who play it.  Also it is an indication that you are not mechanically savvy enough to figure that out on your own.  People who do not understand mechanics are typically lacking in other aspects of game play.
 
"When I asked why, all 4 of them said because he is bringing down the game with his inability to roleplay and thus all of his characters actions are annoying and disruptive to their enjoyment of the game."  Accepting an analysis of others at face value.  What did he actually do?  Did he chew loudly? 

You kicked him out with no analisys of your own, you did not even ask him to change in other words you didn't even try.

Yep, you done bad.  Now get over it and do better next time.

[Callix]

AJ, please don't drag political correctness into this. It's not relevant, and actually means something in other contexts.

Josh, sometimes I can't believe what you're posting here. AJ is brusque, yes, but he has a point in there. It's not his responsibility to be a psychotherapist for troublesome group members. And sometimes, the best solution to a situation is for someone to leave. That's why business partnerships, relationships, friendships, and gaming groups break up: because one, or usually all, of the parties refuse to shift their positions. And sometimes that's necessary; for the gaming group example, some people have strongly conflicting playstyles, and what they find fun is very, very different. If two such people end up in a game group together, one of them may need to leave.

Also, nWoD has balance issues, but is not an automatic "you suck". It needs to be houseruled significantly, but it is a reasonably entertaining urban fantasy/horror system if you have a group of players with similar expectations. It bears up poorly to full-blown minmaxing, but rewards synergy and efficient group dynamics.

Finally, you are commiting a major Reverse Stormwind Fallacy. Mechanical and roleplaying aptitude are independant, as LARPs and freeforms will attest. People with poor optimisation skill may still have strong characterisation, acting and worldbuilding skills, along with a good storytelling manner, that makes up for their lack of minmax. This is just as likely as someone who "has it all", if not more so, as quality minmax seems to be possessed by less than a majority of people.

[Josh]

AJ, please don't drag political correctness into this. It's not relevant, and actually means something in other contexts.

Josh, sometimes I can't believe what you're posting here. AJ is brusque, yes, but he has a point in there. It's not his responsibility to be a psychotherapist for troublesome group members. And sometimes, the best solution to a situation is for someone to leave. That's why business partnerships, relationships, friendships, and gaming groups break up: because one, or usually all, of the parties refuse to shift their positions. And sometimes that's necessary; for the gaming group example, some people have strongly conflicting playstyles, and what they find fun is very, very different. If two such people end up in a game group together, one of them may need to leave.

Also, nWoD has balance issues, but is not an automatic "you suck". It needs to be houseruled significantly, but it is a reasonably entertaining urban fantasy/horror system if you have a group of players with similar expectations. It bears up poorly to full-blown minmaxing, but rewards synergy and efficient group dynamics.

Finally, you are commiting a major Reverse Stormwind Fallacy. Mechanical and roleplaying aptitude are independant, as LARPs and freeforms will attest. People with poor optimisation skill may still have strong characterisation, acting and worldbuilding skills, along with a good storytelling manner, that makes up for their lack of minmax. This is just as likely as someone who "has it all", if not more so, as quality minmax seems to be possessed by less than a majority of people.

1) You never need to be psychoanalyst.  If you think that you are turning mountains into molehills.  You also rarely are going to tell people "here is how you are screwing up, fix it."  That means you have no problem solving skills.

2)Even supposed different styles can be reconciled.

3)WoD is an indicator.  People who use it tend to do so because they do not know any better.  It also has specific problems when it comes to being a "story" or "roleplay heavy" game.  in that it is neither of those things compared to any other game (DnD or such). 

4)As the inventor of the stormwind fallacy I think I know that premise.  Except, this bears out.  People good at game mechanics tend to be better at the squishy stuff too.

This is getting circular as people say the same baseless statements.  Feel free to keep repeating yourselves but I will only respond to new stuff. Someone could try and include another example like Shadowhowler did.

[Sunic_Flames]

Whoa, wait a sec. Stop. What the fuck? Josh is Tempest Stormwind?

[TheChrisWaits]

Whoa, wait a sec. Stop. What the fuck? Josh is Tempest Stormwind?

Nope.

2) Stormwind shamelessly stole his fallacy and all of his ideas from older members of the CO community and to my knowledge is himself not much of a min/maxer.  However it gives him too much credit to complain.

Okay then. Does this somehow affect the content of my post? Thanks for telling me all this though, didn't know this before.

I sometimes get a little hot under the collar at those two terms, obviously not your fault.    I invent a concept and share it on a message board, some guy comes along and (by his own admission) reads it and then to look cool, names the concept after himself and starts promoting the name.  It really, really soured me to the whole WotC board.  And when confronted he admitted it, was a complete douchebag and kept doing it.

His defense was, if I didn't want someone to steal it, I should have named it myself. 

[Shadowhowler]

LARPs suffer from a huge problem.  There is no mechanically good LARP game.  So it comes down to the skill of the writers and implementers.

Well, I can't speak to ALL LARP's, since I have not played all LARP's... but certainly your statment holds true in regards to MET LARP's... which have awefull mechanics. In fact, when I saw the first eddition MET LARP I refused to touch it because it was THAT bad. The second eddition was still horrible, but with 45 pages of house rules I was able to run a game with it. Then 3rd eddition came out, and it had incorprated nearly all of the house rules I had been using, so while still inherently flawed mechanicly, it was doable.

Yep, you handled that poorly.  You secretly ganged up on #5 with everyone else and made no attempt to reconcile the situation.

"I was running a 2nd Eddition Vampire WoD game for 5 players." Frankly, this game sucks and creates numerous problems for people who play it.  Also it is an indication that you are not mechanically savvy enough to figure that out on your own.  People who do not understand mechanics are typically lacking in other aspects of game play.
 
"When I asked why, all 4 of them said because he is bringing down the game with his inability to roleplay and thus all of his characters actions are annoying and disruptive to their enjoyment of the game."  Accepting an analysis of others at face value.  What did he actually do?  Did he chew loudly? 

You kicked him out with no analisys of your own, you did not even ask him to change in other words you didn't even try.

Yep, you done bad.  Now get over it and do better next time.

 
 
Harsh... However, I can't fault you for your opinion, but I'll make a few points.
 
I did not secretly gang up on player 5. I was totaly upfront with him. I told him 'Look, all the other players want this to be a more roleplaying intensive game and less beer anf pretzles, and they asked me to ask you to leave.' They came to me, they represented the majority of my players, and they had a request. I questioned them about their request, asked them if they were SURE of what they were asking for, and they answered in the affermitive. I then took that info directly and honestly to the 5th player.
 
The 4 other players were chickenshit coawrds, because they couldn't tell player 5 to his face they didn't want to play with him, and wanted me to be the axe man. Then, when player 5 asked them about it later, they were too chickenshit to even admit it and lied out their asses. Player 5 and I laugh about that now... as we are both pretty direct people and the other 4 players are afraid of confrontation.
 
Now... as to your opinion that WoD sucks, and that I was not a skilled enough RPG player/Storyteller to figure that out ono my own... wow... I'm not even sure where to begain with that. I agree WoD has mechanical issues when looked at as purly a chasis of a game from a numbers standpoint... however, I have never in 18 years played a RPG that did NOT have those issues. Period. Dispite the example above, I have run tabletop Vampire and other WoD games that ran for years and where great fun for everyone playing. Belive it or not... people actauly DO play/run/enjoy games that you might not like. I KNOW people play/run/enjoy games I dislike... like Shadowrun. Hate it. Love Cyberpunk, Love D&D, do NOT like them mixed.
 
I understand that you are mechanics-focused in your viwe of RPG's... but there really is more to playing RPG's then just the bare bones systems of them... or at least for many who play them there is.
 
I consider myself a sucsessfull DM/Stroyteller/Referee because I have run games for 18 years that my players have enjoyed and I have enjoyed running them... and the people that I play with consider me their favorite Game Master and remember my games foundly. I'm flatered by this, and consider it a great honor. I don't think we all suck because we enjoyed games that you might find systamaticly weak.  :-\
 
Now, as to what player 5 actauly did that was so bad... it's not what he did (at least, not mostly) it's what he didn't do. He was a very cool guy... still is... but his aproch to gaming was VERY simple. He was a 'kill it and take it's stuff' kinda player. This was, while a little one dimensional and lame to us in D&D games... it was at least aceptable because you can have reasons for your characters to want to be with a guy like that in D&D. Also... our D&D game, while containing more character focused roleplay then a lot of D&D games I have seen... was a lot more relaxed then our Vampire game. Now, when we started up the Vampire game, I expalined to everyone that sort of theme/mood I was looking for with the game, and everyone expressed an interest in it. However, after several sessions, it became apparent to everyone (Not just the players who asked me to have him leave, but myself as well) that while players 1-4 where developing their characters and truly getting into it and involved in the story... player 5 was just contenuing to play the way he always had... he wanted to get in fights, kill things and take their stuff. This did not fit in with th style of game we were trying to play, did not fit in with the other 4 characters, and truth be told did not fit in with the discription of and background of the character player 5 was playing in the first place.
 
When the other 4 players asked me to ask him to leave... I was surprised, because we were all buds, but I knew and understood WHY they were asking. I did not take their analysis at face value, I was there for every game that they were, I saw what they saw, and I agreed with their assesment of his play. However, I was surprsied at the solution they wanted. I would have thought they might rather go back to a D&D game where player 5's lack of interest in character development and roleplay seemed to bother them less... but they were really enjoying the game and wanted to explore it and their characters more. They did not feel thy could do that and enjoy it with player 5's disruptive, silly, and downright inaproprate character. Rather then PK him... they just wanted to ask him to leave, figured that would be less offensive the offing his character.
 
Now... saying we did not try to 'work with him' is a valid argument... and in hindsight I would have had all 5 of them get together and talk about the problem directly, and ask player 5 if he thought he could become more involved in the roleplaying and the differant sort of gameplay in this game... or if it was just not his cup of tee and he would rather not play. This whole thing happen 13 years ago... and outside of a LARP, is the last time I can remember having to kick a player out... so obvously as I got older and less stupid, I developed better ways of handling these sorts of situations.
 
Nowdays, I can't imagen needing to kick a player out... because I am very carefull to make sure BEFORE a game begains that all the players and I are on the same page as to what sort of game we are going to be playing, what sort of 'feel' we are looking for... and so on. So with a little carefull attention to thse things pre-game I find I have a LOT less post-game issuse crop up, and have not had to give a player the boot from a Tabletop RPG in 13 years.
 
I'd say that I was a bit of a douche in my example... but I was young, stupid, and I learned better and did not repeat my mistake, so hopefully I'm not a douche any longer. 
 
At least, not TOO much of one anyway.
 

[Dragon Snack]

I'm not even sure we are talking about booting someone for "in game" problems anymore.  Have we switched to 'don't even boot them for "out of game" issues'?

I've booted people for "out of game" stuff, but I've yet to boot anyone for, say, 'using stuff from books I don't own and asked the group to not use' (of course, now ALL of my players do this).

If you kick people out you should feel like shit because you are a bad person.

I may be a bad person, but I certainly don't feel like shit about it...

Not that I haven't felt bad about kicking a player.  I did feel bad about kicking a brother and sister from another DM's game that we had just invited to play with us (they were in another game I was playing in and I had invited them - after the group asked me to, which is why it fell to me), but even that was an out of game personal dislike of them (I had warned the group upfront that the duo had some typical gamer-isms).

Does "kicking yourself out" count as douchebaggery?  I've done that too, both times effectively ending the campaigns (one met a couple more times, in the other the group elected me to DM - including the then DM).

[AndyJames]

We have different problem solving skill sets.  I have them and you do not, that we can agree on.  I don't think I'm God, I don't even think I am that great a problem solver.  I do however have enough skill to make it happen.  If you tried you could probably be better at this than me, of course that involves trying.

If you would like to give an example of a problem player great, if you would like me to go over your technique, also great however if you want to keep making off base general statements in a field you know nothing about, go ahead, but it is not helping you much. 

Sure, man. Sure. You think your way is the only way to do things  :rolleyes

Thing is, when I do have to solve problems, like at work where I am paid to do so, I get by (note the sarcasm).

When I am playing a game, guess what? I don't give a damn about your dramas. I want a game. Fast, easy, where people have fun and is relaxed. I don't want tension between players. I don't want drama or resentment. I don't want kids acting out because they feel hard done by. And I certainly don't want one guy screwing up things for everyone else. If you can't stop with the drama and the constant crap spewing, then you get the boot. Why? Because I am *NOT INTERESTED* in solving your issues. I get enough of that at work without bringing it into my hobby time. And, get this: Gaming is a HOBBY for me. I do it for FUN. Frakk with that and guess what?

It is as simple as that.

[emissary666]

Josh, let me paraphrase some of your arguments I have seen and remember
1: You have no problem solving skills and I do. You are basing this solely on the fact that a player refused to change
2: You were playing WoD, therefore you and all of your players are retards. This is a personal opinion.
3: you are a bad parent. That is just uncalled for
4: If a player does not know the rules, then they are a bad role-player. In my middle school group, one of our new players was the GREATEST actor in the town. He did not know the rules, but he was the greatest roleplayer the group had ever seen. Also, if you try to say that my group must have consisted of people who couldn't roleplay for shit, then I will hunt you down and burn everything you ever loved.
5: Everyone should be nice and happy and love all of their players like their own children. I repeat what I have said before; PEOPLE ARE BASTARDS
6: Your a meany. Rebuttal: Your being immature.

the moral of this post, STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. I used personal attacks in this post (or at least tried) because no one of such douchebaggery should go unpunished.

[Zeke]

  emissary666

I will point out that Josh only commented on your parenting skills when you suggested physical abuse as a form of parenting.

On to other points.

I think the distinction for me is not whether  it is ever OK to kick someone out of a group, but whether one should ever advise anyone else to do so. I think that the answer is no, for the simple reason that if someone is horrible enough to warrant being kicked out, people can generally figure it out on their own.
Some people don't agree with me and see ejection as a viable social tool. I just don't think it's how anyone should treat their friends, and yes, the people you game with should be friends or at least potential friends.

We're nerds here; friends are not thick on the ground for those such as us. 

[Meg]

Um- Just a reminder.  These are Josh's boards.  Those aren't personal attacks.  Rude, sure.  He wouldn't deny that.  But that was sort of the point of boards like this- people could be a bit more curt than what you may be used to on other boards. 

Also, our Gameology stance is that a DM should do everything they can to keep a player.  That involves sitting them down and talking to them if need be.  It is not good gameology to kick someone out for in game things with very little work on your part. 

That's not going to change.  If you don't agree, that's ok, but it's not really something up for argument.  It's gameology.

[Sunic_Flames]

Which doesn't mean you should not remove them if it is clearly hopeless or not worth it.

[Callix]

Um- Just a reminder.  These are Josh's boards.  Those aren't personal attacks.  Rude, sure.  He wouldn't deny that.  But that was sort of the point of boards like this- people could be a bit more curt than what you may be used to on other boards. 

Also, our Gameology stance is that a DM should do everything they can to keep a player.  That involves sitting them down and talking to them if need be.  It is not good gameology to kick someone out for in game things with very little work on your part. 

That's not going to change.  If you don't agree, that's ok, but it's not really something up for argument.  It's gameology.

That's fine by almost everyone in the thread. Kicking should always be a last resort whenever it should be used. But Josh is actually making ad hominem attacks, and baldly claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is a douchebag with no problem solving skills. I, for one, have made a rebuttal of his supposed universal method, and he has not responded.

Yes, they're his boards. We should abide by his rules, which I, for one, will do. And, in fact, I agree with the rule of not advising someone to kick a player out over the internet, because we have horribly incomplete information, and kicking a player should pretty much always be a marginal decision.

What I object to is Josh's highly opinionated stance on kicking players at all. Suppose someone came to this board saying that they kicked a player out, and wondering whether they should've. Replying that 'you should feel like shit because you're a horrible DM and a bad person' isn't really that likely to improve anything; it's just kicking someone while they're down. On the other hand, saying 'Tell me more about the situation', then giving a considered opinion on whether this case was justified or not, even if it is always or almost always a negative response, might actually help. In short, Josh's dogmatic approach to this is worrying, at least to me.

Also, Josh, when I talk about being someone's psychoanalyst, I am meaning that the reasons people are bastards can be deep-rooted personality traits that only emerge in certain situations. I have already used the example of being excessively competitive, but attention-seeking behaviour often born of this sort of cause. And resolving this issue requires a great deal of work about redefining yourself in a way that doesn't hurt your friends. While I'm completely supportive of anyone wanting to do this, not everyone wants to change. And I, for one, am not going to force them to, because I am neither a psychologist nor a social worker. Even if I was, one of the major pieces of 'pop psychology' that we hear is that "the person has to want to change". If they don't, then they're no good for your game and refusing to get better. They need to get out.

[Meg]

I'm in the "Last Resort" category, too.  Though I still believe that if you are playing with other adults and you talk about it and try what you need to try, chances are, the other person will realize it's not working and will leave by choice.  Make it a win-win.

BUT- the main point of this is that it should NEVER be the first option.  Way too many times on other boards someone will say "I've got a problem with this player" and the overwhelming response is "kick them out".

If the GM cared enough to go onto a message board and type up the situation, kicking them out should never be the first choice.  They cared.  Don't suggest it.

Our stance on this GM board is that if someone says "I've got a problem with this player"- know that if you post "kick them out" we'll probably just delete your post.