Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[emissary666]

Is anyone (other than myself of course) really starting to believe that Josh is so pro Chaotic Stupid because he pulls a lot of that crap himself and doesn't want to face the logical consequences for his actions, therefore his comrades in arms shouldn't either? Now to await more replies that are at best misfounded from him.

I second that.

[Shadowhowler]

Hm. Annoying.
 
My post trying to address mutiple quotes came out as a giant pile of blue... and my efforts at fixing it have failed, tho I'm not sure why. I did the same thing I have done before... and it worked before, but not now.
 
My apologies to the reading public. 

[ZeroSum]

Just so we're clear:
Players should be kicked out when the player is being unresolvably disruptive, right?  Let's say we're playing 4e and three out of four players and the DM want to play it like a hack'n'slash.  If character #4 wants to do nothing but diplomacy but the 4e rule system (I don't know if this is true, but so I've heard) is bad at diplomacy and you tell player #4, "Listen, we want to do a hack'n'slash.  Please make a hack'n'slash character." and he doesn't how is that not unresolvably disruptive player action?

If a group of LARPers are playing a system that doesn't do combat well but they're fine with that because they don't want to do combat much and a player joins up and wants only characters that do nothing but combat how is that not the player being disruptive?

[Sunic_Flames]

The 4th edition bit refers to the way skill challenges work. You either almost always succeed or almost always fail, no middle ground.

[Josh]

Just about every game I have encountered has sme sort of setting. In the WoD setting... you have these Vampire's that exist but their existence is mostly unknown to the world because they try to keep it hidden. Blowing up buildings all the time and acting like a Nhilist with over 18 characters who all have differant names but act exactly the same is not conductive to play in that setting. Over 9 out of 10 players in my game understood that and figure out how to make and play characters they enjoyed within that setting, but this guy apparently could not.
 
It would be similar to a guy who joined a D&D game and wanted to play a farmer in a group of adventurers. His characters goals, actions, and very existance is totaly against the whole point of the game.

You give a good example.  How much reading does a character need to do to play vampire?  Now how much to play DnD?  Several orders of magnitude.  Too much background. 
Also you compare making a farmer, a non choice in DnD with a book choice character from vampire.

You are talking apples and oranges.

WTF??? I belive I earn that authority by putting in well over 12 - 20 hours a week of maintence/prep work on the game, not to mention the 6-8 hours of the game itself every week. When 99 out of 100 players respect that work and respect the authority nessecary to make the game flow and function, but ONE jerkoff player does not, that means I'm a bad GM?

That one thing does not make you a bad GM.  It is a combination of things.  Doing lots of work does not earn you authority and respect.  Doing things like handling an errant player earn you respect.  You are also begging for authority, thats a chump move.

AS for his motivations... He just enjoyed silly, pointless fun. He liked the idea of blowing stuff up and fighting and so forth. I'm sure in his mind he was not thinking 'I wanna be an asshat' but he KNEW that the stuff he enjoyed was not what the game I was running and the other 100 people were playing was about. I explained this upfront, and he shinned me on, knowing full well he intended to ignore everything I said and do what he wanted. Even telling him how upset he was making all the other players and how he was spoiling everyones fun did not phase him. So, did he think he was being an asshat? No, I'm sure he didn't. I'm sure he thought he had a RIGHT to do whatver he wanted, and not care who it bothered or inconvinced. However, whatevere his motivation, thats a selfish way of thinking. My goal was an enjoyable game for the GROUP. His actions were making the whole game less enjoyable for the group. Dispite many repeated attempts to correct the problem with him, and to get him to care about someone besides himself, he would not change his ways one bit. Thats selfish, imature... and asshat behavour. If he thought he was a jerk is irrelavent, he had all the evidence he needed to see he was being a jerk, and he didn't care. I submit that ANYONE who wants ingage in a group activity that requires the pressence and participation of many people (IE-Gaming) but does not care about anyone in that group but themself is, in fact, an asshat.

Why so serious?  Lighten up.  Even Shakespeare sent in the clowns.
My point still stands.

[Josh]

Is anyone (other than myself of course) really starting to believe that Josh is so pro Chaotic Stupid because he pulls a lot of that crap himself and doesn't want to face the logical consequences for his actions, therefore his comrades in arms shouldn't either? Now to await more replies that are at best misfounded from him.

I actually was the GM at a gaming club who took in the people who were kicked out of other games from asshole GMs. 

Here is what I discovered, I never had any problems (beyond what occurs with every player).  I had several players who were kicked out of every other game.  I also was not draconian nor did I treat them differently from the other players.  And I ran a very character and plot intensive game. 

[Josh]

Just so we're clear:
Players should be kicked out when the player is being unresolvably disruptive, right?  Let's say we're playing 4e and three out of four players and the DM want to play it like a hack'n'slash.  If character #4 wants to do nothing but diplomacy but the 4e rule system (I don't know if this is true, but so I've heard) is bad at diplomacy and you tell player #4, "Listen, we want to do a hack'n'slash.  Please make a hack'n'slash character." and he doesn't how is that not unresolvably disruptive player action?

If a group of LARPers are playing a system that doesn't do combat well but they're fine with that because they don't want to do combat much and a player joins up and wants only characters that do nothing but combat how is that not the player being disruptive?

First off, 4e is a hack'n'slash game.  You can't just "do diplomacy."  Skill challenges are set by the GM. 

In a larp if there are mechanics for something, you can do it.  Look back at 4e.  It keeps players from screwing up the game with diplomacy by restricting when they can use it. 

Combat exists to do and it is one of the few tools that allows you to effect your will.  The game has no Duel of Wits. 

As for how to deal with that theoretical player, I give a theoretical answer.  Identify motivations and then deal with the problem. 

[Shadowhowler]

That one thing does not make you a bad GM.  It is a combination of things.  Doing lots of work does not earn you authority and respect.  Doing things like handling an errant player earn you respect.  You are also begging for authority, thats a chump move.

 
 
I don't beg for authority when I run a game. I have authority, and I expect my players to respect it.
 
That dosn't mean I subscribe to the "I am the DM, I am God. Worship me." style of game... No way. I have never run that way, and I'll never play with any GM/DM that does.
 
It DOES mean, however, that a GM is the leader of a group. He/she puts in the work, handles the questions and makes the judgements.
 
I am fair to all my players... I always tell them up front what sort of game I am going to run... or I ASK them what sort of game they would like me to run. I make any house rules clear pre game. I always listen to players when they question a rule. I always make time between games to handle players questions, help them with their characters, whatever. I treat every player in my game the way *I* would like to be treated by another GM.
 
In return, I expect their trust and respect. Trust that I am running the game for ALL of us to have fun. Respect that I put a lot of work into the game, and if after listening to a complaint if a player does not agree with me they either accept my rulling and keep playing, or they leave the game if they can not still enjoy it after the rulling... but they do NOT stick around and try and ruin everyone eles's fun out of spite or malice.
 
I *TRIED* to handle the errant player, Lawrence, in the example I gave. I did everything I could think of to NOT kick him out and work with him over two months, 8-9 game sessions, and 18 characters. At the point that I eventualy decided to ask him to leave the game... he was spoiling my fun, my narrators fun, and a HUGE majority of 100 other players fun. My other players DID respect me as a GM... most of them said they would have given him the boot LONG before I did. That aside, I think they were happy to know that if I would put up with THAT much shit from him... they could figure THEY would not have to worry about getting the boot for anything short of MAJOR suckage. Which in the LARP community at that time was a big deal... because a lot of GM's were running their LARP's like their own private social clubs, kicking out anyone they didn't like. I didn't do that... I did everything I could think of NOT to kick out a player that was driving and my players nuts. I think I put up with a lot more then any GM I have ever gamed with in this case.
 
I'm guessing at this point we will just have to move to the 'agree to dissagree' situation. I have not heard from you what you would have done differantly that would have still allowed the 100 other players to enjoy the game. I'm guessing your NOT a fan of 'the needs of the many outwieght the needs of the few, or the one' style thinking.
 
I wish I could have come up with some way that I didn't have to boot Lawrence from the game... but as it was... the only way for him to have fun was at the expense of everyone eles, and thats just NOT fair in my book.

[Josh]

 
I don't beg for authority when I run a game. I have authority, and I expect my players to respect it.

What you claim and what you do differ. 

I wish I could have come up with some way that I didn't have to boot Lawrence from the game... but as it was... the only way for him to have fun was at the expense of everyone eles, and thats just NOT fair in my book.

Of course.  And if you had been better at being a GM you could have.

It still does not mean in the abstract you needed to kick him out.  As I have already demonstrated.  If you had recruited Lawrence to play the character he wanted to play anyway you would have solved the problem.  There are also many other solutions that would require me knowing the situation better, but one solution is enough. 

And again we are way out on the extreme here a larp, lousy rules system, hundred players, poor problem solving skills all pile up to give 1 problem character.  That actually goes more to proving my side before we even consider the fact that it would have been easy to handle.

[emissary666]

Ok, Josh, how 'bout you give us an example where someone with bad problem solving skills would kick a player and how you would solve it.

[Josh]

Ok, Josh, how 'bout you give us an example where someone with bad problem solving skills would kick a player and how you would solve it.

I have never kicked someone out.  I have never even considered it. 

I can't provide an example of this sort.  If someone brings something up I can talk to that, like ShadowHowler.

As for general problem solving I think we are ready to take it to the next stage, which I will do tomorrow.

[emissary666]

I meant a hypothetical example.

[ZeroSum]

Sheesh...  So forget 4e as the setting.  3.5e works just as well.

So we have 3 players, A, B and C that want to hack and slash.  Player D wants nothing but diplomacy.  When Players A-C say "Let's go to the dungeon!" player D says, "No, I want to talk to the king."

What do you do?

[Shadowhowler]

Of course.  And if you had been better at being a GM you could have.

 
 
 
     :'(

[AndyJames]

Is anyone (other than myself of course) really starting to believe that Josh is so pro Chaotic Stupid because he pulls a lot of that crap himself and doesn't want to face the logical consequences for his actions, therefore his comrades in arms shouldn't either? Now to await more replies that are at best misfounded from him.

There is a reason why Josh is on my ignore list right next to Ael.

Just out of curiosity, guys. Why are you even bothering to talk to such a douchebag? Seriously. It is like trying to get Ael to understand why he is wrong and that he is violating the one real rule that this board has. Only, he owns this place, so the rule doesn't apply to him. We all know he is not going to change his stance, and all you will get is more insults, flames and put downs from the arrogant douchebag. So why bother? Let's talk about something else and save our blood pressures from catastrophic failures, eh?

[Josh]

Is anyone (other than myself of course) really starting to believe that Josh is so pro Chaotic Stupid because he pulls a lot of that crap himself and doesn't want to face the logical consequences for his actions, therefore his comrades in arms shouldn't either? Now to await more replies that are at best misfounded from him.

There is a reason why Josh is on my ignore list right next to Ael.

Just out of curiosity, guys. Why are you even bothering to talk to such a douchebag? Seriously. It is like trying to get Ael to understand why he is wrong and that he is violating the one real rule that this board has. Only, he owns this place, so the rule doesn't apply to him. We all know he is not going to change his stance, and all you will get is more insults, flames and put downs from the arrogant douchebag. So why bother? Let's talk about something else and save our blood pressures from catastrophic failures, eh?

If you don't want to talk, that's fine this is essentially for you.  You are ignorant and you can learn better or not.  It matters extremely little to me that you are a crappy GM and would like to continue being one.

[Josh]

Of course.  And if you had been better at being a GM you could have.

 
 
 
     :'(

This is the crux of your problem.  I'm sorry if your world view as awesome super GM is shattered. 

Grow up.  Either learn better or realize your limitations.

[Josh]

Sheesh...  So forget 4e as the setting.  3.5e works just as well.

So we have 3 players, A, B and C that want to hack and slash.  Player D wants nothing but diplomacy.  When Players A-C say "Let's go to the dungeon!" player D says, "No, I want to talk to the king."

What do you do?

Generally that is between the players.  I don't know the group dynamic, I don't know how gameplay is handled, I don't know if you do sceneframing or how you have been deciding where to go next.

In the most general example I would send them to the king, either as a group or alone.  

1) Alone: I would ask D what he wants.  If there is a skill involved I would say "ok, narrate up till you roll" he talks to the king.  Then he rolls and we do the resolution.  Just taking a few moments.  Part of the emphasis here is that you are alone away from the group and you do not get much "alone" time.  If he just wants "pointless" interaction (he is fishing or something) I would give it to him with the same constraints of time.  (a page he knows would pass him a note to meet in two days or the chamberlain would say "after you clear out the dungeon come see me" or the alchemist would tell him to keep his eye out for something in the dungeon.)  If he wants to keep going, I would finish with a synopsis, rather than playing it out.  

2) Group: I ask the group what they want.  D needs to reconcile what he wants with the group in this case.  I would then go through the interaction just as briefly.  The difference here is if the whole group gets into it I would keep going a little longer.  I might do side scenes and such.

A few notes:
The power of scene framing - instead of complete linear progression you can just do the important bits.  He wants to talk to the king, jump right to it.  That saves so much wasted time.

Ask the question of the players "what does this have to do with the adventure?" - ultimately the players need to be interested in going into the dungeon.  That's what the game is about.  Asking people makes them think about it.

Put people in the right frame of mind - enforce the concept that the PCs are adventurers.  

throw in stuff about current adventure - when you play the king have his say "when you are done with that we can discuss x."

rather than do that poorly now do it well in the next adventure - often you will get people who want to do courtly intrigue in DnD.  You can say "do you really want to do that in this game, that handles it poorly.  Or would you rather plan for doing a courtly Burning Wheel game next game we play?"

play is reactive - point out that in DnD you respond to the environment set by the GM.  You can do what you want but the GM does the setup.  In other words, unless it has to do with the adventure it is window dressing.

spread screen time - players understand they cannot hog the spotlight, use this knowlege.

play the game in front of you - point out that this is DnD and we are ready to go to the dungeon now.  

[emissary666]

Ok, let's use a more fleshed out example

Player A: Female, Enjoys roleplaying, spellcasters, and puzzles

Player B: Male, enjoys roleplaying, stealth, and rogues

Player C: Female, enjoys combat, treasure, and fighters

Player D: Male, enjoys combat, social interaction, and druids

Players A and B are dating

Player D is slightly egotistical

Player C is on the hyperactive side

Three of the players are enjoying a game you have set up that fits their play style best. One or more of the players is ruining the game by playing in an opposing style. You know that the other players are having their enjoyment of the game reduced by the problem player(s). Identify the problem player(s) and solve the problem(s). There is an obvious one and others which are just from the flavor text.

[Josh]

Ok, let's use a more fleshed out example

Player A: Female, Enjoys roleplaying, spellcasters, and puzzles

Player B: Male, enjoys roleplaying, stealth, and rogues

Player C: Female, enjoys combat, treasure, and fighters

Player D: Male, enjoys combat, social interaction, and druids

Players A and B are dating

Player D is slightly egotistical

Player C is on the hyperactive side

Three of the players are enjoying a game you have set up that fits their play style best. One or more of the players is ruining the game by playing in an opposing style. You know that the other players are having their enjoyment of the game reduced by the problem player(s). Identify the problem player(s) and solve the problem(s). There is an obvious one and others which are just from the flavor text.

This is the kind of useless theoretical example I was talking about.  People are significantly more complex then this.  There are interaction vibes between players.  There are vibes from the GM.  There are play-style issues BF to GF. 

How is D egotistical? How is C hyperactive? 

How are they ruining it?  What is their play like?