Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[emissary666]

Unless the game will some degrade in enjoyment value, then there is no reason to kick a player if the situation can be handled as such. The player I referred to earlier, the one who was constantly late, COULD have been easily and quickly handled IF the player decided to co-operate. All resolution of conflict requires the co-operation of all parties. Even if a situation could be handled easily, quickly, and effectively, that does not mean it will be.

[RobbyPants]

Are there more qualities that a solution would need to have (or less qualities)?

In game refers to the playing of the game it self.  In this case loud chewers can affect the game and people who can't sit down can affect the game. In both of those gases the game is being disrupted.  An out of game issue would be if one of the players keeps swearing in front of your kids.  The line can be a little blurry.  Is there a clear way to separate the two?

It's so blurry because it's so subjective.  A person chewing loudly may not be noticed by one player and may drive another to madness.  I think it's impossible to qualify.

I guess my best advice still is to try to handle things openly and non-passive-aggressively (that last part is important).  If someone's chewing loudly, hopefully the bothered player can say something politely, and the offending player can try to cut back.  It'd be nice if we could all be adults about these things.

Also you can think of the GM as just another player, but I don't recommend it.  That would be another argument “should the GM be in charge?”

Gernally I agree that it's everyone's game and not just the DM's.  Lately, I've consulted players when I'm thinking about introducing a new house-rule or running a non-standard game in any way.  Ultimately, if they're not having fun, then the game's not as good as it could be.

That being said, if things are getting put to a vote, that would seem fair to me.  Obviously, a DM may have more say in that they can just stop running the game if they're not happy with the result, and the person hosting the game can simply kick people out.  Again, it'd be nice if everyone could act like adults.

[veekie]

I'd think that, kicking out being the single most obvious 'solution' to much of a gaming group's problem players, nobody needs any advice on it. Since it's pretty much the default solution if no constructive alternative is given, we won't have to tell anyone to do so.

[Midnight_v]

So you did not want to change their play style as you claimed?
Poor GMs who think they are good is a bad thing for the hobby.
You should want to do well...

You got me.  If you don't know why you should try to be a good GM there is not much I can do for you.

Amen! I just wanna say that i'm in the camp with the B'G's on this one. Giving the advice "kick his ass out!" is really not advice worth mentioning. It doesn't really address the problem...

[Josh]

Are there more qualities that a solution would need to have (or less qualities)?

In game refers to the playing of the game it self.  In this case loud chewers can affect the game and people who can't sit down can affect the game. In both of those gases the game is being disrupted.  An out of game issue would be if one of the players keeps swearing in front of your kids.  The line can be a little blurry.  Is there a clear way to separate the two?

It's so blurry because it's so subjective.  A person chewing loudly may not be noticed by one player and may drive another to madness.  I think it's impossible to qualify.

I guess my best advice still is to try to handle things openly and non-passive-aggressively (that last part is important).  If someone's chewing loudly, hopefully the bothered player can say something politely, and the offending player can try to cut back.  It'd be nice if we could all be adults about these things.

This is in a sense subjective but the subjectiveness is the point.  When does it matter that the chewing is distracting?  When it is distracting.

[Psychic Robot]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

[veekie]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

Yes, but if they're asking for help, chances are they already know of that option and are seeking alternatives. So lets give them alternatives rather than more of the same easy solution.

[Callix]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

As veekie said, I agree that we should never advise them to kick a player out. Everyone knows you can not let someone play. The reason you ask someone else is so that you don't have to.

Practically, I agree that it can be justified to remove a player. But when giving advice over the internet (very, very second-hand info), we should avoid recommending that someone do that.

And, of course, Josh will pity all our poor DMing skills that we even consider booting players, but that's his prerogative.

[Josh]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

You are pre-judging the situation.  You are assuming you did your best and that did not work.  If you actually did your best you would resolve the issue.

[emissary666]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

You are pre-judging the situation.  You are assuming you did your best and that did not work.  If you actually did your best you would resolve the issue.

No, if you did your best, there is still a chance that you will not resolve this issue. you are assuming that we all have super awesome amazing DMing skills and that everyone is nice, friendly, co-operative, and will just shrug and go, "Ok". But no, people are bastards. Most likely, they will give you the finger, punch you in the stomach, or sleep with your girlfriend and/or sister.
Doing your best is doing what is the best humanly possible work you can do. A person is not going to change just because you put a lot of effort into changing them. Also,
YOU'RE LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD!
You can go through your world believing that under no circumstance should anyone be kicked from a group, but in a more commonly accepted (if still fantastical) world, kicking is sometimes required.

[AndyJames]

Callix, sometimes, people need to be reassured that kicking someone out is an appropriate response. Some people, for whatever reason, feel "bad" when even contemplating kicking someone out. They need to be reassured that, if they have done all they can, then, yes, it is time to look at applying boot to rear. I have seen many people/groups suffer because no one had the balls to kick the problem child out. They try to be PC and pussyfoot around the issue, but only end up being more and more miserable as the problem player ramps up his activities in "revenge" for them daring to say he is doing things wrong.

I am firmly in the camp that states "telling someone that he should kick the problem player out is acceptable". I have many issues with the word "never" used by the other camp.

[Chemus]

AJ, I really see your point of view. I also agree with the owners of the board that recommending that a player be kicked is very often less than helpful.

What if the question board were renamed to "What can a GM do besides kick the player out?"

Or perhaps there's some sorta sticky that says: "We will never recommend that you kick a player out of your game. Sometimes, however, it might be the course you want to take. Don't let us make up your mind for you."

Is that wishy-washy enough to please everyone all the time?

[Josh]

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.

Why?  If someone's character is ruining the game for everyone else and you try your best to resolve the problem, then I think you have every right to kick someone out.

You are pre-judging the situation.  You are assuming you did your best and that did not work.  If you actually did your best you would resolve the issue.

No, if you did your best, there is still a chance that you will not resolve this issue. you are assuming that we all have super awesome amazing DMing skills and that everyone is nice, friendly, co-operative, and will just shrug and go, "Ok". But no, people are bastards. Most likely, they will give you the finger, punch you in the stomach, or sleep with your girlfriend and/or sister.
Doing your best is doing what is the best humanly possible work you can do. A person is not going to change just because you put a lot of effort into changing them. Also,
YOU'RE LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD!
You can go through your world believing that under no circumstance should anyone be kicked from a group, but in a more commonly accepted (if still fantastical) world, kicking is sometimes required.

Chance has nothing to do with it.  But btw very few people are simply "bastards," they do stuff for a reason.  Like for example if your wife/girlfriend was hot, I would sleep with her.  Not to piss you off, but rather because I like screwing hot chicks. (as for your sister, why do you care if I sleep with her?)  And note that I say this not only in the sense that it is logically obvious, it is also practically obvious.  There has not been a case yet where a GM kicked a player out for in game reasons that had any merit.  None.  Zero.  In the dozens of times I have had this argument not one person has ever presented a case where we could even discuss the merits.

Do I think it is possible?  Yes, there may be a case out there somewhere.  Have I seen it?  No.  Is it useful to mention?  No.  In the vanishingly small chance it will come up it is not worth mentioning.    

As for doing your best.  Chumps do their best.  Just do it.  It is not hard.  The amount of effort you put into whining about it is more significant.  If your best cannot accomplish this task not only should you not GM, you should be living in a group home of some sort.

[Josh]

Callix, sometimes, people need to be reassured that kicking someone out is an appropriate response. Some people, for whatever reason, feel "bad" when even contemplating kicking someone out. They need to be reassured that, if they have done all they can, then, yes, it is time to look at applying boot to rear. I have seen many people/groups suffer because no one had the balls to kick the problem child out. They try to be PC and pussyfoot around the issue, but only end up being more and more miserable as the problem player ramps up his activities in "revenge" for them daring to say he is doing things wrong.

I am firmly in the camp that states "telling someone that he should kick the problem player out is acceptable". I have many issues with the word "never" used by the other camp.

Let me rephrase "never."  Has not happened yet in recorded history, is unlikely to be something you will ever encounter.  There is a greater chance you will have to turn one of your players in to the FBI because they are an international blood diamond smuggler then you will have to kick them out.

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

[AndyJames]

Josh, unless the problem child is MY problem child, he is someone else's responsibility. I do not take responsibility for someone else's kid. If he is such a douche, someone else can waste their times straightening him out. I don't have inclination to do so. If the kid was MY child, he gets a quick slap across the face and a "grow up or be grounded until you are 75".

Bottom line is this: I neither feel nor claim responsibility for someone who is not my child. As such, it is not my place to straighten them out, nor do I want it to be my place. If they want to be a douche, they can be a douche elsewhere else.

[Josh]

Josh, unless the problem child is MY problem child, he is someone else's responsibility. I do not take responsibility for someone else's kid. If he is such a douche, someone else can waste their times straightening him out. I don't have inclination to do so. If the kid was MY child, he gets a quick slap across the face and a "grow up or be grounded until you are 75".

Bottom line is this: I neither feel nor claim responsibility for someone who is not my child. As such, it is not my place to straighten them out, nor do I want it to be my place. If they want to be a douche, they can be a douche elsewhere else.

OK. 

Yes you lack the required skills to be a GM.  The GM is denmother, game orchestrator and problem solver.  Just be a player.

And, your parenting skills leave much to be desired. 

PS - This response comes up almost verbatim every time I pose this argument. 

[AndyJames]

Actually, no. A GM is a referee in a communal game where the goal is for everyone to have fun. The key being *communal* game. If one douche is making it bad for others, he either change and conform to the *community* or he gets the boot. Playing the psychiatrist is going above and beyond, and not something I care to do.

The basis of my parenting skills has been tried and tested over 3000 years of history. Can you say the same for yours?

[AfterCrescent]

AJ, it sounds (from your lack of an example) like you're the one being a douche in said situation (assuming you're referring to a personal experience). Let's look at this.  You claim the goal is for everyone to have fun, and then say it is okay to kick someone out. What does that mean? Is that person having fun? I doubt it. So if the goal is for everyone to have fun and to be a communal game, shouldn't those not having fun (re: You and the guy you claim is being a douche [by the way, that's a metaphorical 'you', I'm not attacking you, AJ]) try to work it out. If they can't, shouldn't both parties be kicked out? So you (metaphorical again) stop GMing and that player stop playing.  :rolleyes  Sorry, but that sounds retarded. Problems can be solved.

[Josh]

Actually, no. A GM is a referee in a communal game where the goal is for everyone to have fun. The key being *communal* game. If one douche is making it bad for others, he either change and conform to the *community* or he gets the boot. Playing the psychiatrist is going above and beyond, and not something I care to do.

The basis of my parenting skills has been tried and tested over 3000 years of history. Can you say the same for yours?

The famed Nah-huh defense.  Listen to AC.

As for the stuff he did not cover, it is without merit.

[AndyJames]

AJ, it sounds (from your lack of an example) like you're the one being a douche in said situation (assuming you're referring to a personal experience). Let's look at this.  You claim the goal is for everyone to have fun, and then say it is okay to kick someone out. What does that mean? Is that person having fun? I doubt it. So if the goal is for everyone to have fun and to be a communal game, shouldn't those not having fun (re: You and the guy you claim is being a douche [by the way, that's a metaphorical 'you', I'm not attacking you, AJ]) try to work it out. If they can't, shouldn't both parties be kicked out? So you (metaphorical again) stop GMing and that player stop playing.  :rolleyes  Sorry, but that sounds retarded. Problems can be solved.

There are a few things to be addressed here:

First, I never advocated that it is the first option. In fact, I very specifically said that the guy should be told to shape up or ship out. I have made other posts, which Josh conveniently ignores in order to be a douche with his ad hominem attacks on me, to that effect.

Second, if one guy is causing problems where the other five guys are not, he goes if he doesn't shape up. Like I have said, I don't want to play psychiatrist to his mentally unstable patient.

Third, there is no example. This is a generic call: Douches should be kicked out if they refuse to change.

Let me reiterate:
1. In a communal game, the majority wins. If the one is causing problems for the majority, he shapes up or gets the boot.
2. I am not his parent. It is not my responsibility to sit him down and explain to him that he is screwing up. I can tell him that he is, and I can ask him to change. That is it.
3. Anyone saying that it is my responsibility to be his den mother needs to get over their sense of entitlement and grow a set. Seriously. Talk about PC gone bad. That guy is responsible for his own actions. He stuffs up, his problem, not mine. He deals with it, not me.
4. Repeat after me: You are not entitled to my time, just as I am not entitled to yours.


EDIT: AC, the problem can be solved. The question is: Am I interested in solving his problem for him? I am a firm believer in self-responsibility. This is something that doesn't seem to register with some people. My view is simple: He stuffs up, he solve it. I can help *if* he asks for it (i.e., admit he stuffed up) AND if he is willing to change. But I will only help. I will not solve the problem for him.

In other words, I can show him the formula. I will not give him the answer.