Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[emissary666]

You somehow took away that all of the players were unhappy with how the game was being played, that they may actually be stupid and slow, that the DM was railroading, and for some reason asked for the players to make a background together. if you just said, "Tell him to keep real life and game life separate" it would make more sense, but you included things that either had nothing to do with the question or assumed the problem player was actually telling a objective fact. I said "wild assumptions" because you assumed to much about the situation with some of your answers/questions to the situation.

[Josh]

You somehow took away that all of the players were unhappy with how the game was being played, that they may actually be stupid and slow, that the DM was railroading, and for some reason asked for the players to make a background together. if you just said, "Tell him to keep real life and game life separate" it would make more sense, but you included things that either had nothing to do with the question or assumed the problem player was actually telling a objective fact. I said "wild assumptions" because you assumed to much about the situation with some of your answers/questions to the situation.

Again, we are not discussing this specific question, it is only important if the poster was making an on topic point.

The topic is "is it ever appropriate to kick a player out for in game reasons."

[emissary666]

But, you displayed what one can assume is your problem solving skills; something no one here but you have.

[Josh]

But, you displayed what one can assume is your problem solving skills; something no one here but you have.

That is a dumb statement.  Try again.

[emissary666]

 
Can you offer a reason why it is a dumb statement rather than just saying so?

[AfterCrescent]

I can.

something no one here but you have

Right there. No logic, no point, no forethought. Josh may have told some people they do not have problem solving skills, but he never said no one but he had them. A blanket statement like that is fairly offensive to everyone, even those who may agree with you. Ergo, it's a fairly dumb statement to make. Biting the hand that feeds you and all those metaphors.

[Callix]

I can.

something no one here but you have

Right there. No logic, no point, no forethought. Josh may have told some people they do not have problem solving skills, but he never said no one but he had them. A blanket statement like that is fairly offensive to everyone, even those who may agree with you. Ergo, it's a fairly dumb statement to make. Biting the hand that feeds you and all those metaphors.

No; he said that only Josh has Josh's problem solving skills; that's because they're Josh's and not ours.

[Josh]

I can.

something no one here but you have

Right there. No logic, no point, no forethought. Josh may have told some people they do not have problem solving skills, but he never said no one but he had them. A blanket statement like that is fairly offensive to everyone, even those who may agree with you. Ergo, it's a fairly dumb statement to make. Biting the hand that feeds you and all those metaphors.

No; he said that only Josh has Josh's problem solving skills; that's because they're Josh's and not ours.

Still dumb.

You guys need to figure out what your point is.  What is the thing that will actually get someone kicked out that cannot easily be dealt with?  Then I can show you how to deal with it and negate that argument.

Right now what I am saying is:

1) Are the minimum conditions for effective problem solving agreed upon
2) Are we in agreement about out of game v. in game?

[Callix]

You guys need to figure out what your point is.  What is the thing that will actually get someone kicked out that cannot easily be dealt with?  Then I can show you how to deal with it and negate that argument.

Right now what I am saying is:

1) Are the minimum conditions for effective problem solving agreed upon
2) Are we in agreement about out of game v. in game?

Conditions I think we're good on.

In game/out of game I'm not so sure on. You'd get a lot more agreement about in-character, rather than in-game. I take it you mean "in-game" to mean anything that happens during a game session? And that in-game reasons for kicking a player out are never sufficient?

Finally, I'll admit this much: I've been very lucky. I have never been in a game where anyone approached the level of douchebaggery that would have me wanting to remove them. The only game that came close collapsed after two sessions. So if you won't accept anything less than a concrete example, I'm not much use here. But I firmly believe that I have never been in a situation where a player should have been removed is due to luck and being in relatively few games, not because the circumstances are impossible.

I agree that the perfect GM need never kick a player out, because they will have properly screened their players beforehand. But if a GM is still improving, and learns that they have a player they should never have included, it seems to me that the quickest, simplest and most effective solution may be to remove the player you should never have accepted in the first place.

[Josh]

Conditions I think we're good on.

In game/out of game I'm not so sure on. You'd get a lot more agreement about in-character, rather than in-game. I take it you mean "in-game" to mean anything that happens during a game session? And that in-game reasons for kicking a player out are never sufficient?

Finally, I'll admit this much: I've been very lucky. I have never been in a game where anyone approached the level of douchebaggery that would have me wanting to remove them. The only game that came close collapsed after two sessions. So if you won't accept anything less than a concrete example, I'm not much use here. But I firmly believe that I have never been in a situation where a player should have been removed is due to luck and being in relatively few games, not because the circumstances are impossible.

I agree that the perfect GM need never kick a player out, because they will have properly screened their players beforehand. But if a GM is still improving, and learns that they have a player they should never have included, it seems to me that the quickest, simplest and most effective solution may be to remove the player you should never have accepted in the first place.

Not in game refers to their behavior as a human being.  Occasionally you will encounter someone who swears in front of your kids or keeps smoking pot in your house.  You should not have to put up with either of those things and they have nothing to do with gaming.

You also think that "in theory" someone might, in some case need to be kicked out.  In practice I have found this to not be true.  In fact most of the stories of people actually kicked out of games are entirely without merit.  Very few cases are even debatable.  And none have offered a weakly supported argument.  (the best are as good as ShadowHowlers example)

[Shadowhowler]

You also think that "in theory" someone might, in some case need to be kicked out.  In practice I have found this to not be true.  In fact most of the stories of people actually kicked out of games are entirely without merit.  Very few cases are even debatable.  And none have offered a weakly supported argument.  (the best are as good as ShadowHowlers example)

 
 
I can give you a better example... but it's from a LARP.
 
I had a player named Lawrence... he came to be known as 'CheeseHead' by everyone... tho I can not recall exactly why. He had a bad habit of consitantly making what amounted to the same character... just with differant names and differant 'dressing'. No matter what he played... his characters inevitably ended up attacking other players characters at random, setting up bombs and blowing up buildings without and good reason or motivation, and basicly being an all around Douchebag. I talked to him about it several times. Sometimes... he would get a character killed in the first hour of play... he'd reach in his pocket and extract another character, pre-made, ready to go... and then do something equally stupid with the new character, and get himself killed again. This went on for months. I talked to him several times about it... as did my narrators (assistant DM's, for those who have never LARP'ed) I even ended up making a rule that if your character died you had to wait till the next game to bring in a new one... as it became distracting how often he would die and reapear. He did it 4 times in one night once.
 
In the end, after I had tried everything I could think of and he would not change his Douchebag ways, I asked him to leave the game.
 
Justified?

[Josh]

You also think that "in theory" someone might, in some case need to be kicked out.  In practice I have found this to not be true.  In fact most of the stories of people actually kicked out of games are entirely without merit.  Very few cases are even debatable.  And none have offered a weakly supported argument.  (the best are as good as ShadowHowlers example)

 
 
I can give you a better example... but it's from a LARP.
 
I had a player named Lawrence... he came to be known as 'CheeseHead' by everyone... tho I can not recall exactly why. He had a bad habit of consitantly making what amounted to the same character... just with differant names and differant 'dressing'. No matter what he played... his characters inevitably ended up attacking other players characters at random, setting up bombs and blowing up buildings without and good reason or motivation, and basicly being an all around Douchebag. I talked to him about it several times. Sometimes... he would get a character killed in the first hour of play... he'd reach in his pocket and extract another character, pre-made, ready to go... and then do something equally stupid with the new character, and get himself killed again. This went on for months. I talked to him several times about it... as did my narrators (assistant DM's, for those who have never LARP'ed) I even ended up making a rule that if your character died you had to wait till the next game to bring in a new one... as it became distracting how often he would die and reapear. He did it 4 times in one night once.
 
In the end, after I had tried everything I could think of and he would not change his Douchebag ways, I asked him to leave the game.
 
Justified?

What was he doing wrong exactly?  He liked getting his characters killed, one could assume.  You were just too stuck on the way you wanted to play to allow it.  He seems to have been on top of things with having spare characters to go.

Where is the issue?

[emissary666]

And with that, I have lost faith that Josh will ever have an IQ equal to a fly.

That player is intentionally ruining that game, and he expected that he would die. He wasn't "on top off things" with his characters, he was just using the same character for the same reasons. If you want to blame Shadowhowler for actually want people to ENJOY the game, then go ahead. But, if you really believe that douchebags should be allowed to stay in a game no matter what, then you must be a douchebag yourself for wanting douchebags to remain in games where they ruin it for everyone.

[Shadowhowler]

What was he doing wrong exactly?  He liked getting his characters killed, one could assume.  You were just too stuck on the way you wanted to play to allow it.  He seems to have been on top of things with having spare characters to go.

Where is the issue?

 
Ok...
 
"What was he doing wrong exactly?"
 
Well, to start, when anyone joins a game I am running, I try to lay out the basic idea/theme of the game for them beforehand. That way, they can decide if the game is going to be their cup of tea or not. The case with Lawrence was no differant. Before joining the game I gave him a rundown of the 'created history' of my gameworld... the theme we were working for, and so on. He understood all of this before making his character(s) and playing. Dispite that, he contenued to play all of his characters as psychotic nhilists who seemed to exist only to attack people at random and blow things up. This was at odds with what I told him the game was going to be about, at odds with LARP Vampire in the first place, (not only is the game not designed theamaticly to be a combat heavy game... but in this case, the mechanics support that because the systems for running combat in LARP Vampire are so bad and slow that combat is best avoided as much as possible.) and was also at odds with the other players. Which leads to the second problem.
 
LARP, even more then Tabletop games, is a group effort. The player base is so large (at least in my game) that even with four assistant narrators I could not be everywhere at once. The players will often spend hours without dealing with me or my narrators. Thus, the group as a whole has a greater then normal impact on the direction the story is taking. 'Railroad' plots for LARP almost never work... and even when they do, they tend to be BAD. Youor best stories in LARP games are player created/driven. Lawrence's constant outright stupid and disruptive actions were pissing off more then 70-100 people. Those people also understood the theme of the game, and were playing with that in mind. They were being screwed by a player who's only way to have fun was act like a complete asshat and screw with everyone in childish attempts for attention. Also, since he would go threw up two 4 characters a night... players would often be confused by him. They talked to or delt with one character an hour ago, but now they se who they think is the same charactr and act acordingly. This set up all kinds of problems.
 
A DM/Storyteller/Whatever takes on a lot more work to make a game fun then any one player does. All games are group efforts, but DM/Storytellers are the leader's (or Den Mothers) and they have a level of authority. That Authority needs to be respected. So when the guy running the game lays out what sort of game it's going to be... the player should respect that and work within that framework. To do otherwise is a downright insult to the guy pututing in the time and effort to run the game.
 
In a Tabletop game, the situation would NEVER have gone on as long as it did... because with only 3-6 players the one roblem player would have had a much greater impact, and I would have born witness to every offence. As it was, Lawrence laster about 2 months in my game... which in my opinion was WAY longer then he deserved for being disrespectfull to me and 100 other people be being such a douchebag. I gave him MANY chancs and tried talking to him and explaining to him repeatedly why his behavour was not acceptable. In the end, I saw no other option but to ask him to leave. Why should everyone eles have to suffer because he had no respect for any of us?
 
 
"Where is the issue?"
 
The issue is as follows:
 
1. He did not respect my wishes as Storyteller of the game when I explained to him before he even made his first character what sort of game I was running. He did not HAVE to play, and I do not HAVE to allow anyone who wants to play to play. He asked if he could play... I said he could and I explained what I expected from players. He agreed and then went to completely ignore everything I had told him and act like a complete asshat.
 
2. Even after extended warnings, advice, and requests that he change the way he was aproching the game... he ignored me and did what he wanted to do. I informed him he was disrupting the game, ruining the fun of others, and being imature and selfish. He didn't care, and contenued to disrespect everyone in the game and me.
 
 
So... since you think I was wrong in removing him from the game, please tell me what you would have done?

[Josh]

And with that, I have lost faith that Josh will ever have an IQ equal to a fly.

That player is intentionally ruining that game, and he expected that he would die. He wasn't "on top off things" with his characters, he was just using the same character for the same reasons. If you want to blame Shadowhowler for actually want people to ENJOY the game, then go ahead. But, if you really believe that douchebags should be allowed to stay in a game no matter what, then you must be a douchebag yourself for wanting douchebags to remain in games where they ruin it for everyone.

Well the faith of simpletons is in high demand.

So, to explain why you are wrong:
They were not "ruining the game" they were playing.  Also nothing was said of people enjoying the game.  In my method everyone would enjoy the game more, a win-win if you will.  Handled properly everyone has fun.

People, even you emissary, do not act like morons for the sake of being morons and ruining everyones fun.  You think that you are right and justified in acting like an idiot.  Now explain how you differ from the guy in the larp?  (And he would say he was "right" too.) 

[Chemus]

So... since you think I was wrong in removing him from the game, please tell me what you would have done?

So, to explain why you are wrong:
They were not "ruining the game" they were playing.  Also nothing was said of people enjoying the game.  In my method everyone would enjoy the game more, a win-win if you will.  Handled properly everyone has fun.

People, even you emissary, do not act like morons for the sake of being morons and ruining everyones fun.  You think that you are right and justified in acting like an idiot.  Now explain how you differ from the guy in the larp?  (And he would say he was "right" too.) 

Disconnect much?

I'm wondering, and Shadowhowler asked you very specifically and clearly, what would you do in that situation, Josh?

When one person is causing difficulties for the group (In this case, initiating frequent combat in a system where combat is poorly handled and not the point of playing, similar, but in mirror-opposite to where you recommended that when playing D&D, the players should be killing things and taking their stuff) action is taken. It was discussed, apparently hashed out, and then it happens again. Rinse, wash, repeat. Since the problem player's play style is one that forces a greater than even portion of game resources (GM time, other players' time, other players' character resources) to be 'spent' on him alone, and since it's disruptive to what many or most of the others seem to find fun, what do you, Josh the GM, do about it? It's obvious that the method used to discuss the issue failed to solve the problem. What methods would you use to find a final solution?

[vitriol] And please don't hand us all another 'handled properly' as if butter wouldn't melt on your keyboard.[/vitriol]

[Josh]

Where to start? 

You have too much world information and it is too abstract.  You are “restricting” characters too much.

The fact that narrators can't be everywhere is the point.  You need less need of them.

Also characters acting like characters can't make a story “bad” they can only make a story. 

A DM/Storyteller/Whatever takes on a lot more work to make a game fun then any one player does. All games are group efforts, but DM/Storytellers are the leader's (or Den Mothers) and they have a level of authority. That Authority needs to be respected. So when the guy running the game lays out what sort of game it's going to be... the player should respect that and work within that framework. To do otherwise is a downright insult to the guy pututing in the time and effort to run the game.

That attitude is partly why you are a bad GM.  You just want people to give you authority.  You need to earn it. 

1. He did not respect my wishes as Storyteller of the game when I explained to him before he even made his first character what sort of game I was running. He did not HAVE to play, and I do not HAVE to allow anyone who wants to play to play. He asked if he could play... I said he could and I explained what I expected from players. He agreed and then went to completely ignore everything I had told him and act like a complete asshat.

Right.  He could have joined any of the dozen other larps that night.  And again, it is extremely unlikely he was doing it to be an asshat.  Look at emissary, do you think his goal is to be a stupid, disruptive asshat?  No.  He is motivated by something else, he actually thinks he is doing something good and right. 

2. Even after extended warnings, advice, and requests that he change the way he was aproching the game... he ignored me and did what he wanted to do. I informed him he was disrupting the game, ruining the fun of others, and being imature and selfish. He didn't care, and contenued to disrespect everyone in the game and me.

When you call someone wrong, stupid and childish (or whatever) and they don't think they are acting that way, they ignore you.  Again, look at emissary.  I could call him stupid all night and that would not change his mind.  Same deal.  Except, I won't kick emissary out for that.

I would recruit him.  Well actually first I would take the 30 minutes to write a better rules set and campaign world.  But in that world I would recruit him. 

[Josh]

When one person is causing difficulties for the group (In this case, initiating frequent combat in a system where combat is poorly handled and not the point of playing, similar, but in mirror-opposite to where you recommended that when playing D&D, the players should be killing things and taking their stuff) action is taken. It was discussed, apparently hashed out, and then it happens again. Rinse, wash, repeat. Since the problem player's play style is one that forces a greater than even portion of game resources (GM time, other players' time, other players' character resources) to be 'spent' on him alone, and since it's disruptive to what many or most of the others seem to find fun, what do you, Josh the GM, do about it? It's obvious that the method used to discuss the issue failed to solve the problem. What methods would you use to find a final solution?

[vitriol] And please don't hand us all another 'handled properly' as if butter wouldn't melt on your keyboard.[/vitriol]

I will point something out.  This particular larp has a crap rules system.  If combat is so hard, it should be fixed. 

Again, you will get nowhere by berating someone for not playing the way you want them to.  You need their motives and intentions.  Then you solve the problem.  Don't punish the player, solve the problem. 

[Shadowhowler]

You have too much world information and it is too abstract.  You are “restricting” characters too much.

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.
Also characters acting like characters can't make a story “bad” they can only make a story. 

That attitude is partly why you are a bad GM.  You just want people to give you authority.  You need to earn it. 

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?

Right.  He could have joined any of the dozen other larps that night.  And again, it is extremely unlikely he was doing it to be an asshat.  Look at emissary, do you think his goal is to be a stupid, disruptive asshat?  No.  He is motivated by something else, he actually thinks he is doing something good and right. 
 

Actaully, Monterey Bay was a hotbed of LARP activity durring those days... and there were two other LARP games within 20 miles of mine on the same nights. Also, there were 3 other LARP games on friday nights, (mine were on saterday) on on sunday night, and one on wensday night, all within 20 miles of where I ran my game. I'm not 100%, but I belive at that point Lawrence had been kicked out of ALL of them, for doing the same thing he did in my game.

 
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.
 

When you call someone wrong, stupid and childish (or whatever) and they don't think they are acting that way, they ignore you. 

 
 
When one person, who you have no respect for, calls you the above things... then yeah, maybe you ignore them. However... when many, MANY people try to explain what you are doing wrong, and WHY it is wrong (Myself, all 4 narrators, then many of the other players) and you ignore them ALL... after awile you need to consider that maybe you are, in fact, wrong. If you are unable to do so... then you are an egotist at the least and a narcissist at the worst. I didn't start out with 'You moronic little child! What the fuck are you doing?' I started out with 'Why did your character do that... what was the motivation?' After awile and several more characters and he still never had any decent answer and gave no sign of improving, I had other narrators talk to him... then other players... and so on. I TRIED to work with this kid. One of the other LARP's in the area was run by a MAJOR Douchebag who used the game as a way to comfort his own insecure ego by waving his 'paper penis' around. I very much wanted my game to be open to everyone and be free from narrator ego abuse. My goal was to make sure the players had fun... not to massage my own hubris. Thats why I spent so much time working with Lawrence before I eventualy gave him the boot.
 
Of course, I never like to kick someone out of a game. I would always advocate that be a last resort... but after 2 months, 18 characters, NO signs of improvement... what other option is left man? I should let one bad apple spoil the whole batch??? What was fun for Lawrence was disruptive to the game, in direct opposetion to the setting and to the story, but most importantly, in order for Lawrence to have fun many MANY other people's fun would have to be sacrificied. The other players wanted to play the game I had described to them... the game we were all on theh same page of... all except for Lawrence. So I should let him stay and ruin EVERYONES fun??? Because thats exactly what he was doing... and nothing I had tried up to that point would change that.

[Sunic_Flames]

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.