Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[Josh]

So if player D consistently wants to do social interactions and does not want to do dungeon crawling and players A, B, C and the DM want to dungeon crawl and don't want to do social interaction the solution is for the DM to run a social interaction game for D parallel to the dungeon crawl for A, B and C.

Why is the DM expected to run a game he doesn't want to for a player that doesn't want to play the game he and the other players want to play?  Why can't he just say no?

No, you stop by the king real quick and the go to the dungeon.  Give the players what they want, but still play the game.

[Callix]

So if player D consistently wants to do social interactions and does not want to do dungeon crawling and players A, B, C and the DM want to dungeon crawl and don't want to do social interaction the solution is for the DM to run a social interaction game for D parallel to the dungeon crawl for A, B and C.

Why is the DM expected to run a game he doesn't want to for a player that doesn't want to play the game he and the other players want to play?  Why can't he just say no?

No, you stop by the king real quick and the go to the dungeon.  Give the players what they want, but still play the game.

Yeah, so when Player D complains about never getting to  do social interactions, you can say "Yes you do. Just quickly and tangentially." I'm sure that will really comfort them.

And if it isn't tangential, and the other players start to complain about the amount of in-character "downtime", what then? Explain that if you did this any differently you'd be a bad person?, and that they should be grateful that D isn't taking more spotlight time away from them?

I know you'll just say that, with sufficient skill, they'll never notice. But:
1) For someone on the record as being uncomfortable with even the smallest lie, you seem fine deceiving your players into thinking they're getting the game their way, and
2) It's a lot of balls to keep in the air. Meshing playstyles like that to any sort of satisfactory resolution would take a lot of extra effort from the GM, thereby failing the "easily", and often the "effectively" criterion of your own standard. It might even stop the GM having fun, and then everyone loses.

[Josh]

So if player D consistently wants to do social interactions and does not want to do dungeon crawling and players A, B, C and the DM want to dungeon crawl and don't want to do social interaction the solution is for the DM to run a social interaction game for D parallel to the dungeon crawl for A, B and C.

Why is the DM expected to run a game he doesn't want to for a player that doesn't want to play the game he and the other players want to play?  Why can't he just say no?

No, you stop by the king real quick and the go to the dungeon.  Give the players what they want, but still play the game.

Yeah, so when Player D complains about never getting to  do social interactions, you can say "Yes you do. Just quickly and tangentially." I'm sure that will really comfort them.

And if it isn't tangential, and the other players start to complain about the amount of in-character "downtime", what then? Explain that if you did this any differently you'd be a bad person?, and that they should be grateful that D isn't taking more spotlight time away from them?

I know you'll just say that, with sufficient skill, they'll never notice. But:
1) For someone on the record as being uncomfortable with even the smallest lie, you seem fine deceiving your players into thinking they're getting the game their way, and
2) It's a lot of balls to keep in the air. Meshing playstyles like that to any sort of satisfactory resolution would take a lot of extra effort from the GM, thereby failing the "easily", and often the "effectively" criterion of your own standard. It might even stop the GM having fun, and then everyone loses.

I never lie about what I am doing.  In fact the honesty helps.

Part of the story you are missing is, every player has something they want special. (Play-style, like stance, is viewed very staticly and narrowly.)  One guy likes to talk to the king, another guy likes to ride wolves and yet another spends his reward on ale and whores.  The GM accommodates the needs of all of his players.

You can talk to the king get it done and move on.  You can also remind your players what the point of the game is.

That advice is how to deal with that one situation. 

[Chemus]

Ah hell, I was gonna be all apologetic, but I won't.

Josh, thank you for giving specifics about how to handle some scenarios where players are being difficult in-game. That's the biggest beef that I had with how this argument has been progressing.

I know that you are not here to coddle us and hold our hands, as it were, but without some examples of how you'd fix some of he real and some of the hypothetical situations that folks have presented, it looked very much like you were saying "You're wrong because I say I have extensive experience in this area and I say you're wrong." That type of argument, with no backup info, did not sit well with me. You have good info on the Show, but personally I don't take even experts at face value, and everyone on the internet is an expert.

I do see your position that it should be a pretty rare occurrence that you should have to cut a player out of your game, or group, for play-only reasons. It is sensible to presume that some of the best GM's are ones who can run any game with anyone.

You have come out with some very good methods to fix the hypothetical situation about the dude wanting to see the king.

Changing the rules of the LARP system, as you recommended to Shadowhowler, is a more labor intensive fix that I'm not sure that I'd care to undertake. You have a good point that if the Storyteller could make a better combat system, then more combat could/would happen, but from what SH was saying a great majority of he players had fun without much combat, and it was a non-issue until that point. Saying to the player 'Lawrence' that perhaps this game is not for him is a valid response. SH would be seen as a better Storyteller if he'd managed to fix the problem, rather than remove the symptom, but his choice was not an 'Evil' nor even a not-nice one, IMO. He just decided how much he was willing to give. Again, the best fix is the one that makes everyone happy, but it takes some of us mere mortals more than half an hour to fix some game mechanics so that everyone can use them.

Not all people gaming, or barbecuing, want to deal with folks who don't conform. If I'm having a barbecue, and I call everyone I'm inviting beforehand and ask if they want steak, chicken, bratwurst or hamburger, and they all tell me one of those four, I do not care to deal with one of those folks saying that they that they won't eat one of those once the barbecue is in progress. I'll be nice about it, but at that point, they eat that or they don't eat a main course at my barbecue. They can fill up on potato salad and corn chips for all I care. I will change for the next barbecue (campaign/adventure) to accommodate them. But if they start to be an asshat about it, I'll deal with them for a short time, and if they persist in making issues, I might kick them out. A re-invite may, or may not be, forthcoming at that point.

I'm operating under the assumption that adults (physically at least) are capable of making up their own mind. If I've done my due diligence and someone is still causing grief for something not happening their way, I'm not going to keep changing if they're an ass about it. That is probably an 'out-of game' scenario, but the one can easily lead to the other.

Thanks again for letting us pin you down some. It's much easier to get your ideas on something when you present them.

[EjoThims]

I have pretty basic problem solving skills.  Fortunately that are all that are required.  

Working on that post as we speak(type).

Far more than 'basic' problem solving skills are required to handle the actions of a belligerent alcoholic, a kleptomaniac, or any other vastly extreme example I provided above.

And in all of those cases, problems with them will likely start in game, yet still continue out of game in attempts to work to solve the issues.

Some people cannot be worked with on a personal or group level in a social environment because they simply refuse to allow that to happen.

This is why I will always say that booting for in character reasons is never acceptable, but booting for out of character reasons, even if they come up when trying to deal with an IC issue, is 100% fine as long as all other options have been explored.

[ZeroSum]

I never lie about what I am doing.  In fact the honesty helps.

Who said anything about lying?

Part of the story you are missing is, every player has something they want special. (Play-style, like stance, is viewed very staticly and narrowly.)  One guy likes to talk to the king, another guy likes to ride wolves and yet another spends his reward on ale and whores.

Yeah, three players and the GM want to make combat machines and the fourth player wants to roleplay his social skills.  That'd be incongruous to the rest of the game.

The GM accommodates the needs of all of his players.

Why does he have to?  He's putting however many hours into his game so why, when 4/5 people have agreed on one play style, does he have to, in effect, run a side game that he doesn't want to run for a player that doesn't want to play what the other 4/5 people are playing?  Why can't he just say no?

If you're running a weekly Texas Hold'em game and one guy agrees to come and then wants to play Gin why are you expected to play a short game of Gin before you all play Hold'em?

You can talk to the king get it done and move on.

I can.  I can also play cops and robbers if that one player wants to.  But if I, as the DM, as well as the three other players don't want to do it why does player number four get precedence?

You can also remind your players what the point of the game is.

So you can kick him out after you've reminded him you don't want to run a social interaction?  Reminding him is useless if neither he changes nor you kick him out.  "Listen, Bob, I don't want to play pretty pretty princess and pretend to be the king.  I just want to run a dungeon crawl where you walk through the dungeon, get mad loot and then buy new stuff out of the MIC."  What's the point of saying that if it doesn't change how you deal with things?

That advice is how to deal with that one situation.

No, that was you saying that a DM has to do whatever his players want regardless of whether he or the other players want to or not.  That's advice on how to not piss one guy off but you've now pissed off everyone, the DM included, because they don't want to do the weekly talk-to-the-king subsession.

[Callix]

I never lie about what I am doing.  In fact the honesty helps.

I never said you were lying. I said you were decieving your players, which is different, but just as underhanded.

Part of the story you are missing is, every player has something they want special. (Play-style, like stance, is viewed very staticly and narrowly.)  One guy likes to talk to the king, another guy likes to ride wolves and yet another spends his reward on ale and whores.  The GM accommodates the needs of all of his players.

Yes, but some players' desires fit more with the group than others', and some conflict with the rest of the groups' entirely.

You can talk to the king get it done and move on.  You can also remind your players what the point of the game is.

And if one of them starts sticking their head in the sand about the point of the game? What then? His motivations are pretty obvious: He wants to play a game that isn't this game. But he doesn't seem to understand that his interests would be better served by finding another game, and catching up with the group some other time. So what are the GM's options here? Try and goad them into leaving? Somehow break through the wall of "so what"? It certainly doesn't look quick or easy.

That advice is how to deal with that one situation. 

Thank you. It's good advice, overall, but it doesn't address obstinacy. "Shape up or ship out" can often be an effective threat to bring someone back into line, but when they don't you need to be willing and able to carry out the other half.

[Zeke]

Thank you. It's good advice, overall, but it doesn't address obstinacy. "Shape up or ship out" can often be an effective threat to bring someone back into line, but when they don't you need to be willing and able to carry out the other half.

Honestly it would just piss me off. I am often a douche at the table and a "could you not do that?" is more effective with me. We had a player in our group who had this kind of incongruity of play you are describing. We worked with  him IN GAME, and got to a p[lace where everyone was happy.  I have seen this work numerous times. I have seen Josh spear head it time after time. I find this whole debate odd, because in most other aspects of life josh is the first guy to cut ties with someone whose behavior he finds offensive. However to Josh, gaming is sacred, a thing that must be tended and nurtured. Therefore he will display patience ina game he would never have in real life. I think it's worth it to try to preserve every gamer we find. It might be generational ;(although I don't know that any of you are not my age) I never knew an over abundance of gamers and each one was  a rare and vital resource. I guess that’s why I tend to side with Josh on this one. People should probably never be kicked out for in game activity.

[AndyJames]

Zeke, I am living in NZ. This is the land of rugby, of sports, of big kahunas, of "we shag sheep, we da man!" Finding a bunch of people to play a "sissy nerd game" like DnD is not easy, to say the least.

Yet, I have no compunction kicking people out. I game for fun. That tenet is central to my entire gaming experience. It does not matter if I am playing Civ4 or DnD. If I am not having fun, either I go, or the one spoiling my fun does. Who depends on who is more in line with the groupthink. I have walked away from games where I could see my style play not meshing with the group's style. And I have definitely asked people to leave when their playstyle does not mesh with the group's.

I doubt it is a generational thing, or a product of a low number of gamers in the area. It is my belief that it stems of an infantile sense of entitlement. That the player is somehow entitled to some sort of immunity from the DM because he is the "weaker person" in the DM-player relationship. I see no other reason why Josh would defend that position with such venom and douchebaggery.

[Callix]

Thank you. It's good advice, overall, but it doesn't address obstinacy. "Shape up or ship out" can often be an effective threat to bring someone back into line, but when they don't you need to be willing and able to carry out the other half.

Honestly it would just piss me off. I am often a douche at the table and a "could you not do that?" is more effective with me. We had a player in our group who had this kind of incongruity of play you are describing. We worked with  him IN GAME, and got to a p[lace where everyone was happy.  I have seen this work numerous times. I have seen Josh spear head it time after time. I find this whole debate odd, because in most other aspects of life josh is the first guy to cut ties with someone whose behavior he finds offensive. However to Josh, gaming is sacred, a thing that must be tended and nurtured. Therefore he will display patience ina game he would never have in real life. I think it's worth it to try to preserve every gamer we find. It might be generational ;(although I don't know that any of you are not my age) I never knew an over abundance of gamers and each one was  a rare and vital resource. I guess that’s why I tend to side with Josh on this one. People should probably never be kicked out for in game activity.

Zeke, I'm glad you have a good time at your games, and that everyone is so willing to work together to have a good time. By the sounds of it, gaming with Josh must be a great experience. I'll never know, as there's a little thing called the Pacific Ocean between us.

My original contention with Josh was that he was being dogmatic, and refusing to admit that the rules reflected his opinions, not objective fact. It has evolved somewhat; now I take issue with his contention that in-game issues (which I agree should not result directly in a player being removed) should never escalate into out-of-character issues. In a perfect world, they never would. But that's not just the GM's responsibility. All parties need to be mature about the issues for this to work out.

In short, people's responses to in-character issues can reveal aspects of their own character that you don't want in your game, nor do the other players. And in those cases, while some form of compromise may be ideal, it is not always possible if the other party won't even come to the negotiating table.

Finally, Josh has been quite vehement about the sort of person that kicks players. I agree that in a lot of cases it is an admission of failure; the gaming relationship has become more costly to maintain than it is worth to the GM. But just because you fail to reconcile with someone does not make you a horrible person. You might want to improve, but you shouldn't "feel like shit" for getting yourself out of a stressful, maybe toxic, situation, whether that is a relationship, friendship, business partnership, or a gaming group. And sometimes, all you can take away is to be more careful next time in who you spend time with.

[Josh]

I am working on a write-up of this topic taken from the beginning, I think that may clear up a bunch of stuff.

So that is taking a while and I am not ignoring anyone.  After that writeup is complete I will come back and answer any unfinished business. 

[aboyd]

I take issue with his contention that in-game issues (which I agree should not result directly in a player being removed) should never escalate into out-of-character issues. In a perfect world, they never would. But that's not just the GM's responsibility.

Agreed.  My problem is that all the solutions presented here require the DM to accomodate the wayward player or possibly even invest time & thought into deliberations or handling of the player.  For me, players are everywhere -- no shortfall at all.  So if I experience a troublesome player in or out of character, boot.  No apologies.  Happiness returns, and I never regret that.

Why invest time or effort into a troublesome situation that can be cleanly sidestepped?  So that I feel good about myself?  Nah.  I feel wonderful after removing a troublesome player.  No moral issues here.

Sure, I could have forged happiness with the other player if I put in some effort, but this is a game.  I only invite gamers into my home that I like.  Tough luck for the rest.  That's had great results so far, so I don't regret it at all, and I'd suggest it to anyone asking.

Josh has been quite vehement about the sort of person that kicks players. I agree that in a lot of cases it is an admission of failure; the gaming relationship has become more costly to maintain than it is worth to the GM. But just because you fail to reconcile with someone does not make you a horrible person.

Agreed for a second time.  I've mentioned on another forum that I don't mind negative labels.  Call me the villain for booting out a player.  I'll bow, say, "why yes, I'm happy to play the villian," and then I'll go off laughing with the remaining players who have fun and fit in.  Is that cold & calculating?  Eh, maybe.  But it certainly is an effective way to surround yourself with great players and have a great time, so I never feel bad, regardless of how others characterize me.

You're well-spoken Callix.  I wish I could write as well as you do.  Thanks for the post.