Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[AfterCrescent]

1. I am not advocating that "kick them out" is the first choice for anyone. I have never, ever done that. Read my posts from the beginning.

I did. Shape up or ship out. That's what you said. Most people don't respond to threats. You were not contributing.  Maybe you meant it shouldn't be the first consideration, but the way you came across did not show that.

2. I *am* saying that it is a valid choice when warnings have failed. The number of warning is up to the individual DM. I, personally, do not give all that many.

Warnings are not attempts to solve it. I know at this point (since you've explained yourself) what you mean, but you aren't explaining yourself well. I know it's semantics, but it matters in a world where all we can see is the word and have no intonation from you.

3. There are times when the guy asking is just looking for reassurance that he has done all he can, and thus he should seriously think about the boot. Telling him to talk to the player *does not help* if he had already done that.

Maybe he hasn't done all he can do. You say you don't give that many warnings, and maybe someone like you comes online looking for reassurance. The position of the Brilliant Gameologists and this board in general (from what I gather, I could be wrong...) is that if you come on here, expect help. Expect to look for another way to address the situation. Don't come here for reassurance that you're a good person when you're doing something mean (and yes, no matter what, keeping someone, even a jerk, from playing a fun game is mean). Come here only if you want help. And those of you posting here need to offer help, not reassurance.

I don't care if you disagree with the what kind of posts and helps should be here, that's what's wanted. (This last sentence is not aimed at you, AJ, but also at people in general )

[Josh]

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 can get along with someone while not playing a game, you will not need to kick them out of your game.  That is a clear way of expressing my point.

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).

My point here is that people are looking for reassurance that they were right when they kicked someone out.  That reassurance should not happen. 

People are flawed.  Maybe you throw someone out in a fit of passion.  Fine.  Now deal with the fact that you were a jerk.  We have all done jerky things, don't praise people for being jerks.  Feeling bad is part of the mechanism that makes you a better person.

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

If you think it is hopeless or not worth it, you are wrong.  That is your missing link.

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.

Actually you are mistaken.  Telling people who are making mistakes that they are making mistakes is not Ad hominem.  If you are being a jerk it is perfectly reasonable to expect to be called one.  AH attacks are if I was saying that your pancake recipe did not cure cancer because you are a jerk. 

And yes again kicking out should be a last resort.  Statistically it will never happen to you.  So you might as well not worry about it. 

[Shadowhowler]

If you can get along with someone while not playing a game, you will not need to kick them out of your game.  That is a clear way of expressing my point.

 
 
I'm not sure about this one... I mean, I know lots of guys I get along with great... but I will not game with. I joined games of guys who I got along with very well... but I found the game annoying, not fun, and had to leave.
 
I don't imagen I'll ever need to kick someone I like out of a table top game... because I am so carefull about who I play with now days to avoid exactly that situation. However, the fact I know people that I like and get along with fine but had to leave their games, have not invited them to mine, and will not game with them... it just suggests to me that, at least for myself and maybe some others... the ability to get along with someone outside of a game does not always translate in the game.

[Dragon Snack]

That also assumes that people game with friends.  That may be the best case scenario, but it's not always the case.

I currently only hang out with 2 of my players (you could technically say 3, but it seems like it's only when he needs a ride somewhere that he makes time to hang out), out of 8 (2 separate groups).  In fact, I don't really get along with one of my players in my Sunday group at all (but it's gotten better lately).  Heck, my Friday group are all 15+ years younger than me (this group started out meeting at a game store and the 2 others that were my age moved away), so I don't see me starting to hang out with them any time soon either.  That doesn't stop me from gaming with them though...

[AndyJames]

I did. Shape up or ship out. That's what you said. Most people don't respond to threats. You were not contributing.  Maybe you meant it shouldn't be the first consideration, but the way you came across did not show that.

If it gets to that stage, there is no discussion any more. His... "sins", if you will, will be laid out before him. The points of concern will be pointed out. He will be told that he will have to amend them somehow or it is the groups decision that he will have to go. He can leave at any time. He can explain his position to the group at any time. Those are his choices: change, leave or try to change the group's mind.

At no time does he have the right nor should he have the expectation that the DM will sit him down and talk to him like an errant child. Hello? He is supposed to be an adult now (no, I don't game with 13 year olds)? Yet, this attitude is supposedly what a "good" DM would do. I call bovine crap. If we are agreed on this point, then I don't think we, in spirit, disagree on anything.

[Josh]

That also assumes that people game with friends.  That may be the best case scenario, but it's not always the case.

Not really, this assumes you get along with them.  Though getting along is simply a special case of "out of game."  

[Josh]

I did. Shape up or ship out. That's what you said. Most people don't respond to threats. You were not contributing.  Maybe you meant it shouldn't be the first consideration, but the way you came across did not show that.

If it gets to that stage, there is no discussion any more. His... "sins", if you will, will be laid out before him. The points of concern will be pointed out. He will be told that he will have to amend them somehow or it is the groups decision that he will have to go. He can leave at any time. He can explain his position to the group at any time. Those are his choices: change, leave or try to change the group's mind.

At no time does he have the right nor should he have the expectation that the DM will sit him down and talk to him like an errant child. Hello? He is supposed to be an adult now (no, I don't game with 13 year olds)? Yet, this attitude is supposedly what a "good" DM would do. I call bovine crap. If we are agreed on this point, then I don't think we, in spirit, disagree on anything.

This is why you have no problem solving skills.  Most problems are miscommunications, misconceptions and misunderstandings.  Very rarely will it be something they are doing wrong and even more rarely will the rest of the group be faultless. 

[Dragon Snack]

That also assumes that people game with friends.  That may be the best case scenario, but it's not always the case.

Not really, this assumes you get along with them.  Though getting along is simply a special case of "out of game."

There's that distinction again...

[AfterCrescent]

AJ, who said anything about sitting him down like a child? Do you ever (literally, has it ever happened? Yes, this question is rhetorical, I've seen it happen at least on these boards...) disagree with ANYONE? As an adult, which is what you claim you are, and we can only assume other gamers are as well, you should have no problem having a civil discussion with someone about something that bothers you. I know when I have friends over and they start goofing around and doing shit in my house that I don't want, I never say "knock that off or get the fuck out." I talk to them. You know, like an ADULT.  That's an extreme example, but it serves its purpose.

As adults we are expected to be mature and address problems as they arise and not wait around for them to fume and build until we want to be childish enough to say "Do X or leave."

Here's my problem with your explanation. You state that you lay out the problem and give alternatives. That's a very dictatorship approach, and frankly counter to what you claim (fun for majority, group thing, DM as another player, etc).  It doesn't fly. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're mature and can handle problems. If they want advice, even better. That means they know their skills could use some work. Telling them to lay out alternatives does not help in any way, shape, or form.

So if we can agree that the first attempt should be discussion, good. That's all we need to agree on. Next we move on to these boards and their purpose. These boards are to offer advice for how/when/why to deal with said discussion. Sound good? Awesome.  Now that we know what these boards are here for, we can all agree that saying "kick him out" or any derivative of that does not deal with said discussion, right? That means it has no place on these boards. Open and shut case.  

[AndyJames]

AJ, who said anything about sitting him down like a child?

I direct you to Josh's claim that the DM should be the "den mother".

[AfterCrescent]

You mean Den Mother, like in girl scouts? Because that's the only Den Mother I know of, and oddly, I think that's an accurate description of a GM. They organize the game (scout meeting). They lay out the rules (plan events). They delegate tasks (ask the PCs what they do). They even act as an arbitrater (peacemaker). It sounds about right. Nothing about talking down to someone like a child.

Also, you're splitting hairs, and you know it. Den Mother is a fine example of someone who acts as a GM.

[AndyJames]

No. A Den Mother is in charge of a group of younger, more immature persons and get to dictate to them to ensure they do things the "right" way.

A DM referees a set of rules. He may organise things. However, at no time is he ever the one with the authority outside the game. That is the essence of a good gaming/social group: There isn't a hierarchy. To think otherwise is to attribute more power (and therefore responsibility) to the title of DM than there should be.

A DM is a guy, just like everyone else. He ensures everyone follows the rules, he lays out the storyline, he should be fair (some isn't). But those are only in-game tasks. Out of game, where all this stuff is happening, it is a social environment, where no one should be king-of-the-hill. I am most certainly not, and I would flat out refuse to be, even if the session is being held in my home. We make decisions as a group. We do things as a group. Just because I happen to be DM-ing doesn't make my views any more valid than anyone else's.

While that may be blasphemy to some, that is my stance: The DM has no special rights nor does he have any special responsibilities. He is just one of the guys, albeit one who has to come up with a storyline for everyone else to beat up on. A DM who does it to be a "Den Mother", to garner special rights and privileges outside the game, is a "bad" DM in my books.

[AfterCrescent]

I'd ask if you'd been in the boy scouts, but it's frankly irrelevant to the discussion. Den Mother/Pack Leader/Whatever. It's the same thing, and you've got it wrong.  The Den Mother may be older, but she doesn't dictate to ensure they do it the 'right' way. She arbitrates things in an effort to ensure everyone has fun. Same with the male counterpart for boy scouts. Seriously. Ask a boy scout. A scout member leads the meeting, not the adult (unless it's changed since I was a boy scout ). The adult may organize meetings and do book keeping and arbitrate discussions, but they're not the teacher.

Den Mother ==//////== Teacher. It's just that simple.  But regardless, none of that matters. Here's what does.

We can agree that the first attempt should be discussion, good. That's all we need to agree on. Next we move on to these boards and their purpose. These boards are to offer advice for how/when/why to deal with said discussion. Sound good? Awesome.  Now that we know what these boards are here for, we can all agree that saying "kick him out" or any derivative of that does not deal with said discussion, right? That means it has no place on these boards. Open and shut case.  

[AndyJames]

"I have a problem. I have a player whom I am having a problem with. He keeps trying to derail the game with his slightly insane wizard. Not in a good way. He keeps doing stupid things like killing the important NPC, getting bored and setting the boat on fire. Things like that. I have tried to talk with him, but he refuses to listen. According to him, the other guys are stupid or slow or just plain useless. Now, he has gotten into a fight with another party member IRL, and he is taking it out on the guy in-game. He says because his wizard is slightly crazy and paranoid, the guy is a valid target. What should I do?"

[Josh]

Obsessing about one of the most minor points is a demonstration that your argument is not valid.

Denmother refers to cubscouts, but I use it in the military sense.  A master chief will often be referred to as denmother.  Denmother, in cubscouts, is the person who makes sure everyone has on their mittens and when someone falls down they get a hug.  They also break up fights and deal with personal issues. 

1) A denmother is a specific psychological figure that if you are unfamiliar with you will not understand
2) Incredibly minor point.  Shall we discuss font next?

"I have a problem. I have a player whom I am having a problem with. He keeps trying to derail the game with his slightly insane wizard. Not in a good way. He keeps doing stupid things like killing the important NPC, getting bored and setting the boat on fire. Things like that. I have tried to talk with him, but he refuses to listen. According to him, the other guys are stupid or slow or just plain useless. Now, he has gotten into a fight with another party member IRL, and he is taking it out on the guy in-game. He says because his wizard is slightly crazy and paranoid, the guy is a valid target. What should I do?"

first I assume DnD. 
1)His reactions are likely exacerbated by you railroading him as a GM. 
2)Tell him to deal with his IRL issues and not bring them to the table.
3)Are the others stupid and slow?
4)Are the other players bored?  How do you know?
5)Get the players to come up with a background of why they are together.
6)Impress on them that DnD is an action adventure game about going into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.  If you are not doing that, do that.  Or pick a game that matches the way you want to play.
7)Slow the player down when he wants to go after the other player.  Ask him to explain his motivations.  Then ask him why the rest of the group should not retaliate. 

[emissary666]

Obsessing about one of the most minor points is a demonstration that your argument is not valid.

Denmother refers to cubscouts, but I use it in the military sense.  A master chief will often be referred to as denmother.  Denmother, in cubscouts, is the person who makes sure everyone has on their mittens and when someone falls down they get a hug.  They also break up fights and deal with personal issues. 

1) A denmother is a specific psychological figure that if you are unfamiliar with you will not understand
2) Incredibly minor point.  Shall we discuss font next?

"I have a problem. I have a player whom I am having a problem with. He keeps trying to derail the game with his slightly insane wizard. Not in a good way. He keeps doing stupid things like killing the important NPC, getting bored and setting the boat on fire. Things like that. I have tried to talk with him, but he refuses to listen. According to him, the other guys are stupid or slow or just plain useless. Now, he has gotten into a fight with another party member IRL, and he is taking it out on the guy in-game. He says because his wizard is slightly crazy and paranoid, the guy is a valid target. What should I do?"

first I assume DnD. 
1)His reactions are likely exacerbated by you railroading him as a GM. 
2)Tell him to deal with his IRL issues and not bring them to the table.
3)Are the others stupid and slow?
4)Are the other players bored?  How do you know?
5)Get the players to come up with a background of why they are together.
6)Impress on them that DnD is an action adventure game about going into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.  If you are not doing that, do that.  Or pick a game that matches the way you want to play.
7)Slow the player down when he wants to go after the other player.  Ask him to explain his motivations.  Then ask him why the rest of the group should not retaliate. 

As your designated detractor, I shall combat you on you responses to this hypothetical (at least I think it is hypothetical) problem.
1: In no case does the quote state that the DM is railroading. Derailing a game is different from straying from the road.
2:No Arguement
3: It does not matter if they actually are stupid and slow, something which is purely an opinion. It can be assumed that the problem player is the type of kick door, kill goblin, get money, repeat. He may be complaining about roleplayers, do you want to complain about roleplayers?
4: there is nothing in the quote to indicate that the others are bored, only the problem player.
5: That does not help the fact that THE PROBLEM PLAYER IS DOING THIS WITHOUT CARE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS
6: Theorectically, that is what the problem player thought DnD was about.
7: The problem player will not change his ways, he will just have to create valid enough reasons
The player in (what I hope to be) the example is doing this because he gets off by pissing people off and ruining the game, not because of communications errors.

[AndyJames]

Just one thing, Emissary:

The DM has stated he had tried to talk to the problem player, but was rebuffed. The DM has also said that the player is using "my wizard is paranoid and insane" as an excuse to do stupid, destructive things.

Now, please bear in mind that:
a) we are not allowed to kick the player out, and
b) advising the DM to kill or otherwise maim or severely punish the character is tantamount to kicking the player out albeit in a very passive-aggressive way.

[Josh]

Obsessing about one of the most minor points is a demonstration that your argument is not valid.

Denmother refers to cubscouts, but I use it in the military sense.  A master chief will often be referred to as denmother.  Denmother, in cubscouts, is the person who makes sure everyone has on their mittens and when someone falls down they get a hug.  They also break up fights and deal with personal issues. 

1) A denmother is a specific psychological figure that if you are unfamiliar with you will not understand
2) Incredibly minor point.  Shall we discuss font next?

"I have a problem. I have a player whom I am having a problem with. He keeps trying to derail the game with his slightly insane wizard. Not in a good way. He keeps doing stupid things like killing the important NPC, getting bored and setting the boat on fire. Things like that. I have tried to talk with him, but he refuses to listen. According to him, the other guys are stupid or slow or just plain useless. Now, he has gotten into a fight with another party member IRL, and he is taking it out on the guy in-game. He says because his wizard is slightly crazy and paranoid, the guy is a valid target. What should I do?"

first I assume DnD. 
1)His reactions are likely exacerbated by you railroading him as a GM. 
2)Tell him to deal with his IRL issues and not bring them to the table.
3)Are the others stupid and slow?
4)Are the other players bored?  How do you know?
5)Get the players to come up with a background of why they are together.
6)Impress on them that DnD is an action adventure game about going into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff.  If you are not doing that, do that.  Or pick a game that matches the way you want to play.
7)Slow the player down when he wants to go after the other player.  Ask him to explain his motivations.  Then ask him why the rest of the group should not retaliate. 

As your designated detractor, I shall combat you on you responses to this hypothetical (at least I think it is hypothetical) problem.
1: In no case does the quote state that the DM is railroading. Derailing a game is different from straying from the road.
2:No Arguement
3: It does not matter if they actually are stupid and slow, something which is purely an opinion. It can be assumed that the problem player is the type of kick door, kill goblin, get money, repeat. He may be complaining about roleplayers, do you want to complain about roleplayers?
4: there is nothing in the quote to indicate that the others are bored, only the problem player.
5: That does not help the fact that THE PROBLEM PLAYER IS DOING THIS WITHOUT CARE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS
6: Theorectically, that is what the problem player thought DnD was about.
7: The problem player will not change his ways, he will just have to create valid enough reasons
The player in (what I hope to be) the example is doing this because he gets off by pissing people off and ruining the game, not because of communications errors.

Woah, to quote Dr Horrible here saying you're my nemesis does not make you my nemesis.

I actually assumed that this might go somewhere so I answered the question in good faith.  I thought there might be a point in regards to this discussion.  Actually discussing the point would be off topic.  I apologize, I should have said that.

So is there a point?

[emissary666]

I am not you nemesis, I have devoted my self to trying to prove you wrong in my quest to find an absolute answer to this question.

You made quite wild assumtions about the situation, interfering with your answer.

[Josh]

I am not you nemesis, I have devoted my self to trying to prove you wrong in my quest to find an absolute answer to this question.

You made quite wild assumtions about the situation, interfering with your answer.

My point is you are not my nemesis. You are henchman 8.
 
You have failed then.  If you want an absolute answer you need to keep your mind open.  I also don't make "wild" assumptions I make what are called logical assumptions.  Part of the issue is that you are so unskilled that you are having trouble with the basic structure and logic of debate itself. 

That even precludes the fact that I already know the answer.  Any points or are you done?

Are there any further questions or concerns about the concept of "in game" or "you are playing with friends?"  We can divert into the friends question for a bit.