Kicking a Player Out-- Never or Last Resort?

[Josh]

I'm going to kick you in the nuts.  Don't worry, it's ok because I told you I'm going to do it...

Sure,  If I knew I signed up specifically for that, go for it.

In "good" gaming character death is either difficult or meaningless.  What is the point of forbidding people to play?  Play is the point.

The point of the exercise was to roleplay a suspense/investigation scenario.  Death was difficult if the scenario was approached in almost any sane manner (and many insane ones for that matter) and character replacement would have been difficult and/or unjustifiable given the environment.  However, if approached particularly recklessly, death could still be a consequence.

Besides cautious PCs are lame

Well, I glad that's been cleared up!  I now know the one and true correct way to play!

, what was the point of the exercise.  "Hey guys, I noticed that you are hiving too much fun and being a little too awesome.  So I have some ideas to reign that in."

 

More like, hey guys, replacing 2-3 player characters every week is getting tiresome and hard on campaign continuity.  Since this campaign is wrapping up anyway let's try something different for a few weeks.  I've got this idea for a modern mystery, but character replacement won't be possible.  I figure it'll take about 6-10 sessions, are you in?

You've heard the expression "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"?  That's what you are doing.

Your players did not sign up to be kicked in the nuts, you forced them into it.

Trying to fix spastic PCs by killing them is like digging your lawn up every time the grass gets long.   Sure it takes care of the "problem" but why not "solve" the problem and just mow?

Identify the problem, Solve the problem and Don't let it happen in the future.  If you would like to discuss what you should have done, start a new thread (link to it from here).

----

Back on topic, are there any other people who would like to offer any cases of reasons to kick people out or are we all happy with zero?

I wasn't trying to "fix" the PCs or the players -- I was presenting a different type of scenario as as alternative to my player base -- one that would offer relief to me.

I'm sorry a style of play disturbs you so much.  Hopefully you won't be confronted by it in the future.

I did what I did for reasons I had.  Do I have any regrets? No.  Why should I care to discuss what I "should" have done?

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.

In the sense of an RPG caution is lame.  caution slows down the game, brings nothing to the table and can choke off fun opportunities.  In exchange it offers, well nothing because it's a game and fortune favors the bold.

Caution in players is bad, caution in characters is a trait (that will be met with derision by the other characters).

I'm not going to try to argue anymore since the concept of "opinion" is lost.

I have proffered no opinions and have remained neutral on opinion related matters.  So if you think we are discussing opinion you are completely missing the point.

[Josh]

I don't think this has been brought up yet, so let me know where I missed it if I did...It sounds like everyone is talking from a perspective of eeryone at the table are old friend or something....

I PbP, and all of my players are complete srangers to me.  So each is effectively a blind date.  Some I/we will click with.... some not. 

If you went on a blind date with someone you
1. do not find attractive
2. dislike their mannerisms and personality
3. do not agree with on many issues

would you try another 3 or 4 dates, just to see if it'll work out? 

I really don't think in this case, it is wrong to just say, "hey it ain't working out.". 
If it is old friends you are gaming with and you just up and out someone from your game, yer not much of a friend, eh?  but when you are meeting new folks, I think it is outrageous to assume you WILL accept them.  that is just bullshit. 

I have rejected a number of people from my games.  and I have walked away from other DM's I don't like.  If you don't match, don't waste your time.  No one is required to spend time with someone els.  I"m not required to "make it work" if I don't want to.... find another game, find another player.

I think this is an important aspect to discuss, simply because there are PbP games hosted here. 
how do the "don't kick people out" team feel about this scenario?

What part of "Don't kick people out of your game" reads like "you can't leave a game if you are not having fun?"

It is funny how every time this argument comes up people always drag leaving a game into it. 

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

[CoarsestGrate]

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

I agree.  So does Frank.

On whatever else seems to be going on... I don't know and I have no opinion.

[Omen of Peace]

Or the characters are cautious because they know they live in a deadly (game)world. It doesn't have to be boring. I don't see anything wrong with this playstyle either.

You do understand the difference between characters and players right?

Without a smiley that reads like low-level baiting to me - I expected better.
You said the cautious trait would be met with derision - I merely provided an alternate explanation: it can be generalized due to the gameworld. Apparently we agree it's fine: good.

The style of play SillyRobot mentioned doesn't have to make players cautious and it doesn't have to be boring (even with cautious players !).

I do realize now I should have kept OOC and IC more clearly separated in my post - I wrongly assumed your previous post addressed both together and went with it.

We certainly are discussing opinions though.

[Chemus]

To get this straight in my head, I'm gonna reiterate stuff. Sorry.

I DO understand about the gameology rule where outsiders don't tell DM's to kick players out.

The apparent premise of the thread is that ending a player's term with the group for in-game actions only is not a good idea.

If one player is persistently forcing the DM and other players to take time out of what would have been the regular story in order to deal with his character's actions, then he's being disruptive. There is a point where I see 'I don't want to play this game with you anymore' as a viable and responsible option. This could make me a bad friend, and though I care about that, the rest of the group should be having fun too, not just the guy who's being an ass.

If you have a friend you play pool with who frequently shoots so hard that the balls come off of the table, or talks a lot during your turn (I'm having difficulty making an RP analogy, as if you couldn't tell ), do you continue to play pool? If you decide that playing pool with the guy isn't worth it, does that mean you can't hang out doing something else?

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here...but why is it not 'good GM'ing' to say 'this isn't worth it'? And how is that not opinion?

[Josh]

Or the characters are cautious because they know they live in a deadly (game)world. It doesn't have to be boring. I don't see anything wrong with this playstyle either.

You do understand the difference between characters and players right?

Without a smiley that reads like low-level baiting to me - I expected better.

Smileys are for the weak of mind.  I expect better from everyone.  If you can't read don't read me.

You said the cautious trait would be met with derision - I merely provided an alternate explanation: it can be generalized due to the gameworld. Apparently we agree it's fine: good.

Cautious characters only work when other character are not cautious. 

The style of play SillyRobot mentioned doesn't have to make players cautious and it doesn't have to be boring (even with cautious players !).

Maybe but his goal was to do so, his methods may or may not work.

I do realize now I should have kept OOC and IC more clearly separated in my post - I wrongly assumed your previous post addressed both together and went with it.

That's just fine.  It does not bother me that people sometimes don't understand something.  It happens to everyone all the time.

We certainly are discussing opinions though.

You may be, I may not have been clear.  I am not talking about personal opinions.

[Josh]

To get this straight in my head, I'm gonna reiterate stuff. Sorry.

I DO understand about the gameology rule where outsiders don't tell DM's to kick players out.

The apparent premise of the thread is that ending a player's term with the group for in-game actions only is not a good idea.

If one player is persistently forcing the DM and other players to take time out of what would have been the regular story in order to deal with his character's actions, then he's being disruptive. There is a point where I see 'I don't want to play this game with you anymore' as a viable and responsible option. This could make me a bad friend, and though I care about that, the rest of the group should be having fun too, not just the guy who's being an ass.

If you have a friend you play pool with who frequently shoots so hard that the balls come off of the table, or talks a lot during your turn (I'm having difficulty making an RP analogy, as if you couldn't tell ), do you continue to play pool? If you decide that playing pool with the guy isn't worth it, does that mean you can't hang out doing something else?

Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick here...but why is it not 'good GM'ing' to say 'this isn't worth it'? And how is that not opinion?

Don't be sorry for trying to keep the discussion straight.  I would rather talk to someone who tries rather than someone who does not dare to.

Heres what you are missing.  Disruptive players can be dealt with effectively with little time or effort.  Do that.

[Chemus]

What are some useful, quick methods of dealing with disruptive players?

And again, how is the position that 'kicking people out of the game, for consistently disruptive play style, is bad', not an opinion? 'Killing people is wrong' is a mentally balanced and commonly held opinion. 'Killing people will scare other people, likely enough for them to gang up on you and deal with you' is a fact, no?

[Josh]

What are some useful, quick methods of dealing with disruptive players?

That's the rub.  It is also one of the primary purposes of this board.

Post your problems.

[Callix]

I'm going to have to contend with that. It is an opinion in several important senses.
1) You believe it, but not everyone would agree with you. Most people would, but some philosophers and some psychopaths (in the literal sense) would ask you for what grounds you are judging them. This leads us to the second front:

2) You cannot prove your statement in any logical sense. You can appeal to the masses, to common sense and human decency, to utility and the consequences of not following your idea. But you can't make a logical argument that morality is absolute; at best, you have an educated opinion on the matter. Like solipsism, moral relativism is impossible to disprove. That's not to say it's true, but it does mean that our perspectives on this front are fundamentally opinions.

On the "kicking out the player" debate, I personally have never seen an IC incident worthy of banning a player for, and would agree that most of the issues posted here before are OOC issues exposed mid-game. But I'm not closed to the idea that they could exist.

Ultimately, Josh, they're your boards. If you don't want us to reccomend that people kick players for in-game behaviour, then let's not make such reccomendations. It might be an opinion, but it's an educated and privileged opinion, so it's worth heeding on at least two fronts.

[Omen of Peace]

I'm not going to try to argue anymore since the concept of "opinion" is lost.

Nox Noctis saw the light before I did - I'll withdraw too since this thread is not meant for discussion. Good luck Callix. 

[Josh]

I'm going to have to contend with that. It is an opinion in several important senses.
1) You believe it, but not everyone would agree with you. Most people would, but some philosophers and some psychopaths (in the literal sense) would ask you for what grounds you are judging them. This leads us to the second front:

2) You cannot prove your statement in any logical sense. You can appeal to the masses, to common sense and human decency, to utility and the consequences of not following your idea. But you can't make a logical argument that morality is absolute; at best, you have an educated opinion on the matter. Like solipsism, moral relativism is impossible to disprove. That's not to say it's true, but it does mean that our perspectives on this front are fundamentally opinions.

On the "kicking out the player" debate, I personally have never seen an IC incident worthy of banning a player for, and would agree that most of the issues posted here before are OOC issues exposed mid-game. But I'm not closed to the idea that they could exist.

Ultimately, Josh, they're your boards. If you don't want us to reccomend that people kick players for in-game behaviour, then let's not make such reccomendations. It might be an opinion, but it's an educated and privileged opinion, so it's worth heeding on at least two fronts.

First opinion here, what I want is for you not to want to tell people.
Back to not opinion.

I have worked this issue over for years.  And in that time I have seen or heard of hundreds of cases of kicking people out of the group.  And not a single one of them has had any merit.  That is conditional proof.

Almost everyone belives that a player should be kicked out, yet they cannot give a actual circumstance.  That is conditional proof.

As for logical proof I posit that "Being mean to your friends is bad" "kicking a friend out of a game is mean" ergo "Kicking a friend out of your game is bad."

Being certain makes it non opinion.  Not being personal also makes it non opinion.

I'm not going to try to argue anymore since the concept of "opinion" is lost.

Nox Noctis saw the light before I did - I'll withdraw too since this thread is not meant for discussion. Good luck Callix. 

This thread is mean for discussion, or rather debate.  Here's the thing, you need to offer something.  You need to offer a real situation where a person should be kicked out for in game reasons.  Or you need to refute the premise somehow.

[Sunic_Flames]

Funny thing. I had (and still have) a character who was pretty cautious, various standbys to deal with a variety of situations, etc. Quite prepared. Funny thing is her cautious advice was usually right, and when Mr. Reckless ignores her multiple warnings not to do something... he dies. Which is the only death thus far. Oddly, despite saving the party's ass on multiple occasions they don't like her much. :rolleyes

[Josh]

Funny thing. I had (and still have) a character who was pretty cautious, various standbys to deal with a variety of situations, etc. Quite prepared. Funny thing is her cautious advice was usually right, and when Mr. Reckless ignores her multiple warnings not to do something... he dies. Which is the only death thus far. Oddly, despite saving the party's ass on multiple occasions they don't like her much. :rolleyes

Precisely.  The campaign is interesting because of the various characters.  If everyone in a group cautiousis cautious that's lame, one cautious person is a foil.  Or even only one reckless person.

[jcm]

Funny thing. I had (and still have) a character who was pretty cautious, various standbys to deal with a variety of situations, etc. Quite prepared. Funny thing is her cautious advice was usually right, and when Mr. Reckless ignores her multiple warnings not to do something... he dies. Which is the only death thus far. Oddly, despite saving the party's ass on multiple occasions they don't like her much. :rolleyes

Cautious works well in survival horror, but that is nearly always a one shot. I've found that it can work in Shadowrun and some old games of cyberpunk, but the fun bit is usually when being cautious and careful and planning don't work out and you have to scramble like mad trying to survive.

[yellerSumner]

Specific example? Here.
I'll admit I'm not being a good DM by putting forth kicking as an option. I'm also not being good by being unwilling to put forth much effort to get in contact with the "problem" player.

I don't think this has been brought up yet, so let me know where I missed it if I did...It sounds like everyone is talking from a perspective of eeryone at the table are old friend or something....

I PbP, and all of my players are complete srangers to me.  So each is effectively a blind date.  Some I/we will click with.... some not. 

If you went on a blind date with someone you
1. do not find attractive
2. dislike their mannerisms and personality
3. do not agree with on many issues

would you try another 3 or 4 dates, just to see if it'll work out? 

I really don't think in this case, it is wrong to just say, "hey it ain't working out.". 
If it is old friends you are gaming with and you just up and out someone from your game, yer not much of a friend, eh?  but when you are meeting new folks, I think it is outrageous to assume you WILL accept them.  that is just bullshit. 

I have rejected a number of people from my games.  and I have walked away from other DM's I don't like.  If you don't match, don't waste your time.  No one is required to spend time with someone els.  I"m not required to "make it work" if I don't want to.... find another game, find another player.

I think this is an important aspect to discuss, simply because there are PbP games hosted here. 
how do the "don't kick people out" team feel about this scenario?

What part of "Don't kick people out of your game" reads like "you can't leave a game if you are not having fun?"

It is funny how every time this argument comes up people always drag leaving a game into it. 

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

Can 4/5 people leave a game and then meet up later for a "new" game without the 5th person?

[Josh]

Specific example? Here.
I'll admit I'm not being a good DM by putting forth kicking as an option. I'm also not being good by being unwilling to put forth much effort to get in contact with the "problem" player.

I don't think this has been brought up yet, so let me know where I missed it if I did...It sounds like everyone is talking from a perspective of eeryone at the table are old friend or something....

I PbP, and all of my players are complete srangers to me.  So each is effectively a blind date.  Some I/we will click with.... some not. 

If you went on a blind date with someone you
1. do not find attractive
2. dislike their mannerisms and personality
3. do not agree with on many issues

would you try another 3 or 4 dates, just to see if it'll work out? 

I really don't think in this case, it is wrong to just say, "hey it ain't working out.". 
If it is old friends you are gaming with and you just up and out someone from your game, yer not much of a friend, eh?  but when you are meeting new folks, I think it is outrageous to assume you WILL accept them.  that is just bullshit. 

I have rejected a number of people from my games.  and I have walked away from other DM's I don't like.  If you don't match, don't waste your time.  No one is required to spend time with someone els.  I"m not required to "make it work" if I don't want to.... find another game, find another player.

I think this is an important aspect to discuss, simply because there are PbP games hosted here. 
how do the "don't kick people out" team feel about this scenario?

What part of "Don't kick people out of your game" reads like "you can't leave a game if you are not having fun?"

It is funny how every time this argument comes up people always drag leaving a game into it. 

As for kicking people out again the same rule applies.  In game no, out of game yes. 

Can 4/5 people leave a game and then meet up later for a "new" game without the 5th person?

Kicking out by any other name smells just as vile...you have less of a problem then you think.  You are blowing it out of proportion.

[Chemus]

For me, giving up, whether arguing with someone or trying to cope with BS at a game or any other forum, is an option. If it means that they take offense to it, then that's a pity. If the members of a group agree that they don't enjoy playing with a person, even if they're friends with that person, and they feel that they've spent enough quality time trying to fix the problem, then I believe that it's time to cut losses.

[CountArioch]

This thread is mean for discussion, or rather debate.  Here's the thing, you need to offer something.  You need to offer a real situation where a person should be kicked out for in game reasons.  Or you need to refute the premise somehow.

That's a hard one, I can't think of any time I've ever kicked anyone out for in-game reasons.

It's all been out of game personality conflicts, and with the exception of the dude I slammed into the wall, it was asked of by my group to not play with that person.  And it was generally unanimous by the other players that they didn't want this person showing up.

That's all out of game crap though, personality conflicts and whatnot.  I can't think of any in-game reason that can't be corrected fairly handily.

[Josh]

For me, giving up, whether arguing with someone or trying to cope with BS at a game or any other forum, is an option. If it means that they take offense to it, then that's a pity. If the members of a group agree that they don't enjoy playing with a person, even if they're friends with that person, and they feel that they've spent enough quality time trying to fix the problem, then I believe that it's time to cut losses.

If we assume that any in game problems can be handled quickly and easily then there is no reason to kick someone out for that.

The link you are missing is that in game problems can be handled, well within everyone's tolerance.