Playing in person is so vastly superior to online, and this is just another reason why.
My current D&D group is spread across three continents and it's a considerably better group of players than any in-person party I've been in in the last 25 years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Sorry, but you don't get to do a comparison test. If a player is annoying the group, or even a subset of the group, for ANY reason, the group can say "sorry, we are not compatible". Examples you are giving are in the extremis. But annoying is annoying. If a player is detracting from the enjoyment of players, especially if this is a new player to the group, everyone has a right to express their displeasure. Many, many, many people are simply incompatible.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Sorry, but you don't get to do a comparison test. If a player is annoying the group, or even a subset of the group, for ANY reason, the group can say "sorry, we are not compatible". Examples you are giving are in the extremis. But annoying is annoying. If a player is detracting from the enjoyment of players, especially if this is a new player to the group, everyone has a right to express their displeasure. Many, many, many people are simply incompatible.
I have kicked people out of my games for a wide range of reasons but it was never because someone was annoying or I didn't like them. You don't get an invite if you annoy me or I don't like you, so you would never even get a foot in the door without us already having some sort of established relationship.
Usually, when I kick someone out of a campaign, I'm doing it because of some more esoteric reason, something about the combination of players, or a playstyle misalignment or story that isn't jiving with a particular player or mixture of players and my asking them to leave the campaign is usually out of defense of the integrity of the game. As such in most cases these players will get invites in the future, hopefully under better conditions for them and its rarely something done out of frustration.
As a DM it's your job to make sure that the game will jive so in a sense it's almost like a job interview situation, you need to root out the problem players and problem personalities in advance and I think it's in particularly important if you are working online and with new un-established players. Players that are completely new to the game, those are the toughest cases because even they don't have a reference for personal preferences, so they can't answer a lot of questions most more experienced players can answer.
It's why with new players and new groups I will usually very actively put them in short stories and short campaigns to do a sort of initial assessment so I can identify potential issues in long-running campaigns.
Sorry, but you don't get to do a comparison test. If a player is annoying the group, or even a subset of the group, for ANY reason, the group can say "sorry, we are not compatible". Examples you are giving are in the extremis. But annoying is annoying. If a player is detracting from the enjoyment of players, especially if this is a new player to the group, everyone has a right to express their displeasure. Many, many, many people are simply incompatible.
I have kicked people out of my games for a wide range of reasons but it was never because someone was annoying or I didn't like them. You don't get an invite if you annoy me or I don't like you, so you would never even get a foot in the door without us already having some sort of established relationship.
Usually, when I kick someone out of a campaign, I'm doing it because of some more esoteric reason, something about the combination of players, or a playstyle misalignment or story that isn't jiving with a particular player or mixture of players and my asking them to leave the campaign is usually out of defense of the integrity of the game. As such in most cases these players will get invites in the future, hopefully under better conditions for them and its rarely something done out of frustration.
As a DM it's your job to make sure that the game will jive so in a sense it's almost like a job interview situation, you need to root out the problem players and problem personalities in advance and I think it's in particularly important if you are working online and with new un-established players. Players that are completely new to the game, those are the toughest cases because even they don't have a reference for personal preferences, so they can't answer a lot of questions most more experienced players can answer.
It's why with new players and new groups I will usually very actively put them in short stories and short campaigns to do a sort of initial assessment so I can identify potential issues in long-running campaigns.
Agreed on your points, but as you said, you have pre-screened the players, and you don't let anyone in you don't like. I play in person, at a local gaming cafe, and games/campaigns are set up via its one Discord. That means mixing mostly with strangers. Some become friends I am comfortable playing with. Others do not. Playing D&D, in fact many RPG games, now requires some form of screening for "compatible styles".
I have been wanting to start a new campaign there, but I have held off, since the people that have been posting looking for a game have also posted a little bit of information about their playstyle, and the red flags that have gone up have allowed me to avoid the headaches of incompatible styles. I still have no new campaign, but bad D&D is worse than no D&D, and I still have a 5e, 1e, and PF2e campaigns I am involved in there. The PF2e crew was the most amazing stroke of luck I have ever had, as all 6 players/DM's get along great, personally and playstyle, though we were all essentially strangers when we started.
... we are not going to retain players by being elitist jerks. The fact I have say this at all disappoints me.
I second this for DM's as well.
I also believe that an actual "matchmaking" system needs to be developed by WotC so we can match up people who are looking for the same type of game. All too often the problem is just a mismatched group of players and DMs all wanting different things out of the game, and at the end of the day it always results in players saying "No D&D is better than bad D&D" and DMs quitting altogether, leading to the current shortage of games. With an actual matchmaking system or something, we could find the right group we're looking for instead of relying on forum posts that hardly conform to any standard when it comes to advertising a game. At this point, considering the number of players NOT actually playing due to a lack of DM's, WotC is just leaving money on the table.
Labeling players elitists for simply not wanting to put up with a play style that is incompatible with all but one player at the table and them not enjoying the game sounds more than a little dismissive to their needs and wants. Following that line of though what does that make a person that has 0 respect for the other players at the table?
I find with new groups a one shot is a good way to have the "match making" option, a 1 session is an easy way to find out how a group plays together. I like to do a one shot before adding a player to an existing group. It also is a good time for another player in the group to give the DM a break, and to get a feel for what the DM role is like. I prefer shorter one shots around level 8 for these games. Ending the session with an informal Q&A where everyone talks about how the game went, and proceed from there. I have opted out after sessions like this, but ended up finding games with some players in the one shot.
I can generally make it through one session with just about any group, but for an adventure, or a campaign I want to have a table of people working together with good communication and willing to compromise and make concessions for their fellow players. I strictly play in person so that makes it a little easier to read people than in say a discord or game chat scenario, for me at least.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
No need for an attack on my reading comprehension. Rules for one group, and not another, nice.
Those 2 scenarios are completely different. No where did the OP even hint to aggressiveness on any players part, they did state 1 player wouldn't play along with the others in combat be that ignorance (willful or not), malice, or they just do not care.
A DM projecting their past experiences on players is poor DMing in the instance described. If there is any aggression towards any player IRL then the aggressive player gets the banned, whether I am DM or player, no matter their biology! Male or female this is unacceptable at any table I am at! A physical assault (battery) is a call to the police, and a criminal trespass at any place I game.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full. Cherry picking does nothing but allow you to make the outcome what you want which turns it into a hypothetical solution to a hypothetical problem.
The OP did make a follow up post
"We understand the point of playing the "way you like", it is just that it is ruining the game experience for the rest of us. I understand you wanna make it your style but not reading your class makes it bad for us who are trying to make it through.
I respect the choices you wanna make, the way you engage with the environment and your class. But at least READ it."
Again "we" , then they state "I understand you wanna make it your style......"
Showing the separate views of theirs versus the group.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Handwave what you want, speculation is speculation.
I see no reason to dismiss anything presented without other statements from people at the table, which we don't have.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Handwave what you want, speculation is speculation.
I see no reason to dismiss anything presented without other statements from people at the table, which we don't have.
And yet based on speculation you vote to have the player eliminated from the game.
The one other perspective we need to have is the targeted player. I would really like to know what she is thinking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
And yet based on speculation you vote to have the player eliminated from the game.
The one other perspective we need to have is the targeted player. I would really like to know what she is thinking.
I speculate nothing.
Information given:
Player doesn't read class
Thinks a spell does something it doesn't after having been told often enough it became a meme for the party
Has been encouraged to learn from a player playing the same class in the game and has not changed play style
After repeated comments player has not changed one thing
The players understand playing a character the way you like to play them, but they are not enjoying the game with the way this player is playing their character
With that information, and no reason not to believe it I see no reason to continue playing with that player. I would either boot the player or leave the game.
Only more information would change that for me.
What is your solution, suffer in silence or you are a bad person?
My solution is to smile, and start asking questions like: hey do you have a backstory for your character? Are you enjoying the game? How do you like your character? oh and here is a players handbook, some dice and a mini to paint and welcome them to the group. If that doesn't get her to engage more and she just wants hangout and participate as much as she wants i will poke gentle fun at her and leave her be she is not hurting anything. I lose nothing by having a person like that at my table
My solution is to smile, and start asking questions like: hey do you have a backstory for your character? Are you enjoying the game? How do you like your character? oh and here is a players handbook, some dice and a mini to paint and welcome them to the group. If that doesn't get her to engage more and she just wants hangout and participate as much as she wants i will poke gentle fun at her and leave her be she is not hurting anything. I lose nothing by having a person like that at my table
The game is hosted on roll 20 according to the the OP and they don't say if in person or online, what if they are only virtual?
As a DM and no players complaining sure, but we have players complaining so the lone player is out.
As a player voicing my complaints to the other player and DM, I am out.
Instead of inferring the OP is lying, by dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full. Cherry picking does nothing but allow you to make the outcome what you want which turns it into a hypothetical solution to a hypothetical problem.
The OP did make a follow up post
"We understand the point of playing the "way you like", it is just that it is ruining the game experience for the rest of us. I understand you wanna make it your style but not reading your class makes it bad for us who are trying to make it through.
I respect the choices you wanna make, the way you engage with the environment and your class. But at least READ it."
Again "we" , then they state "I understand you wanna make it your style......"
Showing the separate views of theirs versus the group.
Being wrong about something does not equal lying. The OP could very well believe their conclusions in good faith.
Based on the OP, can you please explain what it is about rogues the person being complained about allegedly does not understand? The most relevant complaint, to me, would be that the person goes up front all the time. In what way is that playing in a way contrary to how the class is written?
You are correct, being wrong about something does not equal lying. Thanks for pointing that out and I have edited my post.
Based on the OP, can you please explain what it is about rogues the person being complained about allegedly does not understand?
I can not.
In what way is that playing in a way contrary to how the class is written?
No idea
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My current D&D group is spread across three continents and it's a considerably better group of players than any in-person party I've been in in the last 25 years.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
My point on reading and comprehension is thus proven
Yes i am dismissing their issue as a non issue that any experienced DM should. Of all the things to complain about they are complaining that she won't use sneak attack and she gets 3 spells wrong if this is disruptive to you or any other DM here talk to me when you see a male player get verbally aggressive with a female player or physically assaults a new DM. When you have witnessed those things or have had them happen to you you might understand why i can look at their issue and dismiss it for exactly what it is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Sorry, but you don't get to do a comparison test. If a player is annoying the group, or even a subset of the group, for ANY reason, the group can say "sorry, we are not compatible". Examples you are giving are in the extremis. But annoying is annoying. If a player is detracting from the enjoyment of players, especially if this is a new player to the group, everyone has a right to express their displeasure. Many, many, many people are simply incompatible.
So far, we only have evidence that one person in the group has any sort of issues at all with the player, and we don't actually have an indication that it's an actual problem for anyone else in the party. Also, we have yet to receive clarification as to what the player's behavior actually is beyond trying to use a cantrip in a way that's not allowed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I have kicked people out of my games for a wide range of reasons but it was never because someone was annoying or I didn't like them. You don't get an invite if you annoy me or I don't like you, so you would never even get a foot in the door without us already having some sort of established relationship.
Usually, when I kick someone out of a campaign, I'm doing it because of some more esoteric reason, something about the combination of players, or a playstyle misalignment or story that isn't jiving with a particular player or mixture of players and my asking them to leave the campaign is usually out of defense of the integrity of the game. As such in most cases these players will get invites in the future, hopefully under better conditions for them and its rarely something done out of frustration.
As a DM it's your job to make sure that the game will jive so in a sense it's almost like a job interview situation, you need to root out the problem players and problem personalities in advance and I think it's in particularly important if you are working online and with new un-established players. Players that are completely new to the game, those are the toughest cases because even they don't have a reference for personal preferences, so they can't answer a lot of questions most more experienced players can answer.
It's why with new players and new groups I will usually very actively put them in short stories and short campaigns to do a sort of initial assessment so I can identify potential issues in long-running campaigns.
Agreed on your points, but as you said, you have pre-screened the players, and you don't let anyone in you don't like. I play in person, at a local gaming cafe, and games/campaigns are set up via its one Discord. That means mixing mostly with strangers. Some become friends I am comfortable playing with. Others do not. Playing D&D, in fact many RPG games, now requires some form of screening for "compatible styles".
I have been wanting to start a new campaign there, but I have held off, since the people that have been posting looking for a game have also posted a little bit of information about their playstyle, and the red flags that have gone up have allowed me to avoid the headaches of incompatible styles. I still have no new campaign, but bad D&D is worse than no D&D, and I still have a 5e, 1e, and PF2e campaigns I am involved in there. The PF2e crew was the most amazing stroke of luck I have ever had, as all 6 players/DM's get along great, personally and playstyle, though we were all essentially strangers when we started.
No need for an attack on my reading comprehension. Rules for one group, and not another, nice.
Those 2 scenarios are completely different. No where did the OP even hint to aggressiveness on any players part, they did state 1 player wouldn't play along with the others in combat be that ignorance (willful or not), malice, or they just do not care.
A DM projecting their past experiences on players is poor DMing in the instance described. If there is any aggression towards any player IRL then the aggressive player gets the banned, whether I am DM or player, no matter their biology! Male or female this is unacceptable at any table I am at! A physical assault (battery) is a call to the police, and a criminal trespass at any place I game.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
It is actually the opposite. All "we" not "I" in the OP.
The original post from this thread.
"Hello there,
As the title say, we are dealing with a girl who is playing with us (roll20) as a rogue (drow). The problem is that she-clearly-has not read her class, she just keep doing basic stuff as attacking enemies on first line. Every time in combat she casts dancing lights, darkness or Faerie Fire (which became a meme for the party), after 10 sessions she still thinks that dancing lights can blind an enemy.
We even have another rogue in the party that she could mirror and learn from but it seems that she doesn't.
We have made multiple comments on it, but she still doesn't get that she needs to start playing as a rogue but still plays it poorly. How do you deal with this type of player?"
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
We have only the word of one person. The rest of the party has not chimed in to give their actual opinions. It doesn't matter that the OP used "we" instead of "I" because it's still only their perspective on the matter- it's impossible to know whether the other players actually agree with them or not because they're not here.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Dismissing their statement of others having the same problem why not dismiss all of it and just assume they made the whole thing up?
The only logical thing to do is accept the situation at face value or dismiss it in full. Cherry picking does nothing but allow you to make the outcome what you want which turns it into a hypothetical solution to a hypothetical problem.
The OP did make a follow up post
"We understand the point of playing the "way you like", it is just that it is ruining the game experience for the rest of us. I understand you wanna make it your style but not reading your class makes it bad for us who are trying to make it through.
I respect the choices you wanna make, the way you engage with the environment and your class. But at least READ it."
Again "we" , then they state "I understand you wanna make it your style......"
Showing the separate views of theirs versus the group.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
If you feel like i have attacked you. You have a path of recourse open to you. You can report me.
No, the only logical thing to do is realize that we have an extremely limited perspective on the situation and that rushing to judge a player based on only a few sentences worth of information is premature. No one is accusing, inferring, or insinuating that the OP is lying, just recognizing that we don't have all sides of the story.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Handwave what you want, speculation is speculation.
I see no reason to dismiss anything presented without other statements from people at the table, which we don't have.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
And yet based on speculation you vote to have the player eliminated from the game.
The one other perspective we need to have is the targeted player. I would really like to know what she is thinking.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I speculate nothing.
Information given:
Player doesn't read class
Thinks a spell does something it doesn't after having been told often enough it became a meme for the party
Has been encouraged to learn from a player playing the same class in the game and has not changed play style
After repeated comments player has not changed one thing
The players understand playing a character the way you like to play them, but they are not enjoying the game with the way this player is playing their character
With that information, and no reason not to believe it I see no reason to continue playing with that player. I would either boot the player or leave the game.
Only more information would change that for me.
What is your solution, suffer in silence or you are a bad person?
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I was merely pointing out a fallacy. This debate is far from needing moderation.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
My solution is to smile, and start asking questions like: hey do you have a backstory for your character? Are you enjoying the game? How do you like your character? oh and here is a players handbook, some dice and a mini to paint and welcome them to the group. If that doesn't get her to engage more and she just wants hangout and participate as much as she wants i will poke gentle fun at her and leave her be she is not hurting anything. I lose nothing by having a person like that at my table
The game is hosted on roll 20 according to the the OP and they don't say if in person or online, what if they are only virtual?
As a DM and no players complaining sure, but we have players complaining so the lone player is out.
As a player voicing my complaints to the other player and DM, I am out.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You are correct, being wrong about something does not equal lying. Thanks for pointing that out and I have edited my post.
Based on the OP, can you please explain what it is about rogues the person being complained about allegedly does not understand?
I can not.
In what way is that playing in a way contrary to how the class is written?
No idea
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.