We had a discussion 1-on-1, face-to-face, over breakfast at a local A&W. I think doing it face to face, and making it a discussion ( not a lecture ) is the approach that works best ( or at least, works best for me ).
I went into the conversation with the approach of "no one's really doing anything wrong, I just don't think play styles are compatible here. You seem frustrated, it's causing some friction - and I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to change their idea of fun, so it may be better if you were to find a group with a more compatible play style".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have a few for you since I've done public and private games for decades:
I had a player, who is also a friend of many people in my circle, who I couldn't keep in my games. He was cheating on dice rolls, being quite childish "in character", and pretty much pushing me to the point I wanted to replace his PHB with an etiquette guide. I eventually had to deal with it as it was draining me, and I dreaded the idea since he was hosting the game as well. I started by making table rules that were supposed to curb the problems, he found ways to continue being disruptive and still attempted to cheat. I then talked to each of the other players, individually, to see what they thought about the situation, it was only fair that I got all the input before making my decision, everyone's game relied on it. I found out the rest of the table was just writing it off as him being him, they weren't greatly bothered by it. So I made a rule, behind the screen and without anyone knowing, that addressed his cheating dice rolls and ran the sessions. Knowing that the rest of the table wasn't terribly inconvenienced, I simply looked at the rest of the party and let them run the game leaving him in the back seat. In the end the group fell apart on it's own and I moved on.
---
I had a group at my local game shop that, through it's life span, could make for a great book called "A DM's Series of Unfortunate Events: Players Edition". I had one player who was such a rules lawyer that anything that didn't adhere to the strict black and white of the books was always argued, even after explaining that the entire world/setting they were in was homebrew. Another player in the group wanted to be as unique as possible, making custom shapeshift forms for his druid using one particular animal and all it's variants in real life. Then, after getting all of that passed through me, edited to fit the CRs and level adjustments, agreed upon by both of us, he wanted to kill off the character because he didn't feel it was living up to what he wanted it to be. The third player at the table cheated on dice rolls, so blatantly the table made jokes about it, and he acted completely oblivious to the fact. The fourth player took an hour to level up his character, on average, even at level 3 where all you have new is your level 2 spells and an HP bump. I had others drop in at the table bringing me up to 6 players at times, but those four players were my "core" group. I eventually asked the shop owner if I could wrap up the story arc and step away from DMing since I would go home so upset my wife would tell me to stop DMing. I haven't DMed at the shop in 6 months, but I do intend on going back once the holidays are over.
---
The last story is the most recent. I now run games at my home, I'm almost always the DM so it's more convenient to just host the games and enjoy a relaxing location. The game I'm running, which is on it's 3rd year now, started off with 6 players. I had 2 brand new players, 1 seasoned player, and 3 players who had been introduced to the game but hadn't played in a while. Two of my players were related, father and daughter, and the father claimed to have been a veteran AD&D player, I was excited to have him in the group. Then it started to fall apart, and it was not an easy thing to deal with. The "veteran" player was belligerent, didn't work with the rest of the group, made choices that were obviously going to hurt the party, was distracted most of the time, would leave the table whenever he wanted, and told everyone else that they weren't playing the "right" way. Eventually the entire table was having an issue, you could feel the tension in the room after an hour or so, the game wasn't much fun for many of the players.
I addressed the problems to the table, without pointing fingers, trying to get everyone back into a game that was enjoyable by all. I addressed the problem player directly, on multiple occasions, and for a brief amount of time the problems would stop. I gave him chance after chance to change his ways, even helping him find ways to be more involved in the game as a character/player. I dreaded kicking him from the group, he lives just down the road from me, his daughter is in my campaign, they're IRL friends and we do many things outside of the game together as well. The last thing I wanted was his daughter to be mad at me, I didn't want it to get weird when we hung out outside of the game, and I really do dislike confrontation. I also knew that he was dealing with some problems in his personal life, I didn't want to add to those by taking something away from him that I knew he was enjoying.
For a year I let all this go on until I had enough of it. The players at the table complained about him, my wife complained, and eventually even his daughter complained. I knew it was time to do something. I finally looked at him, taking him aside so it was a personal conversation, and told him that he had to go. I asked him to figure out what he needed to figure out with his personal life so that he was happier. I told him that once he got his head on straight I'd be happy to have him back in the game. I also informed him what is was about his attitude that was becoming problematic and why, so he knew that it was something he could work on. He's yet to come back, it's been about a year now, but he's made changes in his life. The table has been a much more light hearted experience, and we've all begun to enjoy the game a whole lot more.
---
Talk to the table, talk to the players, talk to the individual, in that order. From there make changes and rules to address the problem at the table, if applicable. If all else fails, address the player in person when you ask them to step away from the table. There is nothing worse than a text or email, it's impersonal and cold. They may get mad, they may say hurtful things, they may even bad mouth you, but it's better than leaving them with no way to express their feelings. In the end, it's a group, not an individual, who play the game, and it should be about the group. As Spock put it to Kirk: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", this really does fit with a group at the table playing D&D.
When kicking a player, for whatever reason, what have people found is the best way to do it.
End the campaign, then start another one (with a very slightly different group of people).
Not everyone has the same ideas of fun, and achieving a similarly minded group can take many different iterations... and that's ok. Part of DM'ing is constantly trying on new group members until you achieve that goal. Luckily, adventures need only last a session or two, and players can often keep their PC's between campaigns (especially if you are using Organized Play rules).
I actually enjoy playing with new people that play differently from me, as I learn a lot from the experience. This is why I frequently volunteer to run games at conventions. But for the long term, I try to curate the best experience I can, which may mean altering the group composition from time to time.
Sounds like it would works well it a serial pick-up game style campaign, but seems ... disingenuous to me, and I think it probably make the ousted player feel worse when they find out everyone else was invited back, but them.
If I'm going to oust someone, I'll have exhausted all the avenues of talking as a group, and being a 3rd party moderator - but I'll own the fact that I'm kicking them out.
Ending the campaign prematurely also - IMHO - punishes everyone else by ending the story line they're enjoying creating and/or taking their Characters away from them. At the very least it disrupts the story line ( when I most recently had to oust a Player it happened to occur right at the end of a major ship board combat, so they just conveniently fell overboard during the battle ).
It's a solution, for sure - and pretty painless on the DM - but it's not one I'd use.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Sounds like it would works well it a serial pick-up game style campaign, but seems ... disingenuous to me
You have valid points, but I'd like to discuss it further:
D&D is a social game, and normally in social circles: if you don't enjoy hanging out with someone new, you don't confront them... you just hang out with them less (or not at all). I think that is the expectation.
I also think that developing a cohesive, reliable D&D group can take a long time. I think we should go into it with an expectation of forming several temporary D&D groups for one-shot adventures until you find a like-minded group (without viewing that as a disingenuous methodology). Of course: if you're dealing with pre-existing friends, that's a different story.
I can see your point, but I don't think that works for me, personally.
I completely agree that you do not confront them - that's adversarial, and combative, and I think we can agree that's not a good thing to do. But I think I owe someone an honest explanation, and the courtesy of making my position clear.
This is why - when I had to oust a Player - I approached it as "this is a compatibility issue" not as a "your fun is wrong" issue. I didn't say they were a horrible person and we didn't want to hang out with them anymore, I just pointed out that the things that they wanted out of the game and the things we wanted out of the game were different, and it was causing resentment on both sides, so maybe we would both be happier with more compatible groups.
That didn't blame them for wanting to play the way they wanted, and it didn't blame us for not wanting to play the way they wanted, but it still made it clear that we probably shouldn't play together.
No ambiguity, no passive-aggressive "oh yeah ... I invited everyone else back but you", but still no blame or judgement.
I agree 100% that developing a cohesive reliable group takes time and effort - and it doesn't always work out. To quote Matt Colville, "not every band is Rush" :)
I think your approach of a number of one-shots with a large pool of players, and discovering the ones that fit your personal style, is an excellent way of finding a group of Players that is compatible for your style. It is something I'm considering doing to find a good online group for a second campaign ( my first campaign being face-to-face ).
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Google "how to fire an employee" it may seem an harsh comparison but these advice articles are based on experience and present solutions that are best for everyone.
my 2 cents; be clear, concise and final. "You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final"
that being said, don't let any behavior go unmentioned. if you don't tell them it's not okay... you will find yourself having to prove your case to an hostile party with no evidence. and sometimes telling someone not to blank on the first offense is all it takes.
Google "how to fire an employee" it may seem an harsh comparison but these advice articles are based on experience and present solutions that are best for everyone.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This is always circumstantial and depends on the relationships among the players, but I might be inclined to talk it over with the other players first. Something along the lines of:
"Look, Player X is drunk/disruptive/argumentative/whatever, and it's making it hard for me to do a good job as a DM and is, frankly, not fun for me. If you guys want to continue playing with Player X, that's fine. I'll bow out as DM and no hard feelings. But I simply can't continue as a DM with this kind of behavior. What do you guys want to do?"
If you're the only one talking with the problematic player, it's easy for it to be seen as "the DM is picking on me." If several members of the group are telling the person they're a problem, they might be inclined to clean it up.
Same way you fire someone or break up with someone: Talk to them face-to-face in a private setting and let them know that they're no longer welcome at your games, possibly with a short explanation for why. Only after that is resolved should you inform the other players.
One way that I think of is a point system. You create a list of rules the table has to abide by and assign each rule a value (the worst rule breaks getting the highest number), and tell each player they have X number of points. Once they reach that number then they are kicked from the group for a time. If they come back and keep reaching the points you kick them out for good. You can also have the points reset after each campaign, end of the year, or whenever you feel is a good point to reset. You print out the set of rules for each player and have them sign it and a copy that you keep. If they want to know why you just tell them check the table rules. This system I think is a good way of kicking people with just reason. I like to think of it as write ups, and they reset every so often.
There are so many ways of kicking a player (some are good ways and some are bad), but if you have a list of rules that they signed, you then have a contract that you have the ability to kick them from the group. I hope this was of some help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember this is a game and it's suppose to be fun for everybody. Let's all have fun and kill monsters.
I've witnessed the dynamics of hundreds of groups, but I've not seen the harsh measures suggested here. The DM is not a boss firing someone. Different etiquette applies. This is an optional social activity and a hobby. Like a knitting circle or book discussion or some-such. Normally:
If you invite a relative stranger to a single book discussion and they're not a good fit... just don't invite them to the next one. "GSF1 protocol permits you not to invite someone you don't like to a given event"
Conversely: if you invited a relative stranger to your book club (with the understanding that it's an ongoing invite, even though you barely know this person)... then you owe them an email if they're not a good fit. Next time: start with one-shot invitations until you know them better.
If you added a friend to book club and they turned out not to be a good fit, you probably owe them a face-to-face. But this should be a soft discussion, not a "You're no longer welcome at my book discussions" type face-to-face (even if you don't wish to remain friends).
On the flip side - if you suddenly decide to stop dating someone, do you - personally - just never call again? Or hope they get the message when they see you dating ( or playing D&D ) with other people?
There's something to be said for non-recriminating honesty in your communication. There are no "harsh measures suggested here".
I recognize that your case is different, in that you're sifting through a number of one-shots and short-term campaigns looking for Players that fit well. By analogy, that might be speed dating, in which case, I guess I really don't owe someone an explanation if I don't check them off on the card as "interested in further contact" ( I'm not sure, I've never tried speed dating ).
Most groups are at least friends, or friends-of-friends, and have gotten to the "third date stage" before it's clear that "this just isn't going to work out" - some modicum of honest, clear, non-judgmental communication is owed the person. Basic manners seem to dictate that.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
On the flip side - if you suddenly decide to stop dating someone, do you - personally - just never call again? Or hope they get the message when they see you dating ( or playing D&D ) with other people?
There's something to be said for non-recriminating honesty in your communication. There are no "harsh measures suggested here".
I recognize that your case is different, in that you're sifting through a number of one-shots and short-term campaigns looking for Players that fit well. By analogy, that might be speed dating, in which case, I guess I really don't owe someone an explanation if I don't check them off on the card as "interested in further contact" ( I'm not sure, I've never tried speed dating ).
Most groups are at least friends, or friends-of-friends, and have gotten to the "third date stage" before it's clear that "this just isn't going to work out" - some modicum of honest, clear, non-judgmental communication is owed the person. Basic manners seem to dictate that.
'
Completely agreed. If you just 'ghost' them, then you're being incredibly rude. More rude than if you at least texted them to let them know of your decision, but even that's very, very rude.
Also, if you ghost them... then they'll just show up at the next scheduled game session because you haven't bothered to actually deal with the problem.
If you don't have scheduled game sessions then they'll ask you when the next session of the campaign is... and that's going to be very annoying for you to keep ignoring, especially if you see them day-to-day.
If they aren't actually in a campaign but were just in a one-shot, then yeah you can just not invite them to the next one - that's fine. Same if the campaign finishes. But if the person knows the campaign is continuing, then they're going to want to know when to show up next and just ignoring them isn't going to deal with the problem.
As for just ending the campaign early... that has significant problems if you've bothered to actually make the campaign a campaign rather than a group of barely connected one-shots.
Luckily I have only had to ask someone to leave once. Our group had two DM's, Myself and another, we rotated out campaigns. We had to ask two of our players to stop coming because they could not control their child when they came over. While trying to be diplomatic it did get ugly for little while. After which we have decided to have one person enforce our house rules and boot anyone else that was a problem we gave them the title of "Black Staff".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
"You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final" seemed harsh to me, as did treating it like you are a boss firing an employee. Even your own quote of "I'll own the fact that I'm kicking them out" does not seem like how I'd approach things with a friend.
You are conflating your experience - where your unusual circumstances ( "This is why I frequently volunteer to run games at conventions" ) allow you pick-and-choose players, and ghost the rest without social offense - confusing it with a general principle, which couldnot be applied to most gaming groups I've experienced, and thus, I am - perhaps incorrectly - assuming can not apply to a significant proportion of gaming groups. Perhaps I just have a bizarrely atypical experience of gaming groups, yet I don't think so.
And please do not put words in my mouth with "You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final" - I clearly expounded what my approach is and was.
This is why - when I had to oust a Player - I approached it as "this is a compatibility issue" not as a "your fun is wrong" issue. I didn't say they were a horrible person and we didn't want to hang out with them anymore, I just pointed out that the things that they wanted out of the game and the things we wanted out of the game were different, and it was causing resentment on both sides, so maybe we would both be happier with more compatible groups.
And sorry - but you did say "End the campaign, then start another one (with a very slightly different group of people)". How is this not - "hey, everyone else got invited back, but you didn't?". Are you assuming they'll just never notice? Good luck with that. In your case you can get away with that, without social offense - but do not make the mistake in thinking that the people who do not share your circumstances can also do so without causing offense.
You yourself said "Of course: if you're dealing with pre-existing friends, that's a different story" - which I believe is most groups.
I for one, won't ghost friends - I will stick to being honest with the people with whom I decide not to game with - and I will find other activities to share in the context of that friendship.
I believe that's an approach which most people can use - non-recriminating, not-judgmental, honesty - in what I believe is a typical gaming group, and cause the least amount of resentment and hurt feelings.
But at the end of the day, do what you will, and live with the consequences.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've had to kick a player in the last year.
We had a discussion 1-on-1, face-to-face, over breakfast at a local A&W. I think doing it face to face, and making it a discussion ( not a lecture ) is the approach that works best ( or at least, works best for me ).
I went into the conversation with the approach of "no one's really doing anything wrong, I just don't think play styles are compatible here. You seem frustrated, it's causing some friction - and I don't think it's fair to ask anyone to change their idea of fun, so it may be better if you were to find a group with a more compatible play style".
We parted amicably enough.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I have a few for you since I've done public and private games for decades:
I had a player, who is also a friend of many people in my circle, who I couldn't keep in my games. He was cheating on dice rolls, being quite childish "in character", and pretty much pushing me to the point I wanted to replace his PHB with an etiquette guide. I eventually had to deal with it as it was draining me, and I dreaded the idea since he was hosting the game as well. I started by making table rules that were supposed to curb the problems, he found ways to continue being disruptive and still attempted to cheat. I then talked to each of the other players, individually, to see what they thought about the situation, it was only fair that I got all the input before making my decision, everyone's game relied on it. I found out the rest of the table was just writing it off as him being him, they weren't greatly bothered by it. So I made a rule, behind the screen and without anyone knowing, that addressed his cheating dice rolls and ran the sessions. Knowing that the rest of the table wasn't terribly inconvenienced, I simply looked at the rest of the party and let them run the game leaving him in the back seat. In the end the group fell apart on it's own and I moved on.
---
I had a group at my local game shop that, through it's life span, could make for a great book called "A DM's Series of Unfortunate Events: Players Edition". I had one player who was such a rules lawyer that anything that didn't adhere to the strict black and white of the books was always argued, even after explaining that the entire world/setting they were in was homebrew. Another player in the group wanted to be as unique as possible, making custom shapeshift forms for his druid using one particular animal and all it's variants in real life. Then, after getting all of that passed through me, edited to fit the CRs and level adjustments, agreed upon by both of us, he wanted to kill off the character because he didn't feel it was living up to what he wanted it to be. The third player at the table cheated on dice rolls, so blatantly the table made jokes about it, and he acted completely oblivious to the fact. The fourth player took an hour to level up his character, on average, even at level 3 where all you have new is your level 2 spells and an HP bump. I had others drop in at the table bringing me up to 6 players at times, but those four players were my "core" group. I eventually asked the shop owner if I could wrap up the story arc and step away from DMing since I would go home so upset my wife would tell me to stop DMing. I haven't DMed at the shop in 6 months, but I do intend on going back once the holidays are over.
---
The last story is the most recent. I now run games at my home, I'm almost always the DM so it's more convenient to just host the games and enjoy a relaxing location. The game I'm running, which is on it's 3rd year now, started off with 6 players. I had 2 brand new players, 1 seasoned player, and 3 players who had been introduced to the game but hadn't played in a while. Two of my players were related, father and daughter, and the father claimed to have been a veteran AD&D player, I was excited to have him in the group. Then it started to fall apart, and it was not an easy thing to deal with. The "veteran" player was belligerent, didn't work with the rest of the group, made choices that were obviously going to hurt the party, was distracted most of the time, would leave the table whenever he wanted, and told everyone else that they weren't playing the "right" way. Eventually the entire table was having an issue, you could feel the tension in the room after an hour or so, the game wasn't much fun for many of the players.
I addressed the problems to the table, without pointing fingers, trying to get everyone back into a game that was enjoyable by all. I addressed the problem player directly, on multiple occasions, and for a brief amount of time the problems would stop. I gave him chance after chance to change his ways, even helping him find ways to be more involved in the game as a character/player. I dreaded kicking him from the group, he lives just down the road from me, his daughter is in my campaign, they're IRL friends and we do many things outside of the game together as well. The last thing I wanted was his daughter to be mad at me, I didn't want it to get weird when we hung out outside of the game, and I really do dislike confrontation. I also knew that he was dealing with some problems in his personal life, I didn't want to add to those by taking something away from him that I knew he was enjoying.
For a year I let all this go on until I had enough of it. The players at the table complained about him, my wife complained, and eventually even his daughter complained. I knew it was time to do something. I finally looked at him, taking him aside so it was a personal conversation, and told him that he had to go. I asked him to figure out what he needed to figure out with his personal life so that he was happier. I told him that once he got his head on straight I'd be happy to have him back in the game. I also informed him what is was about his attitude that was becoming problematic and why, so he knew that it was something he could work on. He's yet to come back, it's been about a year now, but he's made changes in his life. The table has been a much more light hearted experience, and we've all begun to enjoy the game a whole lot more.
---
Talk to the table, talk to the players, talk to the individual, in that order. From there make changes and rules to address the problem at the table, if applicable. If all else fails, address the player in person when you ask them to step away from the table. There is nothing worse than a text or email, it's impersonal and cold. They may get mad, they may say hurtful things, they may even bad mouth you, but it's better than leaving them with no way to express their feelings. In the end, it's a group, not an individual, who play the game, and it should be about the group. As Spock put it to Kirk: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", this really does fit with a group at the table playing D&D.
End the campaign, then start another one (with a very slightly different group of people).
Not everyone has the same ideas of fun, and achieving a similarly minded group can take many different iterations... and that's ok. Part of DM'ing is constantly trying on new group members until you achieve that goal. Luckily, adventures need only last a session or two, and players can often keep their PC's between campaigns (especially if you are using Organized Play rules).
I actually enjoy playing with new people that play differently from me, as I learn a lot from the experience. This is why I frequently volunteer to run games at conventions. But for the long term, I try to curate the best experience I can, which may mean altering the group composition from time to time.
Sounds like it would works well it a serial pick-up game style campaign, but seems ... disingenuous to me, and I think it probably make the ousted player feel worse when they find out everyone else was invited back, but them.
If I'm going to oust someone, I'll have exhausted all the avenues of talking as a group, and being a 3rd party moderator - but I'll own the fact that I'm kicking them out.
Ending the campaign prematurely also - IMHO - punishes everyone else by ending the story line they're enjoying creating and/or taking their Characters away from them. At the very least it disrupts the story line ( when I most recently had to oust a Player it happened to occur right at the end of a major ship board combat, so they just conveniently fell overboard during the battle ).
It's a solution, for sure - and pretty painless on the DM - but it's not one I'd use.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
You have valid points, but I'd like to discuss it further:
D&D is a social game, and normally in social circles: if you don't enjoy hanging out with someone new, you don't confront them... you just hang out with them less (or not at all). I think that is the expectation.
I also think that developing a cohesive, reliable D&D group can take a long time. I think we should go into it with an expectation of forming several temporary D&D groups for one-shot adventures until you find a like-minded group (without viewing that as a disingenuous methodology). Of course: if you're dealing with pre-existing friends, that's a different story.
I can see your point, but I don't think that works for me, personally.
I completely agree that you do not confront them - that's adversarial, and combative, and I think we can agree that's not a good thing to do. But I think I owe someone an honest explanation, and the courtesy of making my position clear.
This is why - when I had to oust a Player - I approached it as "this is a compatibility issue" not as a "your fun is wrong" issue. I didn't say they were a horrible person and we didn't want to hang out with them anymore, I just pointed out that the things that they wanted out of the game and the things we wanted out of the game were different, and it was causing resentment on both sides, so maybe we would both be happier with more compatible groups.
That didn't blame them for wanting to play the way they wanted, and it didn't blame us for not wanting to play the way they wanted, but it still made it clear that we probably shouldn't play together.
No ambiguity, no passive-aggressive "oh yeah ... I invited everyone else back but you", but still no blame or judgement.
I agree 100% that developing a cohesive reliable group takes time and effort - and it doesn't always work out. To quote Matt Colville, "not every band is Rush" :)
I think your approach of a number of one-shots with a large pool of players, and discovering the ones that fit your personal style, is an excellent way of finding a group of Players that is compatible for your style. It is something I'm considering doing to find a good online group for a second campaign ( my first campaign being face-to-face ).
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Google "how to fire an employee" it may seem an harsh comparison but these advice articles are based on experience and present solutions that are best for everyone.
my 2 cents; be clear, concise and final. "You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final"
that being said, don't let any behavior go unmentioned. if you don't tell them it's not okay... you will find yourself having to prove your case to an hostile party with no evidence. and sometimes telling someone not to blank on the first offense is all it takes.
good luck
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
That's not a bad comparison, at all.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
This is always circumstantial and depends on the relationships among the players, but I might be inclined to talk it over with the other players first. Something along the lines of:
"Look, Player X is drunk/disruptive/argumentative/whatever, and it's making it hard for me to do a good job as a DM and is, frankly, not fun for me. If you guys want to continue playing with Player X, that's fine. I'll bow out as DM and no hard feelings. But I simply can't continue as a DM with this kind of behavior. What do you guys want to do?"
If you're the only one talking with the problematic player, it's easy for it to be seen as "the DM is picking on me." If several members of the group are telling the person they're a problem, they might be inclined to clean it up.
Same way you fire someone or break up with someone: Talk to them face-to-face in a private setting and let them know that they're no longer welcome at your games, possibly with a short explanation for why. Only after that is resolved should you inform the other players.
One way that I think of is a point system. You create a list of rules the table has to abide by and assign each rule a value (the worst rule breaks getting the highest number), and tell each player they have X number of points. Once they reach that number then they are kicked from the group for a time. If they come back and keep reaching the points you kick them out for good. You can also have the points reset after each campaign, end of the year, or whenever you feel is a good point to reset. You print out the set of rules for each player and have them sign it and a copy that you keep. If they want to know why you just tell them check the table rules. This system I think is a good way of kicking people with just reason. I like to think of it as write ups, and they reset every so often.
There are so many ways of kicking a player (some are good ways and some are bad), but if you have a list of rules that they signed, you then have a contract that you have the ability to kick them from the group. I hope this was of some help.
Remember this is a game and it's suppose to be fun for everybody. Let's all have fun and kill monsters.
I've witnessed the dynamics of hundreds of groups, but I've not seen the harsh measures suggested here. The DM is not a boss firing someone. Different etiquette applies. This is an optional social activity and a hobby. Like a knitting circle or book discussion or some-such. Normally:
On the flip side - if you suddenly decide to stop dating someone, do you - personally - just never call again? Or hope they get the message when they see you dating ( or playing D&D ) with other people?
There's something to be said for non-recriminating honesty in your communication. There are no "harsh measures suggested here".
I recognize that your case is different, in that you're sifting through a number of one-shots and short-term campaigns looking for Players that fit well. By analogy, that might be speed dating, in which case, I guess I really don't owe someone an explanation if I don't check them off on the card as "interested in further contact" ( I'm not sure, I've never tried speed dating ).
Most groups are at least friends, or friends-of-friends, and have gotten to the "third date stage" before it's clear that "this just isn't going to work out" - some modicum of honest, clear, non-judgmental communication is owed the person. Basic manners seem to dictate that.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
'
Completely agreed. If you just 'ghost' them, then you're being incredibly rude. More rude than if you at least texted them to let them know of your decision, but even that's very, very rude.
Also, if you ghost them... then they'll just show up at the next scheduled game session because you haven't bothered to actually deal with the problem.
If you don't have scheduled game sessions then they'll ask you when the next session of the campaign is... and that's going to be very annoying for you to keep ignoring, especially if you see them day-to-day.
If they aren't actually in a campaign but were just in a one-shot, then yeah you can just not invite them to the next one - that's fine. Same if the campaign finishes. But if the person knows the campaign is continuing, then they're going to want to know when to show up next and just ignoring them isn't going to deal with the problem.
As for just ending the campaign early... that has significant problems if you've bothered to actually make the campaign a campaign rather than a group of barely connected one-shots.
Luckily I have only had to ask someone to leave once. Our group had two DM's, Myself and another, we rotated out campaigns. We had to ask two of our players to stop coming because they could not control their child when they came over. While trying to be diplomatic it did get ugly for little while. After which we have decided to have one person enforce our house rules and boot anyone else that was a problem we gave them the title of "Black Staff".
Good Morning Gamers!!
Was that a deliberate Dresden Files reference? ;)
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
yes it was...
Good Morning Gamers!!
"You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final" seemed harsh to me, as did treating it like you are a boss firing an employee. Even your own quote of "I'll own the fact that I'm kicking them out" does not seem like how I'd approach things with a friend.
I indicated otherwise in my post, which you observed... but still created the above strawman, which LangyMD quoted and attacked.
It's not a straw man fallacy.
You are conflating your experience - where your unusual circumstances ( "This is why I frequently volunteer to run games at conventions" ) allow you pick-and-choose players, and ghost the rest without social offense - confusing it with a general principle, which could not be applied to most gaming groups I've experienced, and thus, I am - perhaps incorrectly - assuming can not apply to a significant proportion of gaming groups. Perhaps I just have a bizarrely atypical experience of gaming groups, yet I don't think so.
And please do not put words in my mouth with "You are no longer a part of this group due to your blank behavior after being warned x times. My decision is final" - I clearly expounded what my approach is and was.
This is why - when I had to oust a Player - I approached it as "this is a compatibility issue" not as a "your fun is wrong" issue. I didn't say they were a horrible person and we didn't want to hang out with them anymore, I just pointed out that the things that they wanted out of the game and the things we wanted out of the game were different, and it was causing resentment on both sides, so maybe we would both be happier with more compatible groups.
And sorry - but you did say "End the campaign, then start another one (with a very slightly different group of people)". How is this not - "hey, everyone else got invited back, but you didn't?". Are you assuming they'll just never notice? Good luck with that. In your case you can get away with that, without social offense - but do not make the mistake in thinking that the people who do not share your circumstances can also do so without causing offense.
You yourself said "Of course: if you're dealing with pre-existing friends, that's a different story" - which I believe is most groups.
I for one, won't ghost friends - I will stick to being honest with the people with whom I decide not to game with - and I will find other activities to share in the context of that friendship.
I believe that's an approach which most people can use - non-recriminating, not-judgmental, honesty - in what I believe is a typical gaming group, and cause the least amount of resentment and hurt feelings.
But at the end of the day, do what you will, and live with the consequences.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.