Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8608994" data-attributes="member: 16814">If that's the best you can do, okay.  Personally, I also have the tools in my toolbox to look at the behavior, identify what triggers it, discuss those triggers and behavior, and find out if there's a way I can reduce those while running that's within my window of acceptability.  I've had problem players, and I've also manage to get quite a number of them to incorporate because I recognized their issues and could accommodate them and thereby avoid the behaviors I didn't like.  Granted, this requires everyone to talk to each other in a mature and respectful way about things that might be quite sensitive, but, hey, if you don't even try it will never work out.  I've said goodbye to problem players about four times in my GM's career.  One was someone I could accommodate as a GM, but that conflicted with the other players, so as a group we discussed and decided to part ways.  Another was a cold mismatch in expectations of play that I tried to engage but would not (I didn't get kicks from using magic to override other PC's consent), so that was a failure and a goodbye.  The other two were back when I did believe in "Trust the GM" and "It's the GM's game" and so I just booted people because I could and they weren't onboard with what I wanted.  In hindsight, that was all me, in one case, and could have been trivially solved.  I've gamed with that person since.  Another could have gone either way.  Dunno, won't ever be able to tell.I will say that a cold statement of "Trust the GM" as a prerequisite to join a game tells me that discussion is not available and I'll nope out just to avoid the whole thing.  Game might be amazing, but that's enough of a red flag that I'm not going to feel like I missed much even so.  I find amazing games without it with regularity.</blockquote>

Verification