D&D General I want to fire a player.

[Seramus]

Some of the hardest to fire are the thousand papercuts kind. They never do the one big thing that gets them kicked out, but slowly drain the happiness and joy away.

 

[Nikosandros]

Anyone else find the term "firing a player" weird?

It does feel weird, but not as much as when people talk about killing a player. I know they mean a player character, but still....

 

[Dire Bare]

Anyone else find the term "firing a player" weird?

Nope.

It's a turn of phrase, one that immediately let us know the situation. It's just fine.

The reasons OP is considering firing a player are the same sorts of reasons an employer might fire an employee. Hell, as a manager, I've had to fire friends from our workplace . . . that was definitely not fun!

 

[Nikosandros]

Nope.

It's a turn of phrase, one that immediately let us know the situation. It's just fine.

The reasons OP is considering firing a player are the same sorts of reasons an employer might fire an employee. Hell, as a manager, I've had to fire friends from our workplace . . . that was definitely not fun!

I'm usually the GM, but I'm certainly not the boss of the players! We are a group of friends who decide to do some activity together, but no one has social authority over the others.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm usually the GM, but I'm certainly not the boss of the players! We are a group of friends who decide to do some activity together, but no one has social authority over the others.

To me, the ideal RPG gaming group would be fully collaborative. And many groups approach that. But the classic D&D dynamic is that the DM runs the game, hosts the game, and calls the shots. It can be dictatorial, or more like a manager or theatre director . . . not everybody plays that way, sure, but to pretend it isn't the baseline is a bit silly.

And, OP makes it clear that this isn't just him making the decision, it's coming from his entire gaming group. Sounds like he'd have to make the final call, but he isn't doing it in a vacuum.

Any group can decide how "social authority" gets divvied up. Either making decisions collaboratively, or giving one person the responsibility of managing the group.

And I find it amusing that some of you aren't taking exception to OP's dilemma or proposed actions to solve it . . . . it's just the turn of phrase itself that folks are tut-tutting over.

 

[Nikosandros]

To me, the ideal RPG gaming group would be fully collaborative. And many groups approach that. But the classic D&D dynamic is that the DM runs the game, hosts the game, and calls the shots. It can be dictatorial, or more like a manager or theatre director . . . not everybody plays that way, sure, but to pretend it isn't the baseline is a bit silly.

I don't know if it is the baseline. Personally, I would not care to participate in such a group, but - as they say - to each their own.

And I find it amusing that some of you aren't taking exception to OP's dilemma or proposed actions to solve it . . . . it's just the turn of phrase itself that folks are tut-tutting over.

I was simply discussing this tangent and not the OP specific questions.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Invite your pal out to hang…go see a movie. Have dinner with him. Then play D&D and not invite him. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's a turn of phrase,

How do you turn a phrase?

 

[Richards]

Just remember: while it's okay to fire a player, it's NOT okay to set fire to them.

Johnathan

 

[Lanefan]

Just remember: while it's okay to fire a player, it's NOT okay to set fire to them.

Oops.