Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helldritch" data-source="post: 8651415" data-attributes="member: 6855114">D&amp;D is a cooperative game. If one person is ruining the fun of others there are only two choices available.1) Kick out the problematic (a few ways, none really satisfying.)2) Discuss and make the player change his/her ways.#1 Can be traumatic for some. Both on the kicker's end and to the one being kicked out. Sometimes, a softer approach is to do as I did. The best way of course is not to have these kind of players in the first. The fact that I have not done it in 30 years (out of 40 as a DM) probably means that this kind of player is really rare. I mean, very very rare. Or that I have been one of the luckiest DM ever for not having seen this kind of behavior in 30 years...#2 Means that the DM must take the lead and actually talk with the person about to be kicked out. But there might be problems. Maybe that one is a friend and it could mean an end to a friendship. If talking succeeds, no problem. This was the goal all along. If the talking fails, and kicking out the person is out of the question what does that leave us?The softer method of treasure punishing. Yes it might be seen as adversarial. But at the same time, souring the play for the one not caring and sweetening the play of the others might slowly make the uncaring one change his/her play or simply make the uncaring one leave on his/her own. This might preserve friendship IRL. It is not the best solution, but it might be the best of the worst outcomes.As for the bolded part.You got confused. This is not a veto where one person can change an outcome because he has veto.It is a vote. Democratic vote. One player (or DM) can not force the others to do as he/she likes. The majority is always applied.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helldritch, post: 8651415, member: 6855114"] D&D is a cooperative game. If one person is ruining the fun of others there are only two choices available. 1) Kick out the problematic (a few ways, none really satisfying.) 2) Discuss and make the player change his/her ways. #1 Can be traumatic for some. Both on the kicker's end and to the one being kicked out. Sometimes, a softer approach is to do as I did. The best way of course is not to have these kind of players in the first. The fact that I have not done it in 30 years (out of 40 as a DM) probably means that this kind of player is really rare. I mean, very very rare. Or that I have been one of the luckiest DM ever for not having seen this kind of behavior in 30 years... #2 Means that the DM must take the lead and actually talk with the person about to be kicked out. But there might be problems. Maybe that one is a friend and it could mean an end to a friendship. If talking succeeds, no problem. This was the goal all along. If the talking fails, and kicking out the person is out of the question what does that leave us? The softer method of treasure punishing. Yes it might be seen as adversarial. But at the same time, souring the play for the one not caring and sweetening the play of the others might slowly make the uncaring one change his/her play or simply make the uncaring one leave on his/her own. This might preserve friendship IRL. It is not the best solution, but it might be the best of the worst outcomes. As for the bolded part. You got confused. This is not a veto where one person can change an outcome because he has veto. It is a vote. Democratic vote. One player (or DM) can not force the others to do as he/she likes. The majority is always applied. [/QUOTE]

Verification