[Rant] Oh. My. God. He said no!

[La Bete]

just remember that you can boot someone from a game, but that doesnt have to be permanent.

I had a case where one player was being disruptive in a game I was playing in - the GM was getting more and more stressed in the game, and it was rally beginning to show.

THe straw that broke the camels back was when the GM had explained, in a calm and rational way, a decision he had made in relation to the PC's death, and the PC essentially said "scrw your decision".

The GM promptly kicked the player out of that game. But since then, he has joined other games, without any major problems. Maybe being kicked out was a wake-up call.

That said, I wouldnt necessarily kick him out in front of other people. Contact the other players, and get their views on the situation. Contact the problem player and get his.

If youre not enjoying GMing because of the player, stop.
If the other players would rather have the other player in the game than you as a GM, then decide if you want to play in the group.
If the problem player needs a cooling off - do it.

While rpging is a shared experience, and youre not the big boss-man, being the GM should mean that your decisions, if laid out clearly and coherently, should be followed - grumbling about them is ok, but saying get stuffed is a bit off. After all, generally most GM decisions like this (and the PrC thang) are designed so that your game keeps its feel and consistency.

Cheers

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Accolades and off topic nostalgia

Anyway, I also said "No, they are dead. Let's move on." after he flat out said no to me, but he literally refused to go on with the game. My only options at that point were to give in, kick him out then and there, or end the game for the night. I figured ending the game for the night was a fair compromise and that it might give him time to reconsider his position and come to his senses.

That sounds like you did the right thing. The times when I've been in similar situation I have often not had the presence of mind to simply say everybody needs some time off and cut it off.

There was a friend of mine who I was constantly butting heads with over Role-playing games. We would always work things out eventually, but there were so many of these disagreements that I'm not convinced that we ever got the opportunity to really learn each others styles. Still, I'm really grateful that despite my tendency to argue things out to the smallest detail, he and I were generally willing to stick with it and give each other second chances.

Other things got in the way of our gaming together, but those arguments ended up really informing the way I game and for the better. So I'm always grateful for the non-boot options for players and DMs.

One relevant thing I noticed from my conflicts was that its important to note that the interaction involves the rest of the players as well as the problem player. I always found that the most difficult part of these was trying to make any sort of resolution public and acceptable to the rest of the players.

One of our arguments had to do with a simple misunderstanding that I couldn't publicly correct becuase of the how it would impact the story. When I explained it to him, we both thought it was pretty cool and funny. But when it worked out in the story the rest of the players thought it was a tacked on and tacky compromise between me and the other player that screwed all of them. If I had just been more sensitive about the timing of it all it would have worked perfectly.

 

[Squirrel Nutkin]

I hope they weren't friends of yours outside the game.

Unfortunately they were my friends, and I had no idea how much they were into these low-level characters. Not a one of 'em was higher than 3rd level, and yet it turned out these guys had already been writing stories, poems and even songs (!) about their PCs. Not really the kind of thing you ought to be doing if you're in a hack-'n-slash AD&D 1E campaign like the one I was running at the time.

Unfortunately I'd missed all of this since these same players lived in another town and would drive in to game, role-playing and filking among themselves on the car trip and stuff like that -- the only time I got to socialize with these guys was on game nights. So again I simply didn't know I had a roomful of "real role-players" although I did find out the hard way.

The worst part though is that most of them broke of their friendships with me over this, and that also caught me by complete surprise. I had never gamed with people like that before, and I didn't have any kind of experience with that kind of drama over some low-level AD&D characters.

I didn't run any RPGs again for a good while after that...

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I may compalin about my players, them be inconsiderate jerks and all. But where the heck do you people find these wierdos. "No, there not dead" At least I can understand inconsiderate jerks, there the norm in society, but this what is he like 5. Your playing D&D in the sand-box during recess or something I'm ok with his behavior, beyond that.

 

[orbitalfreak]

He refused to play until I brought their characters back...

I'd tell him to keep waiting, and "Don't call me, I'll call you."

 

[Agback]

"One move and the idiots get it!"

G'day

You have been the subject of a gambit that I call "One move and the idiot gets it!" (Well, actually I call it something unprintable, which you will be able to guess if you have seen the movie Blazing Saddles. But we have to take care of Eric's grandmother's delicate sensibilities.) And you have responded correctly.

When things get sticky, some players in effect take their own characters hostage. Rather back down when they face certain defeat, they push on, hoping that faced with the choice between killing the characters and wimping out, their DM will wimp out. I have noticed that players tend to do this more often when they are trying to deny the stupidity of a previous decision on their part, so that fits.

Nothing kills your campaigns deader than teaching players that this works. If this gambit works, they will learn to use it, and that destroys the challenge of your game (gamist appeal), the plausibility of your world (simulationist appeal), and the consistency of your scenarios (dramatist appeal). And I have learned the hard way that retraining players out of this mindset is a long and upsetting process. You have done the right thing in showing your players that playing on your sympathy does not work. And you have been lucky that you have been able to inflict this lesson after an explicit attempt to force your hand by meta-gaming.

Everyone is really pissed off at Bob now. And you can get away with sacking him. But at twenty, Bob is not too old to change (people in general don't become absolutely set in their ways until thirty). You might be able to salvage him if you try. Do you think it would be worth the effort?

On the other hand, if Bob offers to quit you must make absolutely no concessions to keep him in, because if you do he'll try it again. By all means reassure the players that you are not a killer GM, that you do not set out to kill their characters, and that you sincerely hope that nothing like that will ever happen again. But point out patiently that although the disaster was a result of a series of avoidable mistakes on their part, that it was not irrecoverable until the players decided to take their characters hostage. But don't retcon a single incident, and don't promise to make any changes that will protect players who try to twist your arm like that.

If you want to have some sort of discussion about things, your best line is not to be conciliatory or apologetic, but to feign irritation. Your line ought to be that the players attempted to cheat, and that in doing so they forced you to make a choice between killing your storyline to save your world and letting your world die and take the storyline with it.

Explain, if you like, that you will provide support for players who like to test their wits by pitting their characters' specified abilities against set obstacles, and that you will provide support for players who like to take on the roles of fictitious characters in fantasy worlds, and that you will provide support for players who like to take part in the collaborative, extemporary weaving of a story; but that you do not provide automatic gratification for lamers aiming to rack up a tally of meaningless victories over paper tigers.

And finish up by saying "At some stages during the last adventure, after things had started to go wrong, I underplayed the opposition to give your characters a chance to escape with their lives. But I cannot see my way clear to doing so ever again. From now on, the NPCs will act strictly in accordance with their motivations and abilities, and let the chips lie where they fall. Treat my world as real and you will have a better-than-fair chance. Otherwise not."

Regards,


Agback

 

[mythago]

If I've got a point it's this: ever since then I've tried to work very closely with any players I've got to establish, up front and at the very beginning of the campaign, just what kind of game it is that we're playing.

While this is wise, it really sounds like that gaming group was a few woven diamonds short of a pair of fishnet stockings.

 

[kkoie]

Since you feel you can't boot 'Bob' without possibly losing two other players, have you mentioned your consern about 'Bob' with the two other players in question?

I'm not saying have you asked them if you can boot him or anything. But have you perhapes made the aside comment like "Last gaming session Bob seemed to be taking the loss of player characters pretty seriously, has he mentioned to you guys if he is still upset about it?"

Perhapes they might even suggest themselves that 'Bob' ought to take a vacation from the group as well, or think that it won't continue to be a problem. People have their off days, perhapes this was an offday for Bob.

 

[ForceUser]

Bob probably wouldn't have been in my group in the first place.

 

[DDK]

*snip*If I've got a point it's this: ever since then I've tried to work very closely with any players I've got to establish, up front and at the very beginning of the campaign, just what kind of game it is that we're playing. That way there can't be any misunderstandings. It's something you may have to do from now on as well...

I just tried this a couple of days ago with a general email I sent out to eight prospective players. Six have replied with confirmations that they will NOT be attending the game.

I'm an upfront and honest person (most of the time ) so I like this sort of no BS approach. Tell 'em what they're in for, get the worst over with at the start, weed out the weak. That way the game can only get better since people know what to expect and have agreed to expect it. There is no disappointment, only reward.

Sure, it scares off players, but I don't believe my demands are unreasonable and so did I want those players anyway? No. I run a good game. I know I do because I've only ever gotten praise and virtually no criticism. Of course... the players could just be scared of me and I'm sure there's a lot of gutless little savages out there who couldn't bring themselves to be honest and forthright with their opinions, but until I get any negative feedback, I can only assume the games I run are, for the most part, fun.

So, anyway, did this guy know what he was in for? Did he know that you were willing to kill a PC played by a stupid player who metagames? If not, then he might have a point by whinging, if so, then kick him out as he's only ever going to cause trouble.