What to do when play styles don't mesh

[Enkhidu]

Kill them.

Don't forget to take their stuff.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Killing is My Business (Hey, I'm a DM)

I'm actually the DM in the current game involving the aforementioned troublemakers and, although they do not bother me as much as Necros, I have no compunction in slaughtering their characters outright ... especially if they continue to ignore the political realities of my campaign.

Hell, one of these players has at least three different factions trying to kill him already.

 

[pogre]

I'm actually the DM in the current game involving the aforementioned troublemakers and, although they do not bother me as much as Necros, I have no compunction in slaughtering their characters outright ... especially if they continue to ignore the political realities of my campaign.

Hell, one of these players has at least three different factions trying to kill him already.

Thanks for piping in Menace. I had a situation a few years ago where I had to remove a player that I really had no problem with, but he annoyed the other players to the point of wanting to quit. He actually sounds like the first player that Necros described.

Killing them in game probably is not enough. Have you had a sit down with the other players to discern if they feel the same way about these two? If so, they might need to go or at least be confronted about their current disruptive habits (I hesitate to call them a playing style).

 

[Lucrecio]

I had to deal with a player of that type in the past. I tried to talk to him, but it didn't do much, so I kicked him out (with the other players blessing, I might add).

I think you should do the same, man.

 

[Terwox]

Talk to them, when it doesn't work, split the group.

I've been through quite a few groups with player types that didn't get along that well, it never really ended with anything besides a player split.

YMMV, but it doesn't sound like it will, from the likes of the people you're dealing with.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

As I have stated in a few other thread, I have been there. My players could easily have been the same ones you mention. I did not see the justification to kick them out until after they were long gone. My "rule #1" now is: "If the players do not buy in to the basic philosophy of running the game that the DM holds, the game will fail." I have adapted this from some teaching materials (I teach high school). It has proven true time and again in my experience.

Seriously, split the group. I fought against it too. I denied that it was necessary. I thought of every reason and justifcation for keeping them. I rationalized that it wasn't that bad. I despaired that their absence would destroy the group. I was wrong on all counts. When the time finally came, there were some painful, awkward weeks. I took 6 weeks off from the game. It was tough. In the long run, it was the best thing I did for the game. I know that not every situation is the same, but if you asked us, you were already thinking about it. Go with that gut feeling.

The game belongs to everybody at the table, especially the DM. It is easier for them to find a new group that suits their style than for everyone else at the table to regain their sanity and enjoyment after the game implodes.

One player likes to be overbearing, has issues dealing with women gamers, and likes to talk down to players who disagree with his rules interpretations. Sometimes he is right, but when that is the case rather than just accepting the fact that he won the argument, he likes to make the loser feel stupid. He also is playing a Neutral PC in an evil campaign, and likes to stall the gmeplay to argue his personal interpretation of games rules, and the setting.

The second player wants to be in charge all of the time and dominate the table, but wont admit it. He has very little grasp of the rules, though he tries to rules lawyer. He is friends with player one and they always agree with each other, and the rest of us are obviously crazy. Player two asks for little concessions, and tries to win points by being overtly reasonable; if he doesn't get his way he starts whining. If you give him anything he is not happy he instead asks for more concessions. Though he does not want to make a leader type PC, he wants to be in charge of the game group and run everything.

No matter how nice they are out of game or how much you think they are your friends or that you need them at the gaming table, this is not game style, it is disagreeable personalities being played out at the table. You see, people tend to act in a way at the gaming table that would be destructive if they acted that way in the "real world." Since this is a fantasy world, they let their inner jerk come out at the table andit is the place they think that they can act like they really want to act, but know that the world would not tolerate. It really comes out in the game. You and your group don't have to tolerate it either.

In my experience, talking about their problems with people who act like this will either breed hidden resentment because they don't see the results of their actions, or bring improvement on the short term with the behavior surfacing more dramatically once they have repressed their inner emotions as long as they can.

You will be much happier and your group will thank you if you ask them nicely and in an appropriate manner to leave.

DM

 

[S'mon]

We have a 7 person group currently, and could just kick the other two out, but that does not feel right. On the other side, we have been trying to gell a campaign for some time now and they are a serious detriment to group cohesion. The different DM's have had a hard time working with them and keeping the game going at all.

It may not feel right, but if the 6-7 players can't all have fun in the same group, splitting the group is the obvious thing to do. If the disruptive two are ok guys on their own terms, running 2 different campaigns might work.

 

[S'mon]

wolf70 above puts it eloquently. If you're still sceptical, (re)read Five Geek Social Fallacies - http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html

NB: I have definitely been there or worse, with players who didn't fit my GM style and a not very compatible group. The campaign ended up not being not nearly as much fun as it could have been if I'd faced up to the problem early on. It's easy for us to say "kick em out", but that doesn't mean we're not right.

 

[Trellian]

I have kicked out several people from my group, and managed to stay good friends with them all. If one player is ruining the fun of the rest, it's really not that hard of a choice.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Taking Out the Trash

We kicked out a guy from our group a while back. In fact, I even kept the letter and I read it from time to time for a good laugh ... it's polite, but hardcore enough to get the point across.

Here it is:

There is no easy way to say this, but you are expelled from our gaming group. This is solely my decision, although the other members of the group are backing me up on this (I initially offered to leave).

Trust me, no one in the group opposes my judgment.

I cannot get along with you. You are not a bad person, but I do not enjoy hanging out with you in any setting. After last session, I also came to the conclusion that our gaming styles are far too divergent to allow for my enjoyment of the game.

You have another gaming group; I only have this one. Go to them; they are where your gaming interest truly lies.

My decision is binding (and documented). Don't bother calling me for an explanation. If I wanted to talk it out with you, I wouldn't have offered to leave the game.

I'm sorry that it has to be this way, but there is no other alternative. That being said, I wish you the best of luck with your studies, and other endeavors.

Now that's gaming justice baby ....

Maybe our group could use some now.