As a person who was summarily exiled from a gaming group he had been part of for well over 10 years, I think I should say my piece about being excused from a game. Do it like an adult. Far less hurt feelings in the process, and a lot less angst and anger. In my case I was blindsided by my GM telling me that I was no longer welcome in his game with no explanation given at that time.
<SNIP>
Lay it out there and explain yourself.
This is the definition of healthy confrontation. Confrontation is not necessarily conflagration. Again, if you lack the vocabulary, please (in the name of Gary Gygaxian Gygax) look it up. I tell this to even the most slack jawed English students – expect no less, as most of you are native English speakers.
That is bullshit to do to someone, especially if you consider yourself an adult. I am not saying to flip tables and start throat punching people, but you owe it to everyone involved to say, "this is not working out for us, all apologies but we cannot ask you back to the table". If you get drama from that, handle it like a fucking adult, not a cowardly, simpering child.
And I am in full support of this. Confrontation is a part of life. It is most strongly connected to how we learn – not to be confused with either politics or education, neither promote nor reward confrontation.
I don't thing the issue is whether or not a table needs to remove an "incompatible" player. I think we all agree that doing so is in the group and game's best interest if said player is causing the fun of everyone else to suffer.
My point was that there are less aggressive ways of doing it.
Actually, you’re proposing a less
assertive way of doing it by emphasizing the method of leaving town without a forwarding address. This speaks to
SavageCheerleader’s comment about “throat punching,” and you miss making a statement to the other new players in the group about the group dynamics, by being unclear that X-player’s behaviour is not wanted/tolerated.
This will bite your ass when recruiting new players. It is weak leadership, regardless the management style you are abrogating (consultative, autocratic, persuasive, etc.). I did this with my first group, and later with recruiting individuals to a group, and have learned through hard knocks to face the confrontation early before it leads to conflagration (figurative or literal: throat punching or forum trolling).
You not only have to protect the group as GM but you also have to set the example as the group mouthpiece. Done right, aggression can be avoided. Just remember that a different play style does not mean enmity, or coming to blows, between people.
It creates a more cohesive table if everyone is on the same page of “consensus.”
It is not necessary to say to the player, "we're kicking you out, and BTW, here are the 8 reasons why you suck."
I wrote about the Narcissist AMERICAN player who came to play and how I palmed him off to the Pathfinder munchkin group. He was immersed in nothing but himself and it was clear to me on the streetcar ride with this guy as he bore me about himself for 20 minutes straight without the decency to say goodbye when I disembarked. I reached out for advice from this forum then and I recall
jazzisblues gave good advice.
So I helped recruit for that table.
But if there were no other table, I would have had to suck it up and say: “Sorry but I have the players I want at my table already (if not enough of those players).” Would he have flipped a table? Probably not. But he would have tried to give me his better than I am attitude and make me feel bad about myself as a human and I, as the group leader/GM, would have stoically had to walk away from that unpleasantness. Is it emotionally easy? No. But maturity says: that attitude is not my problem.
Confrontation is not a comfort zone feeling. But comfort zone feeling is what I hope to achieve with my group. Not sussing out the wrong people before they enter the group is part of my task.
Now if you know the player and think the player would enjoy your style, like I believed was the case with the GREEK, you should interview the player, as I have done. It’s not nuclear physics. Ask the player why does he or she want to play in your game? What does he or she like about playing? Where does he or she see him- or herself fitting in at the table of your game? Does he or she have any questions or concerns about play in your game?
And LISTEN.
LISTEN. Not like the typical troll on an Internet forums listens.
LISTEN ACTIVELY! Try not to presuppose the person should change for your group or that you can change the person with the revelation of how more better role-playing is in your game and your gaming group because you are so basically desperate to have that person in your group. You will lose your group. In my case, because he was an experienced player with whom I had some D&D experience, I read the GREEK the only Rule I needed to explicitly show for my AD&D 1e game.
As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death. - Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide (1979), Preface pp.6-7.
(Interesting clickable link, BTW)
So, instead of a menu of reasons, how about only 1: I do not think you are right for this group’s fun? (I could be wrong, but that’s my call as group leader not yours.)
I'm assuming here that you've already sussed out that the player is just the wrong guy for the table and that you know the situation cannot be resolved. In other words, you know the problem player either can't or won't change.
If the player is already in the group, and you’re observing the problem player behaviour, then you haven’t actively
sussed out his or her play style to avoid bringing into the group; or you do not know the play style of your group (and perhaps both). D&D 3.5 did a huge disservice to the players’ enjoyment by encouraging all play styles to play together, which blurred the definition of the player’s individual fun to sell more rulebooks, IMHO. Maybe the player wants to avoid the play style of your group’s game? Consider that angle and show some concern for the guy who is either going to feel alienated at the table or munchkin everyone else’s play.
There are people who get their jollies from conflict and drama. You should suss these pugnacious persons out, too, in a neutral environment before inviting them to your personal space.
To be honest, I can only imagine this situation occurring between strangers because I will not invite someone into the group whose play style I know will clash with the fun established in the group. At that point, I can only focus on the GM not being on task as a group leader.
SirGuido’s story is exactly that bullshit he says it is.
The GM needs to assertively present what the group’s play style/focus is going to be to this player beforehand so the player can explicitly say
I understand and so the GM can believe the answer.
Most of the time the player is going to know he or she has been excluded. Certainly they can come to you and ask why they were excluded. In my experience, however, that never happens.
I would feel insulted, like
SirGuido, especially if I were already in the group. And, like
SirGuido, I wouldn’t willingly give you my time of day after that either. I would feel disrespected rather than curious.
And quite frankly, such conversations probably would have caused bad blood or other ramifications to a larger social circle.
Over a game? Assuming it is not about fear of rejection,
Stu Venable, you need some new friends. What happens when someone within this web of interconnected people innocently lets it slip you’re playing an RPG without them?
What does this say about the gamer culture?
And let me go on a small tangent about my experience because it breaks the anti-social stereotype I am reading here and elsewhere on The Net. All the gamers I knew about and played with back in 79 – 84 did not form together because they were anti-social Asperger’s suffering misfits. They formed groups because they
were social beings who enjoyed the interaction together, which the game provided. I did not have any of the bad experiences I have since read about and listened to back in those days, and neither did the players I knew. In fact, dice mechanics for “social combat” to allow the anti-social a simulated group interaction was incomprehensible to me before I attempted to find a social network in Poland using modern RPGs’ design. To me, it’s like walking into a bar to order a milkshake.
Ducking the issue of player compatibly is like fudging a die roll on an ability score. It does a disservice to the player and to the hobby’s social interaction component. Non-violent communication (assertiveness without aggression) takes practice, and it is harder to practice when the other person(s) is aggressive or there is that fear he or she or they will be.
But just because it is uncomfortable to do does not excuse ducking out on someone or make the avoidance any less aggressive. Apologies for the lengthy post but I was baby interrupted several times and now I am too exhausted to go through it again.