Getting kicked out of the party

[chadmeister]

Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."

Just tell him your characters are going to a different town and seek out whatever goals your character have. Refuse to follow the paladin.

[DarkEricDraven]

Leave now. Please, we're begging you. This isn't a red flag, the flag is red because it's on fire screaming with the agony of a thousand tortured souls who decided to give an awful DM 'a second chance'. Bail out of the game with the rogue, tell the other players explicitly why - probably privately or via email, so the DM can't interrupt.

I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.

Just tell him your characters are going to a different town and seek out whatever goals your character have. Refuse to follow the paladin.

Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

[MukkTB]

Leave the DM. Its totally ok for him to boot you out of the 'official' party. Its totally not ok to refuse to let you run parallel to the other party after HE HIMSELF BOOTED YOU FROM THE MAIN GROUP. Go find someoen else to play with.

Edit - Punishing you for being obstinate by not letting you play should be returned in kind. Don't play with him.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Hope I'm not too late to the party.

E-mail or call the other players. Tell them what the DM told you. And remember the golden rules.
Rule 00 - The GM is Always Right: If he changes the RAW to negate tricks, that's that.
Rule 000 - ...But no Players Means no Game: But just because the DM holds the most power doesn't mean he can be a tyrant. It is well within the group's rights for everyone else to leave and start their own game.

[chadmeister]

Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

That's when you insist on telling him what your characters are doing whether the DM is listening to you or not.

Or you just stop playing with him.

I'll agree with the others who have said you don't have to worry about inexperience. If a new DM doesn't have time to teach you, there will be players who will.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'm gonna say: Talk to the other players and show them this thread. If they're on your side, confront the DM together. It's possible that a show of unity from all the players will get him to reconsider things.

If they decide they don't want to confront the DM with you and don't feel it's worth it or if the DM doesn't change his attitude after being confronted by the whole group: leave the game.

[Friv]

I've got to say, this is a little mind-boggling to me. If I was playing in a game and someone else's player got kicked out of the party for not doing what the main character wanted, and then they were told not to bother showing up next week while they were given a time-out, that would be it. I would drop the game, and offer to run a game for the players who'd been kicked out myself. And I'd extend the invitation to everyone, even the DM, so that he could see how badly he'd dropped the ball.

Because that - I have literally never heard of anything like this before. I've heard of DMs flipping their crap and throwing another player out of the group, but imposing a one-session timeout for not following the plot? That is...

And I ran that game where I had to run an entire session for just one guy after the party temporarily kicked him out.

[ZakRenning]

If all the diplomatic approaches fail, and you do have to leave the group.
I feel like offering some "murderhobo" advice:

Ahem. When you regroup, with the rest of the party, wait until nightfall. Then get you party together and kill Sir Prick in his sleep. When the DM argues stand up and say "Nah that's fine, I'm gonna go do something fun. Later." And leave.

[Elm11]

If all the diplomatic approaches fail, and you do have to leave the group.
I feel like offering some "murderhobo" advice:

Ahem. When you regroup, with the rest of the party, wait until nightfall. Then get you party together and kill Sir Prick in his sleep. When the DM argues stand up and say "Nah that's fine, I'm gonna go do something fun. Later." And leave.

I don't think being spiteful will achieve anything other than make him seem immature. It's a real sign of maturity to be able to confront someone like the DM without raising a fuss, and leaving with your head held high, rather than a childish parting blow that may come across as a tantrum, rather than any kind of tangible revenge. If revenge is what the OP is really after, then his course of action still shouldn't change: Whether or not he plans it, talking to the other players many permanently remove said players from the group, both saving them from a rotten DM, and ensuring that said DM realises that being an over controlling rail-roader won't fly. If you consider teaching him that lesson revenge, then whatever floats your boat.

[Tyndmyr]

It's on Skype because the only person I knew with even a vague interest, my older cousin, moved quite a ways from me. Besides, this is mostly free. No minis! And yes, he is the only DM.

Mostly free is standard for D&D...typically, munchies are the biggest expense.

Lots of people play online. If you're playing online anyhow, may as well find a good game. If you do, take your player friends with you! Alternatively, find a good local game.

The DM is not always right. In this particular case, his action are definitely wrong, as they will invariably lead to some players not having a good time. And honestly, having fun together is the reason to play.

[Sipex]

The Paladin being a jerk is not the real issue here.

The issue is that the Paladin NPC (who is also the party leader) expelled two PCs from the party for arguing with him. Also, the players don't get to play on the next session, since the Paladin NPC will not allow their characters anywhere near the party. The DM specifically disallowed the players to have their characters secretly follow the party to let them help out against the next dangerous encounter.
They are only welcome on the session after that, since that is when the current quest will have ended. Also, the NPC Paladin will still be around for the next adventure, and will still be acting as the party leader.

At least, that is how I read the original poster's various comments in this thread.

Hrm, this does sound bad but not bad enough not to give the guy a chance. I'd talk to him about not getting to play and ask if he might be planning a separate session in the future for the OP and the rogue first. This could just be the DM being creative with the structure of the session, you don't want to rush to conclusions.

I only suggest this since the OP didn't seem all too offended by the fact that he missed a session at first so it would be worth for him to give his DM a chance.

I dunno. It seems to me the problem lies more in how the DM responded to the OP's questions than the fact that an NPC is bossing the PCs around. It probably is, as you say, based on the fact he is new to DMing, and thus is perhaps scared/concerned/paranoid about how the adventure will proceed without a babysitter, but if this doesn't get taken care of soon...well, what is the point in playing a game that is not enjoyable? If going to the table feels more like a chore than like you are on your way to have a good time, and the person responsible is not open to change....

I'm not saying the OP should stick around indefinitely. Just give it two more sessions to see if things improve. It could be the DM was having a bad day when the OP asked that question or he might change his mind with a chance to reflect on what the OP asked.

[DarkEricDraven]

Hrm, this does sound bad but not bad enough not to give the guy a chance. I'd talk to him about not getting to play and ask if he might be planning a separate session in the future for the OP and the rogue first. This could just be the DM being creative with the structure of the session, you don't want to rush to conclusions.

I don't think he is planning on something like that.

Me: Are they going to have a XP boost to catch them up when they rejoin?

DM: No.

Me: Cool. What if we followed from a distance, and helped the main party in ways they wouldn't notice? Or if Leeko[me] and Viana[rogue] dealt with her father[who sent ninjas after us last game] while the others were in the city?

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

[Saph]

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

I'm going to join the chorus of all the other posters and say "get out".

(And I'm usually the one who argues for talking to the DM, being patient, and giving him a chance. But even I can't see a reason not to bail out in this case.)

[Delwugor]

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

Me: "No I don't have to accept that nor do I need to accept you as a GM!"

[Jornophelanthas]

I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.

Perhaps you could ask him this:
"If we're not welcome to participate in the next session, what reason do we have to feel welcome after that?"
Then let him do the talking. One major thing to look out for is whether or not he apologizes for making you feel unwelcome.

Also, I recommend to make the other players (i.e. sorcerer, ranger, whoever else is part of the group) aware of the issue in an open and friendly way that is in no way offensive to the DM. In fact, if some of them were not AFK when the expulsion happened (one of them even unannounced), they would have already been informed.
I assume it will be best to wait until after this final conversation with the DM, since you will have made a decision by that point. However, you should not delay any longer than that, especially if you decide to quit the group. If you don't, you run the risk of the DM telling them a different version of the story than you would deem fair.
(e.g. "Those other two will not be back, because they got all mad over last game, and they ganged up on me afterwards to force me to change what happened to their characters." Or something similarly biased.)

[Nachtritter]

I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.



Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

Good for you, but be prepared for it not to work. There are DMs out there who are so ... for lack of a better term that doesn't involve numerous cursewords, "set in their ways" that they refuse to consider the player's ideas because, well, they're just the players and don't really matter.

Hopefully, he'll listen to you and change things up.

If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly.

[Circle of Life]

If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly. leave in a mature fashion after calmly explaining your grievances, potentially showing the other players the error of the DM's ways in doing so.

Fixed that for you.

[Delwugor]

If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly.

This is the worst thing anyone can do when leaving. It sounds gratifying but it doesn't do anything except cause resentment and reflects poorly on the person doing it.

[Studoku]

This is the worst thing anyone can do when leaving. It sounds gratifying but it doesn't do anything except cause resentment and reflects poorly on the person doing it.

Destroying the campaign in game isn't ok but there's nothing wrong with taking all the players with you when you leave. Chances are, at least some of them dislike the GM as much as you- start your own group (blackjack and hookers are optional).

[Alejandro]

Here's one alternate suggestion, if you stick with the group.

Retire your current PC, and make a bard. Have this bard be fixated on the idea that Sir Prick is going to be the next Odysseus of the world, and have said bard follow Sir Prick at all times, loudly extolling his virtues. Make sure to have said bard wear garish, bright, extravagant clothing, and have some sort of hilarious speech impediment.

Never accept anything other than everyone's complete idolization of Sir Prick, and only agree to do anything that proclaims the greatness of Sir Prick upon the world. Safety and tactics do not apply. Even if the approaching enemy is a huge dragon, loudly announce the presence of Sir Prick and order the dragon to immediately compose a sonnet in Sir Prick's honor.

The GM will stop it, or stab you, in a fairly short time.

[Nikolaz72]

I.. Initially didnt want to respond to this thread, I am honestly a bit shocked that it would be made but I will be brief, with a few points. First of all, im a fan of the comics here, and I used theese very forums as reference guide to creating my game. So it is not as if I disagree with the people in here, if I came in here not knowing the game I would agree with Eric. However, I dont.

There are more reasons for giving him and the rogues a week suspension than just the paladin dismissing them IC. And the paladins reasons are just that, IC. The OOC reasons I shall refrain from posting since this is a largely in-group issue. Caused by two of my players going behind my back and posting with other players, and on forums... While I can control the group when its the other players, going onto forums is a different matter. I think personally what he did here was very rude, but that is my opinion.

I hope he does not read this, but I guess it doesnt matter if he does now. The NPC is meant to be a superior of two characters in the group, he has lead the group for no more than last session, and that was supposed to be the -only- session. As I hate leading groups with NPC's, as I dislike having groups lead by NPC's myself.

I guess, some of this was caused by the event with the centaur. I guess I will post my side in a very brief manner. It also explains the reason the paladin dismissed them ICly.

-Centaur Attacks party, binds 3 humans. Strangles one, is about to cut the throat of the other-

Ehem... The rogue and the bards reaction? Try to recruit the centaur, because youknow. She is powerful. I had the paladin break free and end it as I could not draw the centaur killing her caught victims off for more than an hour 'yes it took them that long to act' And theese two seemed to be cheering it on to kill off the cleric and the paladin. I decided that after having the paladin being constantly cussed at for the whole journey, once assaulted by the rogue. And this time almost had two of the people of the party he is tempoarily responsible of and himself almost killed for their hesitation. Dismiss them from the group.

I told them that they would take a session off and consider reading up on something called (Cause and Effect) The NPC's in the world arent bricks. And while treating players with respect I do not wish to make a world where NPC's either ignore the players existance and their wrongdoings, or a world where the NPC's only answer to wrongdoings is attacking the PC's (This is a nonviolent solution afterall)

Their reaction? As said. One of them went to a forum and in my opinion strongly misrepresented the case. Ofcourse it will be one-sided and biased as it is a human writing it, but I would have wanted to keep this inside our group. I guess he disagreed, I will probably come back to check answers but I just wished to drop this here to have you people know that I think.

-Going behind the DM and posting complaints about the DM's game on a forum before talking to the DM is rude. And should not be done, especcialy if the forum is one that the DM has not registered on but still frequents-

Despite what he might have you believe, two people in the group disagree's with my decision. Both of them were those who I suspended to take some time off to consider why they were punished icly. As I DM for quite a large group (6 Players) I needed to strike down a bit harsher than I usually do to show them that I do control the game, because if I dont I would not be able to manage them, theese two speccifically have been quite a bit of trouble for me since the start, but I have not kicked them from the game as I was the one who invited them, and they seem to be enjoying it most of the time.

It was asked what their reason would be to support theese people, well. If they looked at our last couple of sessions they would find plenty of reason, if they looked at our last session and read what was written by the Paladin aswell as what was said by myself, they would have known that his reign of terror would last for 'one' session only. As I really hate it when people cant realize something themself, I had refrained from telling him directly. I want people to figure out this stuff themself and it was his and the rogues fault for fooling around with eachother rather than looking at what was actually going on.

I guess, thats what I can write for now. Whenever you disagree or not on this forum, I can safely say that I wont care a whole lot, I have run the session as I wanted and till now where I dropped the hammer on some people I thought were acting out of line. It has been going pretty well, I appreciate your time for those whom have participated in aiding one of my players and giving their thoughts to the scenario which he has produced. But I would ask that you consider that the person his going behind the back of -is- human. And he could do the sensible thing and just talk if he had complaints, at least say before he does something like this.

*argh* ended up being a rant. Oh well. Hope you guys understand.

[Alejandro]

Telling the actual players not to play (giving them a time-out) doesn't solve anything, though. All responses should have been entirely in game, unless a player is a criminal or physical threat to the others. That's the time to actually physically remove the player.

[Nikolaz72]

Telling the actual players not to play (giving them a time-out) doesn't solve anything, though. All responses should have been entirely in game, unless a player is a criminal or physical threat to the others. That's the time to actually physically remove the player.

The Paladin was currently leading the group and the Paladin considered them a threat, giving them a time-out gives them time to think of why the NPC decided to throw them out, maybe consider that their ingame actions have consequences. I also made sure that the session which they are missing does not include XP, nor loot. And is mostly plot progression for the other characters, as so they have little to complain about. But even if I had not managed it 'so' They still need to learn to respect the DM. And respect other people, I guess you are the type that disagrees with this, I can only say that we must then agree to disagree.

[Tyndmyr]

There are more reasons for giving him and the rogues a week suspension than just the paladin dismissing them IC. And the paladins reasons are just that, IC. The OOC reasons I shall refrain from posting since this is a largely in-group issue. Caused by two of my players going behind my back and posting with other players, and on forums... While I can control the group when its the other players, going onto forums is a different matter. I think personally what he did here was very rude, but that is my opinion.

I take it you're the DM in question?

So...you didn't let the players play for IC reasons? This seems ridiculous, and I can't see how the IC reasons are relevant.

OOC problems are a different matter, but some ambiguous reference to them, along with some sort of accusations of them "going behind your back" by talking on a public forum, does nothing to explain your actions, and your phrasing(control the group?) seems poorly chosen.

-Centaur Attacks party, binds 3 humans. Strangles one, is about to cut the throat of the other-

Ehem... The rogue and the bards reaction? Try to recruit the centaur, because youknow. She is powerful. I had the paladin break free and end it as I could not draw the centaur killing her caught victims off for more than an hour 'yes it took them that long to act' And theese two seemed to be cheering it on to kill off the cleric and the paladin. I decided that after having the paladin being constantly cussed at for the whole journey, once assaulted by the rogue. And this time almost had two of the people and himself almost killed for their hesitation. Dismiss them from the group.

All I'm seeing here is a giant pile of fiat. Also, it seems that you only have four chars mentioned, one of which(the paladin) is an NPC. Is this the entire party, or are we missing part of the story?

Also, attempting diplomacy is not a ridiculous measure, especially on someone who already captured half the party.

Their reaction? As said. One of them went to a forum and in my opinion strongly misrepresented the case. Ofcourse it will be one-sided and biased as it is a human writing it, but I would have wanted to keep this inside our group. I guess he disagreed, I will probably come back to check answers but I just wished to drop this here to have you people know that I think.

-Going behind the DM and posting complaints about the DM's game on a forum before talking to the DM is rude. And should not be done, especcialy if the forum is one that the DM has not registered on but still frequents-

Talking about a game on a forum is not inherently rude. The OP's post was not particularly complaining, and indeed, he viewed it much less negatively that did most responding posters. I feel like you taking offense at such a mild mannered post only furthers the viewpoint that you have something to hide. After all, if there's nothing wrong, why the worry over posting?

Despite what he might have you believe, two people in the group disagree's with my decision. Both of them were those who I suspended to take some time off to consider why they were punished icly. As I DM for quite a large group (6 Players) I needed to strike down a bit harsher than I usually do to show them that I do control the game, because if I dont I would not be able to manage them, theese two speccifically have been quite a bit of trouble for me since the start, but I have not kicked them from the game as I was the one who invited them, and they seem to be enjoying it most of the time. That is all.

OP? This bit here is the warning sign. Run. Gaming is about having fun together, not about showing off control.

[Alejandro]

The Paladin was currently leading the group and the Paladin considered them a threat, giving them a time-out gives them time to think of why the NPC decided to throw them out, maybe consider that their ingame actions have consequences. I also made sure that the session which they are missing does not include XP, nor loot. And is mostly plot progression for the other characters, as so they have little to complain about. But even if I had not managed it 'so' They still need to learn to respect the DM. And respect other people, I guess you are the type that disagrees with this, I can only say that we must then agree to disagree.

I'm not sure how old you are or what kind of life you have led, but let me give this unasked-for advice: You will never gain anyone's respect by ordering them out of your presence until they have learned their lesson, in D&D or a real life issue. Respect comes from compromise and mutual kindness (or fairness.)

If the players told you to go away and come back in a week, so you could learn to respect them, would you like it? No. Neither do they. The way to get real respect is to say "What should I do, that would satisfy all of us as much as possible?" and then listen, and then follow through.

[Nikolaz72]

I take it you're the DM in question?

So...you didn't let the players play for IC reasons? This seems ridiculous, and I can't see how the IC reasons are relevant.

OOC problems are a different matter, but some ambiguous reference to them, along with some sort of accusations of them "going behind your back" by talking on a public forum, does nothing to explain your actions, and your phrasing(control the group?) seems poorly chosen.



All I'm seeing here is a giant pile of fiat. Also, it seems that you only have four chars mentioned, one of which(the paladin) is an NPC. Is this the entire party, or are we missing part of the story?

Also, attempting diplomacy is not a ridiculous measure, especially on someone who already captured half the party.



Talking about a game on a forum is not inherently rude. The OP's post was not particularly complaining, and indeed, he viewed it much less negatively that did most responding posters. I feel like you taking offense at such a mild mannered post only furthers the viewpoint that you have something to hide. After all, if there's nothing wrong, why the worry over posting?



OP? This bit here is the warning sign. Run. Gaming is about having fun together, not about showing off control.

*Sigh* I guess I choose my words poorly. No, I am not worried, I can explain the remaining characters.

Aasimar - Trying to convince them to attack, not really working.
Tiefling - Not interrested in the others safety, but will follow the Paladin if manages to convince the rest to attack.
Sorcerer - The third human captured. The one about to get his throat cut.

I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story which the session after the one he was complaining about would serve as character developement of two of the characters in the party. I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.

I'm not sure how old you are or what kind of life you have led, but let me give this unasked-for advice: You will never gain anyone's respect by ordering them out of your presence until they have learned their lesson, in D&D or a real life issue. Respect comes from compromise and mutual kindness (or fairness.)

If the players told you to go away and come back in a week, so you could learn to respect them, would you like it? No. Neither do they. The way to get real respect is to say "What should I do, that would satisfy all of us as much as possible?" and then listen, and then follow through.

I gave them warnings before doing so, if you dont feel thats enough. Well, thats your opinion. I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything. I feel it as a small and fitting punishment for prolonging them game for the 3 others present that day.

That is to say I have explained them what it is they were doing that was gonna end up getting them in trouble and they ignored it. I say it again and they keep ignoring it. I do not kick people from the group instantly for such things, but I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

[JonRG]

If the centaur took half the party hostage, why would you expect the players to attack it, especially when one of the hostages was in mortal peril?

The paladin still seems to have reacted brashly and put the lives of his subordinates in jeopardy. I don't know since you sorta broad-brushed the encounter.

[Nikolaz72]

If the centaur took half the party hostage, why would you expect the players to attack it, especially when one of the hostages was in mortal peril?

The paladin still seems to have reacted brashly and put the lives of his subordinates in jeopardy. I don't know since you sorta broad-brushed the encounter.

It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

[Friv]

*argh* ended up being a rant. Oh well. Hope you guys understand.

First off, thanks for coming onto the thread and posting your side of things - once people start picking up steam like this, that can be hard to do.

With that in mind... I'm sorry, but you are the one in the wrong.

You can't solve problems by laying down temporary bans and then walking away. If you had a problem with the players' actions, you should have waited until after the game, contacted them both, and had a long discussion with them about why you felt that they were being actively disruptive to the game, with examples of what those problems were. From there, you could have had a constructive discussion, possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move.

Handing out a time-out, on the other hand, is the most patronizing thing you could have done. It tells the players that you think that they are children who need to sit in the corner, rather than equals and peers, and it can have no possible outcome but escalation.

On top of that, the OP's question on the forum was a totally innocent, very restrained one, and the fact that you take it as a personal attack suggests to me that you're not actually going to read anything I type, and why am I bothering anyway. Mostly I am bothering because I'm hoping that I am wrong, and that you might consider this.

[DarkEricDraven]

It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

Well, me and the rogue(and I think the ranger, I'm not sure) WHERE Neutral. We still weren't cheering it on, though. We did say if they were killed she would have a place with us, but that was after a long series of bad dice rolls in attempting to persuade it to let them go.