Getting kicked out of the party

[TriForce]

as a pretty longtime DM who has had his share of bad, good, average, crazy, awesome, crazy awesome, and just plain old disruptive players and DM's, id like to toss in my 5 cents, and possibly give the dm in question a bit of help.

normally when you start a campaign as a dm, you have a idea for a story where you would like the players to be in, nothing wrong with that, and many a great sessions have been created that way. however, with new(ish) players, and especially as a new DM, that wont happen. things will happen you cant predict, players will do things you didnt see comming, and sometimes the story itself just doesnt seem as workable as you tought in the start.

the important part in all of this is that the players not only decide what to do in the story, they ARE the story. if your story will only progress when the players meet a certain person, and they simply go a different way, thats a hint that they dont consider the current storyline too important. the best thiong to do imho is to just improvise and try to either adjust the story to captivate the interest of the players, or just create a new story on the fly. the players themselves have been the inspiration for some of my greatest stories without knowing it themselves.

imho, your fun as DM comes from challenging the players, both in encounters as in roleplay, and the fun for the players comes from overcomming the obstacles and getting a fitting reward, again, both in items as in a new piece of the story they themselves are part of. that last bit is important, your players NEED to be part of the story. even if 2 players are on a totally different plane for 10 sessions, i would STILL have them play all together, if for no other reason that they are your friends and its about having fun.

simply put, a Roleplay session is a gathering of friends, be it in your home or over the internet. and a DM simply has no right to tell anyone not to come, since a DM is, as a person in a game, equal to everyone else.

at the moment ooc stuff gets in the way of the game, hold the game for a bit for everyone until its worked out, and never let ooc stuff influence anything ic.

anyway, im starting to trail off. a suggestion id like to make for you as DM would be to inform the players about the setting a little when they make the characters, and ask them to put their character idea into 2-3 lines so you know what kinda chars you will be dealing with. dont be afraid to ask things like "player x has a paladin, so could you please not make a lich player y?" it will help make the party a whole.

once the party is complete, decide if they really need a DM npc, most of the time, the awnser will be no. now that doesnt mean you CANT make a dm npc, but if you do, keep him a little low profile so he doesnt steal the spotlight, and try not to make him a boss of any player until your a bit more experienced.

finally, i advise you to toss a LOT of small quests at the players, all different kinds of quests, and some small strange events too. things like "the furniture in a house all become animated suddenly" or "bandits have been kidnapping people with green eyes" get the interest of your players, and at the moment they themselves WANT to know more about it, create some more of your world, with several possibilities of why the things happen like they do. pick the best ones each time and youll get a great story, thats the players helped create.

[big teej]

I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

[DarkEricDraven]

I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

I'm sure everything will be alright from now on

Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

[SilverClawShift]

I mean, if I was upset about something and my friends didn't see it as important so they tried to blow it off then I would be completely pissed. Just because something isn't important to them doesn't mean it should automatically be unimportant to me.

I completely agree.

If my friends did something I didn't like, I would be upset with them.

If the specific EVENT I didn't like was "disobeying my commands" then I'm still completely wrong, angry or not. And punishing them for their disobedience as if they were puppies I was trying to housebreak would make me even more wrong.

No disrespect intended. I do see where you're coming from. But I think saying that "the players are also wrong because the DM was upset too" is dangerously clinical and stripping out some very important facts.

[Vknight]

So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

Ahh thank you Sipex
Both parties involved made mistakes. Both need to admit this and move on.

The Op's etc staying back almost lead to the death of 2PC's and a NPC because the Op did not want to fight. If he cheered the Centaur on does not matter but there seems to be a disagreement on that.

The Dm having the Paladin break free was a misstep but one so 2players did not lose there characters 1who was to get major role playing in the next scenario.

The groups getting upset at each other in the case of the Paladin for a minor reason and the Op being a jerk to the Paladin just because he's a Paladin.

Also people stop being mean to Dm's players misrepresent so do Dm's.

Finally I think it is perfectly fair to give a player a time out. Either play the game like a big boy which does not mean riding the rails but respect or get off at conjunction junction.
You know tell them to go off and leave the group alone for some time. Now making the miss a complete session is a little extreme depending on session length.
My sessions run 6hours. So I'd probably only kick a player out for at max 2. and I've only ever had to kick out one player who just needed to go

[VanBuren]

Also people stop being mean to Dm's players misrepresent so do Dm's.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

[Sidmen]

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

[Vknight]

Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

Also it was 3am for me...

[VanBuren]

Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

OK. That's kind of what I thought he was going for, but I wasn't sure.

[Solaris]

I cut out a lot of stuff that basically boils down to me trying get across that the plot is not the point. I say again for emphasis, the plot is not the point.
Also, there was some laughing at the idea of going behind someone's back by posting on a forum.

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.

... Darnit, I could have fun with this. Instead, I'm going instead to be uncharacteristically nice and attempt to explain to you why the bolded portions are truly and deeply wrong.

I've run a game with thirteen players (two characters apiece, it was almost a platoon in there and it was awesome) and felt zero need to discipline anyone. Some folks on this forum have run larger games, and I'm fairly certain you'll find that none of them feel the need to discipline increasing with the size of the group. Know why? If the game's fun and the players want to be there, they'll cooperate and y'all can have fun playing. If it's not and they don't, they won't and you won't. If one-third of your small group (it is, kid, don't get excited about six players) doesn't like what you're doing with the game, maybe you ought to reconsider the story you're trying to tell. Pack it away, save it for another group, and look for a different story.

This is speaking as someone who has way more control over his subordinates' lives than most civilians could ever dream of (of the 'they go to prison on my word' level, it's rather frightening to think about, to say nothing of the fact that my actions pretty much whether or not my soldiers live or die if we get into kinetic festivities). You're doing pretty much exactly what you're not supposed to do. You cannot motivate with punishments. Punishments will get someone to adhere only to the standards enough to avoid punishment. That's the root of the joke "The beatings will continue until morale improves". You can't actually get much discipline out of a unit by abusing them. You can, however, get it by earning their respect, confidence, and admiration. This is not an easy task. Honest, it's not. You're not going to do it by being petty and domineering, though, which is exactly how you're behaving.

Now, a better method of achieving results is to take them to task directly. Training people is a lot like training dogs, y'see. You can't punish a dog by throwing it outside. All it knows is that it misses you and wants to be back inside, it doesn't really connect the isolation with what it did wrong. Same with people. The player's not going to connect your issues with his behavior because you kick him out of a game. Instead, talk to him after the session, hand out no OOC punishments, and tell him to knock it off. If he doesn't, he's not interested in playing and invite him to pick a vastly different character or simply not come back. You do need to be open to the possibility that what you're doing is too un-fun for the two problem children to outweigh the benefits of the fun for the good children, reconsider, and look for a happy medium. So what if the player doesn't bring up a problem with Sir Prick IC, but instead directly to you? If you're looking for the player to respond, you need to at least appear responsive. If you're an Iron Tower of Absolute Convictions, he's not going to see you as someone he can work with and - it looks like he's the passive aggressive type, if what you say is true - will snark the campaign to death.

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.

>_<
God, I'd hate to play with you. Don't you realize that the players are playing because they want to, not because they have to?

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.

And the two you suspended? Do they at least get an adventure of their own to make up for it, or are you that stuck on being able to control other people that you insist on punishing your so-called friends because they wouldn't ride the rails?
Or would you have put it a different way?

I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.

To the contrary, Tyndmyr is a quite decent chap. You should see the advice and help he doles out in the homebrew forums.
I, on the other hand, am decidedly unkind to strangers. Or people I know. Or anyone, really.

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.

The characters didn't, though. The players did. See, characters don't actually exist, so you can't punish them by keeping them out of a game. You can, however, punish a player by keeping him out of a game (though I do have to wonder how much of a punishment it is to be kept out of that game).

If the OP and his friend don't acknowledge this their DM is going to be completely uncooperative (after all, he doesn't see what he did as wrong either so why should he change?)

Ugh, logic fail. One being wrong has nothing to do with the other being wrong. In this case, while the characters may or may not have been douchenoodlers (it's hard to tell, and frankly I don't care), the DM stepped over the line with nine-league boots. In this case, the DM overreached spectacularly because of assumed responsibility of command. You can't be in charge and act like a petty tyrant. It ends poorly.

I have strived to maintain a relatively civil tone through this, and I do apologize for any excesses of offense. Insults weren't my primary purpose for posting this. I take a dim view of DMs who confuse themselves for having any measure of power beyond that of the game itself.

[shockeroo]

Email him a link to this thread, and ask him what he thinks. [/Chaotic Neutral]


Oh wait, too late. :)

[shockeroo]

I'm probably just echoing other people now but...

Nikolaz; it's not the DM's place to punish. As DM you're not superior to the players, just different. If they're doing something that's causing you problems and in danger of spoiling the game, you need to tell them what the problem is and ask them to change their behaviour accordingly. Exiling them is no good at all.

Re the paladin, NPCs leading the party even for 5 minutes is bad, for a whole game is horrid and for more than one game is a disaster - especially if it was supposed to be only for one game "before the players messed it up." It's a very common mistake so there's no shame in it, but you should really avoid that kind of thing - it spoils the game for the players. It's their fantasy - and if their fantasy was being pushed about like that then they'd get a crappy job with a small-minded boss, not play D&D.

[Knaight]

To the contrary, Tyndmyr is a quite decent chap. You should see the advice and help he doles out in the homebrew forums.
I, on the other hand, am decidedly unkind to strangers. Or people I know. Or anyone, really.

I'm just going to second the first half of this. If Tyndmyr, of all people, comes down hard on something you are doing, you might want to reevaluate those actions.

Which reminds me: OP, I'm going to reiterate yet again much of the advice from this thread. "Run. Run away, and never return."

[Jay R]

Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

There are 28 players in the D&D Arkansas Players Group.

http://community.wizards.com/arkansas

[Sipex]

I completely agree.

If my friends did something I didn't like, I would be upset with them.

If the specific EVENT I didn't like was "disobeying my commands" then I'm still completely wrong, angry or not. And punishing them for their disobedience as if they were puppies I was trying to housebreak would make me even more wrong.

No disrespect intended. I do see where you're coming from. But I think saying that "the players are also wrong because the DM was upset too" is dangerously clinical and stripping out some very important facts.

Ugh, logic fail. One being wrong has nothing to do with the other being wrong. In this case, while the characters may or may not have been douchenoodlers (it's hard to tell, and frankly I don't care), the DM stepped over the line with nine-league boots. In this case, the DM overreached spectacularly because of assumed responsibility of command. You can't be in charge and act like a petty tyrant. It ends poorly.

I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

[Spacewolf]

So have we had any updates about how this game has gone from here?

I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

How do you find games for people then?

[Solaris]

I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

I'm familiar with the negotiating technique. I dislike it for the reason I stated earlier. It slides neatly in with "Two wrongs make a right" by acknowledging that the DM had cause for his misuse of perceived power - when he didn't.

[Knaight]

I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

How about "You're the only one in the wrong because you are the only one who did anything wrong at all"? There are plenty of situations where all the blame lies on one person, this is one of them. Besides, bailing out and not coming back is the best resolution method anyways.

[DarkEricDraven]

There are 28 players in the D&D Arkansas Players Group.

http://community.wizards.com/arkansas

Huh. Though, of course, I don't have a car, and I would doubt that there are any players in my town. I should still probably check, though.

So have we had any updates about how this game has gone from here?

Oh, yeah, he let us back in, but the rogue was at a friends house because he didn't get the memo, sadly.

[The Glyphstone]

That solves the immediate issue, but what about the bigger issues regarding the paladin and the DM's overall tin-god attitude?

[DarkEricDraven]

That solves the immediate issue, but what about the bigger issues regarding the paladin and the DM's overall tin-god attitude?

Haven't seen'em. Though we do have a 14 year old paladin girl who isn't that much of a bitch tagging along. *shrug*

[Soylent Dave]

Finally I think it is perfectly fair to give a player a time out. Either play the game like a big boy which does not mean riding the rails but respect or get off at conjunction junction.

See - this is the sort of attitude which causes conflict.

DM doesn't mean 'Dad'; you don't set punishments for your players (or give them detention or 'time outs'). You don't dictate their behaviour in or out of character.

The DM describes the world and the NPCs in it, and how all that reacts to the actions of the PCs.

That's it.

It often means a bit of world creation and a lot of character creation, and quite often means you're doing the most preparation work for each gaming session. But that doesn't mean you're "in charge" - it just means you're the guy who's describing the world of the game (and you do that extra work because you want to, anyway!)

(that's not to say that players won't sometimes do annoying things - in or out of character - but your response should be to discuss any issues with your players as equals, not to lay punishments and decrees down like a parent or a teacher)

I think a lot of people see things like "The DM's decision is final" and think it applies to more than just rules interpretation...

Being a DM is not a dictatorship. It's a responsibility you take on to make sure everyone has a good time (yes, that includes your self). It doesn't make you the grand deity of the group, who deserves worship and praise and subservience from the peons underneath you.

That.

[ZeroSpace9000]

I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group. The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

Unfortunately, Mr.DM, the bolded text, in my opinion, is merely you attempting to deflect responsibility from yourself. You seem to want to say 'Don't blame me, I just control the NPC, he controls you', while what you're really saying is 'I control you through this character I control'. And this is simply using your DM powers to punish the players for not conforming with your expectations for the game simply because you can.

It has been stated that you are a new DM. I can sympathize with you on this. I've got about 6 or so years of experience to my name, and I still have troubles wrangling players from time to time. That doesn't give you any right to mete out Iron-Fisted Punishment when your players goof off a little. And if you're having problems with 6 characters, well then cut the DMPC. The only reason I would even consider such a move is to add to a smaller group, and with most of the people I play with, I'd likely just go without anyway.

I'm not denying that the players in question acted rudely and/or immaturely. The thing is, that comes with wearing the DM hat. I'm also not denying that there may have been call for some intervention on your part. Sadly, you seriously overreacted on suspending players. For what was done, I would talk with the players to see their side of things before making any sort of judgement.

As for fixing the situation, I have a few ideas. However, you need to realize that your group will have lost a lot of faith over how you handled this. The first thing is to flat-out apologize to the wronged players for your actions. Second, remove the DMPC Paladin, if you have not already done so. The temptation to do things you shouldn't through him/her are too great. Third and last, give the two players xp credit for the sessions they were forced to skip. They've already lost out on the most worthwhile aspect of the session missed, which is the session itself. If anything, I would suggest giving them xp above and beyond what they should have received.

So yeah, man up, make amends, and you might still be able to salvage the game. From a DM who has made lots of mistakes before, I hope you can save the game. And remember, without players, you're just reading (likely) bad fanfiction to yourself.

[Sebastrd]

I'm sure everything will be alright from now on

Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

Then why on earth are you wasting time playing D&D?

[DarkEricDraven]

Then why on earth are you wasting time playing D&D?

No sisters, and all my female cousins are taken by their brothers.

[d13]

Haven't seen'em. Though we do have a Irrelevant details about an NPC tagging along. *shrug*

That's... Not exactly a change. I don't know how things work in your group, but you should tell your DM that, if he wants to be a player, he should ask someone else to DM.

Chances are this is the same DMPC, with really slight differences.

[Sebastrd]

No sisters, and all my female cousins are taken by their brothers.

Well, I guess your mom or a hot aunt is always available as a back-up. That's the great thing about family - someone's always there for you.

[Lucid Inebriate]

I hate to put it so curtly, but Sipex is simply wrong. The DM was narcissistic and chose to respond to a conflict (which he himself was responsible for) in an infantile manner. He got upset in a situation where he had no right to be upset; he then displayed delusional paranoia by attempting to frame an innocent question in an open forum as some sort of betrayal. This does not automatically mean that the players now have to apologize for imagined slights.

The DM openly admits that his motives were to 'control' his players, which he repeatedly emphasizes as if to say that his desire for control is a justification for anything. The players should leave, and this would-be dictator should seek some family counseling immediately. In essence, the DM found that he had neither the intellect nor social graces required to manipulate people as he wished, and therefore saw fit to throw a tantrum.

[ZeroSpace9000]

I think you do have a point there, Lucid. Given that the dm just showed up to make his side known, then disappeared, tells me you're, at the least, on the right track. My last post was assuming that he was merely a bad dm, and genuinely interested in improving. Given what we're hearing, sounds like that's not the case.

[Cavelcade]

As far as I can tell, Siptex wasn't talking about the DM's in game actions at all but rather being upset that a thread like this was posted. It's perfectly reasonable not to want have your dirty laundry aired in public - although I think it's an overreaction in this case, given the polite and rather discrete tone of the op.

That is where a player can acknowledge being wrong - saying he handled it sub-optimally by going about it like this. It probably could have been handled better and I hope the OP learns from it too, there are always new things to learn each time we deal with a situation. By admitting this flaw it's easier to then get the DM to admit his, which, as he let them join in this week he seems to mostly have done. It's hard to say whether he's internalised the advice, only time will tell with that, but at least he's taken the first step towards doing so.

Of course sometimes people refuse to compromise or understand why they were wrong - there's no dealing with some asshats.