Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 25, 2019 at 12:51 comment added clockw0rk The group needs to kick him out BECAUSE they are friends (and want to stay friends)
Jun 30, 2016 at 13:51 comment added Codeacula @zespri You make a valid point. If they do decide they want this person in no matter what, then merus has it right, as does fectin's answer :)
Jun 30, 2016 at 2:30 comment added Merus @zespri: this is an example of the Geek Social Fallacies; if a friend's not good for an activity, it's fallacious to assume that excluding them from this one activity is excluding them from everything. At this point, I'd use an ultimatum, as suggested: either the disruptive player goes, or the game ends. If your friends are suffering from the social exclusion fallacy, I'd exploit it: by choosing to tolerate the disruptive player, you're telling ME I have to get out. They can find other common ground with this person on which to base social activities.
Jun 29, 2016 at 23:07 comment added Andrew Savinykh But how realistically you can kick someone like that? The other group members would say "yes I do not enjoy the drama, but I cannot back you up on kicking him because he is my friend and I'm happy to keep tolerating him because telling him to get out is not what friends do". This means that the GM have to kick the person out single-handedly and become the only enemy. Is there a way to avoid this "social cost"?
Jun 29, 2016 at 13:15 vote accept Ranger
Jun 29, 2016 at 1:32 history edited Codeacula CC BY-SA 3.0
added 5 characters in body
Jun 29, 2016 at 1:06 comment added doppelgreener Relevant to kicking them out might be the five geek social fallacies being taken as a trap that makes kicking them out seem bad.
Jun 28, 2016 at 15:54 history answered Codeacula CC BY-SA 3.0