Hi all, I have a difficult question to ask.

I'll be starting up an RPG group soon and already have a few players in mind to start up with, and I'm open to new players joining up in the future to expand my group. However, there are a few players in the community that I've played with in the past whom I do not want to GM for, for a few reasons. One in particular I'm thinking of is a player who decided to be edgy in a fun campaign and did something I would never be comfortable with in a campaign I'm running (urinating on an NPC captive specifically). Said player has just asked to join my campaign unsolicited, which brought up this problem.

How can you as a GM turn down players that you don't want to GM for, even if you're open to including new players in the future?

I feel that I can't have this double standard of being open to players joining but denying specific people from entering the campaign. It feels rude to turn down players that I don't like personally, and I'm forced to include them for the sake of politeness even if it will make the game less fun for me to run. The same goes for other players I don't want to include in the group for other reasons, such as playing slowly or not RP'ing well.

I haven't taken any action in this instance but if it comes to it I feel like I should tell the player first that I'm okay with the current starting number (four players, a fifth perhaps joining in a couple of weeks), but if I lose one or he persists, I feel like I want to tell him his behavior in the other campaign is not something I want to bring into this one.

I could say the campaign is invite only but that shuts down anyone else casually joining up that I may be ok GM'ing for.

I feel kind of stuck in situations like this. Any other GMs have some advice on dealing with players you don't want in your campaign?

Just tell the guy no. I mean the boundaries of curtoesy can't possibly extend to being forced to include someone you just don't like into something you and other will be spending hours doing. You're expected to hold the door for even people you dislike, not spend hours of your time crafting a campaign for them.

Just straightforward honesty is best.

"No. I don't like the way you play," is a bit on the blunt side of honesty.

"Nah, the tone of this campaign isn't suited for your style of playing. But thanks!" is less blunt.

Are you friendly friends outside of gaming, or more of just gaming acquaintances? I have a friend I can no longer game with because of the things he pulls during gaming, all in the name of "that's my character." He wants to play dark and grim; I like light and heroic." I can't allow him in the games I run, but we're still friends.

You could always just call them out and say they're on 'probation' and let them play, but point out what specifically you don't want going on. Then the monkey is on their back and if they act the @$$ it's on them.

No gaming is better than bad gaming, just tell him no.

Absolutely do NOT let him in the game. It's your game, you're under no obligation to include people that you don't want. I'm in a similar situation, recruiting for Star Wars from a D&D game I've been a player in. One of the players is a nice guy, and he's funny, but he's kinda the quintessential rogue player. Persistently disruptive with the jokes, the smart-ass actions he takes against NPCs, not really learning the rules, that sort of thing. So he's not getting an invite. I'm fine with him as a fellow player, since the DM is, but I'm not going to bring him in to one that I'm running.

I think that's a thing that needs to be understood. The GM-Player relationship needs to be on pretty firm footing. There are a lot of players that I wouldn't invite to a game that I'm running, and a lot of GM's that I wouldn't play under. There are very few people that I wouldn't be okay with as a fellow player. This is also why i don't push a GM to include certain players, even if we're mutual friends. GMing is a lot of work, and one goon can send it all down the crapper.

I'm not being a jerk here, I'm just going to ask you a simple, clean, clear question:

Why do you care about the feelings of people who obviously don't care about your principles?

Look. This is going to go one of two ways. Either you cut your ties with these folks now, or you end up doing it later after they've wrecked your entire frame of mind, and ruined your efforts for making a fun game.

It's your decision either way, but the answer you're looking for is really just a matter of changing your perspective on what is actually wrong with the situation.

There's nothing wrong with standing on your principles.

There is something definitely wrong with sacrificing your principles for the sake of people you know don't care about them.

Wow, overwhelming support, thanks guys!

I was raised to be a considerate, nice human being, but I'm aware that leaves me open to situations like this because I'm too nice. I'm afraid of hurting feelings or coming across as being too picky for personal reasons. This isn't the first time I've had to deal with a person I didn't like entering a community that I was forming... In that instance my friends and fellow gamers (for a local boardgame group in a city with no FLGS) came down on me for banning a player from joining the group, even though in the past this individual was the loudest and most disruptive of my old gaming circle from the high school days. I also didn't like him personally then and didn't want to introduce him into something I was running. I felt like I had to cave to peer pressure and not be a jerk to let the guy in (even though he never showed up to a session, thank God).

It's that situation that is informing me now, and how I feel like I can't prohibit players I don't like just because I don't like them personally.

But the reason I didn't just let this new player into my RPG is because I understand well the dynamics of player-relationships and GM-Player interactions. In addition to the example above, my first GM'ing experience went a little south when my best friend was monopolizing play to the detriment of everyone else who was new to the system. There had to be some way to prevent this situation if you know there are some bad egg players coming to you in advance. But what am I supposed to say if I don't have a better reasoning than, "I don't like your personality and don't want to welcome you into my group, because I don't want to play with you."

I feel I have to be polite, or at least find a polite reason before turning someone down. And that politeness creates this situation when I can't have a legitimate reason for not admitting someone other than I don't like them personally.

But it seems I'm being way too considerate, and should be more true with my feelings with the matter regardless of how others are going to take it. And yea, especially if I'm putting the effort to put this together.

Thanks again guys!

I'll just say this:

While not an RPG, my wife and I used to host a monthly poker game for friends. Low stakes, more just for fun. Significant others were welcome, and one of our friends started bringing his wife...who never paid attention to the game, and was quite annoying. After a time of her coming, other players would, when we sent the invite for the month, would ask if she was coming, and some would decline the invitation if she was. So, after discussing with her husband, my wife called and politely let her know that she was uninvited from the game.

So...if he wouldn't be a good fit, best to not try to bring him into the mix in the first place.

We've gotten this idea in our heads that politeness and courtesy means not saying no. Or that because someone is our friend that they have to be invited to everything. This is not true. You should be mindful of their feelings, but you come first. If this guy tries to join, you don't say, "No, you're an a-hole." You say, "I'm sorry, I don't think it would be a good fit." If he takes offense to that, well, that's his problem, and you don't need to concern yourself with someone who decides to be offended.

No gaming is better than bad gaming

I'm gonna put that on a T-shirt now...

We've gotten this idea in our heads that politeness and courtesy means not saying no. Or that because someone is our friend that they have to be invited to everything. This is not true. You should be mindful of their feelings, but you come first. If this guy tries to join, you don't say, "No, you're an a-hole." You say, "I'm sorry, I don't think it would be a good fit." If he takes offense to that, well, that's his problem, and you don't need to concern yourself with someone who decides to be offended.

Meh? I mean, if a guy is an a-hole, and it's abundantly clear, I don't see why you shouldn't be blunt.

I agree with a lot of what's been said, especially how I don't force or pressure folks into accepting certain players. I, too, can play with anyone, but I'm keenly aware of who I will never run a gam for or participate in a game with.

It would be nice if it didn't get between friends, because it shouldn't, but such is life.

In addition to the example above, my first GM'ing experience went a little south when my best friend was monopolizing play to the detriment of everyone else who was new to the system.

To be entirely fair, all they did all the time was sit around at Space Dennys and wait for things to happen. I'd hoped having a more, err, impulsive character would get them to actually do things. XP

Anyway, if you want to be polite, just tell him your play styles don't match. If that doesn't work, tell him your game is full. It's really all you can do.

"I don't like to play with you, go away, nothing against you, I just do not like you / enjoy playing with you", and it is done. Though what do I know, I am german, we deal with this kind of staff in very direct ways without any hard feelings, well at least usually.

Is it so problematic to to just plainly state that you do think that the group chemistry between a few guys and you is not to your enjoyment?

And to be perfectly clear, this does not apply just to a-holes, but everyone don't enjoy hanging out with for hours in a game session. Isn't this super normal anyway? Why not be blunt about it?

And on a totally unrelated side note, you do not stand on principles, you stand on the ground. Sometimes reality does not align with principles and compromises are quite alright. I don't think this is such a case or that principles are even involved. Politeness is about making people feel comfortable and be considered about their needs, and if you do not enjoy playing with someone than the whole session is simply compromised. The polite thing is to tell them in advance so that nobody is wasting their time when they could enjoy themselves more. Just don't be an ass about it.

"I don't like to play with you, go away, nothing against you, I just do not like you / enjoy playing with you", and it is done. Though what do I know, I am german, we deal with this kind of staff in very direct ways without any hard feelings, well at least usually.

Is it so problematic to to just plainly state that you do think that the group chemistry between a few guys and you is not to your enjoyment?

And to be perfectly clear, this does not apply just to a-holes, but everyone don't enjoy hanging out with for hours in a game session. Isn't this super normal anyway? Why not be blunt about it?

And on a totally unrelated side note, you do not stand on principles, you stand on the ground. Sometimes reality does not align with principles and compromises are quite alright. I don't think this is such a case or that principles are even involved. Politeness is about making people feel comfortable and be considered about their needs, and if you do not enjoy playing with someone than the whole session is simply compromised. The polite thing is to tell them in advance so that nobody is wasting their time when they could enjoy themselves more. Just don't be an ass about it.

"Sometimes reality does not align with principles" - You mean, just like the scenario the OP described?

Where is the compromise in this scenario? Well, let's look at it.

"The OP knows a guy who he doesn't like, the same guy he's had problems with in the past. This guy wants to play in the OP's campaign, even though the OP knows he's not going to enjoy the game, because the guy he knows is a ******. Because he's a polite individual and doesn't like turning people away, the OP compromises and allows the guy to play in his campaign."

This is a travesty waiting to happen, and so far your the first person in this thread to not call that spade a spade. Because in reality - people who have failed you in the past, have a tendency to fail you forever, unless they have a concerted effort to do better <- which would be a principle by the way.

That's exactly the kind of situation the OP doesn't want to be in, which is why he's asking for advice on a GM forum in the first place. Already, not standing on principles is a failed experiment.

I'm sorry, but your comment about principles doesn't make sense. In one sentence, you say to do one thing, and in the next, you say to not do exactly what you just said to do. I cannot recommend your advice as helpful. It would go against my principles to not express this <- See how easy that was?

Without principles - all things are permissible. And that is a dysfunctional standard to live by. Because in reality, all things are NOT permissible. I submit the OP's scenario as evidence to this fact of life.

In addition to the example above, my first GM'ing experience went a little south when my best friend was monopolizing play to the detriment of everyone else who was new to the system.

To be entirely fair, all they did all the time was sit around at Space Dennys and wait for things to happen. I'd hoped having a more, err, impulsive character would get them to actually do things. XP

Anyway, if you want to be polite, just tell him your play styles don't match. If that doesn't work, tell him your game is full. It's really all you can do.

Hi buddy! You probably know exactly who I'm talking about.

Problem with your impulsive character is that it made the party less eager to play, I'm sorry to say. Most of the party play at a slower level than us experienced gamers who have been at this since we were in high school. That's another discussion however.

First session went well, problem player did not show up and everything went fine! I even welcomed in one of the Armada players who had no opponents, practically replacing the one no-show I had. All four of my players had fun, and the only problem I had during the game was not having enough content. Improving worked, but now I have areas I need to have more things ready for.

But again I want to thank everyone here for advice, because it addresses a problem not just in RPG settings, but game assemblies in general. It's something I've tackled with since that above gaming group incident and I felt I just couldn't have attendance control over something I put together.

"I don't like to play with you, go away, nothing against you, I just do not like you / enjoy playing with you", and it is done. Though what do I know, I am german, we deal with this kind of staff in very direct ways without any hard feelings, well at least usually.

Is it so problematic to to just plainly state that you do think that the group chemistry between a few guys and you is not to your enjoyment?

And to be perfectly clear, this does not apply just to a-holes, but everyone don't enjoy hanging out with for hours in a game session. Isn't this super normal anyway? Why not be blunt about it?

Blunt? Nah, we leave that to you practical, stoic Germans. We Yankees have to pretend to be best friends with everyone, and then talk trash about them as soon as they're gone. Maybe leave a passive-aggressive note about leaving dirty dishes in the sink, but heaven forbid we tell someone directly that we don't like them!

How can you as a GM turn down players that you don't want to GM for, even if you're open to including new players in the future?

"Look man, you're a good friend and I wouldn't mind hanging out and sharing a beer with you, but I don't think your play style is compatible with the group or the tone of the game we want to run. Since I dont want to spoil things for the rest of the group, would you mind sitting this one out?"

If you're going to use the "mismatched play styles" method, I'd suggest having examples prepared. If you can present it in a way that demonstrates your reasoning, so much the better. It doesn't sound like this person is a good friend, just someone who's around and plays. Maybe they're unaware that they're impinging the fun at the table.

I've had the misfortune of this sort of thing springing up at my table, which weighs heavily on my mind when I consider gaming at an FLGS. Perhaps a dirty look is all it'll take to align said offending player's style with the rest of the group. I like to look at the offending player over the top of my glasses and silently wait for their "real" action.

It might be worth drawing up a little document you can share about your table rules. It doesn't have to be a 40-page manifesto, but making clear the things that were decided in Session Zero to drop-ins is going to save you some time.

This reminds me of someone I recently met. They used to play in some of the older Star Wars RPG's but their favorite thing was to just min max as much as they possibly could and to find ways to make it fun only for themselves.

I straight up told them they will never be in one of my regular groups when they found out I run Edge of the Empire. We still discussed stories and tactics; they've been both a player and GM. They seemed to like the narrative dice idea for Edge but I cannot bring myself to include them, especially when simple cooperative games resulted in them abusing the game rules to make everyone lose.

In addition to the example above, my first GM'ing experience went a little south when my best friend was monopolizing play to the detriment of everyone else who was new to the system.

To be entirely fair, all they did all the time was sit around at Space Dennys and wait for things to happen. I'd hoped having a more, err, impulsive character would get them to actually do things. XP

Anyway, if you want to be polite, just tell him your play styles don't match. If that doesn't work, tell him your game is full. It's really all you can do.

Hi buddy! You probably know exactly who I'm talking about.

Problem with your impulsive character is that it made the party less eager to play, I'm sorry to say. Most of the party play at a slower level than us experienced gamers who have been at this since we were in high school. That's another discussion however.

First session went well, problem player did not show up and everything went fine! I even welcomed in one of the Armada players who had no opponents, practically replacing the one no-show I had. All four of my players had fun, and the only problem I had during the game was not having enough content. Improving worked, but now I have areas I need to have more things ready for.

But again I want to thank everyone here for advice, because it addresses a problem not just in RPG settings, but game assemblies in general. It's something I've tackled with since that above gaming group incident and I felt I just couldn't have attendance control over something I put together.

I do actually. I think he's actually a decent guy - I accidentally ended up inviting him to a Halloween party and he fully behaved himself there, so it's not all on. A gentle reminder to tone it down probably would have worked with the incident in question, but if memory serves, my brother was co-GMing that day and let it pass.

As for our game, I'll fully admit I went over the top, hoping it would spur them to actually make decisions rather than sitting at Space Dennys all the time. It didn't work out so well. Lesson learned, I suppose. I just don't think I gelled with them game wise.

Though on a related note, in my current game (and actually my previous one too, come to think of it), I had some players with similar problems of 'not doing things'. The difference was they were the minority in the group, and with everyone else willing to go out, both players eventually came out of their shells and became characters on their own. My last session actually one of those players manage to (wonderfully) hijack the entire campaign. It was awesome to see the player finally become his character - best feeling in the world man.

Glad to hear your new session went great! Wish I was there to join you buddy.

2 great advice examples are on youtube

and Matthew Mercer's GM tips on Geek and Sundry

Episode 6 Game Mastering and Player Etiquette

Its a discussion among the people playing of what you want from the game. I have played RPGs since the 1980s. I stopped because players used the game not to tell stories but to shame or make fun of other players. It was faux fun, meaning, having fun at others expense. Yep players often golden showered NPCs or other players, done carnal deeds on the unconscious, stole from others, destroyed their prized gear etc etc. Thats why I buy RPGs but to this day still look for the kind of players I want. I feel ya, watch those 2 videos when you have a chance.

I have friends - people I've known for 15+ years - who I, flat out, will not game with. It's okay.

Role-playing games are their own kind of intimacy. It's very important that everyone at the table gel and that no one feel uncomfortable. I will go one step further and say that it's the responsible thing to deny those players who don't fit a seat at the table. Again, it's okay.

I feel like I want to tell him his behavior in the other campaign is not something I want to bring into this one.

Have you considered actually doing this? "That kind of thing doesn't have a place in this campaign, that's not the kind of thing I want to see."

Let them know. Let them know that kind of behavior is not condoned, then tell them you trust they can redirect their own playstyle. If they can't, well, they've removed themselves from the game and you should no longer feel bad about saying, "I spoke to you about it before, you failed to change, you are removed from the group. Hope to see you for beers next week."

Some people aren't as mature as others though, your mileage may vary.

Generally I would say either be honest and tell him why you don't want him there, or you can also bring up your concerns with him before letting him play again. You can say "hey, if you want to play you need to understand there are certain things I don't want at my table."

I recently had to do this with a player who very much wanted a "grab the loot and get paid" style of game. I let him know that if he was going to aggressively try and derail the game like he did in the last campaign just to load up his loot bag than he might want to find something else. That and he was always super aggressive in a way that kind ruined things for the rest of the party.

I let him play and what ended up happening was he did the same exact thing, so I did something I usually kind of hand wave and started enforcing encumberence. After he found out he couldn't carry six heavy blaster rifles with his three sets of armor he intended to sell to absolutely no one becuase they were on a military base which wasn't going to give him top dollar for anything (running the Assault on Arda adventure) he quit.

We found it humorous.