[Glyph]

We're only getting one side of the story, but it sounds like the alleged cheating is almost irrelevant.  The main problem seems to be incompatible play styles.  I agree with Critias - it's better to just boot the offending player, than to waste everyone's time coming up with a scenario to "beat" his character.

[GiraffeShaman]

Has anyone bothered to consider that sometimes a player or players gets jealous that someone os better at making characters than they are and so they accuse the more mechanically capable of cheating and other things to try and get the GM to boot them? I'm not saying it is necessarily the case, but it is still a possibility that any GM must consider.

This can happen and is an issue I deal with from time to time. I have a mixed group, optimizers and non optimizers and I've made it quite clear to my players that optimizing is not cheating. It's more of a style or taste issue. Some groups enjoy optimizing all characters, some don't. It can be difficult when you have a mix of both players, as you have to make both sides have a fun time. I'm a bit amused at all this talk of booting characters because I've played with the same group of people basically for 17 years since we started in high school. It's a bit harder in such situations to just boot someone.

But yes if arguing over optimization gets really out of hand, that gaming group should probaly split up. No one is wrong and no one is cheating, they are just two styles of play and it takes a lot of patience and diplomatic skills to make a mixed group of optimizers and non optimizers work.

The thing about optimization doesn't really have much to do with intelligence or the like. Only newbies don't know the main tricks of how to optimize. What usually happens is the more intelligent players read the books and pick the best combos. Then, the rest of the group watches what they do, copies it, and soon everyone knows the same tricks. Once you're at that point, it becomes a matter of if players want to restrain themselves or not. (Or the GM, but I prefer not to be that heavyhanded. I lean toward the non optimization camp, but I recognize that many players enjoy this type of play and trying to trample it out is a sure recipe for splitting up my gaming group)

[lurkeroutthere]

Honestly it sounds like your at the meltdown point so I'll echo Critias.

The second option is you talk to him about your concerns and ask him to play a different character and then exercise collaboration with them on their next character.

The better, far less feasible option is to go back in time and set expectations before hand. I make it very clear to my players that there are no rules gotchas against me. If there's something that bothers me mechanicly I have no problem with spot patching it or just flat disallowing it. But the thing is my players know their not really in competition with me. Setting the  tone of the game early on is very important to me as is playing with people who are my friends and have a good rapport with.

[Cass100199]

This doesn't sound like a simple matter of optimization. You're always gonna have power gamers. That's a given. But you can optimize and still play the game and be a part of the group/ team. Once you have no respect for that dynamic, though, you're taking up space at a table no one wants you at.

[lurkeroutthere]

To answer Hermes original question in what's likely 15 years of running games (damn I feel old all of a sudden) I've actually out and out kicked out one player for game related items. I have also been the conveyer of bad news when the group decided in spite of me  to remove someone. Likewise outside of my home group I have told people I will be auditing their character after the game, which without fail has lead to people leaving the table, and often the campaign as their character wouldn't stand up to audit.

In short if it really has reached an unworkable point your going to just have to bite the bullet.

[Cass100199]

That's a pretty passive-aggressive way to handle the problem, and meanwhile (a) the game is being derailed, and (b) you've got to figure out why the rest of the group isn't getting murdered, too.  It's goofy. 

Not really. He knowingly screwing with your game, so you use the same tools to screw with him back. It's not like you can follow him out to his car and beat his ass. What you're dealing with here is a player who a) doesn't respect the game, b) doesn't respect the other players, and c) doesn't respect the GM, who is willing to put in extra time to create a gaming experience for multiple people. I would speculate that if you were to go back and talk to any previous GM, he's been doing this shit for years. Very simply, he's a bully and a jerk. Talking to people like that doesn't work. They have another need inside them that they are using their superiority in the game to fulfill. Honestly, unless this is a friendship that has been going on for many, many years, the time necessary to invest in someone like this is way beyond the means or patience of people who may or may not like him. So, the easiest and quickest way to bring this to heel is to use the game, that is propping up his ego, to beat him. It's a simple matter of reinforcing that you are in charge. One of two things will happen: he will quit and find another GM to screw with, or his attitude will break. Regardless, even the latter option will involve a lot of backhanded sniping, whining, and all around s***headedness. Best thing to do is kill the character and bounce him.

I disagree very strongly.  The GM derailing everything else he has planned for a game and, instead, throwing the whole world (at one character, out of the whole group) and killing them over and over again, accomplishes nothing but giving the problem player the spotlight and sidelining, ignoring, and irritating the other players even more.  They and the campaign gain nothing, and actively lose both gaming time and verisimilitude, when just one member of their crew suddenly has the whole universe pull out the stops and kill them (but not everyone else), over and over and over again, in the hopes that some sort of real-world lesson gets learned.

It's cheap, it's easy, and it proves nothing, while the game continues to suffer (and, in fact, suffers MORE). 

Cowboy up, talk to the person one adult to another, and disinvite them from your game.  Don't plot and scheme, don't scour rulebooks for ways to "beat" them, don't make it some huge piece of melodrama.  Don't invite them to the game and then make a big show of kicking them out after they've made the trip, which invites terrific anger and frustration.  Just give them a phone call before the next game session, and let them know you don't want them there.  That's all it takes.

At any rate, I've said my piece.  I don't think repeating ourselves back and forth is going to sway anyone, and I don't want to turn this thread into an argument (over an argument).

I don't disagree with you entirely and I think we're seeing two different issues. It appears to me that you're seeing a guy who isn't in tune with the rest of the group. I see and have seen something else entirely and we all know this guy. For most of us nerds and geeks, this medium makes the fantasy and sci fi we enjoy interactive and it's fun. But for some of us, for whatever reason this character they've made is a surrogate. It serves as the badass he will never be. We all know him, have been friends with him and have games with him. When the character is so closely tied to that ego, no amount of talking and reason fixes it. That's a psychological barrier of epic proportions. I call it the Han Solo/ Boba Fett syndrome. We all recycle tropes and concepts we've consumed. Originality is pretty rare, but that's not a bad thing or a criticism. Just that we've consumed so much fantasy and sci fi that we can't help but be influenced. Most people want to be Han Solo; a good guy for sure, but not perfect and with plenty of personal character failings and class lapses to make it interesting to role play. We can build substance and a real living, breathing character who isn't perfect and has growth and pathos. But some, they want to be Boba Fett, the most feared man in the galaxy. They don't care why or how, but by god they will be the baddest thing walking.

[All4BigGuns]

And there isn't a darn thing wrong with such. In my opinion, someone wanting to remove someone from their group for that needs to get off their high horse and lighten up.

[Critias]

All of which goes to show how important it is that GMs and players be on the same page, from the very start of a campaign, and have similar expectations, ideas for what the world (and the team) is going to be like, and the power level/challenge level/optimization level of the game.

[Cass100199]

And there isn't a darn thing wrong with such. In my opinion, someone wanting to remove someone from their group for that needs to get off their high horse and lighten up.

There is something wrong with it if it comes at the expense of your game and eberyone's enjoyment.

[All4BigGuns]

If it's impacting enjoyment for others, then in most cases I think the last two words of my prevous post are particularly apt to the situation.

[Cass100199]

So everyone else has to "lighten up" to  provide the ego boost for one guy? How does that even found right?

[All4BigGuns]

Well if it's being impacted like that then in most cases it's a sign that they're taking the game WAY too seriously.

[Ympulse]

Well if it's being impacted like that then in most cases it's a sign that they're taking the game WAY too seriously.

Or they prefer a less "Pink Mohawk" type of game. Not everyone enjoys superman power fulfillment fantasies.

[Turtlicious]

Well if it's being impacted like that then in most cases it's a sign that they're taking the game WAY too seriously.

I don't think so, (to be fair I'm running my first shadowrun game Thursday, and normally do DnD,) but characters who power-game, or just be the #1 can suck the fun out of the game for everyone else. And that's not right, it's not only about them, it's about creating a story, also, if a player is too over-powered then a gm has to do this weird balancing act where they have to send in strong enemies for the one, and weakling for the other three, it makes it harder to gm and tends to turn the game into a huge joke. Roleplaying should be fun, and then numbers should only be an accurate representation of your character's abilities, not a way for you to become Cyberpunk Jesus.

[lurkeroutthere]

If it's impacting enjoyment for others, then in most cases I think the last two words of my prevous post are particularly apt to the situation.

See you make statements about people needing to lighten up but also make arbitrary statements about this or that being acceptable. This leads me to believe that there's something that's gone on for you in your own experiences. I'm going to put it bluntly, if you want to be the one guy out of the group not jiving with the rest of the groups theme that's not them needing to lighten up, that's just them not wanting to kowtow to your play style. That's not to say your play style is wrong or theirs is right. Their just not compatable.

It's like the old Pink Mohawk vs Mirrorshades debate. You can have a mirrorshades guy in a mohawk game, but it doesn't work well to have one pink mohawk guy in a mirrorshades universe/game. It doesn't matter if you want to play the character who's name strikes fear in his enemies, starting characters don't get that privilege unless their GM allows it, no matter what their soak pool is.