This isn't a rare thing, even in well established groups that have gamed together for years and are familiar with each other and thier respective personalities, quirks, playstyles, etc.  Sometimes people just end up on different pages to some degree, intentionally or not.

Talking can help.  If possible, outlining the type of game you're trying to run, the themes, moods, etc can assist in getting everyone working together towards those goals.

For instance, is the zombie game you're running supposed to be dark, foreboding, and horrific, or is it supposed to be light hearted and comedic?  It's easy enough to say "we're playing D&D" and assume everyone will have at least a rough idea of what will be going down, but it's the details where this specific issue crops up.

So you've had a discussion, everyone says they're good, game starts and someone's really playing thier character against theme and in contrast with the rest of the group.  What then?  Well, talking to them about it more could still help.  They may not realize they're doing things a certain way and that's impacting the story that everyone is trying to collectively tell and thier enjoyment in doing so.

If the issue persists you pretty much have two options.  Either try to guide them via in game cues as aguy777 mentioned, as perhaps thier character burning thier hand will teach the player that the stove is hot and they shouldn't be having thier character touch it just as you'd told them previously.

The only other option is to decide it's not going to work and separate them from the game.  RPoL is still the internet.  Though the majority of the people I've had the pleasure of gaming with on here over the years were cool, the anonymity of the medium may mean some people are just out to be jerks and don't care.  You can't fix that, and it's really unfair to everyone if a GM is willing to let such a person ruin everyone else's fun.

Of course it makes sense. It's the same "problem" DMs have had for decades


I don't worry about it. I used to, a little, but I was only making the game less enjoyable for myself. The players were having a blast.


I don't know why you list those as the only two possibilities.

If you can't just accept that that's the way they want to play the game, and create a game to accommodate that, then you need to talk to them, yes, but not to advise or reprimand and absolutely not "punished." When you talk to them (which you should probably do anyway), just try to understand their viewpoint, and what they want from the game when they play.

You say that it takes the drama out of situations. Well, not everyone wants drama, or at least not the same way. If they don't want the drama of being intimidated by someone, then it's not necessary to force that on them, and doing so is not likely to go well.

People have different tastes. Take the movie ALIENS. It's an action movie, but it's heavily focused on the things that go wrong. A GM who wanted to run a game based on the drama of the situations that arise in ALIENS would probably plan to kill most of the characters (or at least beloved NPCs) and put the PCs at an extreme disadvantage. If the players didn't know that the GM planned it to be like ALIENS and assumed that they were just supposed to handle the mission the way that made sense to them might handle things in a much, much different way, and possibly in a way that removed all the drama, say by taking things really slowly, and neutralizing anyone who wanted them to rush in.

It's a matter of not being on the same page. When players want drama they will create drama. When they don't they won't. Find out how the players want to play, explore what that calls for and do that, or part ways.

Don't chastise or punish or anything negative. That's been don't for years and guess what... the problem hasn't gone away for most GMs. But I simply decided that this kind of thing doesn't bother me and I took steps to work with the players instead of against them and guess what... the problem evaporated for me.

Engine, you're responding as if I am talking about ALL players in a game doing the same thing.  The problem is when a few do, the rest don't.  This means you have a game that WANTS drama, but a few of them screw it up.  Or a game that wants a serious tone that delves into the frailty and mortality of the characters, but they act like super heroes.

I'm talking about one or two players not being on the same page as the rest of the game, not the GM being on a different page than his group.

In reply to gladiusdei (msg # 5):

The answer is still the same. Talk to them and listen to what they prefer. Scolding and punishment has no place in this situation, if everyone is playing in good faith and wants everyone else to enjoy the game. It's still probably the case that there's a mismatch in the level and type of drama and the game should be put on hold until everyone can get on the same page.

If they're not playing in good faith, if they're deliberately messing things up, then scolding and punishment still have no place, because at that point there's no reason to continue playing with them. They want to mess up the game and will do so no matter what, so it's time to part ways, in a civil manner. It's a waste of their time to waste your time, so parting ways is in everyone's best interest.

I've definitely seen these behaviors in games I run, and look at it as a sign that the players and I, as a GM, are not on the same page about what kind of game we're playing.

In DnD especially, I see players comparing their stats in their head to the NPCs around them and acting based on the fact that they could kill the entire town if they wanted to.  I simply adjusted the standard fantasy setting to accommodate this: this with authority have it because they have power.  A king can't stay on the throne if a 7th level fighter can kill him and his entire retinue.  That fighter would become the new ruler, the greatest kingdoms are lead by the highest level NPCs.  This all started around the time of 4th edition, so during an initial meeting with the ruler of a magical nation, the ruler (who was a warlock) nonchalantly tossed around a power which sent one of his enemies to hell and back. 20d6 fire damage later, the players were well aware this guy was the boss and wouldn't hesitate to roast them if they started acting like jerks.  Showing the players that if it comes to a dice roll, they'll lose handily, can be sobering.

That being said, there is a fine line that must be walked, especially on here where you can't just pause and have a nice little chat with your friends about their attitudes.  You don't want to seem too heavy handed, particularly since some people might only be playing to feel like a level 13 badass.

There's also the question of game genre, style, and expectations.  If you want drama, you definitely need to say so well before the game starts.  Establish what you want to see in the game while you're recruiting or creating characters.  Some people want to play DnD as a tactical board game, with full understanding of the "pieces in play" such as NPC levels or monster stats.  If that's not the sort of game I want, I make sure people know it.  I'll often "create" new creatures using existing stats but change the name and description just so people don't automatically assume its something they've seen before.

Of course, if a player really wants to be disruptive or to act in a childish manner, no amount of adjusting or private conversations will stop it.
This message was last edited by the user at 20:32, Tue 07 Aug 2018.

You guys are still addressing things that are outside the scope of what I am referring to.  The D&D example I gave was to be generic.  I'm talking more about the other examples I gave.  Players who play out of character and setting, or ignore dramatic situations that would effect them in a certain way.

If all the players and GM say they want dramatic play, or the game is described as dramatic and serious, but some of the players still refuse to admit when things might scare them, or ignore the setting and how it would effect them, I can't just cancel the entire game.  It also seems a bit extreme to jump to kicking them automatically because they want something different than you want.

I know it needs to be addressed, it's just hard to know how to do it.  The problems that drove me to ask this are more in line of players ignoring certain aspects of the game and setting because it may make their characters less able to act, well, though, or capable.  They prefer to always act like they know what's going on.  This is the sort of thing that doesn't necessarily ruin a game for all involved, but it certainly leaves a sour taste in my mouth as GM, when players won't really respond in any sort of realistic fashion.

I'm not sure you actually wanted advice. I think that if you did you'd be asking people to explain responses that seem extreme to you, and perhaps learning from them that your interpretation was uncharitable.

This seems to be at the root of the problem you're describing. You might consider that the real root of the problem lies with how you interpret how people respond to you.

The solution is not hard. Just ask questions, listen, and take scolding and punishment out of the equation.

No, I think you misinterpreted what I said in the first post, and since I've been a bit exasperated it bugged me.  Sorry that it came off too aggressive.

I'm talking about small problems with how players play their characters that seem to suck the life out of a scene.  Work out a great, scary scene for a group where the big bad comes out in a terrifying manner, and a player just shrugs and ignores the threat of the situation.  That sort of thing can really drain a GM's enthusiasm.

But telling them 'come on man, your character should be terrified,' doesn't work a lot of the times.

Another instance would be, as I described before, a player arguing with an NPC as if they view the world as a 21st century American, instead of a medieval knight, or some other inhuman thing.  Or arguing in general with an NPC that has authority over them, and in reality they probably would be a bit too intimidated to argue like they are.

They're small problems that don't necessarily ruin a game for the entire group, but after a while things like this really grate on a GM trying to run a fun game for everyone.

And yes, I try to lay out ahead of time what I expect in a game, I try to lay out the theme and tone.  But you never know how a player is going to handle a situation until you do it, and now that situation is written down in post form.  So at that point, my choices are really either to talk to them about it, kick them, or ignore it.

And you're right, reprimand was too strong of a word.  I was just annoyed and wanted to metaphorically slap a player's character, but I can't do that.
This message was last edited by the user at 05:27, Tue 07 Aug 2018.

Sorry, I was posting from my phone and started it before several other posts but didn't finish it until much later.

As for one or two players sucking the life from the big bad's dramatic entrance - I find that par for the course for roleplaying.  Players want to be tough, and capable, and to know everything - they don't want to be vulnerable or deficient.  I often try to come up with elaborate scenes with interesting characters that my players blow off without a pause.  Luckily, when I'm face to face with my players, I can just move on and find a scene that interests them (usually purely ad lib) and just run with it.  If I try to look at planning games like writing a novel, I'm usually disappointed.  But, if I just focus on the overall story arc and make up the little details as I go along it's much easier to find the things that the players are interested in and get into that.

I also think that choice of game system could make a big difference with these issues.  If you want the characters to be able to be terrified, or to be intimidated, how are you handling that mechanically.  If there aren't rules for that sort of thing, you might want to research a system which includes it.  Some, like Deadlands, have in depth rules for fear, dictating when the characters faint or flee or suffer other effects.  FFG Star Wars has a fear system that causes characters to take penalty dice when they're afraid.  Using such a system could show that the character is incapable of dealing with a terrifying situation but I don't think it resolves the underlying problem.

I think the real issue is the player, and I've seen plenty of players who enjoy building a character and rolling some dice, but don't really want to get in character.  If the player isn't on board, it doesn't matter what the dice or the NPCs say.

There are only two reasonable things you can do:

1 - Have a talk with them about game and play expectations and then when they still continue to fail to tow the line, boot them.  Get new Players to fill the empty spots and move on.

2 - Have a talk with them about game and play expectations and then when they still continue to fail to tow the line, roll over and let them do whatever they damn well please.


Pick which ever works best for you and go with it.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:06, Tue 07 Aug 2018.

I get what you're saying in the OP.  I'm not the GM, but I'm in a game with a few characters that are like that.  It can be anything from a mysteriously transient accent (sometimes it's written so thick you can barely understand it, other times the same character is as clear-spoken and eloquent as a Shakespearean actor) to mysteriously fluid background details ("Now, wait...two years ago, he was saying that he'd never done anything like that...now, he's had decades of experience at it?  Where did all this practice come from?") or details that don't make sense ("Your people are nomadic...why would he have learned enough about construction to figure out the weak points on a structure like this?") to inconsistent social behavior ("Look, YOU went to the bar...knowing it was a place where people hang out.  Why do you keep turning tail and running away every time an NPC says two words to you?")

Since the players of these characters post regularly, and have stuck with the game for a LONG time, now, the GM cuts them a lot of slack.  We (the GM and some other players) have actually made these behaviors into kind of character-defining quirks ("Oh, so now you say you know how these guys like to fight?  Please, enlighten us, since nobody in the known galaxy has ever seen them before, much less gone to war with them..." *spoken with HEAVY sarcasm, in character*)  When they start getting too carried away, the GM reins them in a bit...but oftentimes, it's the reactions of the other characters that end up reeling in the more egregious behaviors.

I find the best way to deal with situations like that is simply to use in-game realism.

Ask yourself why the PC should be terrified of the monster. If it's because the monster can tear him apart, let it happen. Let the monster halve the PC's HP with a single blow, and then see if the PC squares up to the monster for another round, or if he takes cover, 'properly'. If he still fights, hit him again.

This is not 'punishment', it's realism. It's not singling him out, it would happen to anyone who squared up to the monster, but there's only one PC doing it...

If the PC insults the Queen, have her cast him into the dungeon in chains. That's the realistic consequence. Everyone else knows that, that's why everyone else is being polite. Now, you've got a mini-adventure concerning how the other PCs get their friend out of the dungeon. Will they plead with the Queen, launch a rescue?

If your major NPCs are weaker than your PCs, you're gaming at the wrong level. If the PCs are 7th Level fighters, the King's bodyguards should be at least 10th level. If the King allows random visitors to insult him, he won't keep his throne for long. Play the King realistically.

If your setting is realistic, sooner or later your PCs will recognize their place in that setting. Either that, or they'll recognize that they have no place in the setting, and they'll choose another game. It's win-win.

Some people are like pets or kids - they test your boundaries. Show them where the boundaries are - 'if you do that, this happens'.

Personally I think that from a D&D perspective most adventurers are a bit crazy. I think it is an interesting character arc to have them be young and energetic taking on the world...and then the poop hits the fan and it gets real.

Think about it from <insert almost any war movie ever> where you have the young recruits who think they will single handedly shoot Hitler. Then they get to the front lines and it is just death and misery and poop and disease. Some people break, but not all.

I personally think it is unfair for the GM to dictate how players play their characters so long as there is interaction. I've had players who played kind of "flat". I would throw crazy stuff at them and they wouldn't even blink at it. Sometimes I was fine with it and just ignored it, sometimes I leaned on it and looked at just how crazy I could get things before they flinch :D

Anyway I hate to say it but the easiest way to kick that situation is to start killing people off. If I've got a PC who isn't listening to my warnings and is mouthing off to the Queen and acting like a nob he's going to be arrested, tried, and executed. Oh sure he can try and run or draw his blade and fight and then the court wizard strikes him down with a disintegration beam.

Now OOC I would have given at least one clear warning and in-game some seneschal or guard would say "Watch your tongue or we will cut it out knave". At that point if they continue to act disruptive then they can suffer the consequences. I would do it and then quickly switch their groups around so they can't post in public until we've settled things via PMs. Last thing I want is for a disruptive player to ragequit publically and damper the mood of things. Player-GM conflicts should be handled privately, imo.

Murderhobos?

 as a GM  and Player, I think the characters  should be played  as  the player  would be   he they were him/her.

 In My semi-D&D  game, these folks are supposed to have 'been around' , just not in this  area...if some one  wants to be the  coward, or try to 'see both sides of the story'..that's fine, But the NPCs  will react accordingly, and ht ePCs  can  deal wioth each other  as they wish.
 in the games  I run my own system, they players  must build themselevs as they grow in the game.. how they choose to play is up to them.

 I had a player once, who  tried to 'hide' on the ship..he got  caught after a while..and  ended up  in a penal colony where he passed....

 Had a fellow  try   to assassinate the  Admiral, gave him the chance to do that..he failed,, was Gunned  down  by SEC and set to penal colony where he passed..

 Its all in the Players.. some are just there to mess around, I don't keep them around  long... others  play a big part in the story through thier actions and posts..they tend to be  Keepers,unless RL take them away.

 In the end,  some book written by some guys , shouldn't tell you how to play a character... if yo look in  the R$L, we see  people of every stripe who  go from good, to scum...::shrugs:: Let the people play, if it  is a negeative force in your GAme..PM  them..or cut them..

Unless I'm misreading what you're talking about...

You're dealing with the issue of "plot armor".   The characters can do whatever they want and the story will advance, because otherwise there'd be no story.   Also known as a lack of consequences.

In a feudal society, which is what most fantasy games are; nobility has the right of life and death with non-nobles.    So if the farmer turned fighter decides to insult the Queen, then she's absolutely justified with having him made and example of...and a head shorter.

But give a little slack, too.   She might decide to be amused rather than insulted: Once.   But also warn them, "your character knows better".


On the flip side, if they decide to murder the mayor and burn down the vilage....well...welcome to the wanted list.   Assuming that the village militia doesn't kill them before they escape.
This message was last edited by the user at 16:03, Tue 07 Aug 2018.

 In the  end? Hunter has the Right of it.

 There are times  when the NPCs   who are my player character/plot  drivers..might butt  heads with a Guard or something, but  it  always 'make sense' because of Rep, linage ect ect…


 Some PCs   also earn that right, after being in the game  and established themselesv to the 'masses'.


 The very best thing, is to remember, actions   have reactions...and  some body trying to  make money off of  a rulebook, should be  the 'god' of  your game.

I agree with a lot of you to an extent, but you guys have mostly focused still on the extremes in D&D.  It's a lot harder to deal with in more drama and dialogue heavy games like white wolf.


Sort of like when a player talks aggressively to a vampire, or other supernatural creature, that in reality they would probably be a bit more deferential to.

Or when players, like I mentioned previously, insist on viewing an otherworldly setting through modern progressive eyes, when their character would in no way have that view.

Its not stuff with extreme in game consequences, but in makes it hard to really enjoy playing out from my end.

System definitely influences behavior, and in the example of D&D, characters of power are powerful.  They have enormous agency over their lives, and they have the power and capability to face down powerful opposition.  PCs who can bring down dragons, survive fireballs, and win battles of will against mind-numbing horrors from the Underdark expect to be treated with some respect.  D&D implies that PCs stand well outside the "established" social order.  Settings with D&D characters woven into the social fabric are surprisingly rare, like Birthright.

A high-level D&D character might best equate to the mercenary captains of early renaissance Italy, the catholic clergy of the middle ages, or revolutionary figures like Joan of Arc.  Or even mythical figures like Hercules or Odysseus, around whom kings (and gods) plotted and schemed, rather than called in to kowtow and threw money at.

The prototypical D&D party, the Fellowship of the Ring, were all participants at the Council of Elrond, not just vassals called in and expected to kneel.  And look at how uncomfortable everyone was with what Boromir was saying at the meeting.  Was that disruptive?  Or was that dramatic?  The members of the Fellowship, hobbits excluded, were all mythical badasses who could punch an army of orcs, and they were treated as such - although they were also members of Middle Earth's aristocracy, a privilege that is often denied the PCs of typical fantasy adventure games.

On the opposite tack, in Vampire, getting shot (or a particularly nasty kidney punch) can have deep (and occasionally lasting) consequences.  Losing social status has dramatic effects, because that's what those games are fundamentally about, more so than action-adventure games like D&D.  Getting respect and elbowing for room at the table is the fundamental loop of the game, which has a very different set of mechanical supports for characters with social supports (and mind-control powers).  You're more likely to lose a dot of Herd from pissing off a neighboring Coterie than you are to lose health levels.

In Werewolf, on the other hand, combat damage is almost superficial, because Werewolves recover so readily.  As a result, Werewolves are terrifying, because they don't have to face the same consequences for violence that other inhabitants of the World of Darkness do.  Werewolf games tend to feature more violence as a result, because the risks are much lower.  Werewolves, to an extent, treat Vampires as a potentially dangerous annoyance, and fear them more for their pervasive influence than their physical or supernatural threat.

So how do you resolve the flip-off-the-king situation?  I think the solutions are threefold.

One is to identify and communicate with players for whom it is a problem.  Make sure everybody understands the basic norms of behavior in your setting, the baseline of behavior, and then look at the reason the player/PC is violating those norms.  Even It could be deliberate or warranted.  It could be that the player has different expectations about his character's place in the social order than the GM does, or it could be that the player is trying to highlight the character's place (or lack thereof) in the social order.

Second is to give the players' characters some respect.  Expecting to rule with the absolute imperial authority of a medieval king is difficult when you're talking to a wizard who can melt everyone in the room and walk away clean.  A lot of disruptive players can be appeased by giving a little ground.  Remember that they are a person of substance, and that the Player Characters are the main characters of any roleplaying story.  Giving an inch doesn't mean giving a mile, though.  There's a difference between not insisting on the formalities of office, ceding social ground, and taking sass.  That goes back to the point above.

Third is to set expectations up front.  If everyone comes into the game with a different idea about how social status works in your game world, you're going to run into issues where half the PCs are privileged peasants who kowtow before the king, and end up cowering off to the side while PC Ulysses moons God-King Poseidon.

How do you solve the blase reaction to Cthulhu?

First, you have to make sure the PCs know it's Cthulhu.  Vivid descriptions help, especially if they are demonstrative.  Express that this thing is a thing they should be afraid of, especially if they don't have a lot of context to begin with.  An elder dragon should breathe flames that curl the paint on their magical shields, burn white hot, sound like a jet engine, and cause wounds that sear to the bone, not just cause 40 damage.

If the PCs aren't interacting with the thing mechanically, it's important to build it up.  Foreshadow.  Feed rumors.  Give physical and descriptive clues that this is a thing With Which Not To Be Messed.  The work you put into presenting a threat will, if your players are with you on this journey, yield dividends.  If they aren't being jerks and attempting to undercut you just to deflate the scene for comedy, you should be able to evoke a reaction.  The keyword there, though, is evoke.  You can't just say "this is a thing which you should feel this way about," you've got to work to create that feeling.  (to be "evocative".) Difficult in a play-by-post environment, but not undoable.

Just as before, though, this is also a matter of managing expectations.  Outside of mechanics, your fiction sets the tone, and the way you present a situation will determine quite a lot about how players react to it.

The 'actions have consequences' approach can still help, I think.  Somebody isn't appropriately deferential?  Well, then, the guy they're talking to isn't going to help...he'll withhold whatever help, resources, or information he was going to offer until he gets appropriate respect.  That may mean the rest of the party going back to aoologize without the problem character, so that player misses out on the RP.  Or his reputation precedes him, so they go someplace and everyone's like, "Oh, it's THAT guy...no thanks, we've heard about you."  And if he complains, explain that it's a natural consequence of his character choices.  Cause and effect should be applicable, no matter the setting or rules.  If the character defies the norms, he had better be either good enough to justify it (incredibly rare) or else be entertaining about how he does it (being plucky and defiant can be endearing, being downright rude and insulting pretty much always puts people off...)  If they're not good enough or funny (or otherwise entertaining) about how they do stuff, let them endure some negative consequences.  The longer they persist, the worse it gets, and let it splash over on the other characters.  Guilt by association is a very real-world phenomenon.  If the other characters have to keep cleaning up his mess or salvaging a situation that shouldn't have been that difficult, they'll start pre-empting his actions...most people don't actively look for a harder way to do something.

The examples have all been fantasy-oriented...but you can substitute 'Vampire' for 'King', or even 'crime boss' or 'military commander', and the basic premise still holds true.  And it doesn't have to be in reaction to big things...reputations are built just as much on little events as big ones.

So, why should the players be deferential to the monster?  Why shouldn't they speak aggressively?

If the consequence is that the insane, 400 year old elder vampire might twist their head off and drink their blood like a mountain dew, that's one thing.  If the consequence is that it hurts the NPC's feelings, you'll find that most players really don't care about NPCs that much, and it's even harder to be sympathetic for a witch or werewolf.

You might be able to show that having a powerful immortal dislike you can be incredibly inconvenient - maybe he buys the bank and forecloses on your home or changes the date of Elysium so you miss it or passes legislation to reroute traffic so your small business gets less customers.

Of course, if it's a small, persistent community, like Vampire, you can give the player a bad reputation.  Make their unlife a little miserable.  Shun the non believer.

Actions have consequences, even if it's just small consequences for small insults.

As for the other thing, honestly, I don't penalize my players for having modern ideas because I'm not an expert on medieval (or other-worldly) life.  My group knows a few things and we incorporate them, but I'm not going to penalize my player for trying to build a flying machine.  He'd just become my setting's Da Vinci.  That goes doubly for settings with magic.

It doesn't matter the system, it doesn't matter the genre, my advice above solves those problems.

True, technically your answer is the only way to handle it.  But it also over simplifies and dismisses the difficulty of the talk with the player, how to approach it, and why the situation is so frustrating in the first place.

I appreciate the advise from everyone, I said in the first post this was half rant half question, I was just frustrated.  RPOL makes dealing with any sort of situation with an in game solution (such as allowing a player to speak rudely to an NPC only to let it come back and bite them in the butt) a lot less satisfying because of just how long it takes to get to outcomes like that.  When you have to participate in a week or two of conversation in game that makes you really lose enthusiasm for the game you're trying to run, it's hard to hope the future of the game will resolve it.

Which leaves you with addressing it privately, and that often feels like a standard internet argument, where both parties think they're in the right.

So, yeah, ultimately I have to put up with it, or kick them out.  Neither solution really benefits the game, or make you feel pleased with the outcome.

Mostly that. You are playing with people with different views on everything: different goals for playing, different ways they find the game pleasurable, different values. They won't choose what you would choose, they won't perceive the game environment like you would. This is probably part of the reason why Dungeon World (I assume other Apocalypse World derivatives too, but Dungeon World have a free SRD) made an explicit goal for the GM to "play to find out what happens".

For many players, RPGs represent an opportunity to be something they wouldn't normally be able to be, whether that's a combat saavy knight, a fierce warewolf, or a professor of ancient archaeology. In the same way, players may desire to play character personalities that aren't their own. Depending on the system, there's a greater likelihood that the rules will define what they can do more than how they should act, and in many instances players may not actually know how their character ought to act, specifically because they are playing something foreign to them. Some people are better at putting themselves in others shoes, or put in more effort to learn what another setting/ culture is like, than others for whatever reason.

However, they may just as well feel that their character really is acting appropriately to that circumstance-- and in that vein, how is a GM to tell someone how to play their own concept of their character? It may not work with the game that's running, but there are plenty of ways to work with that as mentioned already, from enforcing the appropriate ramifications in-game, to talking to the player to see if their view of the game/ setting is the same as the one that's being run and coming to some resolution because of that, to suggesting swapping one character with another better suited to the game, to just letting them do whatever they do while the game moves forward with, or without them participating in the meat of it. All of those, I think, are appropriate and better in certain circumstances than others.

What I don't agree with is telling someone that they are 'doing it wrong' unless there's an actual wrong being done. That is, metagaming, godmodding, or acting out just for the sake of acting out to bring down the game. The first two of those are more easily identified than the third, since you can't really know someone else's intent until you talk to them about it and "punishing" a player for not doing something purposefully is just senselessly vindictive to me. If, in the end, you don't feel a player is a good fit for the game letting them know that upfront is a far better option. Sure, it's harder to be rejected after joining a game and building a character, but it's essentially the same reasoning for why some GMs screen with writing samples, or concepts before accepting RTJs. Sometimes you don't choose players well, and that's a lot less of an issue if you handle it thoughtfully and openly from the beginning assuming it's a player issue and not a character issue.

But, let's talk about game outcome a little bit too, since it has some bearing on this. It's very common for many GMs to bemoan that players destroyed their plot in the first few scenes of a game and that suggests something I find undesirable. At it's core, RPGs are collaborative storytelling. That means you need the GM as much as you need the players to tell the story. The story cannot be told only according to a GMs desires with players merely following along through an entirely scripted storyline. Players must be able to affect the storyline also, or it ultimately becomes a passive activity for them and is no longer collaborative at all-- it's the GMs story not the story of their characters. That's not to say that GMs shouldn't have general directions their game is intended to move in, or some over arching plot, or storyline, but more to say that they shouldn't require specific expected outcomes for specific encounters, or if they do, they should be just as prepared to react to changes in that assumed outcome as part and parcel of what it is to GM. If you do need a specific reaction, or a certain outcome from a PC, it's best to contact the player and figure out some way the character concept and the game concept can meet to make the game flow in the needed direction. This wouldn't be for every post, obviously, but for scenes where the game premise, or ability to move forward is dependent on going down a lonely alleyway instead of getting a bite at the burger place, the need to work that out is well worth it and should be entirely within the ability for a reasonable player and GM to work out.