D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Ruin Explorer]

You just described my whole philosophy. Or at least, the one I want to have.

I feel like maybe one of the reasons I'm very chill about all this change is that I became a curmudgeon at like, 20, so have like, long since passed through the "GET OFF MY LAWN!!!" phase.

Like, the big curmudgeon-moment for me was zombies.

I was "over" zombies by my very early 20s, having watched everything zombie-related then available and having become truly bored of them (most of it fairly ancient even then). Then, and only then, did the world suddenly decide zombies were cool again. So for the last 20+ years I've been putting up with awful new takes on zombies, from the dire The Walking Dead and its infinite spin-offs (yes both the comics and the TV show, which are pure uncut misanthropy to the point of unrealism even with the setting, unleashed by writers who have apparently never met a human) to World War Z (uggggghhhhhh no - such pandering) to Snyder's appalling version of Dawn of the Dead (which I actually hate less than a lot of most "modern zombie" stuff because at least it wasn't pandering). I really pissed and moaned about it for quite a few years, until I was north of 30 even. Then I had the same realization - I can just ignore this junk, and only come in and see if things have improved occasionally. I actually kind of enjoyed the recent Army of the Dead purely because it was so bonkers and not a repeat of earlier zombie takes. But if I'd been following closely I'd have long ago gone mad with annoyance at godawful reiterations of zombie nonsense.

 

[Celebrim]

Is what toxic or not?

I was expressing confusion as to what I took to be your point that bad behavior is present among content creators as well as fans, given that TTRPGs have enormous overlap between those two groups.

Is criticizing a brand toxic or not? Like if you say that an intellectual property that is being produced is bad, is that toxic fandom? If you don't like the product, shouldn't you just be quiet and not buy it?

 

[payn]

Seems we got a conflation of criticism and toxic behavior. Its easy to do because the two are often used together. Respectful critics can be shut down at times because of guilt by association, and that sucks. Though, during early 4E so many people bombed threads in a toxic way that it was almost impossible for fans to talk about the game. Which is why toxic behavior is awful, it not only drowns out fan talk, but also respectful criticism. Personally, I give folks the benefit of the doubt and dont toss the toxic brand onto subjects themselves. It's a person's actual behavior that is toxic and disengage when they make that clear.

 

[CleverNickName]

Nothing can ruin a fandom like its fans.

I learned something a while ago that I should have learned a lot sooner: not everything is meant for me. I'm not going to be the target consumer for everything that WotC sells, and that's okay. Sure, I'm a fan of D&D. But that doesn't make me a co-owner of it.

Take the latest campaign setting, Spelljammer. I seriously can't figure it out. Giant hamsters in space? Oozes wearing leather armor? Carnivorous asteroids? It's so removed from what I consider "heroic fantasy" that I can't tell if I'm completely out of touch with the hobby, or everyone is playing an elaborate prank on me.

But that's my problem, isn't it? The hobby isn't beholden to me, and I don't get to dictate what other people are allowed to enjoy and how much they're allowed to enjoy it. A lot of folks decided that D&D needed hippo-people with guns, and needed them to travel the stars in spaceships that look like mollusks, and they're really excited about it. They should be allowed to enjoy it to the fullest, and the gatekeepers who want to stop it and the gatecrashers who want to ruin it should just leave the room.

It's fine for me to look at Spelljammer, or Strixhaven, or any other D&D product and say "this product line is not for me." I don't have to buy it, and I don't have to be a jerk about it either.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Are D&D players and DMs considered "fans" of the game now?

That doesn't seem quite correct to me.

 

[mythago]

Is criticizing a brand toxic or not? Like if you say that an intellectual property that is being produced is bad, is that toxic fandom? If you don't like the product, shouldn't you just be quiet and not buy it?

Now I'm really baffled. Is anyone arguing that criticiizing of a movie or game or whatever in any manner is inherently toxic? If so that's a little weird.

 

[Celebrim]

@CleverNickName: I largely agree with you and yet at the same time I think you are missing the point.

I remember when Spelljammer came out. And most people I knew had exactly the response you just described: "I seriously can't figure it out. Giant hamsters in space? Oozes wearing leather armor? Carnivorous asteroids? It's so removed from what I consider "heroic fantasy" that I can't tell if I'm completely out of touch with the hobby, or everyone is playing an elaborate prank on me."

Now what's wrong with that take? What's wrong with the idea that: "Spelljammer is a problem for me, because if you are printing Spelljammer you aren't printing the heroic fantasy I like, and not only that you are printing Spelljammer you are destroying the brand because this crap isn't going to be popular, doesn't address the needs and wants of most of the existing customer base, and as such you are driving the company to bankruptcy which is a problem for me as a fan." Is it toxic to say that? Are those complaints actually illegitimate?

It's not true that WotC printing products you don't like is zero sum and no harm done. Personally, when I heard they were reprinting Spelljammer as a 5e product, my first thought was, "Wow. So that's the end of 5e, eh? They are so out of ideas for the brand that they are reduced to reprinting Spelljammer? Which of Spelljammer's 10,000 fans convinced them that this was a product that had mass appeal and was the best thing they could put on the production schedule?"

It doesn't make me angry. At this point I'm resigned to the idea that WotC doesn't print a lot of books for me. But I don't see how it is toxic to want to be catered to as a customer. Fans want to be in a state where they are holding out their hands going, "TAKE MY MONEY!" That's happiness for them. You'd think that brand owners would want that too.

 

[Celebrim]

Now I'm really baffled. Is anyone arguing that criticiizing of a movie or game or whatever in any manner is inherently toxic? If so that's a little weird.

Why should you be baffled? That's the way the word "toxic" seems to be used in modern conversation. When I introduced my thesis I argued that it appeared "toxic" had been defined to mean only "things I don't like". So fans are "toxic" when they criticize things I don't think are legitimate complaints, but not "toxic" when they do criticize things that I think are legitimate complaints. Or, maybe even more to the point, fans are "toxic" when they are critical of things I do like. As such it's just become a well-poisoning ad hominem attack of little use in conversation. It's just an attack on the person and not the argument, and an attempt to guilt by association all legitimate complaints. Don't like the Star Wars sequel trilogy? Well you are a "toxic fan", and why you don't like it doesn't matter.

 

[CleverNickName]

@CleverNickName: I largely agree with you and yet at the same time I think you are missing the point.

What's wrong with the idea that: "Spelljammer is a problem for me, because if you are printing Spelljammer you aren't printing the heroic fantasy I like, and not only that you are printing Spelljammer you are destroying the brand because this crap isn't going to be popular, doesn't address the needs and wants of most of the existing customer base, and as such you are driving the company to bankruptcy which is a problem for me as a fan." Is it toxic to say that? Are those complaints actually illegitimate?

It's not true that WotC printing products you don't like is zero sum and no harm done. Personally, when I heard they were reprinting Spelljammer as a 5e product, my first thought was, "Wow. So that's the end of 5e, eh?

Well, first of all, I don't agree with your statement "because if you are printing Spelljammer you aren't printing the heroic fantasy I like." As far as I can tell, they are printing plenty of heroic fantasy products: "Journeys Through the Radant Citadel" dropped last month, there's a new "Dragons of Stormwreck Isle" starter set coming in October, Critical Role's "Call of the Netherdeep" was just released a few months ago, I could go on. This product line is just one of several.

I'm not missing the point, but I guess I didn't make my point clear: people should be able to buy the material they want. Spelljammer has a large fan base, and those fans have money. You seriously don't see how it is toxic* to want to be catered to as a customer, while refusing other customers the same privilege?

*("Toxic" being defined as "harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way" regarding the hobby)

 

[MNblockhead]

Yep.

Thing is, the community is made up of people. Humans. And humans are still basically apes with smartphones. All the nastiness, but with added intelligence. RPGs do not especially select those things out, so, we get them in the usual measure.

My wife is a gamer. She also reads a couple different Fiber Arts communities (groups about knitting and crocheting, f'rex). And she sees the same toxicity there. Toxic knitters. What more is there to say?

Excuse me, I need to leave this thread to go write up a "toxic knitter" stat block immediately!