D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Faolyn]

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.

From what I've read, Spelljammer was originally created as a response to Lorraine Williams not letting TSR writers do playtesting (because that would be playing during work time), so the writers just threw every crazy idea that they had into the mix. I could be wrong here.

I have also read that the initial idea for Spelljammer was developed over an alcohol-heavy lunch, which makes a lot of sense.

 

[Celebrim]

His language was dismissive. He basically said "your feelings don't count because they're not the same as mine."

Oh, I'm well aware how dismissive he was. He mocked the clergy. I get it. How dare he portray the Pope as a monkey in the illuminated manuscript.

But you just put words in his mouth, and I don't agree that that was "basically" what he said. At the risk of committing the same mistake, I read his complaint as being against those that say, "Because I have feelings, everyone else's feelings don't matter." That is to say, he was also mocking those that say, "You feelings don't count because they are not the same as mine!" In a sense, you two agree, he was just coming at it from the opposite direction.

If I was running a message board as an admin (something that isn't entirely theoretical, since I've done it in the past) and I saw that there was this one person who was always reported by a bunch of people, I'd probably conclude that that was a pretty abrasive person. But equally, if I saw that there was one person he reported people much more often then anyone else, I'd probably conclude that was also a pretty abrasive person. It's not the case that a person who is offended all the time is necessarily the one in the right. A person who is offended all the time is probably also a pretty offensive person, eager to find fault, easily slighted, easily made angry, etc.

So this to me is not a simple problem where it is easy to always know who the victim is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Where is all the weird religious comparison coming from?

 

[Faolyn]

I don't understand how we got to the point that feminists were defending distaff ghostbusters characters as anything but a repulsive idea.

I didn't watch the all-woman Ghostbusters remake because I never felt the movie needed a remake. But: how many action/SF/comedy movies are there where all the characters are women? And more importantly, how popular are those movies, in comparison to similar movies with all male leads or both men and women as leads?

The answer is a probably a vanishingly small number and probably not very popular at all. There are a couple, yeah, but certainly not many. At least not in American movies; I can't say for the films of other countries. And many of those movies still use a lot of men--as secondary characters, as plot points, as the reason for the women to act the way they do, as a way to show how bad@$$ the women are in comparison.

If instead of making a Ghostbusters movie, these women had made something in a similar vein, it would probably do terribly. People still think women aren't funny. Plenty of people won't go to see an all-woman movie unless it's a romance or the women are super-sexy or things like that. People would accuse them of trying to rip off "better" (male cast) movies, even if their ideas where original. So with that in mind, why not just remake an existing movie and gender-flip the cast?

 

[mythago]

No it's pretty obviously not his point. HIs point was that people in a fandom can and should still talk to each other respectfully despite having quasi-religious schisms. I think however your response illustrates his point perfectfully, because you immediately leaped to an ad hominem attack that took what he said in the worst possible light and even went so far as to twist it. He never defended any of those behaviors. The whole passive aggressive asking him that question is rude in the exact same what that "oh you say you are a fan? Prove it.".

He's clearly opposed to aggressive and hateful behavior. Why isn't your post treated as such?

What, exactly, was the "ad hominem attack" of which you're complaining?

In the spirit of civility, I'll just say that I'm afraid I disagree with you about both the tone and content of that post. If you're genuinely concerned that my response was in fact malicious, there is a method for you to report it to the moderators.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I didn't watch the all-woman Ghostbusters remake because I never felt the movie needed a remake. But: how many action/SF/comedy movies are there where all the characters are women? And more importantly, how popular are those movies, in comparison to similar movies with all male leads or both men and women as leads?

The answer is a probably a vanishingly small number and probably not very popular at all. There are a couple, yeah, but certainly not many. At least not in American movies; I can't say for the films of other countries. And many of those movies still use a lot of men--as secondary characters, as plot points, as the reason for the women to act the way they do, as a way to show how bad@$$ the women are in comparison.

If instead of making a Ghostbusters movie, these women had made something in a similar vein, it would probably do terribly. People still think women aren't funny. Plenty of people won't go to see an all-woman movie unless it's a romance or the women are super-sexy or things like that. People would accuse them of trying to rip off "better" (male cast) movies, even if their ideas where original. So with that in mind, why not just remake an existing movie and gender-flip the cast?

Man, it made it so hard to genuinely dislike that movie or Last Jedi or Captain Marvel (though I liked Captain Marvel, the issue stills stands as any minor criticisms suffered the same fate) for the simple fact that the toxic folks would take any good arguments, skin them, and wear the stinking corpse as a Halloween costume while still concluding that their disgusting mind farts were also valid because of them. Sometimes directly in your own comments sections.

 

[Celebrim]

What, exactly, was the "ad hominem attack" of which you're complaining?

Allow me to try to explain. Supposing I am responding to your post (as I actually am), and instead of saying what I am saying now I responded:

"So what you are basically saying is that puppies deserved to be kicked and caged? You're basically defending animal cruelty! Do you run a dog fighting ring?"

You would probably see that and wonder how in the heck I construe such nonsense from your post, or how I managed to come up with such an uncharitable response to what you said. You'd also probably think that I had underlying intent to slander you and present you in the worst possible light, and give mythago the name and reputation of one that abused animals.

And I read your post, and it's not as exaggerated as my hypothetical puppy kicking response but it seems to be in the same spirit.

In the spirit of civility, I'll just say that I'm afraid I disagree with you about both the tone and content of that post. If you're genuinely concerned that my response was in fact malicious, there is a method for you to report it to the moderators.

We're neighbors. I would never be so rude to you as to report you to the moderators, in the same way I'd never call the police on my neighbors for playing their music too loud.

 

[Faolyn]

Oh, I'm well aware how dismissive he was. He mocked the clergy. I get it. How dare he portray the Pope as a monkey in the illuminated manuscript.

But you just put words in his mouth, and I don't agree that that was "basically" what he said. At the risk of committing the same mistake, I read his complaint as being against those that say, "Because I have feelings, everyone else's feelings don't matter." That is to say, he was also mocking those that say, "You feelings don't count because they are not the same as mine!" In a sense, you two agree, he was just coming at it from the opposite direction.

Mm, you may wish to reread it. "I think it is generally a bad idea to generalize people, and that starts with calling things "toxic", a stupid buzzword invented only recently that really needs to die out soon. Y'd think a DM would know that toxicity primarily is used to describe the potency of the type of poison the traps you place on the map have. Not for some "oh someone hurt my fee-fees" nonsense."

Yeah, I'm not seeing what you wrote here.

If I was running a message board as an admin (something that isn't entirely theoretical, since I've done it in the past) and I saw that there was this one person who was always reported by a bunch of people, I'd probably conclude that that was a pretty abrasive person. But equally, if I saw that there was one person he reported people much more often then anyone else, I'd probably conclude that was also a pretty abrasive person. It's not the case that a person who is offended all the time is necessarily the one in the right. A person who is offended all the time is probably also a pretty offensive person, eager to find fault, easily slighted, easily made angry, etc.

Does not follow. A person who is offended all of the time may, in fact, be a person who is actually being insulted a lot, or who is calling out people who are insulting others.

If one person reported people a lot, then I'd take a look at who they're reporting before I assume that they're being offensive themself. Maybe the message board you're running is home to a lot of toxic people and you just weren't being aware of it. I have no idea if you understand all the words and phrases and microaggression that are considered to be derogatory or bigoted by other people or not.

 

[mythago]

I didn't watch the all-woman Ghostbusters remake because I never felt the movie needed a remake. But: how many action/SF/comedy movies are there where all the characters are women? And more importantly, how popular are those movies, in comparison to similar movies with all male leads or both men and women as leads?

I suspect it is less about the popularity with the audience, and more about the preferences of the people who make the movies.

The Bechdel Test gets a lot of press now, but it was never really a test to weigh whether an individual movie is or isn't sexist. It was making a point about Hollywood, and how if you imposed the very low bar that a movie must have "two women talking about something other than the man", you'd see very few movies indeed.

 

[Celebrim]

Yeah, I'm not seeing what you wrote here.

Ok. I'm not seeing how you don't see it.

Does not follow.

Ok.

A person who is offended all of the time may, in fact, be a person who is actually being insulted a lot, or who is calling out people who are insulting others.

If one person reported people a lot, then I'd take a look at who they're reporting before I assume that they're being offensive themself. Maybe the message board you're running is home to a lot of toxic people and you just weren't being aware of it.

All that is true and fair, but it doesn't refute what I said. Yes, it may be the case that I investigate the situation and lo and behold this person is being bullied and bullies - who are in most communities usually very popular people - are orchestrating the community against the outsider or against an easy target. In which case yes, I'll need to chastise the bullies in some just fashion and protect the weak against the strong as my duty in a position of power and authority.

But, it may just be the case that the person who is reporting everyone is a trouble maker, and typically in my experience is this is actually the case. Not always the case but usually. I mean it can also be the case that the person everyone is reporting isn't actually saying anything offensive, he's just saying things that are unpopular or that the reporting against him is part of a group bullying campaign.

That's my point. You can't actually just no without inspecting the situation. And so when you "refute" my point by saying "Well, you can't actually just know without inspecting the situation" you are actually coming alongside me in a way. In that much, we agree. I mean look at what the conclusion of my post was. If it was my conclusion, I probably thought it pretty important.