D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[mythago]

I remember when I went to see John Carter with my friends. They immediately called out the movie for being derivative, and using tired old tropes.

When I pointed to them that John Carter was the original (or at least, an early) source, they just shrugged and said "well there was no reason to keep on doing it".

That sounds more like people who just don't want to admit they were mistaken about something.

 

[Hussar]

Just as many people can't wait to be horrible, i.e. the toxic; Many people just can't wait to be offended, i.e. The fentitled.

In my experience it’s those who are the most toxic who are the first to claim that people just can’t wait to be offended.

 

[James Gasik]

That's a bad skill challenge?

Look, I wasn't there, but, from that description, I'd say that was an absolutely fantastic skill challenge. Meaningful choices, actual consequences? How is this a bad skill challenge?

But, you're also missing the point. Before 4e, there was pretty much nothing in D&D for dealing with this sort of thing. No framework at all. It was pretty much make it up as you go every single time. And, because skills in 3e scaled so quickly, it was more a case of either you could do it trivially, or you would automatically fail. That's what the 4e skill system was reacting to.

5e has taken the 4e framework and adapted it in a somewhat looser form with group skill checks. Remember, prior to 4e, that didn't actually exist in D&D. The idea of everyone needing to make a skill check to resolve some scenario just didn't exist. But also, this point:



is just not accurate at all. That is a serious misread of how skill challenges were presented in 5e.

And yet, I don't know how many times I would go to the forums (remember when WotC had those?) and see someone ask "my players want to invest in a merchant company, what do I do?" and the answer was almost immediately "skill challenge".

Doesn't matter what it was, you want to put just about anything non combat in your game? "Oh that would be a skill challenge".

As for why the wyvern battle was terrible, because I was the best at dealing with the wyverns so that other people could make checks, but I was the best chance at making the important check, we took a lot of damage. Oh and I should also mention, we had a clock, so if we didn't succeed in a timely manner, we would get captured by Githyanki.

I eventually had to ask the DM "so since we're technically in combat right now, can I spend my Action Point to kill some wyverns and make my piloting check?". And that's the only reason we succeeded.

Of course, Scales of War also had a skill challenge after we killed the white dragon to escape it's glacier lair or be crushed and drowned. Granted, it wasn't a hard skill challenge, but death was certainly on the line!

 

[Vaalingrade]

And yet, I don't know how many times I would go to the forums (remember when WotC had those?)

It's why I'm still not allowed to have knives in the house!

and see someone ask "my players want to invest in a merchant company, what do I do?" and the answer was almost immediately "skill challenge".

Yeah, not a skill challenge.

You don't need to tell me, but did you have the same name on there as here because I remember a pretty good organizations thread. I don't have it copied, but I've been harvesting the corpse of its memory for my Authority system. The framework is that it can be a reward or a feat and I had the idea for three sample adventures to get the reward version.

Doesn't matter what it was, you want to put just about anything non combat in your game? "Oh that would be a skill challenge".

Also building a social encounter framework that uses the skill challenge as a starting point, but has a social stat block that supports it. So It's not just rolling; if you do the footwork, you can learn auot-fail and auto success topics and actions to bring to the table.

 

[James Gasik]

It's why I'm still not allowed to have knives in the house!

Yeah, not a skill challenge.

You don't need to tell me, but did you have the same name on there as here because I remember a pretty good organizations thread. I don't have it copied, but I've been harvesting the corpse of its memory for my Authority system. The framework is that it can be a reward or a feat and I had the idea for three sample adventures to get the reward version.

Also building a social encounter framework that uses the skill challenge as a starting point, but has a social stat block that supports it. So It's not just rolling; if you do the footwork, you can learn auot-fail and auto success topics and actions to bring to the table.

Ah no, I think...I used Lynceus as my handle back then. I intended to use a fake name here too, but somehow I ended up with my real name. Good if I run into someone I know. Bad if someone decides to hunt me down and end my heretical ideas!

Also, I get that this isn't what skill challenges were for, but that's pretty much what even the developers started to say, and every adventure I played had a mandatory skill challenge thrown in because...reasons.

The social skill challenge in this one LFR mod is the one I still tell tales of though, it was the worst. You got into a fight in a port, and broke some crate belonging to a Shou noble, and she demands restitution, which turns into a social skill challenge that claims certain skills are appropriate, but the DM has notes like "the lady is immune to Intimidate", or sets some DC's beyond the realm of what's expected for no real reason other than to railroad you.

 

[BB Shockwave]

When trying to identify if behavior is toxic, I think it's important to really focus on the idea of toxicity. Being toxic means you are negatively impacting the ways others engage with a medium.

@Celebrim , for example, if you say "I don't get Planescape, it's not for me." That's just an opinion, nothing toxic about it.

You can even say, "I don't like Planescape, and I wish WotC were releasing Greyhawk instead." Again, nothing toxic there.

But crossing over into toxicity would be something like saying, "I don't like Planescape, and those who do aren't real D&D fans."

Or "I don't like Planescape, so I'm going to tweet mean things about its creators."

Or on the other side: "I like Planescape, and if you don't, it means you're a grognard."

Toxic fandom doesn't mean criticism or adoration of a medium. To me, it means poisoning the community and ruining the experience of producing, enjoying, or critiquing art for others.

I think this is not a description of being "toxic" (which still, is not a word to be used when we have better ones to describe this behavior).
Instead, all the scenarios here are cases where the person saying these things got too personal.
"I don't like Planescape, and those who do aren't real D&D fans."
"I don't like Planescape, so I'm going to tweet mean things about its creators."
"I like Planescape, and if you don't, it means you're a grognard."

This is not someone being "toxic", this is what we on forum terms call flaming or trolling someone. In one case, other forum members, on another, directly the creators.

What Celebrim posted right below your post is, I feel a perfect example of someone sharing their opinion about a product they feel is being mishandled and it is to me, not insulting anyone who likes said product because it just describes the feelings the poster - and other similar-minded people - feel about this.
And one thing I hate more than someone calling this "toxic" is when after such a post like the one Celebrim posted is added, some Brainy Smurf type to pop up to 'Actually' this by saying "Well you are being subjective and you could have added this is just your opinion, man."
OF COURSE it is my opinion, why would anyone say anything about a subject that is NOT their opinion? Unless we can cast ESP on the whole fandom, we will never be able to know and tell the opinion of the fandom, or even guess at percentages about opinions. We are all just sharing our own. If you are a part of the fandom and you have an opinion on it, you cannot, by definition, be objective about it.

It's funny you bring this up. I just started watching the Orville. Couldn't see it here until recently.

I've gotten up to the sixth episode of season one and it's utter, utter crap. Insulting crap. I guess some people enjoy it, but, I can't for the life of me see why. The last episode I've watched has the helmsman dry humping a statue and then being put on social media trial for it, resulting in his possible lobotomization. Cool plotline done SO much better in Black Mirror. In this? I'm rooting for the bad guys to lobotomize this guy because he's so thoroughly unlikable. Oh, and then the episode ends with this incredibly paternalistic "do better" message from the characters who caused 100% of their own problems because they were so completely oblivious to other cultures that they couldn't even be bothered learning even the most basic facts about the culture they're supposed to be infiltrating.

Maybe the series gets better after this? I dunno. The first six episodes have taught me that all religion is mind alteringly evil, forcing people to be racist genocidal maniacs who abuse their own people in the name of some belief. That all other cultures are morally bankrupt and only the Union has any sort of morality at all, but, instead of being a showcase for that morality, are just a bully pulpit for the writers to show how superior they are.

Bleah. This is what people think is an "enjoyable version of Star Trek"? No thanks. It's not even parody. It's just mean spirited attacks on anyone who is different without even the slightest attempt to be even handed.

/rant off.

I was "lucky" to have caught that episode on TV once - I otherwise dropped out of the show after episode 3. I am a huge fan of Star Trek and like MacFarlane, TNG was my favourite show ever, but his terrible Family Guy potty humor and sitcom antics does not mix well with the weirdly super serious morals he is trying to deliver. It also does not help that his series just screams ripoff to the extent that even various Star Trek races, ships and technologies and organizations have a direct knockoff relation in the Orville (the crappy looking robots are the Borg, the sun-allergic aggressive alien race are basically the Kazon, Bortas and his race are Klingons, etc.)

And yes, that whole episode was basically a ripoff of the "facebook points" Black Mirror episode, just without any wit or proper moral. And our 'heroes' got themselves into this by being mind-numbingly stupid in avoiding first contact with a pre-warp civilization. If this was TNG, Picard would have suspended that idiot who got himself scheduled for lobotomization by doing something so disrespectful to another race's culture while being undercover. Just compare this episode with the TNG one where Riker gets accidentally revealed as being an alien, and how much he tries to maintain his cover and undo the damage he has done.

An example from the dark ages. 1995. Star Trek: Voyager went on the air. A few people were outraged that a dark-skinned actor was cast as a Vulcan (because everyone knows that Vulcans are white). I wasn't following social media in 1995. This was reported in newspapers and magazines (if I recall properly). These weren't criticismsof the actor's skill or how the character was written. These were criticisms before the show aired of casting a black actor. As an alien. Yes, that's toxic. And I'm okay with disparaging those few people over it.

That's not toxic.
That's simply racist.
I wish people would not invent buzzwords and just call things by what they really are.
I knew a fellow Trek fan who simply told me he never watched much of DS9 because "well it had a black captain". And when I asked why that would be a problem the naughty word quickly hit the fan about what the real issue was... Simply put he had serious prejudice against black people, while not really knowing any personally (we both live in Hungary). I told him to not get bogged down by prejudices and just give the show a chance, and I would tell it to anyone who has such openly racist ideas about characters.
I mean, Tim Russ was not even the first actor to play a black skinned Vulcan. We had seen a black Vulcan midwife in Star Trek III - The Search for Spock back in 1984 already, and Star Trek V had a high priestess played by a black actress.

Boyega in his widely covered "farewell" interview with GQ accused Finn of being a token character and that he was cast in the role solely so that Disney could have a person of color in the marketing for the movie and then pushed him and his character aside. So if you want to do your concern trolling and accuse people of being a racist for thinking that, take it up with John Boyega at this point.

I really felt for Boyega as he is a very talented actor and the movies just... threw Finn's character out the window. Well, I think we have Ryan Johnson to blame for most of it, but JJ Abrams is not spotless either.
The first movie almost immediately forgets that Finn was a kid who was kidnapped from his parents and basically turned into a Jannissary -style child soldier to fight for the First Order. We never get an explanation how he broke his mental conditioning, and a few hours after turning, he is gunning down his fellow stormtroopers without an ounce of regret. Then the movie hints at him maybe being force sensitive, they show his devotion and love to Rey, and... all these are thrown by the wayside and the sequels use him as a comedic character and saddle him with another love interest whom he really does not seem to be into.
When in the third movie he spends the whole movie trying to say something to Rey, I assumed it was that he loves her, but NOPE!
Talk about such a major waste of a character. The closest he has come to having an arc was in a deleted scene where he actually turns some of his fellow stormtroopers against Phasma.

 

[John R Davis]

In my experience it’s those who are the most toxic who are the first to claim that people just can’t wait to be offended.

Oh yeah it's a circle. Those who are offended by everything are toxic. Bad people on all sides of any arguement/issue.

 

[Hussar]

That's not toxic.
That's simply racist.
I wish people would not invent buzzwords and just call things by what they really are.

Sorry, but, being racist is toxic. It's not a buzzword. It means exactly what it says on the tin. It's not hard to understand. Lots of different behavior is toxic. Being pretty much any 'ist is toxic - sexist, racist, whatever.

What's the issue with calling it toxic?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh yeah it's a circle. Those who are offended by everything are toxic. Bad people on all sides of any arguement/issue.

Even on things like those who want an actor to die for giving a performance they don't like and the actor who would rather not?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Sorry, but, being racist is toxic. It's not a buzzword. It means exactly what it says on the tin. It's not hard to understand. Lots of different behavior is toxic. Being pretty much any 'ist is toxic - sexist, racist, whatever.

What's the issue with calling it toxic?

Throwing accusations of racism at people who are really only overly attached to their existing idea of the lore is also pretty toxic.