D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Umbran]

Is criticizing a brand toxic or not?

If you don't know the answer to this, you are not in a position to say whether or not things are toxic.

The answer is: Toxicity lies not in the general act, but in the specific act. Toxicity is in how you go about it.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

what on earth is there to be toxic about in knitting?

I have a friend that had to leave some knitting groups on FB because some of the members were literally being bullied for taking shortcuts or using the wrong patterns.

Pick a fanbase and there's toxicity in it somewhere.

 

[Celebrim]

I’ll join your bafflement. I’ve never seen “toxic” used to describe any and every criticism.

I've seen a lot of memes in online Star Wars social media and online forums generally lately about how the fact that Star Wars fans very vocally didn't like the sequel trilogy demonstrates that they are bad fans. The context of why they didn't like it isn't part of the memes criticism, just that they would not like it at all is presented as proof of their bad behavior. I've seen a lot of comments lately that if you are a real fan you should just be happy they made something for you, like you were a kid sitting at a table waiting for mom's dinner and need to show more gratitude.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Because sometimes good art turns off people.

Yeah and sometimes those people are the people in charge of the product, particularly it's a long-running IP rather than an author-driven affair like a band. Indeed I'd argue that's exactly what happened with Planescape, and I'd also argue it's what happened in a very short time period between the original Dark Sun boxed set and the second Dark Sun boxed set.

And you certainly don't have any entitlement to harass the creatives making it.

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I have never "harassed a creative" nor encouraged others to do so. It is definitely pretty awful.

It's like someone was trying to sell us Hellman's as Carolina Reaper Sauce.

Well-put, that's pretty much exactly the vibe. Let's hope it's all an illusion as some were suggesting.

 

[Celebrim]

If you don't know the answer to this, you are not in a position to say whether or not things are toxic.

The answer is: Toxicity lies not in the general act, but in the specific act. Toxicity is in how you go about it.

Ok, maybe. I'd like to believe that is true, I'm just not seeing that born out in how the word is used. I'm just not seeing that discussion actually happening.

Let me switch gears again to keep subverting the narrow ruts this conversation falls into. Disney catches a lot of a flack as a company, some deserved and some less so but one thing I think that they deserve praise for is how well they've managed the Winnie the Pooh intellectual property when it was in their care. I think Disney was hugely respectful to the original intellectual creator and his vision and they only released things that I think A.A. Milne would have been proud of. The art the used was always respectful of the classic art. The characters were always treated respectfully. And even when Disney kind of went out on some limbs with projects like "Pooh's Heffalump Adventure" I think they achieved artistic success of great merit. I think everyone involved with "Pooh's Heffalump Adventure" should be proud of that work and proud of how well they treated A.A. Milne's creation and property. It's like they handed it back to Milne with interest earned and hard labor added value. And I think that's what all people who work with other people's intellectual property should be aiming for.

And then by contrast as soon as the property is available for any to use, the first dumb thing someone wants to do with it is make a "subversive' horror movie out of the property as if that was in any fashion creative or necessary. Are the fans here the ones that are being toxic or is the person making the Winnie the Pooh horror movie being toxic? (Or neither or both, if you prefer to explain that.)

So yes, how you do something does matter, but it's not just a onus I think on the consumers and the critics. And it doesn't have to be "problematic" to earn a just complaint. It just can be bad, lazy, crappy art.

 

[BookTenTiger]

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.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don’t know what you mean. Can you say more?

I mean that some people think their opinions matter more than other peoples' opinions, for whatever reason. They regard their opinions as facts, for example, or they feel they can speak for others.

 

[Irlo]

I mean that some people think their opinions matter more than other peoples' opinions, for whatever reason. They regard their opinions as facts, for example, or they feel they can speak for others.

Thanks. It seemed like you were suggesting that @mythago and I thought too highly of our own opinions.

 

[Celebrim]

@BookTenTiger: Ok, what about the product WG7 Castle Greyhawk. Is it toxic to say, "The creators of that product have done a great disservice to the setting and the settings creator by presenting kind of the core mythological center of the setting of Greyhawk as a lazy joke product that isn't even funny, and they have poisoned the community and ruined the experience of people who otherwise wanted to enjoy the setting and the product." Like at what point does that sort of criticism become too mean and too pointed. At what point as a Greyhawk fan are you allowed to be actually upset by the treatment of the brand by the brand owner and angry that your wishes as a customer are not only not being catered to but find that you actually bought something where the brand owner seems to be deliberately thumbing their nose at you?

Can people feel the same way about the Star Wars sequel trilogy? Or did it become allowed at some point when a sufficient consensus of people had to admit the story and writing was just bad?

 

[BookTenTiger]

@BookTenTiger: Ok, what about the product WG7 Castle Greyhawk. Is it toxic to say, "The creators of that product have done a great disservice to the setting and the settings creator by presenting kind of the core mythological center of the setting of Greyhawk as a lazy joke product that isn't even funny, and they have poisoned the community and ruined the experience of people who otherwise wanted to enjoy the setting and the product." Like at what point does that sort of criticism become too mean and too pointed. At what point as a Greyhawk fan are you allowed to be actually upset by the treatment of the brand by the brand owner and angry that your wishes as a customer are not only not being catered to but find that you actually bought something where the brand owner seems to be deliberately thumbing their nose at you?

Can people feel the same way about the Star Wars sequel trilogy? Or did it become allowed at some point when a sufficient consensus of people had to admit the story and writing was just bad?

I'm confused by your term "allowed." Who is allowing anything, or disallowing things?

You seem to be looking for a definite line, as if on one side is "toxic" behavior and on the other side is "normal" behavior. There is no line.

There is, as Umbran mentioned, intention. When criticizing Castle Greyhawk, is your intention to exclude people from the hobby? Is your intention to harm the creators or fans? If not, then most likely you are not being toxic. If yes, then it's likely you are being toxic.