D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Umbran]

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

I mean, except for the extreme hyperbole - Carolina Reaper Sauce is somewhere around 2.2 million Scoville units, ranking in there with law enforcement grade pepper spray. You can't hold it against reasonable people if they don't consider it a valid food product.

WotC has never claimed their product was so extreme that most of us wouldn't consider it valid gaming product. WotC and TSR always capped out around Frank's Hot Sauce.

 

[billd91]

@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?

I think that criticism is already too mean to be non-toxic since it's ascribing negative characteristics to the people who worked on it (lazy, in particular). If it had said that the creators misread the Greyhawk community and produced a joke product that was not only unwelcome but really cheesed of a segment of Greyhawk fans, that's a lot more fair and non-toxic.

Disclosure: I'm a Greyhawk fan and had a copy of WG7 and was amused by parts of it, other parts of it, not so much. I did eventually sell it at auction because I didn't really have a use for it. But I don't think I would call it a lazy product.

 

[Umbran]

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...

So, you're still applying it to a large scale act, when I've said the devil is in the details. I cannot tell you if the movie is toxic without seeing it (or at least getting detailed and accurate descriptions of the content), I cannot say those criticizing it are toxic without reading exactly what they wrote.

HOW IT IS DONE is the important part.

You're also kind of tossing aside the lede - if you want to talk about Disney, and toxicity, the abuse Moses Ingram, Kelly Marie Tran, Daisy Ridley, or Brie Larson have taken at the hands of fans is kind of glaring.

 

[CleverNickName]

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

Woops! No, sorry--that was not my intent at all.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, except for the extreme hyperbole - Carolina Reaper Sauce is somewhere around 2.2 million Scoville units, ranking in there with law enforcement grade pepper spray. You can't hold it against reasonable people if they don't consider it a valid food product.

WotC has never claimed their product was so extreme that most of us wouldn't consider it valid gaming product. WotC and TSR always capped out around Frank's Hot Sauce.

Fair point re: Carolina Reaper, but come on re: Frank's, that's just insulting, man!

We have that over here too. It's an absolute joke of a hot sauce even if it goes well with certain things. It's 450 SHU. Even Cholula, which is barely hot, is 1000 SHU (I have both in my fridge right now).

Re: TSR, I'd say they reached Tabasco sauce levels of spicy (5000 SHU), whereas WotC has, with D&D products (not MtG ones), never exceeded Cholula (1000 SHU). Original Dark Sun and Planescape are just tongue-scorchers compared to even the spice-y-est WotC D&D material (which is what, Eberron maybe? That was pretty spice-y at the time, despite being a kitchen-sink generic setting).

(As an aside for lunch apparently I was eating chicken with 15000 SHU sauce on them and thinking "this could be hotter" so there is that!)

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

There is a difference between being a sad tryhard and toxic.

Sad tryhards aren't trying to hurt anyone in and of themselves. A lot of them are trying to antagonize the existing fandom (see a lot of 90's and Oughts comics stuff by people who professed to hate superhero comics), who are toxic, but being a pizza cutter (all edge, no point) is not toxic by itself.

So if someone rolls out a Winnie the Pooh horror and is constantly talking about how they're 'challenging' the original fans for being too soft or something, then they're toxic.

If they do it and just talk about how cool they are for making something wholesome edgy and how artistic Roo's death scene was, they're not toxic, just terrible.

 

[payn]

When folks start "speaking for the community" that is usually a pretty good indication things are heading in a toxic direction. An appeal to popularity is usually employed to make a case that cant stand on its own. The internet might make folks think everybody hates something, but its not always the case. Often, once established folks start trying to cancel, gatekeep, troll, etc...

 

[Irlo]

When folks start "speaking for the community" that is usually a pretty good indication things are heading in a toxic direction.

Agreed. Because others who disagree with the speaker are implicitly excluded from “the community.”

 

[Ruin Explorer]

but being a pizza cutter (all edge, no point)

Oh my god that is amazing, why I have I not heard this phrase before?

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's also important to recognize that there are two kinds of toxic fandoms:

Poisonous fandoms are toxic to the touch.

Venomous fandoms inject toxin.