D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[James Gasik]

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

I asked a friend of mine who is into crochet and needlepoint, and yes, apparently, it's all true:

[11:32 AM] Running with scissors: Yanno that meme that came out of a dumpster fire phoenix?
[11:33 AM] Running with scissors: Its based off the artwork of a cross stitch pattern maker and she has the copyrights to the image
[11:33 AM] Running with scissors: But some karens are saying and harassing her for stealing the image from the meme to profit off of.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, isn't part of the issue that it's "too late" to "vote with your wallet" in many cases?

Like, your Radiohead example, people are saying they don't like Kid A (i.e. people with no taste) probably already bought Kid A, didn't they?

And I think that's true of like, a huge amount of criticism. People pay for a thing and then don't like the thing. So it's perhaps confusing the argument to mash them in with this other group of people, who haven't bought the thing, and are insisting that thing shouldn't exist.

There's also the slightly complicated issue of "You're doing it wrong!", wherein a product is inevitable, but you dislike the way it's been done, but can do nothing about it aside from not buy it. Like, you can definitely rag on me for this, but I strongly suspect that WotC are going to bring out a Planescape-y book, and also that it's going to be as bland as butter & plain white bread sandwich (where the original Planescape was a bizarre banquet probably involving a lot of things a lot of people didn't want to eat!), and I'm pre-emptively inclined to be annoyed by that because it's going to set the tone for Planescape for at least this edition, and likely for the rest of eternity. And you can say "Well do it right yourself", but dude, if I do that, I may well get sued, right? Because that's how IP law works.

Who doesn't like Kid A, and why aren't they in the Monster Manual?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, isn't part of the issue that it's "too late" to "vote with your wallet" in many cases?

You can always refuse to buy the next album until they prove themselves. No preorders, etc. I’ve reached that point with Dream Theater’s release, The Amazing.

 

[Irlo]

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.

I suppose I'm lucky to be unaware of this trend.

Generally, I'd say that those who go around spouting off about "bad fans" and "real fans" are the toxic ones, and I wouldn't put stock in them calling out others as toxic. I haven't seen IP holders dismissing all criticism as toxic -- but I don't pay a lot of attention to that, so maybe it's a thing. I have seen IP holders stepping up to defend actors and writers from abuse, and that's a positive.

When I see Star Trek fans bent out of shape about diversity and inclusion, I do think they're bad fans -- as in, clueless and toxic. I wouldn't post memes about their bad-fanhood, but I would call out the abhorent racism that underlies their "criticism." There's plenty not to like in Star Trek, so I wouldn't judge someone for not enjoying some or all parts of it. Disparaging others is a clear line, though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

WotC and TSR always capped out around Frank's Hot Sauce.

Which, as we know, some people put on everything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

What phrase?

 

[Irlo]

@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?

Announcing that the product creators "poisoned the community and ruined the experience" is a big red flag for me. Not necessarily toxic in itself, but, yeah, people who feel such vitriol and a sense of betrayal about these things can cross that line very quickly.

Return of the Jedi was a steaming pile of goop, but I didn't hate or disparage the film-makers for it, even though I was 16 at the time of release and heavily invested in the franchise. It didn't ruin my experience of Star Wars. Some people liked it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suppose I'm lucky to be unaware of this trend.

Generally, I'd say that those who go around spouting off about "bad fans" and "real fans" are the toxic ones, and I wouldn't put stock in them calling out others as toxic. I haven't seen IP holders dismissing all criticism as toxic -- but I don't pay a lot of attention to that, so maybe it's a thing. I have seen IP holders stepping up to defend actors and writers from abuse, and that's a positive.

When I see Star Trek fans bent out of shape about diversity and inclusion, I do think they're bad fans -- as in, clueless and toxic. I wouldn't post memes about their bad-fanhood, but I would call out the abhorent racism that underlies their "criticism." There's plenty not to like in Star Trek, so I wouldn't judge someone for not enjoying some or all parts of it. Disparaging others is a clear line, though.

I wondering now, does the definition of toxic solely have to do with being anti-diversity and inclusion? That what's it seems to come down to.

 

[billd91]

When I see Star Trek fans bent out of shape about diversity and inclusion, I do think they're bad fans -- as in, clueless and toxic. I wouldn't post memes about their bad-fanhood, but I would call out the abhorent racism that underlies their "criticism." There's plenty not to like in Star Trek, so I wouldn't judge someone for not enjoying some or all parts of it. Disparaging others is a clear line, though.

I think there are some things that are always toxic (getting bent out of shape about diversity and inclusion, making ad hominem attacks) to complain about, some behavior that's always toxic (stalking, doxxing, bullying), and some behavior that can push over the line like making an initially criticism or opinion and harping on it until everyone's sick of you. That said, repeating it in multiple different conversations over the years generally shouldn't be considered toxic - I wouldn't consider that harping.

 

[Scribe]

I wondering now, does the definition of toxic solely have to do with being anti-diversity and inclusion? That what's it seems to come down to.

That's certainly what media would have us believe.