D&D 5E Toxicity in the Fandom

[Raunalyn]

I agree. Of course when the behaviour is repeated multiple times and when calling it out immediately results in being dehumanized, called the standard epithets like keyboard warrior and the like, sometimes one really must call a shovel a pointy digging instrument.

Except that there's quite a bit missing from this particular recollection...enough that screenshots of the conversation show that the glaring omission could be construed as being untruthful. An argument was made that wasn't taken at face value and the individual in question ascribed all sorts of motives and assumptions to what was being said (those words were said by someone, I forget who...interesting that this particular person is guilty of the very same thing they accuse others of). The individual in question then made a pretty libelous accusation, and it escalated from there. What's so funny about all of this is that the individual in question made these accusations, and when asked to provide proof, they blocked the person they accused instead of calmly discussing it and coming to an understanding. Then again, calling someone any of the 'ist terms because you don't agree with their argument is also dehumanizing as well. It is also toxic as all hell to think oneself as morally superior to another person because of a personal stance, and yet partake in the same (if not worse) activities that they condemn.

The screenshots are pretty telling, to be honest. It's quite humorous that this particular person gets all bent out of shape when it's pointed out that they are just as guilty as those they accuse. Which, interestingly, falls under the toxicity umbrella.

What's sad about all of this is that these two individuals considered each other friends at one point. Too bad that the accuser blocked the other person instead of discussing the situation to come to an understanding. Which is also toxic.

A simple apology would do so much...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think understanding skill challenges requires a grounding in narrative convention and flow, and WotC has never been good at describing these things in their rulebooks, probably due to the oft-mentioned "marketing to 12-year-olds" issue.

I will also add that I don't believe narrative convention should in any way be codified in the rules of D&D, which I'm sure informs my feelings about skill challenges.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think understanding skill challenges requires a grounding in narrative convention and flow, and WotC has never been good at describing these things in their rulebooks, probably due to the oft-mentioned "marketing to 12-year-olds" issue.

And, of course, it doesn't come natural to some GMs so even ones who were trying to engage with it in an appropriate fashion might have some frequent failures.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Some words very offensive in USA aren't a big deal in Australia and NZ.

Some have positive connotations depending on how they're used.

Australians also swear a bit so do we relative to USA. Every swear word here is about as offensive as the word damn in USA with the exception of an F bomb which still counts as swearing but isn't that offensive any more.

C words still bad but Australia and NZ have a few sayings using it that has positive connotations.

Australians can also turn the word mate into an insult and a punch out.

Aussie here. I try not to use the C word. I consider it sexist. I try to use a word for male genitalia instead. But I admit there are times the C bomb comes out. Sometimes reflexively, but sometimes I just need the cultural weight that comes with the C bomb. I mean, I wish it were not the case that it's considered worse than the male equivalent, but it is.

My wife, on the other hand, is happy to drop the C bomb. Or the occasional C cluster bomb. Or C nuke. But, as she points out, she has every right to do so.

As for "mate," it is indeed a versatile word with many shades of meaning based on context and tone. If dealing with Australians use it carefully.

I mean there could be, nothing stops someone from running a Pathfinder game with D&D lore. I know that's what my group often did, because we weren't really into Golarion.

Absolutely. I have a long running PE1 game that is set in Greyhawk. It has mind flayers too.

 

[billd91]

Aussie here. I try not to use the C word. I consider it sexist. I try to use a word for male genitalia instead. But I admit there are times the C bomb comes out. Sometimes reflexively, but sometimes I just need the cultural weight that comes with the C bomb. I mean, I wish it were not the case that it's considered worse than the male equivalent, but it is.

My wife, on the other hand, is happy to drop the C bomb. Or the occasional C cluster bomb. Or C nuke. But, as she points out, she has every right to do so.

My wife was partly raised in the UK, where the c word is also liberally sprinkled about, but she pretty much detests any use of slang words for female genitals in a derogatory context. She is, however, OK with literally any other form of profanity as long as its used in the right context. It's interesting how different perspectives develop.

 

[payn]

Aussie here. I try not to use the C word. I consider it sexist. I try to use a word for male genitalia instead. But I admit there are times the C bomb comes out. Sometimes reflexively, but sometimes I just need the cultural weight that comes with the C bomb. I mean, I wish it were not the case that it's considered worse than the male equivalent, but it is.

My wife, on the other hand, is happy to drop the C bomb. Or the occasional C cluster bomb. Or C nuke. But, as she points out, she has every right to do so.

As for "mate," it is indeed a versatile word with many shades of meaning based on context and tone. If dealing with Australians use it carefully.



Absolutely. I have a long running PE1 game that is set in Greyhawk. It has mind flayers too.

Can't go wrong with taint.

 

[Zardnaar]

Aussie here. I try not to use the C word. I consider it sexist. I try to use a word for male genitalia instead. But I admit there are times the C bomb comes out. Sometimes reflexively, but sometimes I just need the cultural weight that comes with the C bomb. I mean, I wish it were not the case that it's considered worse than the male equivalent, but it is.

My wife, on the other hand, is happy to drop the C bomb. Or the occasional C cluster bomb. Or C nuke. But, as she points out, she has every right to do so.

As for "mate," it is indeed a versatile word with many shades of meaning based on context and tone. If dealing with Australians use it carefully.



Absolutely. I have a long running PE1 game that is set in Greyhawk. It has mind flayers too.

Wife uses it way more than I do. She gets it from truck drivers. I remember eating a cake of soap age 4 give or take for using it.

 

[Stormonu]

Heh, it's funny. I've been watching a live play from Viva La Dirt League (NPC D&D - it's a guilty pleasure, sue me). These are four players that know virtually nothing about D&D. Total newbies. As in, need to be repeatedly told which die is the d8 and which is the d4 - that level of newbie.

Yet, when the DM runs a 5e adapted version of a skill challenge, there's zero confusion and lots of immersion. He's done it more than once in the series, and every time it comes up, the players get right on board with it and have no real issues.

So, I'm finding that this idea that skill challenges are this bizarre thing that no one could ever understand to be rather overblown. DM says something along the lines of "Here's the situation, what are you going to do to help resolve that problem?" Players make their cases, and roll their dice, and the situation is resolved. No gaming the system to any large extent, very engaged players, and a ton of fun around the table.

But, because it has 4e cooties on it, we cannot talk about skill challenges seriously without all and sundry coming out of the woodwork to question every single statement and bog the conversation down under a mountain of whatabout's and theorycrafting.

For those who might be interested, check out episodes 99-100 of Viva La Dirt League's NPC D&D series for a fantastic example of how skill challenges (or group skill checks in 5e parlance) work.

I'll sometimes slide a psuedo-skill challenge into my games (5E and even other systems). The ones I set up are more open that the rigid structure of 4E (that structure is what I dislike about that version's handling), and I don't require round-robin participation, though I do try to make it so that the same person/skill can't be used over and over again.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I can't warm to skill challenges. They just feel slightly off to me. But my experience with them is limited to what I've seen on critical role, so maybe they can work?

 

[James Gasik]

I can't warm to skill challenges. They just feel slightly off to me. But my experience with them is limited to what I've seen on critical role, so maybe they can work?

They have potential, but as we discussed earlier, you need to really use them correctly. Like, say you want the PC's to sail a ship to a destination. Having one guy be a lookout with perception checks each day, another person navigate, another keep the rigging ship shape...that sort of thing.

Then you have some consequences for success (or even degrees of success) and failure. Honestly, most games do this sort of thing all the time without even realizing it. A lot of Pathfinder Adventure Paths do this sort of thing, like Skulls and Shackles, they just don't call it out.

It's a way to handle non-combat "exploration actions", I guess. But not the only way.