The toxicly nontoxic group

[Drache64]

Have you ever run into a group that was so focused on keeping toxicity away that it was actually toxic?

I've seen this in two ways:

1. The family dynamic: People who are so focused on protecting the group dynamic that they oust any players who they think will be a bad fit without warning and sometimes without even infraction. This only really becomes toxic when it's among family/friends, can't blame a private group for not accepting strangers.

2. The DM with PTSD from "That guy":
Had a DM who had dealt with a legitimate "That Guy" scenario. After that he became so focused on running a nontoxic group that he began kicking players left and right for slight infractions such as texting during a session and sitting everyone down for a talk before the session began every time. He currently plays with 3 other players who are pretty chill and that's about it.

{scrubbed}

What are ways you guys have seen people try to avoid toxicty in their group to the point it actually came across toxic?

[GentlemanVoodoo]

I hear what your saying but sometimes it happens. For the instances like in your first example that is where the session zero comes in. All items such as how you are playing a character and other issues can be addressed. It will solve such problems like you had most of the time but not always. At least by doing this you have ground to stand on and say "Well you knew how I was going to play this character. Should of raised any concerns at the beginning."

The second example you gave is simply you just get an DM like that sometimes who will be a horse's butt about anything and everything.

[Slipperychicken]

It just seems like a matter of taste and finding a group where you can roleplay what you want. Personally, if I'm in a fantasy game and some drunks try to start something in a bar, then I'll want to see a more lighthearted response ("I don't want no trouble" / "you picked the wrong drunk to mess with" / "oh look, the entertainment has arrived" / etc). I don't want to spend my violent fantasy romp mirandizing people and trembling in fear of the consequences of violence.

For the second guy, that sounds like a deliberate process: Cast a wide net for players, then thin the worst players from the herd until you have a core of good reliable people. Most good gaming groups start with some variations on the theme, whether poaching players from other games, or running oneshots for randos to test-run a variety of them. It pays to be selective. I have to admit that kicking players outright is pretty ballsy; I only GMed for a short time, but it takes some courage to do that.

For you I'd suggest discussing these sorts of scenarios with prospective GMs, to illustrate your favored style of play, help set some informal/tonal boundaries for yourself, and help evaluate your fit before you join games.

[Mordaedil]

That second DM needs a backrub and a calm talk to chill his nerves a bit. Of course, it does help to have a full group about the social contract and set up some agreements on things we don't do during a session and treat eachother with respect, including the DM.

For the first one, I think I'll echo someone else that a session 0 would have helped clear things up ahead of time and that it isn't so much toxic as it is just how their group works and any outsider element is actually toxic to them.

[Knaight]

The second example seems like someone who could probably stand to chill a bit, but the first? You have an existing group. They have an existing group dynamic - it's on new people to either fit it or decide that the group isn't for them, but not someone reading the dynamic at all and then accidentally going against it is a pretty good reason not to accept them in the group*.

*Assuming the assumptions made based on hints in the first post. Most notably these are that the non-game relationship between the parents in the family game and the OP was minimal to nonexistent.

[King of Nowhere]

Never seen it happen for gaming.
But i saw it happen several times in other real life context.
Saying more would probably violate some forum rule

[Drache64]

At least by doing this you have ground to stand on and say "Well you knew how I was going to play this character. Should of raised any concerns at the beginning."

I don't want to spend my violent fantasy romp mirandizing people and trembling in fear of the consequences of violence.

For you I'd suggest discussing these sorts of scenarios with prospective GMs, to illustrate your favored style of play, help set some informal/tonal boundaries for yourself, and help evaluate your fit before you join games.

For the first one, I think I'll echo someone else that a session 0 would have helped clear things up ahead of time and that it isn't so much toxic as it is just how their group works and any outsider element is actually toxic to them.

but not someone reading the dynamic at all and then accidentally going against it is a pretty good reason not to accept them in the group*.
*Assuming the assumptions made based on hints in the first post. Most notably these are that the non-game relationship between the parents in the family game and the OP was minimal to nonexistent.

First I'll answer the assumption "Most notably these are that the non-game relationship between the parents in the family game and the OP was minimal to nonexistent." Actually they were family friends of my wife, my wife grew up playing at their house and the son who taught me D&D was a close friend at the time.

The first example was my first group, the son taught me D&D, at this point I have been playing D&D for years, running groups as a DM I have taught about literally 20 people how to play and 5 people how to DM.

The toxicity isn't about maintaining a group dynamic, it's about dropping people at a moments notice on a slight infraction with no warning. I agree with everything you guys said, but none of that really applies here.

New player joins a group, starts playing the session, with no conversation, no warning, no second chance, the DM stops the player and says "I think you should leave". That action is toxic.

That is the ONLY thing I am calling toxic, let's not think I am throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am saying that the family dynamic form of toxicity is kicking people without warning on a minor infraction without any conversation or chance to adapt their play style.

P.S. When I started hanging out with that family my wife did warn me "They have a weird habit of being best friends with people and then never talking to them again over petty things". I gave them a chance anyways as they seemed SUPER cool and SUPER chill... until they weren't.

[icefractal]

I think from their perspective it wasn't sudden, if that was "the straw that broke the camel's back". That's what happens when people don't bring up problems until they're at the "can't stand it any longer" level. Not uncommon IMO, because resolving it can be awkward and "hope the problem fixes itself" is a lot easier.

[Faily]

First I'll answer the assumption "Most notably these are that the non-game relationship between the parents in the family game and the OP was minimal to nonexistent." Actually they were family friends of my wife, my wife grew up playing at their house and the son who taught me D&D was a close friend at the time.

The first example was my first group, the son taught me D&D, at this point I have been playing D&D for years, running groups as a DM I have taught about literally 20 people how to play and 5 people how to DM.

The toxicity isn't about maintaining a group dynamic, it's about dropping people at a moments notice on a slight infraction with no warning. I agree with everything you guys said, but none of that really applies here.

New player joins a group, starts playing the session, with no conversation, no warning, no second chance, the DM stops the player and says "I think you should leave". That action is toxic.

That is the ONLY thing I am calling toxic, let's not think I am throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am saying that the family dynamic form of toxicity is kicking people without warning on a minor infraction without any conversation or chance to adapt their play style.

P.S. When I started hanging out with that family my wife did warn me "They have a weird habit of being best friends with people and then never talking to them again over petty things". I gave them a chance anyways as they seemed SUPER cool and SUPER chill... until they weren't.

They are not being toxic. And it seems there is way more to the story about this group.

I will however disagree with your statement that they are toxic.

From what it seemed like of the group dynamic you presented, they seem to like to play D&D with the "good heroes"-fantasy (which is a perfectly legit way of playing D&D, you want the fantasy of people being good nice people and good defeating evil), and thus bringing in "I'm not evil I'm Chaotic Neutral"-character who is fine with torture and the like is *not* going to go over well. If anything, one could argue that you were representing the toxic stereotype of D&D gamers being murderhobos and "ends justify the means"-evil, but that is also a stretch.

Just accept that that group is not for you, and let it go. It was a mistake to jump into Chaotic Neutral {scrubbed} with a new group before seeing what their dynamic and preferences were like.

And like me, they might've come to the conclusion that there is no reasoning with people who want to play D&D that way. Some people just want to have consequence-free fantasy, and that is also a perfectly fine way of playing D&D and other roleplaying games. Trying to combine the two different styles is going to lead to a lot of disscussions about alignment and "that is evil/not good"... it's a real mood-killer for the fun.

Some groups, playstyles, or players just don't mix. At all. Just let it be.

[Anxe]

I agree that kicking players for unwarned and relatively minor infractions is not the best way to expand one's group, but I don't think toxic is the right word for it. Rude and inhospitable, but not toxic.

[Jay R]

The warning signs are somebody whose character is Good being nonchalant about PC death and comfortable with torture.

Somebody escalating a mere brawl with lethal force would be the determining factor.

Sorry, but I agree with the family in case 1. You are not a good fit for a group of people trying to behave well.

I have no problem with a group of people who are comfortable doing that sort of thing, but it clearly doesn’t fit with players running a Lawful Good party.

[Drache64]

The warning signs are somebody whose character is Good being nonchalant about PC death and comfortable with torture.

Somebody escalating a mere brawl with lethal force would be the determining factor.

Sorry, but I agree with the family in case 1. You are not a good fit for a group of people trying to behave well.

I have no problem with a group of people who are comfortable doing that sort of thing, but it clearly doesn’t fit with players running a Lawful Good party.

Again, you guys miss the point, I agree with 100% of what you just said. Stop reading for a second, sit back in your chair and just ponder that for a second.

good? okay now, what the toxic part is, is not communicating that with a player. I have run many new players through D&D and I tell them "I run good campaigns with heroes, this is not a place for evil characters, if your character falls into an "evil" alignment he will die from a DM inflicted Karma". When I have had players toe that line I have given them verbal warning in the form of "Hey man, that will change your alignment, remember what I said about this being a table of heroes, are you sure you want to do that?"

They are not being toxic. And it seems there is way more to the story about this group.

I will however disagree with your statement that they are toxic.

If anything, one could argue that you were representing the toxic stereotype of D&D gamers being murderhobos and "ends justify the means"-evil, but that is also a stretch.

Just accept that that group is not for you, and let it go. It was a mistake to jump into Chaotic Neutral {scrub the post, scrub the quote } with a new group before seeing what their dynamic and preferences were like.

And like me, they might've come to the conclusion that there is no reasoning with people who want to play D&D that way. Some people just want to have consequence-free fantasy, and that is also a perfectly fine way of playing D&D and other roleplaying games. Trying to combine the two different styles is going to lead to a lot of disscussions about alignment and "that is evil/not good"... it's a real mood-killer for the fun.

Some groups, playstyles, or players just don't mix. At all. Just let it be.

The problem here is that you have it all wrong, I was Neutral/Chaotic Good. Always frustrates me on here when people decide they are the expert on the experience I had. My character fell in line didn't challenge the DM, wasn't a rules lawyer, didn't actually kill anyone in the game aside from goblins robbers etc. And the "torture" was hitting the pirate that attacked us in the face while he was tied up and resisting questions.

Listen, people can be in the wrong aside from the OP, I just want you to keep an open mind going forward.

And I have let it be, it was over 6-8 years ago, I was just sharing a story, not venting.

Always bothers me when people in this community take any sharing of a past experience as venting/whining. I just wanted to open up the discussion on various type of toxicity people have run into, not have my experiences put under a microscope and be told why I am the problem 6 ways from Sunday.

I also think it is pretty petty (like the actual definition of petty) to be like "well it's bad/rude/inhospitable, but not toxic" I'm not here to get to the root Aristotelian Form of the platonic nature of "toxic" (Holds up a skull looking at it longingly "what IS toxic?").

{scrubbed}

(Now that was venting)
/rant

[Tvtyrant]

The issue here, like most debates, is we use terms collectively that we don't define. Discussions of toxicity in gaming are either going to be case based or definition based, if you want the latter a clear definition would make it so the disagreement doesn't feel personal would be best.

[Jay R]

I didn't miss your point. I am actually disagreeing with it. That family group does not sound toxic.

And they did communicate with you. You were made aware that you weren’t fitting in at least twice: when you punched the prisoner and when you didn’t show an interest in NPC life. They didn’t use the exact phrase, “Start acting Good, or we won’t invite you back,” but you were made aware that you weren’t acting like the rest of the group.

And whatever the character sheet said, punching a prisoner is not a Good act. A Good character might be forced to do it, if it was the only way to get info to save lives, but that’s not what you described, and you specifically said you didn’t care about NPC lives.

It was a group you didn’t fit in with; that’s all. That’s not what “toxic” means.

[Drache64]

And they did communicate with you. You were made aware that you weren’t fitting in at least twice: when you punched the prisoner and when you didn’t show an interest in NPC life. They didn’t use the exact phrase, “Start acting Good, or we won’t invite you back,” but you were made aware that you weren’t acting like the rest of the group.

{scrubbed}

[ExLibrisMortis]

For what it's worth, I feel that "toxicity" is more of a long-term thing, little annoyances slowly building up and escalating into a toxic environment, in which every interaction is interpreted in the worst light. Suddenly kicking people for no apparent/given reason is definitely rude, but it's a bit too up-front and immediate, you know? That said, I completely get what you're getting at, and I do think the first group was toxic in a broader sense (I read the story before you edited it). Giving people a second chance is basic politeness, especially when they're new to the group, especially especially if they haven't actually been briefed by the group on what is expected and allowed.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Please be respectful to other posters.

[Drache64]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Please be respectful to other posters.

I apologize to the community, I accused someone of trolling and arguing in bad faith, I SHOULD NOT have called them out on that, I had forgotten that calling people out on such things here is against the rules.

I have reported all of the comments as I should have done in the first place.

This is a great reminder, that if you too feel you are being trolled, or someone is arguing in bad faith, please say nothing and report the comments.

Thank you Peelee for this reminder in how to run a non-toxic community :)

[Kardwill]

New player joins a group, starts playing the session, with no conversation, no warning, no second chance, the DM stops the player and says "I think you should leave". That action is toxic.

Depends of the infraction. I know there are some things that would make me ask a player to pick up his things and leave. For example a new player that tells me his character rapes or torture another PC? Or does that on an NPC "for the evilz lulz" when in a table he doesn't know? Yeah, never gonna fit at my table, so I can spare everyone the trouble and let him look for a more compatible group.
...Okay, I'm a big coward, so I would probably simply quickly end the session, dicuss it with the other players when he's gone, and "forget" to invite him for the next game, but same difference.

For less horrendous stuff, like punching a prisoner at a family-friendly game, a serious discussion would probably be in order, so that the table can tell the newbie he's out of line, or he "doesn't really fit because we want to play X". Although it's unlikely it will solve the problem if the game expectations are different enough.
But I think that kind of things should be told during session zero. Avoiding clashes, laying down limits and wording expectations are the reason why it's the most important part of any campaign.

And yes, sometimes this kind of explosion comes after a long buildup of "small stuff" where the other players bite their tongues, hoping the newbie would take the hint and behave. Communication is hard, and gamers are quite often pretty bad at direct face-to-face conflicts and arguments


As for the second one : We've all had bad experiences with "This Guy", so we as GMs bring this baggage to the game. When it's our horror stories that shape our expectations, it sounds perfectly reasonable, but when it's another GM's, then it will of course feel arbitrary and stupid.
For example, I'm a guy who mostly plays female characters, but I've met many GMs with a "no crossgender play" rule because some guys, at their high-school table 12 years ago, played all their female PCs as sexoholic-stripper-ninjas. And I find this "you can play an elf sorcerer but not a woman" policy VERY frustrating :/
And on the other hand, I've met enough players who used their "chaotic psycho" character to bully the other players or hijack a game, so I'm now VERY wary when a new, unknown player comes up with an amoral PC. And I imagine that would come up as arbitrary for a new player who simply wanted a "shade of grey" character with a redemption arc.

[Rhedyn]

I don't think your examples count.

My vision of a toxicly nontoxic group is one that spends a third or more of the season being concerned by people's tone and berating people for interrupting someone else. Much like forums I've seen go down the drain where concern trolls derial threads or try to win arguments by getting the other person banned and the mods supporting that behavior rather than cracking down on it. It's such a stupid thing to do in person that I doubt it actually comes up or such a group would ever meet more than once.

[Droid Tony]

I don't think a group being proactive is an any way toxic.

For a lot of people they have two big issues: They only have a very limited window of time they can game and they want to have a fun game.

So, simply put, if you disrupt any of that, you are out of the group.

You mentioned texting...and it's a big one of mine. Text in a game when I'm GM, and you will be asked to leave. "If your text is so important, maybe you should go text and we will stay here and play the game".

Warnings are a big waste of both peoples time. If your a person who thinks it is ok to pull out your phone and text during the game, you are not the type of person I want to game with. And sure, we can play the game of I ask you to stop, you lie and say you will and then text a dozen more times. Or have to send emergency texts.

So, not toxic.

[Ken Murikumo]

You mentioned texting...and it's a big one of mine. Text in a game when I'm GM, and you will be asked to leave. "If your text is so important, maybe you should go text and we will stay here and play the game".

That sounds kind of extreme. I can understand texting whole novels to the recipient or staying focused on their phone for long periods of time, but if my roommate texts me "when will you be home" and i respond "10ish" i can't see that 8 second exchange ruining the game for anyone. Especially when it's done when someone else is adding up damage or rolling an attack or something.


On topic, though

Here's a weird one: when you help a player so much they literally don't learn the system. I've seen this with a group i briefly played with. The person in question had their character written for them and didn't know how to add stats to get final results with rolls. It happened ALL session. He was never taught how to do it himself so he would ask the person next to him who would mentally do the math and tell him the result.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Warnings are a big waste of both peoples time.

I mean... this sounds kind of toxic to me. It's like you only want to game with people who magically know your pet peeves. Sometimes, you have to put in a little effort and adjust to eachother. Friendship is not magic, you know?

[Tvtyrant]

That sounds kind of extreme. I can understand texting whole novels to the recipient or staying focused on their phone for long periods of time, but if my roommate texts me "when will you be home" and i respond "10ish" i can't see that 8 second exchange ruining the game for anyone. Especially when it's done when someone else is adding up damage or rolling an attack or something.


On topic, though

Here's a weird one: when you help a player so much they literally don't learn the system. I've seen this with a group i briefly played with. The person in question had their character written for them and didn't know how to add stats to get final results with rolls. It happened ALL session. He was never taught how to do it himself so he would ask the person next to him who would mentally do the math and tell him the result.

This reminds me of something my math teacher told me: If you have the book open to the formulas while you do your homework, you will never remember them. You have to have the confidence to do it without assistance, and then later you can correct the work if it is wrong.

The player probably did know their stats and how the game worked, but they were nervous about getting it wrong and so never dared to step out on their own. I had a player who would throw alchemist's fire pots every turn as a Factotum, and then played a Cleric that only healed because they were afraid of trying any knew actions. The confidence to be wrong is needed to really master anything.

[zinycor]

You mentioned texting...and it's a big one of mine. Text in a game when I'm GM, and you will be asked to leave. "If your text is so important, maybe you should go text and we will stay here and play the game".

What is considered texting for you? Cause people have lives outside of the game and checking on their phones every once in a while I'd absolutely ok in my opinion.

I have only had a problem when people are actively playing a game on their phones or go on a whole tangent that gets them absolutely distracted from the game.

[Tvtyrant]

What is considered texting for you? Cause people have lives outside of the game and checking on their phones every once in a while I'd absolutely ok in my opinion.

I have only had a problem when people are actively playing a game on their phones or go on a whole tangent that gets them absolutely distracted from the game.

There is a kind of slippery-slope where when one person takes out their phone everyone starts doing it, and it can mass derail the group. "While they check their messages I might as well check mine" and suddenly it has been five minutes and the DM has to start forcing people to pay attention.

[zinycor]

There is a kind of slippery-slope where when one person takes out their phone everyone starts doing it, and it can mass derail the group. "While they check their messages I might as well check mine" and suddenly it has been five minutes and the DM has to start forcing people to pay attention.

Not such a slippery slope has happened on my experience, yours might be different but I think that you are over reacting.

More importantly, at my table it would be fairly hard to enforce a no texting rule, since me and the players keep many details of our characters (such as the full descriptions for our spells) in our phones.

[Tvtyrant]

Not such a slippery slope has happened on my experience, yours might be different but I think that you are over reacting.

More importantly, at my table it would fairly hard to enforce a no texting rule, since me and the players keep many details of our characters (such as the full descriptions for our spells) in our phones.

I think it depends on group make up. I inevitably have people who are there because their spouse/sibling is who don't care so much about the game, and if their attention slides off of the game it takes roping them back. I don't know how people find groups without that issue, but it seems omnipresent to my experience as a player and DM.

That would take like 5 minutes one time to print everything. I can see having a preference for doing it that way, but it isn't a major obstacle. When I used to play casters I would make spellbooks that had their stats, spells known, the mechanics for their spells, and whatever other information was needed in it (like printed summon stats for my preferred summons or binds.)

I'm not saying ban phones, but I can see why someone would (not kicking people for forgetting though.)

[Koo Rehtorb]

I think it depends on group make up. I inevitably have people who are there because their spouse/sibling is who don't care so much about the game, and if their attention slides off of the game it takes roping them back. I don't know how people find groups without that issue, but it seems omnipresent to my experience as a player and DM.

That sounds intolerable.

[kyoryu]

I think it depends on group make up. I inevitably have people who are there because their spouse/sibling is who don't care so much about the game, and if their attention slides off of the game it takes roping them back. I don't know how people find groups without that issue, but it seems omnipresent to my experience as a player and DM.

Well that's the issue, isn't it?

If you're checking your phone at points when it's not disruptive, and you're ready on your turn or whatever, then I don't see a big deal.

If you're dragging the game down becuase you're not paying attention, then it's a problem.