Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just wanted to have a discussion if people feel like there are certain games, either RPG, Tabletop, or even board games that draw a crowd of people that usually hurt
the chances of the game because of just the way they act. I am an older gamer and have seen certain games that have had a good start but then have people aggressive playing or bullying
that is causing others to move over to another game or no longer shop at that store. There are also game forums where someone will post about a rule or background and get attacked for not
knowing the precise lore or mechanic of the game. Sometimes I feel that certain games will attract types of bad players that are not good for causal or new players.
Stores that promote this attude end up not lasting long but not sure why they would think this is a good thing. Most people I know play games as an escape and just want to have
a laugh while hanging out at the FLGS, then others act like the game is the only that is going to change their life for the better, and losing it will cause them to go off the rails.
Not all shops are bad and not all players are bad. Just wondering how everyone feels about how certain games bring out the worse in people and why.

I generally find it has nothing to do with the game, or type of game. It's the type of people playing the game.

Games with a strong 'competitive' or 'versus' component will often have very toxic elements - to the point that things like call of duty multilayer can quickly become a meme.

But the truth is more nuanced. Every game/series has its toxic fans that can ruin things. My absolute favourite series for example is the 'life is strange' series of games (and yes, I include 'tell me why' here as well). Its nothing like 'call of duty' and has zero conpetitive elements but instead a very strong focus on character relationships and grounded/authentic social commentary. And I've seen toxic individuals here too looking for a fight and looking to villify others for preferring one game or another, or having nuanced views on individual characters in the series rather than a black/white declaration of 'they're horrible and you're a badwrong person for disagreeing'. Often to the point of ridiculousness and to almost be the exact opposite of the values the game series sets itself up to support.

Nothing is an issue with any game, it's just certain people.

Online communities are always going to be more negative than in person as well. Web forums, message boards and social media are echo chambers of different folks complaining and venting.

Folks who spend a lot of time online, will be influenced by this, and spread this in the wild.

I find my Local Warhammer store has a community around it of really great people, but they tend to come by, get what they want, and leave.

There are also a smaller selection folks who just stay at the store all day every day, and don't have a strong social net, who could give the community an unrealistic negative look if you didn't know better.

FATAL says hi

I'm reminded of Privateer Press and their whole "Page 5" thing. On one hand, they're immediately going to attract the hyper competitive crowd with that. On the other hand, they also created a world full of background, characters, and on ongoing story, all of which also attracts people who are not necessarily hyper competitive.

Crispy78 wrote:
FATAL says hi

And the new edition of Star Frontiers. Published by bonafide Nazis!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm reminded of Privateer Press and their whole "Page 5" thing. On one hand, they're immediately going to attract the hyper competitive crowd with that. On the other hand, they also created a world full of background, characters, and on ongoing story, all of which also attracts people who are not necessarily hyper competitive.

Ah good old page 5, good job none of that attitude has infected "top end" 40k innit

Most of the time this isn't a "Page 5" or such, its the attitude a community develops and which is allowed to be developed.


It's almost purely a social thing and thus can arise within any competitive or challenging environment.



Step out of wargames, step into sports. Consider the UK scene with regard to football hooligans. People who play and who support teams and who have been horrifically violent toward each other over nothing more than what team they support. That isn't something football made happen; it isn't something inherent to the rules of the game; its something that grew within a subset of the population enough that it became a major issue.

Tabletop games are the same. Be it RPG, Wargame, Cardgame or whatever. The wrong community attitude, the wrong community management; poor leadership (or lack there of) and more can all built an environment that allows negative behaviour and, at worst, ends up reinforcing and encouraging it.

It doesn't matter if they can point to the flag of "Page 5" or "my teams colours" or whatever. Those are ultimately red herrings used as excuses.

 Laughing Man wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
FATAL says hi

And the new edition of Star Frontiers. Published by bonafide Nazis!

Aw, feth. I think I caught some of the drama around the company, but hadn't known they had dragged Star Frontiers into it.

The original was a pure nostalgia button for me, pre-teen me's first RPG along-side the D&D basic set.

Fifth edition Vampire the Masquerade had similar problems (more on the writers and artists than publishers), but I didn't have nearly the same blinders on for that particular IP.

Voss wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
FATAL says hi

And the new edition of Star Frontiers. Published by bonafide Nazis!

Aw, feth. I think I caught some of the drama around the company, but hadn't known they had dragged Star Frontiers into it.

The original was a pure nostalgia button for me, pre-teen me's first RPG along-side the D&D basic set.

Fifth edition Vampire the Masquerade had similar problems (more on the writers and artists than publishers), but I didn't have nearly the same blinders on for that particular IP.

Oh it's bad:



On top of that their lead dev is a literal "wishes the Third Reich had won" Nazi, which frankly explains the above.

Wow.




Words for the word gods!

I was thinking to myself "could it be just a bad coincidence?" then I saw they actually called them Negroes...

I've been playing some TBC Classic and I'm reminded how toxic players can be even in a PvE environment.

Single-Player Only Games
These aren't really toxic until you get into the extended community and the deeper you get into it the more toxic it becomes.
You wouldn't think of the The Elder Scrolls as being toxic, but I wouldn't touch any forums related to those games and the drama that goes on with modding is mind-boggling.
Other games have the general issue of other players criticizing and harassing how others play the game and this is made worse with games that have patch es and balance tweaks.

Player vs Environment
There is a big issue with players trying to keep pace with others even in only a PvE setting, at least for games that have a long-running game world like MMOs. Even games with only temporary, instanced PvE, like the content in ME3 can have toxic behavior. I know this is true for TRPGs as well. I've read quite a few horror stories. If the game has an emphasis on world firsts you will see cheating.

Player vs Player
Absolute worst environment. I don't know if it's worse in MMOs or FPS. WoW (both retail and classic) have had a history of issues with cheating, win-trading, hacking, griefing, etc. I've seen players losing their minds and raging even when our team was winning. Communities like Smash have a history of grooming...

 Laughing Man wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Laughing Man wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
FATAL says hi

And the new edition of Star Frontiers. Published by bonafide Nazis!

Aw, feth. I think I caught some of the drama around the company, but hadn't known they had dragged Star Frontiers into it.

The original was a pure nostalgia button for me, pre-teen me's first RPG along-side the D&D basic set.

Fifth edition Vampire the Masquerade had similar problems (more on the writers and artists than publishers), but I didn't have nearly the same blinders on for that particular IP.

Oh it's bad:
.

...yeah, Ok. I do remember the drama around a lot of that, and yeah, the people behind it were/are not good people. (I vaguely remember that several things failed and they were very much outed as the scum they are).
I hate that they've taken old names (properties and companies) and built something horrible and unrelated on the nostalgic brand-name recognition.

On a weird related note, Wizards of the Coast have taken the actual classic Star Frontiers races and reused them in other settings (like the new Spelljammer), which is where Hadozee and Plasmoids come from. Now I'm wondering if its a way to lock down some aspects of the original where these idiots can't touch it.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I'm reminded of Privateer Press and their whole "Page 5" thing. On one hand, they're immediately going to attract the hyper competitive crowd with that. On the other hand, they also created a world full of background, characters, and on ongoing story, all of which also attracts people who are not necessarily hyper competitive.

Youre right about the world building. I have all their stuff going back to the black and white Witchfire. The iron kingdoms is an amazing ip. Love the setting and the lore.

The ironic thing was that people using page 5 as an excuse to be jerks were doing the exact opposite of what page 5 was all about. It was about healthy competition, and lets be fair, that is a thing.

'page 5' was hugely empowering at the same time. Play your best game, don't crutch, be creative in your lists be respectful, be a good winner and don't be a sore loser and never use this platform an an excuse to belittle or have a go at other players.

Some of the most wonderful people I've had the privilege of meeting was via the vmh community, and that included lots of casual players, not just the assumed tournament try-hards.

More annoying was 'play like you got a pair', until you realise its just a pun - dice resolutions were 2d6 (ie a pair of dice). And also, 90s humour. And to be fair, a lot of stuff from then doesn't hold up well to modern scrutiny.

trexmeyer wrote:
I've been playing some TBC Classic and I'm reminded how toxic players can be even in a PvE environment.

Single-Player Only Games
These aren't really toxic until you get into the extended community and the deeper you get into it the more toxic it becomes.
You wouldn't think of the The Elder Scrolls as being toxic, but I wouldn't touch any forums related to those games and the drama that goes on with modding is mind-boggling.
Other games have the general issue of other players criticizing and harassing how others play the game and this is made worse with games that have patch es and balance tweaks.

Player vs Environment
There is a big issue with players trying to keep pace with others even in only a PvE setting, at least for games that have a long-running game world like MMOs. Even games with only temporary, instanced PvE, like the content in ME3 can have toxic behavior. I know this is true for TRPGs as well. I've read quite a few horror stories. If the game has an emphasis on world firsts you will see cheating.

Player vs Player
Absolute worst environment. I don't know if it's worse in MMOs or FPS. WoW (both retail and classic) have had a history of issues with cheating, win-trading, hacking, griefing, etc. I've seen players losing their minds and raging even when our team was winning. Communities like Smash have a history of grooming...

Agreed. I avoid pvp gaming for that reason - much prefer a single player experience. Extended community toxicity is a thing. You don't have to look far - warhammer and star wars are known for it. But yoy get tribalism, and people looking for enemies to fight and flags to die for everywhere - even in the most unlikely places.

Voss wrote:
On a weird related note, Wizards of the Coast have taken the actual classic Star Frontiers races and reused them in other settings (like the new Spelljammer), which is where Hadozee and Plasmoids come from. Now I'm wondering if its a way to lock down some aspects of the original where these idiots can't touch it.

It might be related, but doubtful: Wizards owns the rights to Star Frontiers and is still publishing it as a print on demand product. TSR's already being (counter)sued for trying to use Star Frontiers and other WotC (ne TSR) trademarks.

Competitive Warhammer. Especially 40k. Maybe it's better overseas but stateside it is BAD, especially with Frontline passively encouraging it with how they manage things.

MTG? Don't know what it looks like where you live, but here, the stereotype is of a guy who preys on younger players who don't know value of the cards by proposing unfavourable trades they are to shy to refuse.

I guess the predatory business model of the game itself (I had a laugh when a few years ago many countries' authorities put legislation against random loot boxes in video games, when MTG has been doing it for decades ) lends to it attracting people who are not really into perfecting skills at the game. P2W, brag, that's the stereotypical MO.

It depends.

GW of course has its own stores, and at least in theory can keep a pretty close eye on behaviours. In my times as a Till Monkey I’ve absolutely banned Problematic Customers. Poor sports (throw your, or worse your opponent’s model across my shop? That’s a banning), Would Be Cliques (as staff, I’m top dog. You do not exclude others), Racist/Sexist/Homophobic speech and behaviour? Yeah none of that, THANKYOUPLEASE. My store. Not your store. Same with any kind of bullying. Because my store isn’t there as your Club House.

Now even if you’re a vile person? Learn to leave it at the threshold and we’re fine. I’m behaviour Police, not Thought Police.

No not all GW Stores have done that. And it often took a new manager to sweep away Cliques and bad behaviour. And sadly anyone getting into the hobby during a store’s bad patch is only gonna have that one frame of reference.

I’d love to say there are no inherently Toxic Games, but then saw the one above. Jeebus.

But generally, it a game is only as toxic as its local community allows.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I
I’d love to say there are no inherently Toxic Games, but then saw the one above. Jeebus.

True there will always be exceptions to the norm. However such games are often, thankfully, rare. By and large most games are not that and the majority that make it to be popular are by and large not toxic.

They will reflect the social norms, conventions and standards of their time though, so sometimes some older games might have elements that later generations consider improper/impolite/insulting etc...

A large part of Toxicity in games is essentially how others act/react in all aspects of the game. Because the game itself is just one part - the way the community handles everything else is also important.

For example, back before the day's of the dreaded cough, the FLGS I went to had a very welcoming atmosphere, and it is here I played many of my 40k and Frostgrave games (40k I only played in 8th). But my experiences were a mixed bag. Firstly, the games. The amount of times people would bring hilariously strong lists or downright list tailoring was off the chart. Many times it was the former, as I then descovered it was a very high comp area, and unfortunately a few times the latter. I gave up in a six week competition two weeks in because I had already been list tailored twice and fought two OP lists and I had enough of it. Best decision I made. I now have a close knit group who all are on the level and it's brilliant. Secondly, min/maxing in skirmish games, where the object is not really to min/max (Frostgrave). We had weekly sessions with a few lads who never really experimented or did unusual things, just the same old Elementalist wizard with max treasure hunter/Ranger gangs as possible. Literally you could end up with 4 out of 6 players xasting the same spells on the same turn, just urgh. I mean, I should have said something, but I doubt it would have made much difference (also, the game table was awful barren by choice of them to just make their lists even more obnoxious.)
Now these two examples are game. But, I also ran into toxicity in painting (really) in the form of 'better than thou' attitudes and a lot of the people entering the monthly painting challenges bring commission painters (which I felt was rather cheap) As there was no prize than your mini bring the Facebook groups Background for the next months, I stopped. Again, toxicity can be more than behaviour in game - a lot of the hobby can be toxic away from tables.
Lastly, there was the overwhelming whif of 'cliqueyness' within the FLGS as well, not enough to be an outright discourage to new people, but it felt you had to be as they were.

So yeah, glad I have my group, otherwise lord knows what I would have ended up...

I understand a lot of retailers think the Yu-Gi-Oh! players/community is toxic and a lot of theft and arguments from their events.

FLGS it really depends.

A GW store is there to sell The Games Workshop Hobby, and needs to demonstrate as many different takes on that as it can.

A FLGS however? Those can be more community spaces, as they’re not tied specifically to GW games. And the store owner needs, to a certain degree, to follow the herd.

Now that doesn’t meant letting The Most Vocal Nerd hold court or dictate what’s what. It’s still Your Store. But if catering to a more competitive crowd is what gets the tills ringing, the bills paid and your holiday booked? Cater away - but do try to ensure you’re not driving customers away in favour of Gamers.

I’m not sure I’m explaining this right. But I guess it’s the balance between needing active hobby nights (busy shops attract inquisitive shoppers), and not putting off established spenders of any stripe. The FLGS simply has more options than a GW store, as they stock a greater variety of products.

We might bemoan an FLGS being “overrun” with TCG play, and them getting First Dibs on playing space. But if they’re how the FLGS stays in business, sucks to be us. But provided you’re not made to feel actively unwelcome (TCG players being greeted, others ignored etc), I’d still advocate Support Your Local Plastic Crack Dealer.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I understand a lot of retailers think the Yu-Gi-Oh! players/community is toxic and a lot of theft and arguments from their events.

That game also tends to have a younger playerbase and I'd wager that when you're dealing with less mature kids you do end up with more issues of theft and arguments and all. Heck I recall at school it was common for a new collector hobby to grow and grow until it got banned when teachers got sick of dealing with theft and other accusations.

Card games and Video games are a different type of meta, they could be a discussion on their own. A big thing that doesn't help online games is the ability to be mean and rude but still remain anonymous. If someone acted like during a physical game, they would most likely get kicked out of the FLGS. Card games can be a lot of pay-to-win, which doesn't help anything, that is not going to help the game's environment.

I agree most stores can see the environment and try to change it or shut it down. Tournaments can also cause problems, with more significant problems caused by larger prizes. But I have seen great tournaments
like team play at Adepicon. Great people, Great Games. Just feel that games themselves can add to the problem, especially if the local meta is dying. When our local War Machine groups were losing players because of the new edition, the more aggressive players that "win at all cost" stayed around. They would tend to run off even more causal players and destroy new players. This caused the numbers to continue to drop, now it's a shadow of what it once was.

But I still feel that certain games just draw a stand-off toxic type of players, Pallium Books RPG for example, The bad starts at the publisher level, the forums tend to be a big mess, and if you find local players they will tend to be very cliquish. It doesn't help that the system is decades old with no real clean-up or improvement. If you question why certain rules don't work, you have just committed heresy and they will not hesitate to call you out on your incorrect thinking. I have fond memories of playing the game in the past, but if I saw someone locally playing it, I would just keep moving and not make eye contact.

So In my view, if a game is overly complex, decades old, and has an older set of rules, with a dedicated fan base, you would need to tread lightly.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Secondly, min/maxing in skirmish games, where the object is not really to min/max (Frostgrave). We had weekly sessions with a few lads who never really experimented or did unusual things, just the same old Elementalist wizard with max treasure hunter/Ranger gangs as possible. Literally you could end up with 4 out of 6 players xasting the same spells on the same turn, just urgh. I mean, I should have said something, but I doubt it would have made much difference (also, the game table was awful barren by choice of them to just make their lists even more obnoxious.)

So you joined a competitive group and, rather than go along with the rest of the group's play style, you decided that competitive play is "not how the game is meant to be played" and now you're complaining that they dared to have fun in a way that you don't enjoy? Sounds like you're the toxic one here.

But, I also ran into toxicity in painting (really) in the form of 'better than thou' attitudes and a lot of the people entering the monthly painting challenges bring commission painters (which I felt was rather cheap) As there was no prize than your mini bring the Facebook groups Background for the next months, I stopped.

Sorry, but this is just plain ridiculous. If you have "too much" skill at painting you're expected to stay out of your local competitions because its "cheap" that your skill lets you win? WTF? Sounds like you're just salty that you couldn't win the supposedly irrelevant prize and envious of their skills. The toxicity problem here is you.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Secondly, min/maxing in skirmish games, where the object is not really to min/max (Frostgrave). We had weekly sessions with a few lads who never really experimented or did unusual things, just the same old Elementalist wizard with max treasure hunter/Ranger gangs as possible. Literally you could end up with 4 out of 6 players xasting the same spells on the same turn, just urgh. I mean, I should have said something, but I doubt it would have made much difference (also, the game table was awful barren by choice of them to just make their lists even more obnoxious.)

So you joined a competitive group and, rather than go along with the rest of the group's play style, you decided that competitive play is "not how the game is meant to be played" and now you're complaining that they dared to have fun in a way that you don't enjoy? Sounds like you're the toxic one here.

But, I also ran into toxicity in painting (really) in the form of 'better than thou' attitudes and a lot of the people entering the monthly painting challenges bring commission painters (which I felt was rather cheap) As there was no prize than your mini bring the Facebook groups Background for the next months, I stopped.

Sorry, but this is just plain ridiculous. If you have "too much" skill at painting you're expected to stay out of your local competitions because its "cheap" that your skill lets you win? WTF? Sounds like you're just salty that you couldn't win the supposedly irrelevant prize and envious of their skills. The toxicity problem here is you.

While I quickly discovered that 40k was very competitive, at the time I did not know that the skirmish game played by a separate group within the FLGS would also be very competitively driven rather than a more relaxed approach. My fault really, but I nievely thought since I was new.
But you seem to be fixated on me being the problem, while in fact the game was dominated by the same spells and gang builds, in which may not be toxic per se, but it certainly was boring as feth to experience. For a group trying to get more new people to play, they didn't do a very good job of doing nothing more than "use x/y/z as its the best" than grinding them into the dirt with OP builds if you dared to try something more exotic or wacky for fun.

And as for the painting competition, no, I will stand by my words. Wanting advice, I talked to a couple of the commission painters (who I thought at the time were just very good painters who wargame) and honestly, I could had a nicer conversation with a drunk. I asked the best way to flatten transfers on curved surfaces and what gem colour would contrast well on gold armour, quite benign questions but it seemed like a mere pleb like myself was not meant to know such treasured secrets (unless I used YouTube). Yeah, not the best impression so I just stopped entering if that was how they were treating people wanting to improve. I was never envious of their skill, I was more taken aback by the fact they would enter a comp like that and act like they were above others wanting tips on how they did great things when asked.

@Dr. Millis- You did nothing wrong. It was just the fact that you had not found like minded people.

In my experience, if you are playing pick-up games or participating in "shop" games, you are all ready playing with folks that have a certain expectations to their games. It just sounds like you and their expectations did not align.

If you can find a local "basement" style group, you might be better served. They tend to play very different from the shop type games, but are also much harder to become part of.

 Dr. Mills wrote:

But you seem to be fixated on me being the problem, while in fact the game was dominated by the same spells and gang builds, in which may not be toxic per se, but it certainly was boring as feth to experience. For a group trying to get more new people to play, they didn't do a very good job of doing nothing more than "use x/y/z as its the best" than grinding them into the dirt with OP builds if you dared to try something more exotic or wacky for fun.

I can sympathise with your other issues but this is just a symptom of the fact Frostgrave is a shockingly balanced game. We managed to accidentally break it within a few weeks of playing it. I'm sure we could have done much worse if we'd have really been trying. The system itself doesn't really encourage experimentation in the way it seems to think it should, so people often gravitate towards blowing stuff up with fireballs.

It's important to find likeminded people to get the most out of your gaming experience and it does sound like you've been unlucky in that regard, but I do think the game system itself sometimes has to take at least some of the blame.