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.

Removed.

 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.

You are the problem here. You joined a competitive group where the other players were perfectly happy playing normal competitive games and you're outraged that they won't sacrifice their own enjoyment of the game to play "wacky" builds like you want to use. That's really toxic entitlement and you should look in the mirror before judging them.

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.

Ok, that's a very different scenario than what you originally said. Being a condescending ass when people ask question is not ok but your original comment was a complaint that the mere presence of commission painters in the contest was inherently toxic.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 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.

You are the problem here. You joined a competitive group where the other players were perfectly happy playing normal competitive games and you're outraged that they won't sacrifice their own enjoyment of the game to play "wacky" builds like you want to use. That's really toxic entitlement and you should look in the mirror before judging them.

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.

Ok, that's a very different scenario than what you originally said. Being a condescending ass when people ask question is not ok but your original comment was a complaint that the mere presence of commission painters in the contest was inherently toxic.

They advertised the game sessions of Frostgrave for new players to come learn and take part in ongoing campaigns, and the people organising it were separate people from the competitive 40k crowd that I had not met and said nothing about being competitive from my communications with them. Unless I'm mistaken, running optimised gangs that will curb stomp other gangs of brand new players who don't know the wombo combos or the tricks like the Veterans did seems a bit naughty to me. I did not want to assume they were just for being in the same FLGS as the comp crowd (and none of them played 40k either.) I quickly realized all of the individual groups were competitive minded, so it was quite difficult to learn any system really unless you were prepared to go comp straight off the bat

Still, it taught me a valuable lesson in asking questions of any new group I plan to play with, to avoid situations like this in future.

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.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the points he made.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
You are the problem here.

No, you are. You immediately jumped to accusation in favor of trying to understand where he was coming from, you leveled judgement on his entire character on the basis of a few paragraphs with only a framework of context. Even if your point were entirely valid it would still be a toxic way to engage in discussion.

Forget toxic games, how about toxic threads?

I had some "fun" experiences in the gaming club I joined when I started playing tabletop games. I encountered the starter box of Dropzone Commander in a gaming store and was looking for opponents for my first games. This is about a year before 8th edition 40k dropped. Dropzone was fairly balanced so not having a well optimized list wasn't that much of an issue. The real issue with the club was that the members tended to jump games every 3 month. So aside from two other players, nobody played the game I cared for (wasn't too bad, I was allowed to use other people's armies in some instances). I wouldn't call it Toxic but it was a little annoying to find out that the regular opponents had shifted gears again. I didn't have the budget to keep up, and most games didn't interested me. Some club members became quite condescending to players not willing to keep up with the trend, though. Luckily one regular opponents turned into a good friend so we shifted to playing Dropzone at home.
Some years later, kill Team based on 8th edition was released and it was the big hype in the club. I liked kill Team but quickly learned that there were two groups of people in the club playing kill Team very differently. In this edition of kill Team, each player has a roster of 20 models from which up to 100 points worth of models were chosen after mission setup, allowing some tailoring to react to the opponents faction as well as the mission.
The first group completely ignored this and created perfect 100 points teams with no wiggle room. The second group used the roster of 20 models and heavily tailored according to mission and opponent. I don't think I have to explain that this stuff not go over well between the two groups. Especially as the intention of the roster in kill Team was very specific about tailoring to the scenario and opponent to prevent one sided games.
So year, TLDR:
Condescending players not understanding that a new game hyped in the club wasn't interesting/affordable.
Misunderstood rules/intentions creating a toxic environment around a game.

Brickfix wrote:
The real issue with the club was that the members tended to jump games every 3 month.

Unless you join a *insert game here* club, that is just how games clubs are. Have you seen many of our game collections...

Yeah I figured that this was pretty normal, I just found the behavior of some members around it pretty ... Interesting.
I might be a bit different because I hyperfocus on very few games. That said I'm open to new stuff as long as it involves sci-fi elements.

Cyel wrote:
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.

When I was living at Fort Campbell, at the time the ONLY "shop" where one could play warhams on a friday night was a card shop that hosted Friday Night Magic.

Hoooo Leeeee Feth, talk about toxic. 75% of the MTG players hadn't bathed in about a month, and usually you felt like you needed 2 showers as soon as you got home to get rid of the stink.

Ohh, not /that/ kind of toxic game


Using my own friend/former-gaming group as a reference point, I kind of see what OP is after. . . We had a friend who, when playing 40k or AOS, or even DnD was great. But he single-handedly ruined warmahordes for the group. That whole Page 5 thing reared its head in the most ugly way for the group.

And everything I've seen/read/heard about for games like Fortnite, new CoD and the like. . . yeah, there seems to be a lot of toxic behavior/toxicity in those communities. But, I don't play any competitive games online, so I cannot say I've experienced this myself. (well, I haven't since Battlefield 1, but I just played rando maps, and the amount of raging types in that game seemed lower, at least at the times of day I was playing). . But I suppose that in the case of CoD, that isn't so much necessarily a toxic game, but rather an expression of deeper symptoms

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

This but there's also IMO something to be said for certain games or design 'questions' drawing the worst kind of people, or worst bringing the worst out of people. PVP games with a serious divide between casual and competitive styles of play for example can be insanely toxic. Card games can have this especially bad as the kind of decks that constitute the playstyle of a casual 'just having fun with cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player are practically two different games.

I feel anything inherently online is, well, not more likely to be toxic as such, but to lead to encountering Sad Little Edge Lords who take advantage that it’s all anonymous. As with TTG and TCG, that’s not necessarily something inherent to a given game, just a Hazard Of The Hobby.

I’ve encountered it less in TTRPGs, simply because the players tend to be hand picked, rather than a set of random participants from the locally available pool. But even there, you can end up with a player not necessarily toxic, but not exactly in-step with the other players.

For instance, the three partaking in my Vampire chronicle are well into the atmosphere I’ve created, so all is well. If a hypothetical 4th player specced purely into Combat, and insisted on picking fights wherever possible? With the other three not been specced to combat, preferring to think their way out, then whilst there’s nothing inherently wrong in running the tanky combat character, the desire of one player affects the enjoyment of the others, and could even lead to character deaths.

Still tempted to see if Chaos Cards will let me run a parallel session, as I do enjoy Storytelling, and seem to have a knack for it.

 LordofHats wrote:

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

This but there's also IMO something to be said for certain games or design 'questions' drawing the worst kind of people, or worst bringing the worst out of people. PVP games with a serious divide between casual and competitive styles of play for example can be insanely toxic. Card games can have this especially bad as the kind of decks that constitute the playstyle of a casual 'just having fun with cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player are practically two different games.

I find that any game where there's a sharp divide in skill can create such a situation and that sometimes even very basic games without the intentional design element can create that effect. The issue then is less of a thing the game created and more simply the fact that two players have very different skill levels.

I know I earlier said its people not games, but I was more thinking only of real world games, for digital....

I would say that many MMO games (esp moba style games) do encourage a type of gaming you don't typically get in the real world as often, which is target play.
That is the game encourages you to hit certain targets each day for your daily reward and grinding. Even if the game hasn't got time-attack features, this element of grind means that a lot of people playing want to win as best and quickly as possible to jump into as many games in a period of time to grind up as much as they can. This creates a very stressful situation and mentality for a lot of people. Throw in random teams; throw in almost no team plan; no team structure (no one and everyone is in charge) and then random skill pairing and you've a hotbed of conditions that can create toxicity.
You're stressing people out, putting them on edge and then pairing them up in a team setup that heavily rewards selfish personal play over team play. Add in the fact that the game encourages advance even if you lose, so you can have very unskilled players still ranking high enough to play with the mid-range

Not to mention for those of us with full time jobs and other non-work related commitments, we can be rapidly out skilled by the more, shall we call them time fortunate, making it just not a lot of fun.

I’m tempted by the new Ghostbusters game, as I know enough PS5 owners to get a nice wee group going. But….none of us really have the time to Git Gud Scrub, so we’re super wary of spending damn good money on it just to get our collective arses kicked.

Yep that's very true, if you don't have time to "Git Gud" plus a lot of these games have regularly shifting balance metas so when you learn how to get good you can suddenly find that the tactics and ideas you've got are outdated as everything shifts and changes.

A lot of good points being made and discussion had here, IMO.

I'll toss in that the US in particular has some very ubiquitous and very strong cultural threads which create a tendency toward toxic behavior. It goes beyond simple competitiveness into a trend of soft-defining an individual's worth based on their ability to win (particularly for men). There are innumerable subtle implications that only people who win are worth something, and that there needs to be some sort of competition to sort out rankings so it can be known who is best.

I mean we are the country* that quite literally gives individuals a number (credit score) to represent their worth. It isn't even optional; everyone gets it whether they want it or not. While not directly relevant to gaming it speaks to a mindset that not only CAN people be evaluated based on numerical rank, but that such is a critical feature which NEEDS to be enforced.

*Obviously credit scores aren't unique to the US, but as far as I have been able to tell (correct me if I'm wrong) the US takes it to a completely different order of magnitude.

My impression is the US Credit Score has more impact because the US has much bigger push toward people living in debt. Ergo hire purchase, loans, etc... All of which mean your credit score comes into play.

 Overread wrote:
Yep that's very true, if you don't have time to "Git Gud" plus a lot of these games have regularly shifting balance metas so when you learn how to get good you can suddenly find that the tactics and ideas you've got are outdated as everything shifts and changes.

Yeah, and for other readers I should stress I’m not accusing anyone with the time to Git Gud as toxic. But when it’s some teenage scrote kicking my butt, and confusing offensive remarks are witty trash talk, it’s just not gonna be my bag, and I’ll find something better to do with my time.

Overread wrote:I find that any game where there's a sharp divide in skill can create such a situation and that sometimes even very basic games without the intentional design element can create that effect. The issue then is less of a thing the game created and more simply the fact that two players have very different skill levels.

Yeah. Why I choose to call it a design question rather than a flw.

In a lot of ways, the game's that tend to do the best and reach the widest audience have certain qualities that are hard to qualify. Take Pokemon games for one. The video games have very simple mechanics, but there's a breadth to them that has created a competitive environment that is quite accessible for a casual game. Much of that complexity comes from player choices about the game rather than the game itself. Compare to Magic, where things are a bit more straightforward in terms of many players (myself included) love the idea of monsters bashing monsters, but competitive play is more often about initiating card interactions that win rapidly, a style of play that wins well but negates combat more casual players like about the game.

Sometimes, these design issues aren't even choices at all.

They're byproducts of the style of game and the way people choose to play it.

That is the game encourages you to hit certain targets each day for your daily reward and grinding.

For sure.

Sandbox games where what you do is more open-ended and how you 'win' is more defined by the player are not common anymore. One of the few standouts is EVE and EVE is a very competitive and cutthroat game past a certain point.

This creates a very stressful situation and mentality for a lot of people.

Agreed and I find this to be a serious problem with online games. It's ironic too, because developers could probably afford to tone down or design how many of these systems work, but they often find themselves catering to a hardcore crowd who does nothing but game and heavily defines the conversations around the games we all play. The more time has gone on the more I wonder if that's not an enforced error. People who chew through a game's content and are often used as an excuse for how that content is gated and arranged I think should be ignored from the developer side of things. They're not typical players and systems designed to try and slow down their ability to eat through a game in rapid order are often some of the most frustrating, and toxicity-inducing, aspects of modern games.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Not to mention for those of us with full time jobs

Yeah. Compared to how I thought about this as a high school or college kid, I look at a lot of games and groan at the sheer unadulterated time investment they take. Even very casual games almost become a second job just to progress. And I like grinding! I'll grind away at a game for hours if I'm having fun with no complaint, but then there are aspects of these games that can be poorly explained, mechanically complex, or force me to work with donkey-caves who hurl insults at you for not having 16 hours a day to throw at the game and it really makes the environment worse.

It's even worse when *glares at Destiny 2* the game seems rather blatantly designed for those people and not for someone like me who just wants to kill a few hours having laughs with friends.

I think this is partially to blame for the rise of more casual smaller package games. Stuff like Phasmaphobia, which is very simple in every aspect but very fun and something you can just screw around in for an hour or two with no issue.

I have never played a game of monopoly with a family member or friend, and liked that person after the game was over. Monopoly makes people turn into their polar opposites.

Monopoly is loads of fun!

 LordofHats wrote:

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

This but there's also IMO something to be said for certain games or design 'questions' drawing the worst kind of people, or worst bringing the worst out of people. PVP games with a serious divide between casual and competitive styles of play for example can be insanely toxic. Card games can have this especially bad as the kind of decks that constitute the playstyle of a casual 'just having fun with cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player are practically two different games.

But even there, you made exactly the same point I did. That it was the difference between the "casual 'just having fun with the cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player".

 Overread wrote:
Monopoly is loads of fun!

Monopoly is fun when people actually read and play by the rules. Which is about 1% of the people that have ever played.

 Vulcan wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

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

This but there's also IMO something to be said for certain games or design 'questions' drawing the worst kind of people, or worst bringing the worst out of people. PVP games with a serious divide between casual and competitive styles of play for example can be insanely toxic. Card games can have this especially bad as the kind of decks that constitute the playstyle of a casual 'just having fun with cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player are practically two different games.

But even there, you made exactly the same point I did. That it was the difference between the "casual 'just having fun with the cards' player and a competitive all-out-to-win player".

Neither approach is in itself toxic. Rather, toxicity and poor behaviour when someone decides their approach should be followed by everyone, regardless of where on the casual-professional player spectrum they land.

For instance, someone demanding every single game every single opponent plays against them must adhere to the House rules of whichever tournament they’re practising for. Seeking tournament practice is of course fine. But when either party demands their preference takes precedence, it becomes problematic.

Hence my advice to anyone running a GW or FLGS to be wary of allowing Customers to dictate policy, as it can rapidly become an unwelcoming environment. By all means balance that against the ultimately more important need to fill your till, but never lose sight of the simple fact it’s your store, and your word is law, not that (lazy stereotype for effect alert) Neckbeard over there, no matter how overpowering their stench. And with seven days in the week, you can absolutely dedicate different days to different games and play styles. Just….keep to it and police that fairly rigorously.

I think it's an issue though when games fail to properly segregate styles of play.

This is something I've noticed when you compare Magic TCG to Yugioh. Magic has largely adopted the loose notion of power tiers in deck design and, especially in Elder Dragon/Commander circles, it's become proper that everyone play a deck in roughly the same sphere. No bringing your hyper-competitive turbo combo deck in to a match where everyone is running clunkier 'just for fun' decks. It's looked down on as quite rude and poor sportsmanship (milage may vary based on local but I've seen this in several different regions now and it's widely discussed online). This is helped by Magic's design to be fair, as less powerful decks can still have cool interactions they hinge on so people from across the spectrum can find decks they enjoy playing at multiple tiers of play.

Yugioh on the other hand has not done this so you get people playing their nostalgic anime-inspired decks versus actually competitive Yugioh decks that turbo out four boss monsters in a single turn off a 1 card combo and that creates an incredibly toxic play environment. It doesn't help that Yugioh kind of has a screwed card economy dynamic, but the difference between casual and competitive play is massive and the player base has largely developed no culture of separating styles of play.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Monopoly is loads of fun!

Monopoly is fun when people actually read and play by the rules. Which is about 1% of the people that have ever played.

It really isn’t. The whole point of the game is to be frustrating and inform the players of the evils of the landlord economy.

Some of the worst games were played against hardcore rulebook lawyers who turned into hardcore sociopaths the moment dice hit the board.

I never saw that sort of behaviour when playing Monopoly - although I last played it about 25 years ago as a teenager. Usually we just got bored and gave up.

The house rules thing does have a grain of truth to it - they tend to keep money circulating (i.e. fines into Free Parking, or our habit of forgetting to auction off unpurchased properties), which drags the game out longer.

I've been lucky, I think, to avoid the worst behaviours being discussed here. The worst I've had is the mismatch between what I wanted and what the local community as a whole wanted when it came to Warmachine and X-Wing. I got a bit sick of being the tournament practice dummy towards the end of Warmachine Mk1 and I've not really payed much attention since.

I've been friends with, and played against, plenty of people who think they're fluffy narrative gamers like me, but really aren't; perfectly decent people to hang out with, but as soon as minis hit the table, it's all sorts of cheesy combos and devious force lists. So I just leave 'em to it, and everyone's happy.

I would say that unfortunately some people are just pricks, plain and simple. There's a good portion of people out there that take a real glee in trying to make someone else suffer. I think online that is down to a lack of true interaction, so if you can actively make someone else suffer emotionally through your actions you have control over their lives. I think trolling in general is a huge part of that. The overarching aspect of it to my mind, is time-wasting. As a troll you're basically goading someone into actively putting a part of their life into dealing with you and thus interacting. You take a conflicting stance because someone will react to it. And that's not limited to games, there's plenty of times on this forum or twitter or whatever where people do the same thing and try to hide it behind "reasoned debate". Yes, you certainly can have interesting debate between two opposing ideas but there is a limit. And it doesn't excuse someone that is inherently an unpleasant person.

I think at the core, people want to be individual and that can lead to them being reactionary. With so many people being online, you suddenly find out that there's thousands or millions of people just like you. So people try to break the mould and be different. Unfortunately, that determination seems to have led some people into all sorts of weird, idiotic stuff. And once they find themselves in that position, it's difficult to break away from it. And then you have groups who actively seek to co-opt that for their own purposes.

I find one thing that's definitely come with age is the ability to say "sod that for a lark" and do something else. There's zero reason to interact and waste your finite moments in this world with some little prat who is desperate for attention that they can't get otherwise in their own life.

For instance, I still play FPS games but I'm much more willing to simply quit out once I reach a point where it's just not fun.

People complain about balance in games but I do not put the blame on developers for that. It's down to players to say "hey that's overpowered" let's not use it. As @LordofHats says, if a community comes together and more or less self polices their community then it has benefit. The Mordheim community is much the same.

So often the worst attitudes I’ve seen around games are when you get a situation or fans of one game being vs it’s competition. The way the Pathfinder players would hang out and tell people how terrible D&D was. The attitude of Warmachine players vs Games Workshop, right down to referring to it as the Game That Shall Not Be Named on their forums. And then the way Guild Ball in turned treated Warmachine. And of course not just gamers, some of the Marvel vs DC and vice versa I hear is just as bad. The human nature of tribalism and needing their choices and preferences to be the only correct one.

 AduroT wrote:
So often the worst attitudes I’ve seen around games are when you get a situation or fans of one game being vs it’s competition. The way the Pathfinder players would hang out and tell people how terrible D&D was. The attitude of Warmachine players vs Games Workshop, right down to referring to it as the Game That Shall Not Be Named on their forums. And then the way Guild Ball in turned treated Warmachine. And of course not just gamers, some of the Marvel vs DC and vice versa I hear is just as bad. The human nature of tribalism and needing their choices and preferences to be the only correct one.

Sunk cost fallacy is the worst. I fundamentally get it. People get legitimately burned. They don't have the funds to invest in multiple games, spend what they have on one and end up with no one to play with. It stings hard and leads people to demand undo loyalty to the choices they're locked into. Locally, I started pushing a culture more centered around playing anything built around a group of players that play a bunch of different systems so that if someone is limited in what they can play, there's usually someone who can cover as an opponent.

 LordofHats wrote:
It's even worse when *glares at Destiny 2* the game seems rather blatantly designed for those people and not for someone like me who just wants to kill a few hours having laughs with friends.

Been playing Destiny since D1 launch and at this point I waive people away from it. The shear grind for things has only gotten worse over the years. Exotic weapon catalysts* are a great example of the grind plus the FOMO. Each seasonal exotic has a quest to unlock the catalyst that included a crazy amount of grinding such as 200 kills and 200 strikes/crucible/gambit, and that just unlocks it after which you have to get 500 kills with the weapon to actually upgrade. Of course if you bought the season pass there is a seasonal boost that gives you 4 times the progress but that is only for that season. If you come in later you need to do everything for previous weapons with no boost and if you don't have the season pass you also have to do the full amount. I believe one of them required 400 strikes from the vanguard playlist. Now you also have weapon crafting which requires a whole different set of grinding to just unlock the pattern to be able to craft the weapon th3n you have to grind it to level it up to give the perks you want. For your light level you have to get pinnacle drops each week once you hit the soft level cap to go higher. This season the soft cap is 1560 so once you hit that there are limited number of ways to get items that are 1 (if lucky 2) points higher and you need to get 1561 in all slots to start working toward 1562, and so on until 1570. Oh, and new exotic armors can only be gotten by soloing high level difficult content and is not a guaranteed drop for the run.

What I am saying is that unless you want a second job it is very time and new player unfriendly.



*an exotic weapon catalyst modifies an exotic weapon. Sometimes it doesn't make a huge difference but for some it makes the weapon radically better. Trinity Ghoul, an arc combat bow, becomes charged if you get a kill with arc abilities and will chain lightning when it kills something. With the catalyst any arc damage from any source will charge it with chain lightning. It is all lightning all the time.

 Olthannon wrote:
People complain about balance in games but I do not put the blame on developers for that. It's down to players to say "hey that's overpowered" let's not use it. As @LordofHats says, if a community comes together and more or less self polices their community then it has benefit. The Mordheim community is much the same.

But that's where some of the worst toxicity comes from! The competitive players want to use the overpowered thing because that's how you play competitively and they expect everyone to use it, the self-appointed balance police rage if anyone attempts to use is, and half the players are busy arguing about whether a thing is overpowered enough to be banned (usually because it's the most recent thing they lost to) and declaring anyone who uses it a WAAC TFG. And because the game isn't balanced the people who want to use a lower-powered thing feel attacked by everyone else and the existence of people who don't share their beliefs on self-policing is an existential crisis, ramping up the intensity of WAAC TFG accusations for violating their unwritten rules.

The textbook example of this is "casual" MTG, especially EDH. Certain players want to play decks made out of random piles of draft commons and never bother to learn the game's fundamental strategy while others want to build competitive decks based on metagame analysis and relentlessly practice their in-game strategy. A player who doesn't even understand basic concepts like card advantage will rarely win a game against someone with a higher skill level or better cards, but rather than put the effort into getting better they insist that everyone else is the problem and desperately invent rules to protect their way of playing the game. Their decks are "fair", their wins are "earned", but anyone who beats them must be a WAAC netdecking TFG who needs to play EDH "the right way". Counterspells are "cheap", land destruction is "cheap", etc, even though all of those things have plenty of counter-play, simply because their incoherent mess of a deck can't function if any piece of it is disrupted. Well, their opponent's counterspells/land destruction/etc are cheap, their counterspells/land destruction/etc are fine because Reasons. They come to the game with a million unwritten rules and it's always different for each player. God help a new player trying to join the group and figure out how to navigate that mess without being immediately shunned for doing something "cheap".

Meanwhile in competitive MTG you have none of this. You take the best deck you can build and you play it as well as you can. If something is overpowered you take it and you win by being better at playing it than everyone else, or you take a counter to it and hope to get ahead of the metagame. Nobody is whining that their opponent showed up with the deck that is 80% of the metagame because that's just how competitive play works. There are no unwritten rules, only the explicit rules published by WOTC. Does this mean the game is reduced to a small subset of meta picks? Sure. But it eliminates the worst of the toxicity entirely and that's a price many of us will gladly pay.

Thing is learning to improve has hurdles

1) Teaching is rare and not always good when you get it. Heck look at 40K and wargames. You can find endless discussion on army list theory and building. You try get one going on tactical gameplay or deployment theory or such and its like walking into a ghost town.
Even youtube's rise hasn't resulted in in depth tactical discussions or post game evaluations and such.

2) Investment. Time investments vary person to person. Some people just want to socialise and have some fun with some fantasy cards. They don't want to go away and read books, study theories, watch videos, practice, improve and put a lot of study to get to what they want. They don't want that level of investment.

It's not that they are stupid or unable to learn; its that they just don't want that from a passtime hobby. They want a more casual experience.

3) With MTG another angle is nostalgia. Some people just want the schoolyard experience they grew up with. Random card packs; limited card pool; no buying legions of rares; no building "net lists". A lower skill bar and a general school approach.



So there are several reasons why you get this divide in expectations and desires within a single hobby.

The toxicity happens when Group A and B meet and one is in the vast minority of player count. Where both have large populations its fine as they can support themsleves within their own group. When you've a majority one over the other you can have issues with conflict because one group is "left out".

Then you throw another spanner in the works - age which can further subdivide groups. Eg the 30 year old who wants that causal game is going to feel left out if the only people playing casual are the 15yearolds. There again you've a population divide on generation.






*Note this is not saying younger and older players cannot play together. Far from it. However it is realising that generational gaps are real things and that sometimes people want to be within a roughly similar generational group.

 Ahtman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
It's even worse when *glares at Destiny 2* the game seems rather blatantly designed for those people and not for someone like me who just wants to kill a few hours having laughs with friends.

Been playing Destiny since D1 launch and at this point I waive people away from it. The shear grind for things has only gotten worse over the years. Exotic weapon catalysts* are a great example of the grind plus the FOMO. Each seasonal exotic has a quest to unlock the catalyst that included a crazy amount of grinding such as 200 kills and 200 strikes/crucible/gambit, and that just unlocks it after which you have to get 500 kills with the weapon to actually upgrade. Of course if you bought the season pass there is a seasonal boost that gives you 4 times the progress but that is only for that season. If you come in later you need to do everything for previous weapons with no boost and if you don't have the season pass you also have to do the full amount. I believe one of them required 400 strikes from the vanguard playlist. Now you also have weapon crafting which requires a whole different set of grinding to just unlock the pattern to be able to craft the weapon th3n you have to grind it to level it up to give the perks you want. For your light level you have to get pinnacle drops each week once you hit the soft level cap to go higher. This season the soft cap is 1560 so once you hit that there are limited number of ways to get items that are 1 (if lucky 2) points higher and you need to get 1561 in all slots to start working toward 1562, and so on until 1570. Oh, and new exotic armors can only be gotten by soloing high level difficult content and is not a guaranteed drop for the run.

What I am saying is that unless you want a second job it is very time and new player unfriendly.



*an exotic weapon catalyst modifies an exotic weapon. Sometimes it doesn't make a huge difference but for some it makes the weapon radically better. Trinity Ghoul, an arc combat bow, becomes charged if you get a kill with arc abilities and will chain lightning when it kills something. With the catalyst any arc damage from any source will charge it with chain lightning. It is all lightning all the time.

More or less my experience by the time of the 2nd expansion of D2 when I walked away from the game.

And so many little things make it so much more toxic. PVP exclusive items that are really PVE weapons (and good ones). A system that makes putting groups together require a 3rd party website and constantly clearing your friends list of people you played with once. Events literally structured in such a way solely that people who do nothing but live the game can complete them in the time alotted. And of course, there's the crowd that will mock you for finding these arrangements unfair or feeling like you're being left out of something you equally paid for.

In online games especially I think the way games are designed really does impact how players interact in the game and it can ramp up or clamp down on toxic behavior.

All those things add up.

Draw big distinctions in your player base, and the player base will get toxic about being treated differently. This is why P2W, while always controversial, is more accepted in some games than others. Truth is people are willing to live with degrees of microtransactions and pay to progress structures so long as they don't feel compelled to do it or like not doing it puts them at an insurmountable disadvantage.

If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

 Rolsheen wrote:
If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

You'll have to explain how this one is toxic. . . I'd actually put it at the opposite end of toxic

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

You'll have to explain how this one is toxic. . . I'd actually put it at the opposite end of toxic

Ah... I'm seeing him say it's NON-toxic. Are you seeing something different?

 Vulcan wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

You'll have to explain how this one is toxic. . . I'd actually put it at the opposite end of toxic

Ah... I'm seeing him say it's NON-toxic. Are you seeing something different?

I blame it on the toxins arising from an opened box of CAH...

 Vulcan wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

You'll have to explain how this one is toxic. . . I'd actually put it at the opposite end of toxic

Ah... I'm seeing him say it's NON-toxic. Are you seeing something different?

Pretty sure I was when I replied, lol

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Rolsheen wrote:
If you want a non-toxic game play Cards Against Humanity.

You'll have to explain how this one is toxic. . . I'd actually put it at the opposite end of toxic

I mean, the creators did have one of their black employees involuntarily committed after he complained about a racially toxic work environment. Does that count?

Is there a link that describes that?

Well, there's this one from Polygon, along with what appears to be a follow-up piece (or expansion pack, I guess) from the employee in question on Medium.

Starting the search term for "cards against humanity" into Google brought up "Cards against humanity employee institutionalzed" as a suggested report, so this isn't a small thing - there were a number of further articles in the search results, so perhaps a spot of research is in order?

Thanks for that. Quite a read.

In retrospect, I shouldn’t have felt so surprised.

Interesting discussion all around.
I'm in the camp that says that -with a few exceptions- there aren't toxic games so much as toxic players. I do think that certain games reward toxic players and might be slightly more common, but it still comes back to players misbehaving. There are also games that lend themsleves to more competitive styles of play, but that is not necessarily toxic.

As has been said here, much of what seems toxic is the result players approaching a game with extremely different expectations and little or no communication about those expectations.

-A WAAC player stomping a narrative or beginner player in a game is not toxic.
-A WAAC player stomping a narrative or beginner player in a game where a more casual and narrative game was agreed to is toxic.
-A narrative or beginner player not expressing their desire for a certain kind of game and then complaining about being stomped by a WAAC player can also be toxic.

All this to say, know what kind of gamer you are and then communicate that to your potential opponents. Unless the opponent is an offensive jerk -and this certainly does happen- you can't complain about a game being toxic if you haven't voiced your preferences and concerns.

Alternatively, you can start a club with people who want play your way (in our case casual, narrative, friendly, etc).

Don't forget its not just different attitudes, but also different skill levels too, where there's also no universal skill measuring system. So people can have very different impressions of their skill level, esp if its widely different to their regular opponents.

Sometimes its not just a different attitude, but also a different skill level that contributes toward the divide.



Even if you communicate well a good and bad player will make very different competitive or narrative lists. Plus I've found that unskilled playing narrative will build very poor lists whilst a skilled playing a narrative is still going to build a good list, they just have a story behind it too.

 Overread wrote:
Don't forget its not just different attitudes, but also different skill levels too, where there's also no universal skill measuring system. So people can have very different impressions of their skill level, esp if its widely different to their regular opponents.

Sometimes its not just a different attitude, but also a different skill level that contributes toward the divide.



Even if you communicate well a good and bad player will make very different competitive or narrative lists. Plus I've found that unskilled playing narrative will build very poor lists whilst a skilled playing a narrative is still going to build a good list, they just have a story behind it too.

This is good to remember. Hopefully, pre-game communication can reveal the experience levels involved as well as the desired style of play.

I do think that viewing pre and post game communication as part of the experience is neglected quite a bit in wargaming. There seems to be an assumption that two strangers can just show up and play and have a great time. That is often the case, but does set folks up for disappointment when expectations are not met and no effort is made to acknowledge that two players can approach a wargame with vastly different expectations.

All this to say, the less familiar you are with your opponent, the more effort you should make to communicate with them regarding your playstyle, experience, etc.

Toxicity is definitely created by the players, but games create environments that toxicity can thrive. I keep thinking back to Rosewater's Spike/Johnny/Timmy theory and I think what it really comes down to is letting one aspect of fun dominate. In terms of minis games, I think of them as follows:

Spike: The easy one. Catering to spike involves removing randomness and making frequent balance updates. It's an easy trap to fall into because Spike aligns with core victory condition. They are objectively "right" but its easy to get focused on making the game more fair at the cost of making the game less fun. They can also foster a git gud mentality that makes it hard to find fun in other aspects of the game.

Johnny: Combo play is often the go to here, but in minis games this can come down to win condition and scenario variety as well. Too much of this and the game can get overwhelming for new players and overcomplicated to follow. Too little and the game can get pretty stale.

Timmy: Big fun models, big fun effects. Lots of dice, crit effects, etc. A game can definitely get too random and lose its strategic merits, but too often developers get scared off by a splashy effect getting abused competitively and start designing more restrained new releases and forget the kind of memorable game mechanics that got the game attention in the first place.

I think we can also separate out the merely/bad unsporting behaviour from genuinely toxic.

If someone gets in a grump after a loss? Not necessarily toxic. Someone only interested in playing the game a particular way? Not inherently toxic.

It can become toxic based on further behaviour. If someone is a consistently bad loser (or indeed a bad winner), then that behaviour affects the rest of the group and/or event.

If someone only wants tournament level games using each successive ITC? Nothing really wrong with that. But, if they insist everyone should do that, and just won’t shut up about it? That is toxic, as whilst their preference is fine, impinging and trying to dictate wider policy is just Not On.

Giving game advice can be positive, especially if it’s coaching a new player, but letting them make their own mind up. Just giving insight and thoughts helps that player consider things. But, outright back seat gaming, where it’s…well…basically them now playing the game? Not so good, as it’s frustrating for the opponent (as such back seat gaming is typically unrequested “assistance”), but also takes the learning out of it.

Then there’s the larger scale PITA. For instance, someone who knocks a game because it wasn’t designed for a certain way of playing. Criticising rules is typically fair game, and can lead to useful and fun discussion, and perhaps even change in the game. But when (such as earlier editions of 40K) it just wasn’t designed with tournament play in mind? That’s….that’s not actually a failing of the game, anymore than X-Wing being a steep learning curve is a failing of the game or it’s design. And constantly harping on and on and on about it is just irritating, not to mention pointless.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Then there’s the larger scale PITA. For instance, someone who knocks a game because it wasn’t designed for a certain way of playing. Criticising rules is typically fair game, and can lead to useful and fun discussion, and perhaps even change in the game. But when (such as earlier editions of 40K) it just wasn’t designed with tournament play in mind? That’s….that’s not actually a failing of the game, anymore than X-Wing being a steep learning curve is a failing of the game or it’s design. And constantly harping on and on and on about it is just irritating, not to mention pointless.

I'd also add people who are constantly negative, constantly miserable about everything, and constantly broadcasting it, and who can really, never realistically be pleased by any offering or approach and who cant accept anyone elses positivity or neutrality onnthe things they consider bad. They just want to sit there and moan and stew in it, but also can't accept it unless everyone is as miserable as they are

One thing I have noticed in life, is no matter what you try to do; there is a line of people around the block eagerly waiting to tell you how you are doing it wrong, are stupid, and should feel bad about it.

That applies to games, business, personal decisions, education, etc. Perhaps, the problem is not toxic games, but a toxic society where we do not follow the Platinum rule?

Probably out of scope for a messageboard on fantastical toy soldiers.

I am surprised no one mentioned rahowa, maybee that is a good sign though.

 Easy E wrote:
One thing I have noticed in life, is no matter what you try to do; there is a line of people around the block eagerly waiting to tell you how you are doing it wrong, are stupid, and should feel bad about it.

That applies to games, business, personal decisions, education, etc. Perhaps, the problem is not toxic games, but a toxic society where we do not follow the Platinum rule?

Probably out of scope for a messageboard on fantastical toy soldiers.

I had to go find out what the platinum rule was.

Terrible advice- I've known too many masochists.
Seriously though, 'treat people as they want to be treated' is actively terrible advice. People normalize bad to downright horrific treatment far too easily.
For many people who grew up with abuse, the treatment they expect, even crave, is more abuse. The abuse feels normal and ordered, while kindness feels like they're being fooled into dropping their guard.

Voss wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
One thing I have noticed in life, is no matter what you try to do; there is a line of people around the block eagerly waiting to tell you how you are doing it wrong, are stupid, and should feel bad about it.

That applies to games, business, personal decisions, education, etc. Perhaps, the problem is not toxic games, but a toxic society where we do not follow the Platinum rule?

Probably out of scope for a messageboard on fantastical toy soldiers.

I had to go find out what the platinum rule was.

Terrible advice- I've known too many masochists.
Seriously though, 'treat people as they want to be treated' is actively terrible advice. People normalize bad to downright horrific treatment far too easily.
For many people who grew up with abuse, the treatment they expect, even crave, is more abuse. The abuse feels normal and ordered, while kindness feels like they're being fooled into dropping their guard.

LOL. Never change Voss.

What was I saying about a line of people around the block of people waiting to tell you how wrong you are, are stupid, and should feel bad about it?

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am surprised no one mentioned rahowa, maybee that ist a good sign though.

I don’t know what that is. But the impression is I’m very lucky as a result?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am surprised no one mentioned rahowa, maybee that ist a good sign though.

I don’t know what that is. But the impression is I’m very lucky as a result?

It stands for Racial Holy War, and is a literally white supremacist RPG.

Voss wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
One thing I have noticed in life, is no matter what you try to do; there is a line of people around the block eagerly waiting to tell you how you are doing it wrong, are stupid, and should feel bad about it.

That applies to games, business, personal decisions, education, etc. Perhaps, the problem is not toxic games, but a toxic society where we do not follow the Platinum rule?

Probably out of scope for a messageboard on fantastical toy soldiers.

I had to go find out what the platinum rule was.

Terrible advice- I've known too many masochists.
Seriously though, 'treat people as they want to be treated' is actively terrible advice. People normalize bad to downright horrific treatment far too easily.
For many people who grew up with abuse, the treatment they expect, even crave, is more abuse. The abuse feels normal and ordered, while kindness feels like they're being fooled into dropping their guard.

So, still better than The Golden Rule, then?

 Easy E wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
One thing I have noticed in life, is no matter what you try to do; there is a line of people around the block eagerly waiting to tell you how you are doing it wrong, are stupid, and should feel bad about it.

That applies to games, business, personal decisions, education, etc. Perhaps, the problem is not toxic games, but a toxic society where we do not follow the Platinum rule?

Probably out of scope for a messageboard on fantastical toy soldiers.

I had to go find out what the platinum rule was.

Terrible advice- I've known too many masochists.
Seriously though, 'treat people as they want to be treated' is actively terrible advice. People normalize bad to downright horrific treatment far too easily.
For many people who grew up with abuse, the treatment they expect, even crave, is more abuse. The abuse feels normal and ordered, while kindness feels like they're being fooled into dropping their guard.

LOL. Never change Voss.

What was I saying about a line of people around the block of people waiting to tell you how wrong you are, are stupid, and should feel bad about it?

That you are first in line to do that to me?
Really, I'm pointing out that you really don't want to treat abuse victims this way, and you're telling me off for it? Check yourself.
but hey, your computer monitor might be glass, so go ahead and throw that stone.

Do you have a better general rule to treating people well?

Also, general rule.
Not an ironclad, always follow no matter what rule. General rule.

Using abuse victims as an outlier to win an argument is pretty bizarre

Most people understand that any maxim must be applied in context and the golden and platinum are rule are caveated against people who want harm for themselves.

Put another way, I've never met anyone who heard either of them and thought. "Well I guess that means I've got to do something bad to a person in self destructive crisis"
__________________________________________
Drawing a line between that malarkey and what follows.

Coming back to the topic at hand. Our club just had it's monthly game gathering last night. In light of this thread I think about the 6 guys who gathered in my basement. Recalling the harmony, goodwill, dececy and common sense everyone displayed I think that group could play nearly any game (free from problematic content of course) and it would be a non-toxic experience for all involved.

I'm sure the reasons for this are many: a decade of experience playing together, age, maturity, an environment that might select for casual players and the traits mentioned previously, etc. I don't know the equation or all the reasons, but I know I am thankful. Further, I believe that while it may contribute in some minor way, a particular game is not largely responsible for bad behavior any more than it can take the credit for good behavior.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Do you have a better general rule to treating people well?

Don't be a jerk?

Don't get up on a soapbox and preach, then immediate discard what you're touting? That certainly springs to mind... for some reason.

Eilif wrote:Using abuse victims as an outlier to win an argument is pretty bizarre

Most people understand that any maxim must be applied in context and the golden and platinum are rule are caveated against people who want harm for themselves.

Er... no. Sorry if I didn't express it well, but I'm not talking about an 'outlier' or somehow 'winning' an argument- just taking an obvious example as to why a generalized, pithy axiom is a poor policy, and incredibly harmful

To expand further, a lot of people expect terrible behavior from others, and have accepted it as normal. I'd argue its a cultural norm at the moment, and explains pretty well why people react to news and media the way they do- someone else getting respect or accomplishments means they're somehow losing, and they have to lash out to defend themselves. As demonstrated, even simple disagreement is construed as as an attack and somehow it means telling people that they're 'stupid and should feel bad.' Disagreeing is about the opinion, not the person.

Deadnight wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Then there’s the larger scale PITA. For instance, someone who knocks a game because it wasn’t designed for a certain way of playing. Criticising rules is typically fair game, and can lead to useful and fun discussion, and perhaps even change in the game. But when (such as earlier editions of 40K) it just wasn’t designed with tournament play in mind? That’s….that’s not actually a failing of the game, anymore than X-Wing being a steep learning curve is a failing of the game or it’s design. And constantly harping on and on and on about it is just irritating, not to mention pointless.

I'd also add people who are constantly negative, constantly miserable about everything, and constantly broadcasting it, and who can really, never realistically be pleased by any offering or approach and who cant accept anyone elses positivity or neutrality onnthe things they consider bad. They just want to sit there and moan and stew in it, but also can't accept it unless everyone is as miserable as they are

This is why I had a hiatus from 40k until around a week ago. It just seemed that with every single announcement there was the most minute thing that people were getting so arsey about. Not the typical game mechanics, rule discussion, but anal things such as:

- In the Tau Codex on the Drone dataslates, two of the Drones are T'au colours while the rest are Vior'la
- Some of the mini-photos in the Tau dataslates go over the borders.
- Ulthwe have 4 faction rules in the book. The rules are simple enough that they could be condensed into three, maybe two rules but the fact that it's four bullet-points is too much for some people.

Some people just want to find anything to whine about. Step away from the screen, take a break for Christ's sake.

You win Voss.




I also find that the internet is designed to raise up negative comments, toxicity and "hot takes". I am prone to it myself from time-to-time. I am only human after all.

Then, these online activities start to bleed over into everyday interactions at the club, store, or game group. That is when it can become a bigger issue, as it needs to then be dealt with, and that can lead to reinforcement of the negative behaviors. That said, I am no expert on the subject.

That said, stepping away from the internet can be very helpful. I think I shall take my own advice for a while,

Voss wrote:

Eilif wrote:Using abuse victims as an outlier to win an argument is pretty bizarre

Most people understand that any maxim must be applied in context and the golden and platinum are rule are caveated against people who want harm for themselves.

Er... no. Sorry if I didn't express it well, but I'm not talking about an 'outlier' or somehow 'winning' an argument- just taking an obvious example as to why a generalized, pithy axiom is a poor policy, and incredibly harmful

To expand further, a lot of people expect terrible behavior from others, and have accepted it as normal. I'd argue its a cultural norm at the moment, and explains pretty well why people react to news and media the way they do- someone else getting respect or accomplishments means they're somehow losing, and they have to lash out to defend themselves. As demonstrated, even simple disagreement is construed as as an attack and somehow it means telling people that they're 'stupid and should feel bad.' Disagreeing is about the opinion, not the person.

I think I understand now, please excuse my earlier tone.

If your concern is that axioms being used in an way that bypasses rational thought can harm some groups of people then I think that everyone agrees with you. No one here has advocated that axioms be utilized without consideration.

As to your other points I assume we would also largely agree that presuming disagreement as attack and zero-sum-thinking regarding the achievements of others are unproductive.

So, it seems that our fundamental disagreement may simply be over whether there may be positive social and personal goods and/or useful shared understandings that can arise from use of such axioms. However, that's a divergence unlikely to be resolved in a Wargaming forum.

 Easy E wrote:
You win Voss.

I also find that the internet is designed to raise up negative comments, toxicity and "hot takes". I am prone to it myself from time-to-time. I am only human after all.

Then, these online activities start to bleed over into everyday interactions at the club, store, or game group. That is when it can become a bigger issue, as it needs to then be dealt with, and that can lead to reinforcement of the negative behaviors. That said, I am no expert on the subject.

That said, stepping away from the internet can be very helpful. I think I shall take my own advice for a while,

Online behaviors -- and by that I mean not just the tone of interactions, but the content and the thought processes behind them -- have been leaking into the real world for quite some time now. It's not surprising that nuance and genuine exchanges of ideas have been lost in a world populated by people trained to communicate in 160 (or whatever number) characters in forums where the loudest, most extreme opinions are rewarded with attention. The internet -- and especially social media -- is training minds to become toxic PITAs.

I agree that online anonymous helps people say things they would never say in public. Recently and one reason I started this thread were that I had posted on an RPG forum about an older game, I felt the combat was taking too long and listed my ideas for house rules for speeding up the game. The only reply was someone saying I was wrong about the game and everything I listed was incorrect. I never thought that the idea of changing a die type from percentage dice to a twenty-sided die would cause so much rage. In my eyes, the percentages are the same but the odds are different. No discussion, I was just wrong. People get set in their ways and any change is almost heresy in their eyes, no matter how trivial the change is.

The other thing is that toxic can be how a person is, there's a difference between being competitive and winning at all costs. I have encountered both over my years at the local game store. Back in the day when
40k Epic was popular, we had a player that would find the hardest unit and then buy the max amount of them, He would destroy players easily knocking them out of the game but throw a fit if anyone attacked him or his son. A few of us just broke off from the main group to start a separate group on another day. But before we knew it most players got tired of the crap and moved to our game. When it came time for the trouble players to join, we were upfront with what happened and explained that that attitude was not welcome in our current game. Did he end up changing his way? No, he complained to the owner instead of trying to play nice.

On the other side, I have been part of competitive games and tournaments where I literally learned something new about the game and wanted the opponent to be my new best friend even though we lived thousands of miles apart. Then I had a local games a few years back of War machine when I was trying to return to the game and be curb stomped knowing that I was a novice player.

 Genoside07 wrote:
I agree that online anonymous helps people say things they would never say in public. Recently and one reason I started this thread were that I had posted on an RPG forum about an older game, I felt the combat was taking too long and listed my ideas for house rules for speeding up the game. The only reply was someone saying I was wrong about the game and everything I listed was incorrect. I never thought that the idea of changing a die type from percentage dice to a twenty-sided die would cause so much rage. In my eyes, the percentages are the same but the odds are different. No discussion, I was just wrong. People get set in their ways and any change is almost heresy in their eyes, no matter how trivial the change is.

Heh, yup. Wargamers are often... dogmatic to a fault.

The most important thing isn't good rules, its official rules and essentially 'toeing the line'. Deviating from the dogma and 'how to play properly' id often severely frowned upon. Homebrewing or suggestions to ignore/change broken rules in your group are often met with hostility and derision, but that's by the by.

To your point, often times the one thing wargamers will hate more than the official, often admittedly broken rules (they're obligated to follow) is change to said admittedly broken rules.

 Genoside07 wrote:

The other thing is that toxic can be how a person is, there's a difference between being competitive and winning at all costs. I have encountered both over my years at the local game store. Back in the day when
40k Epic was popular, we had a player that would find the hardest unit and then buy the max amount of them, He would destroy players easily knocking them out of the game but throw a fit if anyone attacked him or his son. A few of us just broke off from the main group to start a separate group on another day. But before we knew it most players got tired of the crap and moved to our game. When it came time for the trouble players to join, we were upfront with what happened and explained that that attitude was not welcome in our current game. Did he end up changing his way? No, he complained to the owner instead of trying to play nice.

On the other side, I have been part of competitive games and tournaments where I literally learned something new about the game and wanted the opponent to be my new best friend even though we lived thousands of miles apart. Then I had a local games a few years back of War machine when I was trying to return to the game and be curb stomped knowing that I was a novice player.

I often see chatter online where people talk about 'competitive players' as some kind of aspirational gold standard, with all the positive traits one would wish to lay claim to, including being a good sport, wanting a fair/equal game etc, being associated with them and all the negative things associated with the mythic waac evildoers. It falls into 'no true scotsman' territory very quickly when you point out that those traits exist in players of other approaches, as well as conpetitive shenanigans you've witnessed being dismissed as 'no true competitive player would ever do that'. Yeah, mate, on your bike with you. The truth is far more nuanced. You can be competitive, play entirely legally and within the rules, and still be a colossal toxic douche. And lets be clear - the Same can absolutely be said for some who play casually - there are some hilariously musguided cry-bullies out there. There is a reason I refer to competitive-at-all-cost in addition to win-at-all-cost, and casual-at-all-costs as being... problematic.

That said, some of my fondest gaming memories were playing competitive wmh at fairly top tables with some very decent people. There is a time and a place for it, and it has value but if its left uncontrolled it can absolutely decimate communities.