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

 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.