Let's talk about toxicity

[Jack_McSnatch]

Ever since I joined these boards, I've seen people throwing around terms and ideas that, frankly, I don't think belong in d&d.

Namely tiers, system mastery, and optimization. More impotantly the way people take them.

I think these things -or at least those who abuse them- are extremely toxic and destructive to a gaming group. Partly due to how they affect players who don't lurk these threads, and partly how they affect those who DO.

Those who read these boards know the tiers. They know wizards are at the top and that fighters aren't worth the gold spent on their armor. They build amazing characters who can fill literally any party role, and have to actively nerf themselves to give other party members a chance, and herein lies the problem. D&d is not a one person game, and the idea of tiers is inheirently flawed. One character isn't SUPPOSED to do every job, but that's what the board has taught us.

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

[zlefin]

you don't seem to understand the point of tier, and are misrepresenting some warped view of tiers as being what tiers are actually about.
tiers are not good or bad, they're simply a tool for understanding how to address things, and/or a set of factual observations.

you're also simply wrong about the others;
system mastery is also a tool, which is used to help you follow the rules, and know when to adjust them productively.
optimization - it's a game, people are free to play it they wnat to have fun. If they and their group have fun doing that, fine.

[tstewt1921]

I don't agree that the tier system and things like that are toxic, I mean if you want to avoid the tier system and the optimization just say so in your post. I've done several posts, and asked for no optimization and didn't care about the power, I just wanted to know if the character was doable within the rules set and normally got the exact answer I asked for....except for a true elemental bender.......but yeah, if you don't want optimization just make sure to ask for no optimization in your order.

[Jack_McSnatch]

you don't seem to understand the point of tier, and are misrepresenting some warped view of tiers as being what tiers are actually about.
tiers are not good or bad, they're simply a tool for understanding how to address things, and/or a set of factual observations.

you're also simply wrong about the others;
system mastery is also a tool, which is used to help you follow the rules, and know when to adjust them productively.
optimization - it's a game, people are free to play it they wnat to have fun. If they and their group have fun doing that, fine.
That may be what it's INTENDED to do, but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.

System mastery may just be how well you know the system, but it results in people lording their mastery over others, and turns into a barrier for new players, intimidated by the breadth of material contained in all the books, and not wanting to take another school course to play make believe.

Finally, Optimization may just be how well you build, but it's resulted in a very self-oriented character who solves every problem before the other players get a chance to shine. So you get one guy who feels like a badass, and three who wonder why they're even there.

[flappeercraft]

Ever since I joined these boards, I've seen people throwing around terms and ideas that, frankly, I don't think belong in d&d.

Namely tiers, system mastery, and optimization.

I think these things -all of them- are extremely toxic and destructive to a gaming group. Partly due to how they affect players who don't lurk these threads, and partly how they affect those who DO.

Those who read these boards know the tiers. They know wizards are at the top and that fighters aren't worth the gold spent on their armor. They build amazing characters who can fill literally any party role, and have to actively nerf themselves to give other party members a chance, and herein lies the problem. D&d is not a one person game, and the idea of tiers is inheirently flawed. One character isn't SUPPOSED to do every job, but that's what the board has taught us.

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

I think you have wrong the idea of tiers. Literally it’s the way to see the potential of the classes based on the effort you put in optimizing it. Literally on the tier list it says that it can be used specifically for balance, that is its purpose, for everyone to know where the balance point is in what.

System mastery and optimization are not destructive to a group, they are just destructive if someone abuses it beyond what the general consensus on the group is, and even then only if it prevents others from having fun. If that is the case someone can just not go full out, nearly nobody is bothered by not going full out.

Also you seem to go under the belief that optimizing is to make something fill all jobs, well it’s not. Optimizing is to make you better at something, be it at sneak attacking, casting more spells or doing more damage, you can make it for doing everything, but that generally won’t be the case.

Also there is something else that honestly bothers me from your post, saying that optimization detracts from fun. That is absolutely false. I personally enjoy optimizing for the sake of doing it, whether I will use the character or not. One can optimize for a game but it’s not necessary, and if you do there is a balance, the group establishes where the power will be and where it won’t be ok to be. Plus you also say it makes it so people don’t play what they want to, well that is also a lie, optimization can make you play anything if done correctly, hell with it I’ve played a Monk at level 20 and not fallen behind an StP Erudite, I’ve used it to make a character who can learn and cast spells mid combat because I liked the Sharingan. Also, it has been left very clear in the board that optimizing should be left to a limit when taken to a table, and that not all that is in here should be taken to one.

Finally, you go under the assumption that all D&D games are played by multiple people or are unoptimized. Some games, the point IS to optimize and has that clearly established, and there is lots of fun still had there. Also some games are just solo games, some people play as the only player, those exist and is also part of the reason that optimizing to cover all bases exists.

What I’m getting to is that your argument is like saying that because you don’t like salt, nobody should have it and that it should not exist. Everyone has their own likes regarding both salting their food and optimization, some don’t like optimization, some like some of it and some like me like a lot of it. However, it does not mean it is bad for it to exist or toxic in any way, just play with people who have similar preferences or make an agreement to go under similar levels of power.

[zfs]

I don't disagree with everything you're saying, even though I know noticing some of these trends is taboo and usually shot down as some type of fallacy. There are posters whose playstyle, IMO, seems incredibly tough to have in a group setting without ruffling feathers. I will not name any names because it's against the rules and frankly it's impolite anyway. And I might be wrong - maybe their groups love playing with them.

But this thread is just going to be a mess of fallacy quoting and people talking past each other. Some version of this thread has been done countless times and it never leads to an open, productive dialogue.

Anyway, even if I notice some trends, I don't think interparty conflict is a result of tiers or system mastery or optimization. It's a result of the same emotional and philosophical clashes that cause trouble in every area of socializing, not just tabletop gaming. A group that gets along and is friends is unlikely to start becoming embittered and backstabbing each other because one of them dives a bit deeper into op and starts play more optimized characters. And people who don't get along aren't going to suddenly be buddy-buddy if they're all forced to play unoptimized characters with no potential party role clashes.

[JNAProductions]

Ever since I joined these boards, I've seen people throwing around terms and ideas that, frankly, I don't think belong in d&d.

Namely tiers, system mastery, and optimization.

I think these things -all of them- are extremely toxic and destructive to a gaming group. Partly due to how they affect players who don't lurk these threads, and partly how they affect those who DO.

Those who read these boards know the tiers. They know wizards are at the top and that fighters aren't worth the gold spent on their armor. They build amazing characters who can fill literally any party role, and have to actively nerf themselves to give other party members a chance, and herein lies the problem. D&d is not a one person game, and the idea of tiers is inheirently flawed. One character isn't SUPPOSED to do every job, but that's what the board has taught us.

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

Tiers are a useful tool. So is an axe.

If I use an axe to chop someone's head off, is the axe to blame?


System mastery is, as one might be able to guess from the name, how well one knows the system and how well they can use the rules. If better rules knowledge is used to overshadow others or wielded like a cudgel, it's not a good USE of it, but in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with being knowledgeable on the system. In fact, it's generally a good thing.


Optimization is totally fine, with the caveat that everyone needs to be optimizing for the same general power level. A well-built Monk just plain can't compete with a well-built Druid, for instance, till you get to Tippy's table. And most people would flounder and fail at Tippy's table.

But, if one player (a highly-skilled and experienced veteran of 3.5) builds a kick-ass Monk, and another player (a new player who doesn't have the experience the other has) builds a functional Warblade, that's generally gonna be fine. The Monk starts off weaker, but with the skill applied, gets to the same power level as the Warblade, resulting in a good game for everyone.

Alternatively, the veteran builds a buff-master Wizard, and the new player builds that same Warblade. The veteran does very little directly, and instead buffs the Warblade into the stratosphere, and they both have a good time.


Also, you say things like:


but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.

When that's not accurate at all. I know the tier system (not perfectly, but certainly to a decent degree). I know that there are vast power disparities in 3.5. And my favorite class is Dragonfire Adept, which is, at best, T3. Why? Because I get to breathe fire, gods dammit, and there's no pesky resources to track!

You're arguing against a strawman.

As a final point, a large part of the reasons tiers exist in 3.5 (and, by extension, optimization can produce vastly differing power levels in the same ECL) is because 3.5 isn't designed well, when it comes to balance. Look at a game like FAE-there's no real optimization there, and certainly no tiers! You might want to investigate why before you blame players and DMs for what WotC screwed up.

[zlefin]

That may be what it's INTENDED to do, but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.

System mastery may just be how well you know the system, but it results in people lording their mastery over others, and turns into a barrier for new players, intimidated by the breadth of material contained in all the books, and not wanting to take another school course to play make believe.

Finally, Optimization may just be how well you build, but it's resulted in a very self-oriented character who solves every problem before the other players get a chance to shine. So you get one guy who feels like a badass, and three who wonder why they're even there.

it also did in FACT do the same thing it was intended to do. in a few cases it also had some other effects; you're simply fixating on those other effects and ignoring the rest of the cases.

you're simply assuming that it in all cases leads ot those things, which is a very bad assumption.
also, your arguments have been quite thoroughly proven wrong, do you have any others to make?

[Erloas]

The idea you're trying to address isn't wrong, but you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Tiers, optimization, and system mastery is just our common terms for ideas that already exist. You never have to look at a forum or know the term to understand that some players know how the system works much better than other players.
The tiers don't force a class into a position, it is simply shorthand for the observable differences between classes.

Toxicity is bad for sure, but getting rid of the teams used to describe those issues won't change the issues themselves.

[Knaight]

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

I'm in this to have fun with my friends - and sticking my fingers in my ears and refusing to acknowledge flaws in the systems I use is actively counterproductive to that. If I know the pitfalls I can avoid them, and while I personally chose to avoid them by abandoning D&D entirely acknowledging the tiers and building a party within a narrow range to ensure they're roughly comparable is another option to do that.

[Jack_McSnatch]

it also did in FACT do the same thing it was intended to do. in a few cases it also had some other effects; you're simply fixating on those other effects and ignoring the rest of the cases.

you're simply assuming that it in all cases leads ot those things, which is a very bad assumption.
also, your arguments have been quite thoroughly proven wrong, do you have any others to make?
Not gonna quote JNA cause that's a good size wall.

My point wasn't that these things are all bad. My point was that there are several players coming off boards like this, thinking in the ways I established. My points haven't been proven wrong, if anything, people have pointed out exactly why I'm right. Because while tiers, system mastery, and optimization, are fantastic tools, there are a great many players who flagrantly abuse them, and detract from the fun of other players. Who, as JNA put it, wield their knowledge of the game like a cudgel, to beat people over the head with. I'm not contending that tiers and such are toxic, I'm postulating that those who use them badly ARE. And there sure do seem to be a lot of people who use their gifts poorly.

[flappeercraft]

Not gonna quote JNA cause that's a good size wall.

My point wasn't that these things are all bad. My point was that there are several players coming off boards like this, thinking in the ways I established. My points haven't been proven wrong, if anything, people have pointed out exactly why I'm right. Because while tiers, system mastery, and optimization, are fantastic tools, there are a great many players who flagrantly abuse them, and detract from the fun of other players. Who, as JNA put it, wield their knowledge of the game like a cudgel, to beat people over the head with. I'm not contending that tiers and such are toxic, I'm postulating that those who use them badly ARE. And there sure do seem to be a lot of people who use their gifts poorly.

In that case you should reword the OP, because something vastly different is understood from how its written.

[zfs]

I definitely agree with Erloas. Yes, I think the type of player Jsck is describing obviously exists - people who think playing a Fighter that isnt a Zhentarim Dungeoncrasher Leap Attacking Shock Trooper is badwrong. But they'd exist even if no one ever mentioned the concept of tiers. And to be fair to both sides of the spectrum, there are also players who think God Wizards are badwrong fun.

[Jack_McSnatch]

In that case you should reword the OP, because something vastly different is understood from how its written.

Yeah I see that now. Thank you

[ericgrau]

That may be what it's INTENDED to do, but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.


More like people who will only play T3 or only allow T3, as the "perfect balance point". Though I can see how you may have run into people who would only play T1. Either way, is it causes people to not play fighter and so forth which really is a problem. How one person responds to it is different than how another does, so I can understand both your point of view and also those saying what the heck are you talking about.

I have a bigger issues with tiers because I've never seen them in practice in an in person game. Not once. Yet they do get acted upon. And a lot of things in forums tell you to not use things that you really should use in common play. That limits one of the best things about 3.5: options. How many wizards in forums end up as conjurers yet again, especially those that ban evocation? Or melee with shocktrooper? Or monks or fighters told to play something else instead. Not only is it limiting, for casual optimization it's often weaker too. Or else suggests tricks that are way above the group's optimization level. How many core or limited book builds are told they absolutely must take power attack and two hand melee only, when without shocktrooper or similar tricks it's a pile of poo. Or a conjurer gets abrupt jaunt yet again and ruins the campaign. Or someone nerfs wizards into the ground, so that a casual player goes to play one and finds he can't function at all in the party. Even on a basic level. It happens hundreds and hundreds of times.

So while I can see how it isn't necessarily a problem and you don't have to do any one particular thing with it, it often actually is a problem.

Solution: Well, first through 3rd, check the context of the player. 99.9% of those new to internet boards won't use any high optimization combo. Even those who frequent them often don't use it all, or play with those who won't. At minimum playing a wizard in a way that requires days of real life planning is rare. As are most highly involved tricks taken as given. Many things are just lol banned the moment the DM hears them, and should not be considered normal in discussion at all. Assuming the player devotes half his week to char op and the DM let's most crazy combos fly shouldn't be a base assumption. 4th the tiers really are pretty useless because it's hard to find a tier system that works for a large portion of contexts. Unless you go with casual gamers since that's a pretty large group... who don't often participate in forums. In which case bard is T5 and all NPC classes including adept are T6 because they're hard for the casual player to pull off. Etc. And in general it's dramatically different from any version of the tier system that's become popular online. So really it's nearly impossible to find a context wherein the tier system is useful. Nor many popular assumptions which don't apply to the kind of people who actually need to ask for help in a forum.

So, yeah, context, context, context. How far are the players and more importantly the DM willing to go? Because 95% don't go as far as many forum discussions do. And because many popular ideas simply got circulated a lot and are just plain wrong when tried out in actual play. And on that note many ideas are just rehashes of popular ideas to the exclusion of other fun things to try. Likewise what one clique talks about a lot may be completely different from what another clique talks about a lot. Probably part of why it may be hard to understand the original poster; what he says might not be wrong as an issue that has appeared among some he knows. I still remember a DM who banned monks (and only monks) for being overpowered, because of forum tricks in a specific forum in a specific couple years when he browsed them.

[Karl Aegis]

Toxic posters would have become toxic posters regardless of the existence of a tier list. It's just many posters who knew how to post responsibly have since moved on to better things.

[chaos_redefined]

That may be what it's INTENDED to do, but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.

It is very difficult to get a customisable, balanced system. 3.5 is highly customisable, but lacks balance. 4e and 5e end up being customisable, but it ends up feeling like the character you are making is set in stone as of level 3 or so. Not a lot of customisation from that point onwards.

The drawback to the lack of balance is that it is easy to end up with two players, one who could steal the spotlight continuously, and another which can't do anything meaningful. To work around that, players developed a set of lists of classes, such that if two options were in the same list, they should be able to contribute equivalently meaningfully. If they are in neighbouring lists, it's probably fine. If they are in far-reaching opposites, then they probably shoudn't be played together (wizard + commoner, for example). These lists are the tier system. If you have players who pull out tier 1 classes while everyone else is grabbing tier 4/5, and then scoff at everyone else for being incompetent, then they are being *****.


System mastery may just be how well you know the system, but it results in people lording their mastery over others, and turns into a barrier for new players, intimidated by the breadth of material contained in all the books, and not wanting to take another school course to play make believe.

I have contemplated what a system mastery tier list would look like. Something like Warblade/Crusader/Swordsage at the top, which require a small amount of mastery to get a lot out of, and most of core at the bottom, which requires a lot of mastery to get a lot out of. This would help these kinds of players.

However, the breadth of material in all the books is not a result of the tier system. The tier list is a result of so much breadth combined with the lack of balance.


Finally, Optimization may just be how well you build, but it's resulted in a very self-oriented character who solves every problem before the other players get a chance to shine. So you get one guy who feels like a badass, and three who wonder why they're even there.

See earlier statement about player being a ****.

If you have one character who can solve any situation, and 3 others that wonder why they are even there, then there are two options. Tell the first player to cut back and stop hogging the spotlight, or help the other three contribute more. If the first player responds poorly to either of these options, then you start looking at the option of cutting him from the group.

[ericgrau]

Toxic posters would have become toxic posters regardless of the existence of a tier list. It's just many posters who knew how to post responsibly have since moved on to better things.

Yes and no. It's similar to dealing with rumors in general. You should learn to ignore them, but also takes steps against their spread. Also learn not to trust simply quantity of words, and likewise learn how to discuss among such. Because you won't do it by writing more. Make a point, ignore any need to have the last word or more words, and ignore those who do and simply continue as you were. etc. Ah crud I just wasted too much time online again didn't I? Gtg. I have things I need to take care of. And that's why you can't win with quantity. EDIT: Related note, simply ignore those that demand quantity, or briefly explain why you refuse and why it doesn't make you wrong.

[Calthropstu]

More like people who will only play T3 or only allow T3, as the "perfect balance point". Though I can see how you may have run into people who would only play T1. Either way, is it causes people to not play fighter and so forth which really is a problem. How one person responds to it is different than how another does, so I can understand both your point of view and also those saying what the heck are you talking about.

I have a bigger issues with tiers because I've never seen them in practice in an in person game. Not once. Yet they do get acted upon. And a lot of things in forums tell you to not use things that you really should use in common play. That limits one of the best things about 3.5: options. How many wizards in forums end up as conjurers yet again, especially those that ban evocation? Or melee with shocktrooper? Or monks or fighters told to play something else instead. Not only is it limiting, for casual optimization it's often weaker too. Or else suggests tricks that are way above the group's optimization level. How many core or limited book builds are told they absolutely must take power attack and two hand melee only, when without shocktrooper or similar tricks it's a pile of poo. Or a conjurer gets abrupt jaunt yet again and ruins the campaign. Or someone nerfs wizards into the ground, so that a casual player goes to play one and finds he can't function at all in the party. Even on a basic level. It happens hundreds and hundreds of times.

So while I can see how it isn't necessarily a problem and you don't have to do any one particular thing with it, it often actually is a problem.

Solution: Well, first through 3rd, check the context of the player. 99.9% of those new to internet boards won't use any high optimization combo. Even those who frequent them often don't use it all, or play with those who won't. At minimum playing a wizard in a way that requires days of real life planning is rare. As are most highly involved tricks taken as given. Many things are just lol banned the moment the DM hears them, and should not be considered normal in discussion at all. Assuming the player devotes half his week to char op and the DM let's most crazy combos fly shouldn't be a base assumption. 4th the tiers really are pretty useless because it's hard to find a tier system that works for a large portion of contexts. Unless you go with casual gamers since that's a pretty large group... who don't often participate in forums. In which case bard is T5 and all NPC classes including adept are T6 because they're hard for the casual player to pull off. Etc. And in general it's dramatically different from any version of the tier system that's become popular online. So really it's nearly impossible to find a context wherein the tier system is useful. Nor many popular assumptions which don't apply to the kind of people who actually need to ask for help in a forum.

I was playing sorcerers long before I read the tier list. I still play sorcerers because I feel they are the best overall class. Keeping track of spell lists, memorizing new spells each day, scrounging money for scrolls to put into your spellbook... and possibly failing, spending huge amounts of time tracking the spells cast and memorized each day... sure, it's super versatile. It's also incredibly boring.

Meanwhile, I have my sorcerer spells. I plan them out to do what I want my character to do. Then, instead of trying to pick my spells to suit the situation, I use cunning strategies to make the situation suit my spells. Psions and sorcerers are great for that.

People who want to play martials? Great. Stand between me and our enemies while I use my spells as intended. People playing rogues? Great. Bring me the information I need to be effective. People wanting to play batman wizard? Hey, there's a campaign somewhere else.

I play characters who are fun for me to play. These forums have literally changed NOTHING about how I play. But it is fun to theorize stuff like pun-pun.

[Troacctid]

If anything, I bet tier lists have resulted in a net decrease in power disparities by raising awareness of the balance issues inherent in the system.

I suspect the real cause of your complaint is netdecking, not optimization.

[Calthropstu]

If anything, I bet tier lists have resulted in a net decrease in power disparities by raising awareness of the balance issues inherent in the system.

I suspect the real cause of your complaint is netdecking, not optimization.

"netdecking?" I've not heard that term before.

Edit: ah, deck building term. Eh, I suppose you could apply the term in this context. To be honest though, apart from the theoretical optimization tactics, most of the "good builds" are actually fairly intuitive to a veteran player. Yes, improved initiative is a good feat. +2 to a skill is a terrible feat. Taking those feats even once will tell you what's useful and what isn't. The result is more experienced players will know what to take and what to drop.

So "netdecking" need not apply. Experience will build stronger characters.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Not quite the post I was expecting from the title, but okay, I'll play along...

I think it's toxic to say that tiers, system mastery, and optimization have no place in D&D, or gaming in general. Exploring the intricacies of the system--acquiring mastery of the system, optimizing, in other words--is a legitimate source of enjoyment of any (tactical) game, and D&D is a (tactical) game. System mastery, and the tier system as part of that, has also provided insights on such interesting topics as "how to make my game more fun"--as per what Knaight said, for example--which aren't to be thrown aside just because you associated them with toxicity.



As for the actual question (it's "What gives?", if anyone forgot), I think your observations are skewed and people are plenty happy to play fun games with friends. If you're getting your data from the forum, keep in mind that the char-op part of the game is (a) easily played alone and (b) easily communicated over forums. D&D 3.5 char-op specifically is affected by the fact that the books are like, fifteen years out of print official developer support, and the influx of new players isn't so great that we don't have time to drag up some old debate over the rules legality of finnicky trick #289 (discovered 2002). But I wouldn't think for a moment that just because we form ranks for the greater glory of our RAI every monday, that we bring up the same points when playing. I, for one, have better things to do at the table (though I will joke about drown healing, cause that stuff's just funny).

[Jack_Simth]

Ah. And here I was hoping to see something about comparative usefulness of various game poisons as compared to their costs. Like, say, while Dragon Bile has the highest save DC of the Core List (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#tablePoisons), it markets at 1,5000 gp/dose, and has no secondary effect. Meanwhile, you can use five times as much Sassone leaf residue for the same cost. So which is better: Hitting someone with five doses of Sassone leaf residue, or one does of Dragon Bile?

[Crake]

"netdecking?" I've not heard that term before.

It originates from hearthstone, an online card game, tcgs in general where people would go to the internet to copy the "best" decks, hence "net-decking". The equivilent here would be going to the boards and getting one of the TO powerful builds and just copying it directly and in it's entirety.

To the OP though: I think you're seeing the toxicity around optimization and the tiers and determining that they're the cause, but as we all know, correleation does not equal causality. Toxicity like this exists everywhere, and existed long before optimization and the tiers became a thing, it's simply that they're drawn to those things, and you'll find more often than not that people will post about bad experiences, but never the good ones, probably for two main reasons: nobody wants to vent about good experiences, and positive threads seem to get far less traction, as people aren't so much interested in hearing about them.

But these things didn't cause the toxicity, it simply attracted the toxic players. None of these things are themselves inherently toxic in nature, and you'll find that, much like sensorial news, you're only reading about the bad things, and getting the impression that it's all like that everywhere. It's not. The tables that are having lots of fun with a whole mix of optimization levels aren't coming to the forums and proclaiming how great they have it, they're just going ahead and enjoying themselves.

[zlefin]

Not gonna quote JNA cause that's a good size wall.

My point wasn't that these things are all bad. My point was that there are several players coming off boards like this, thinking in the ways I established. My points haven't been proven wrong, if anything, people have pointed out exactly why I'm right. Because while tiers, system mastery, and optimization, are fantastic tools, there are a great many players who flagrantly abuse them, and detract from the fun of other players. Who, as JNA put it, wield their knowledge of the game like a cudgel, to beat people over the head with. I'm not contending that tiers and such are toxic, I'm postulating that those who use them badly ARE. And there sure do seem to be a lot of people who use their gifts poorly.

your points most certainly have been proven wrong; now what you're doing though is changing the claims you actually made to something different and more reasonable; that's fine. but don't pretend your claims weren't corrected from their initial false form into a different more reasonable form. maybe that was what you intended them to be in the first place, but it's not the words you actually stated; and people argued against the words you actually stated, not what you meant to say.
you did in fact edit your original post to be more in line with this.

your modified point is reasonable, though I would dispute the % of players that abuse them and suspect it's moderately lower than you're claiming. but it remains a reasonable point which I have no great quarrel with.

oh and @crane, netdecking doesn't originate from hearthstone; iirc it's been around FAR longer than that. I've seen it in reference to Magic:tG from way back when, like pre-2000 or somesuch.

[Erloas]

It originates from hearthstone, an online card game, where people would go to the internet to copy the "best" decks, hence "net-decking". The equivilent here would be going to the boards and getting one of the TO powerful builds and just copying it directly and in it's entirety.

You're showing your age :smallwink:
The term is older than hearthstone by about a decade. Pretty much since any of the ccgs starting having tournaments.


While the internet has spread many of the toxic aspects of various games, it didn't create them, it simply made them easier to find and more consistent across groups. As soon as someone found an exploit or problematic idea it could then quickly spread.

[ericgrau]

While players may not netdeck builds by Googling one and taking it to their game, they do go online to ask for a build and get something like it handed to them. Something way over-optimized for most, and yet not "tournament worthy" like a MtG netdeck because that is a deck that saw actual play. Whereas the D&D build contains popular misinformation never tried out in actual play too, and certainly not competitive play.

And the person asking for help often doesn't know enough to discern, so part of it is on other forum members to discuss in a civil manner and not bash each other for holding a viewpoint that doesn't match some old popular one. Because while old popular ideas are often good, often they're bad rumors that have simply been recirculated a lot.

While the OP has dealt with different problem people than we may have here, that's no reason to bash him. All kinds of cliques are different. Like how I had a DM who browsed certain forums during certain years and banned the monk, and only the monk, for being too overpowered. I could bring up a valid complaint against him not letting me play the strong class, and while you might bash it by saying the monk isn't overpowered, it's still a legitimate complaint against forum behavior.

Tiers for one don't seem to be accurate at all in casual play. Not the original tier list nor the redos. And there are complaint threads about all sorts of bad decisions made based on them, when most of the time nothing needs to be done about "tiers" at all.

Part of it's the reader, part of it's the writer, part of it's that other thing. You can't point the finger at any single thing. But you can do your best in whatever position you may be in. Saying you don't have to use the tiers or you should know how to "rework" them isn't the entire answer.

[Buufreak]

"Let's talk about toxicity"

If anything in this thread has thus far shown any sort of toxicity, I feel it would be the abrasive nature of title and OP. Just my 2c.

[Knaight]

So which is better: Hitting someone with five doses of Sassone leaf residue, or one does of Dragon Bile?

That comparison implicitly neglects the action economy - there's no good way to hit with five doses at once (3.0 shruiken came close), which means the comparison is one dose of Dragon Bile now, and five doses of Sassone leaf over the next few rounds.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your core complaint, if you boil it all the way down, is that douche-bags exist and do so loudly. I've got some really bad news for you; they always have and always will and going far enough to actually drive them off in any significant way will make you their king. Ignore them, move on; it's all that can reasonably be done.

Seriously; scroll past 'em, use the forum block feature, navigate to another site for a while. If you engage, they win. The abyss always stares back, my dude, don't look.

[Warlawk]

Not gonna quote JNA cause that's a good size wall.

My point wasn't that these things are all bad. My point was that there are several players coming off boards like this, thinking in the ways I established. My points haven't been proven wrong, if anything, people have pointed out exactly why I'm right. Because while tiers, system mastery, and optimization, are fantastic tools, there are a great many players who flagrantly abuse them, and detract from the fun of other players. Who, as JNA put it, wield their knowledge of the game like a cudgel, to beat people over the head with. I'm not contending that tiers and such are toxic, I'm postulating that those who use them badly ARE. And there sure do seem to be a lot of people who use their gifts poorly.

None of the tools/concepts you've outlined are toxic or enable toxic behavior.

People are toxic. Said people will be toxic regardless of the terminology or tools involved in discussion. Foisting that blame onto tiers, system mastery or any other gaming term or concept is simply enabling toxic people to continue being toxic. I mean, obviously I wasn't being badmean, the TIERS MADE ME DO IT!

Place the blame for toxicity where it belongs.

[Doctor Awkward]

That may be what it's INTENDED to do, but what it actually does is create a bunch of elitists who only play wizards or druids, and look down their noses at anyone who wants to play something else.

System mastery may just be how well you know the system, but it results in people lording their mastery over others, and turns into a barrier for new players, intimidated by the breadth of material contained in all the books, and not wanting to take another school course to play make believe.

Finally, Optimization may just be how well you build, but it's resulted in a very self-oriented character who solves every problem before the other players get a chance to shine. So you get one guy who feels like a badass, and three who wonder why they're even there.

Rubbish.
That's like saying a chess Grandmaster would only ever enjoy playing a game against another Grandmaster. Sure, some of them are probably like that, but those guys are *****.

The same goes with people who spend their time learning to master the game system that is D&D. That's not a problem with the system. It's a problem with the player.

The whole point of the tier system is a gateway into system mastery for newer players. It's a functional and useful tool for explaining to them exactly why the fighter feels useless in a party with a cleric that doesn't use his spell slots to do nothing but heal, and a druid who spends his time doing anything at all.

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone is equally capable and powerful, then the DM can simply up the scale of the encounter to compensate.

The ubercharger can annihilate that advanced iron golem in the first round of combat? Fine. Just use three of them.

The wizard times his web to catch the entire hobgoblin contingent? Fine. The leader in back activates the flaming enhancement on his magic sword. Entangled? The hobgoblin cleric was ready with an area dispel.

If you have players that are "lording" their ability to optimize over the rest of the group, then the problem isn't optimization itself. The problem is you have a bunch of players that are total ***** and shouldn't be welcome at your game.

[Dusk Raven]

Your core complaint, if you boil it all the way down, is that douche-bags exist and do so loudly. I've got some really bad news for you; they always have and always will and going far enough to actually drive them off in any significant way will make you their king. Ignore them, move on; it's all that can reasonably be done.

Seriously; scroll past 'em, use the forum block feature, navigate to another site for a while. If you engage, they win. The abyss always stares back, my dude, don't look.

Pretty much my stance on this thread. To the OP: it seems like your problem is with human nature itself. There's always some level of toxicity - most you can do is buff your metaphorical Fort save. Not to mention, I suspect the "great percentage" you've mentioned is much less than you suspect - the people who participate most in character-building discussions are those who are really interested in that sort of thing, and that doesn't give onlookers a sense of how many people are content to sit and watch, or how many just don't care.

Also, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting. Are you saying people shouldn't analyze a game they enjoy? Personally, I enjoy these discussions of optimization and such - partially because I enjoy analyzing such things, but also because it's useful information. While I only rarely optimize my own characters - I generally just go with what I think would fit the character or even what I think would be cool - I like being able to make informed decisions about what's good and what's not. A lot of bad classes, feats, etc. aren't obviously bad just from looking at them - or they may be rendered worthless by some outside context (such as power creep) - and drawing on the experiences and thoughts of other players goes a long way into making a character you're happy with.

And frankly, the best way to deal with problem players is to go to the source - the players themselves. Optimization discussions may enable their bad behavior, but it does not cause it.

[tiercel]

Y’know, personally, I do find it a little annoying when someone asks about a bard build and sooner than later someone chimes in with the “conventional wisdom” that Sublime Chord build is simply “better” than bard (because uptier).

Having said that, however, it does seem to be the case that when someone tries to specify a preferred optimization target (e.g. what sources are allowed, what tier or abilities are desired or preferably avoided) that most posters here actually do try to work with that. When an original post doesn’t specify a desired “power level” (to the extent that such a thing can be described or quantified), then it’s not actually that surprising to wind up getting a range of responses.

The problem is not any given (high, low, or otherwise) optimization “level,” but when folks insist on applying one sort of optimization to a situation (forum post, gaming group, etc.) that operates in a different way (and wants to maintain that playstyle) — but that’s no different than insisting on playing your wacky kender “I am an irrepressibly fearless practical joker” build in a Ravenloft campaign in which the DM and other players actually want a gothic horror feel, or insisting on playing Sir Emo of Goth straight in a beer-and-pretzels kick-in-the-door save-the-helpless-prince group that isn’t really looking for a World-of-Darkness-stereotype import. (Not that there’s anything wrong with a group that likes or wants mixed playstyles, but some styles or players don’t always mix so well.)

[Jack_Simth]

That comparison implicitly neglects the action economy - there's no good way to hit with five doses at once (3.0 shruiken came close), which means the comparison is one dose of Dragon Bile now, and five doses of Sassone leaf over the next few rounds.
Ah, but neither is an injury poison! You don't hit with it at all! Suppose I have a dungeon with a few dozen doors, quite a few traps, and of course many mooks. I spread the stuff on the inside of ... one piece of loot, or five?

[Arkhios]

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

Personally, I think the issue is with internet as a whole. It's easy to ignore the fact that the people behind your computer screen are actual people with feelings just like yourself, and regard them as something else entirely because you don't see their faces or you don't know them IRL; in other words, they are faceless no-ones to you/them/us. Which is sad and twisted point of view. I'm sure no one does that on purpose (or maybe some do, I don't know), but I doubt anyone who does that would treat the people around them in the same manner face-to-face. Because, if you did, I doubt they had any friends at all (or, in worst case scenario, many teeth left or even their life).

[Troacctid]

Y’know, personally, I do find it a little annoying when someone asks about a bard build and sooner than later someone chimes in with the “conventional wisdom” that Sublime Chord build is simply “better” than bard (because uptier).
Sublime chord isn't better than bard "because uptier," it's better than bard because, well look at it.

Very first character I ever made for this edition was a bard. When I found the sublime chord while leafing through Complete Arcane for prestige classes, I looked at it, looked back at the bard, looked at it, looked back at the bard, looked at a few 4th and 5th and 6th level spells, looked back at the bard again...and I couldn't figure out what the heck kind of bard wouldn't want to take sublime chord. It's just a straight-up more powerful version of the base class. You lose break enchantment and mass suggestion to gain spells of 4th level and up...which means you can just use those spells to get break enchantment and mass suggestion while also learning a bunch of other spells. And then there's inspire heroics and inspire courage +3, both of which are maybe on the level of a 3rd level spell if you want to be generous.

Doesn't exactly take a char-op genius to figure out what the optimal choice is between the two classes, and I didn't need a tier list to tell me that it was obviously busted.

[Crake]

You're showing your age :smallwink:
The term is older than hearthstone by about a decade. Pretty much since any of the ccgs starting having tournaments.

You're probably right, though I imagine hearthstone popularized the term, since it's MUCH easier to netdeck in hearthstone, than in physical tcgs, since you can literally get the cards you want with the click of a button, wheras physical card games you're limited with the cards you have access to. Either way, hearthstone was the place I heard the term used first, and not at all because it was my first tcg :smalltongue:

[gogogome]

your points most certainly have been proven wrong; now what you're doing though is changing the claims you actually made to something different and more reasonable; that's fine. but don't pretend your claims weren't corrected from their initial false form into a different more reasonable form. maybe that was what you intended them to be in the first place, but it's not the words you actually stated; and people argued against the words you actually stated, not what you meant to say.
you did in fact edit your original post to be more in line with this.

I can't help but think he made this thread because he did this in that other thread and felt frustrated that the OP of that thread ignored him.

[Minion #6]

As a long time regular internet user, the sort of issues OP is touching on are about as old as the web itself. I wasn't around for the times of BBSes or MUDs, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that many of the exact same sentiments were expressed then too. I think there's a certain credit to anyone who imagines that all people would be nice on the internet, as they're likely extrapolating from their own behaviour.

However, I think that a certain degree of genuine contention is actually vanishing from the internet, to be replaced by passive-aggressive argumentation due to overly strict forum rules and moderation. Not here, actually, I think that moderation is quite good compared to a lot of other places. My other main places I have talked about these things, Reddit and the Paizo forums have harsher - much harsher, in the case of Paizo - rules on tone, which I think stymies a lot of actual worthwhile conversation because people can just say "gotcha" if a perfectly cogent point they don't like* is expressed with anything other than the utmost eggshell-walking delicacy.

*Often because it criticises a game, rule, or style of play they are emotionally attached to

[Menzath]

That comparison implicitly neglects the action economy - there's no good way to hit with five doses at once (3.0 shruiken came close), which means the comparison is one dose of Dragon Bile now, and five doses of Sassone leaf over the next few rounds.

But ammo breaks on use and we lose those doses if we miss.
I think the idea is that we are multiweapon fighting with 4+ arms(thrikeen w/guerrilons blessing mayhaps). That way it's more of an equation of cost to effect without adding in loss on a miss.

[Rynjin]

It originates from hearthstone, an online card game, where people would go to the internet to copy the "best" decks, hence "net-decking". The equivilent here would be going to the boards and getting one of the TO powerful builds and just copying it directly and in it's entirety.

That term doesn't-


You're showing your age :smallwink:
The term is older than hearthstone by about a decade. Pretty much since any of the ccgs starting having tournaments.

Yeah, that. I've heard the term as far back as playing Yu-Gi-Oh in 6th grade. I didn't even have my own computer then.

[ezekielraiden]

"netdecking?" I've not heard that term before.

Edit: ah, deck building term. Eh, I suppose you could apply the term in this context. To be honest though, apart from the theoretical optimization tactics, most of the "good builds" are actually fairly intuitive to a veteran player. Yes, improved initiative is a good feat. +2 to a skill is a terrible feat. Taking those feats even once will tell you what's useful and what isn't. The result is more experienced players will know what to take and what to drop.

So "netdecking" need not apply. Experience will build stronger characters.

Isn't that still it, though? Experience does more: it very often pushes us to help (or "help") the lessexperienced.

Hence why every more-or-less baseline Bard gets a Sublime Chord nod at some point, with varying friendliness. Humans are geared for sharing their experience with others, and it's one of the things that helped us survive really, really well. And if nobody's mentioned a plausibly-relevant tool with few downsides? Well, what with the internet being what it is (a huge number of people all viewing the same stuff, most passing by invisibly), probability alone would imply that this should happen on the regular. Add in the difficulty of communicating tone, and how different people will read the same post differently? What one person sees as a sometimes-pedantic-but-helpful community might appear to another as a hostile-and-aggressive community.

[sorcererlover]

I can't help but think he made this thread because he did this in that other thread and felt frustrated that the OP of that thread ignored him.

You're right. The OP of that thread felt like he was detracting fun away from his fellow party members with his strategy and created the thread to solicit opinions on whether he was in fact being problematic and needs to switch strategies or not.

Then the OP of this thread used profanity on the OP of that thread for being an elitist spellcaster who ruined the fun of others with his munchkiness. He said clerics should be heal bots and heal bots only and if they weren't heal bots they were bad players who were ruining the fun of mundanes.

Then when multiple people pointed out he was grossly wrong in this matter he changed his argument, like zlefin pointed out, into that the OP of that thread was a horrible person for callously ruining mundane player's fun with his munchkiness when in fact he was doing the exact opposite.

And then the OP of this thread made this thread because of what the OP of that thread said to him in response to his incorrect accusations and constant argument changing.

I'm sorry, ever since this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550818-Versatile-Spellcaster-2-caster-levels-Legit
I get extremely irritated with people who insult others without reading the thread and I have this urge to point out people who insult others when they clearly haven't read the thread.


Your core complaint, if you boil it all the way down, is that douche-bags exist and do so loudly. I've got some really bad news for you; they always have and always will and going far enough to actually drive them off in any significant way will make you their king. Ignore them, move on; it's all that can reasonably be done.

Seriously; scroll past 'em, use the forum block feature, navigate to another site for a while. If you engage, they win. The abyss always stares back, my dude, don't look.

I think the douche-bag here is misdirected at the wrong person.


"Let's talk about toxicity"

If anything in this thread has thus far shown any sort of toxicity, I feel it would be the abrasive nature of title and OP. Just my 2c.

I think so too.

[Minion #6]

You're right. The OP of that thread felt like he was detracting fun away from his fellow party members with his strategy and created the thread to solicit opinions on whether he was in fact being problematic and needs to switch strategies or not.

Then the OP of this thread used profanity on the OP of that thread for being an elitist spellcaster who ruined the fun of others with his munchkiness. He said clerics should be heal bots and heal bots only and if they weren't heal bots they were bad players who were ruining the fun of mundanes.

Then when multiple people pointed out he was grossly wrong in this matter he changed his argument, like zlefin pointed out, into that the OP of that thread was a horrible person for callously ruining mundane player's fun with his munchkiness when in fact he was doing the exact opposite.

And then the OP of this thread made this thread because of what the OP of that thread said to him in response to his incorrect accusations and constant argument changing.

I'm sorry, ever since this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550818-Versatile-Spellcaster-2-caster-levels-Legit
I get extremely irritated with people who insult others without reading the thread and I have this urge to point out people who insult others when they clearly haven't read the thread.


Oh, so this is one of those "people who are interested in the mechanical/technical game aspects more than the flavour/narrative ones are having badwrongfun and destroying the community unlike us superior folks who don't care about mechanics" type threads? I guess I missed that in my initial reading, and didn't have the context from the other thread.

[Mordaedil]

Oh, so this is one of those "people who are interested in the mechanical/technical game aspects more than the flavour/narrative ones are having badwrongfun and destroying the community unlike us superior folks who don't care about mechanics" type threads? I guess I missed that in my initial reading, and didn't have the context from the other thread.

I was also kinda expecting this to address the actual toxicity underlying gaming in general (which honestly I haven't seen too much on these boards, I mean it exists, but generally people are good about it) but it kinda left me hanging.

What am I gonna do with this excess anxiety these things bring up in me?

[Gwyllgi]

Ever since I joined these boards, I've seen people throwing around terms and ideas that, frankly, I don't think belong in d&d.

Namely tiers, system mastery, and optimization. More impotantly the way people take them.

I think these things -or at least those who abuse them- are extremely toxic and destructive to a gaming group. Partly due to how they affect players who don't lurk these threads, and partly how they affect those who DO.

Those who read these boards know the tiers. They know wizards are at the top and that fighters aren't worth the gold spent on their armor. They build amazing characters who can fill literally any party role, and have to actively nerf themselves to give other party members a chance, and herein lies the problem. D&d is not a one person game, and the idea of tiers is inheirently flawed. One character isn't SUPPOSED to do every job, but that's what the board has taught us.

It seems like we've forgotten how to have fun with our friends, in favor of one upping them, and gloating about how top tier our character is. What happened to having fun? To playing a character YOU want to play, and feeling awesome cause you played your role well? I hate to sound like I'm bitching, but this is something that genuinely bothers me. Obviously there are plenty who don't subscribe to these, but too many players seem focused on optimization and tiering over playing a fun game with their friends. What gives?

I think optimization is a part of the fun. People generally want to be the best they can in real life, why not in game. I just spent two weeks RPing a dread necromancer who is pretending to be a Paladin of the Temple of Benevolent Bereavement, who is consequently spending a hour every day trying to read a text on Psionics so I can find out how to add the power of others to my own, while yes, I will make every attempt to eat a full power Death Master, Soul Reaper, Death Walker, and maybe a well built enemy Necromancer Wizard it doesn't take away from the fact I'm playing the character because I love him. The knowledge of how things work in DND makes me interested in a play style which in turn, makes me play a character I want and has drive and a goal beyond questing.

[Telonius]

Here's the thing about "Tiers" - they exist. They're a description of what the rules allow a player to do with a class, and they're (more-or-less) accurate whether you want them to be or not. You can be upset that gravity exists, too, but your dice are still going to fall if you drop them on the floor.

How people and groups deal with that reality is going to differ. You can use the "Gentlemen's Agreement" not to abuse the usual suspects, embrace it and go nuts with a Tippyverse, pre-emptively houserule things in or out, rule zero them as they come up, or let the players sink or swim and live with a massive power differential between the Druid and Truenamer in the same party. Use whatever solution is going to give your group the most fun.

[Crow_Nightfeath]

I agree that tiers can create some very toxic discussions. But the system in itself wasn't meant to create an elitist ideal. And there are varing degrees of optimization, everyone optimizes at least a little when they build a character. They build a character towards a goal that in itself is optimization. The toxic part of optimization comes from when people tell you you're doing it wrong just because you aren't doing it the "best" way. Like building a full plate cleric instead of a monks belt cleric, I've actually had people tell me I'm an idiot for using armor. And there's a difference between optimization and min/maxing, my cleric is about as optimized for what I want to do with him as I can get him, but he's in no way min/maxed.

[ayvango]

When one skilled in system mastery player sits on same table with 3 newbies then he would take role of master. GM has power to kill party instantly just throwing unbeatable challenges to it. Or could reward with huge amounts of gold for nothing and make entire company meaningless. But he would never do it since it ruins all fun. Skilled character is the same. He could easily kill party or heap party with money. But why would he ruin all fun?

It's matter of trust. Trust your DM. Trust your fellow companions. Playing wizard in the same group with 3 fighters is not about taking all spotlight from them its about taking all dirty work to yourself.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think the douche-bag here is misdirected at the wrong person.

The OP isn't wrong in that there are people who take the mechanical aspect of the game too far, even if "too far" is ultimately subjective. I know I have to watch myself to avoid warping the game with my group.

If there's some baggage from another thread that makes you think he's being unreasonably salty, that doesn't really affect the kernel of truth in his statement and everybody is a D-bag to some degree sometimes.

[PrismCat21]

I can't help but think he made this thread because he did this in that other thread and felt frustrated that the OP of that thread ignored him.

Exactly. For whatever reason he decided to insult the other person and cuss him out because the other person wasn't playing their character 'the way they should have been'. And people in that thread told him off.
It seems like he's just trying to get attention and reassurance from people by talking bad of others. Typical bullying tactics.
'If I make fun of these people then others will join in and they'll like me.'


"Let's talk about toxicity"

If anything in this thread has thus far shown any sort of toxicity, I feel it would be the abrasive nature of title and OP. Just my 2c.

Came to say pretty much this. :)


I'm sorry, ever since this thread:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550818-Versatile-Spellcaster-2-caster-levels-Legit
I get extremely irritated with people who insult others without reading the thread and I have this urge to point out people who insult others when they clearly haven't read the thread.

I read that thread you linked. You became quite combative and insulting yourself. Certain people were not at all nice, but you acted the same. - Insulting others is never okay, no matter what they have or haven't done to you.


Oh, so this is one of those "people who are interested in the mechanical/technical game aspects more than the flavour/narrative ones are having badwrongfun and destroying the community unlike us superior folks who don't care about mechanics" type threads? I guess I missed that in my initial reading, and didn't have the context from the other thread.

The OP doesn't seem to like it when folks play 'classes' that doesn't fit his predetermined role for them.
Quote from OP: "You're a cleric. Play a cleric."
"It's the FIGHTER'S job to run up and **** people with a stick. Your job is to heal him when he gets twatted back.Whether you play healbot or not is irrelevant, that is the cleric's actual role in the party. You're the only one with the heals."
"And your necromancer cleric is STILL THE ONLY ONE WITH HEALING SPELLS." - (there was also a Druid)

He also cussed that person out, belittled them, patronized them, ect... - They were the "party's weakest link" because the necromancer Cleric wasn't solely a heal-bot like they should be.
Read the thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?577516-When-do-mundanes-surpass-animals/page2) It got wild.

The toxic part of optimization comes from when people tell you you're doing it wrong just because you aren't doing it the "best" way. Like building a full plate cleric instead of a monks belt cleric, I've actually had people tell me I'm an idiot for using armor. And there's a difference between optimization and min/maxing, my cleric is about as optimized for what I want to do with him as I can get him, but he's in no way min/maxed.

That's just what the OP was doing in the last thread. The Fighter's job is to hit things. The Cleric's job is to heal the Fighter. (Doesn't matter that the Cleric was a necromancer.)
He insulted and cussed out the OP in the other thread because they weren't playing their character the way 'this' OP decided they should.
Everyone in that thread defended the other guy against him. He made this thread in hopes that people will pat him on the back saying, "Good job!" "We agree with you!" "You're so brave fighting this injustice!"
He's the toxic part of this game but wants to pin it on everyone else so he doesn't have to blame himself for treating people badly.

[zfs]

Everyone in that thread defended the other guy against him.

I didn't. Please don't misrepresent my views. I think the OP of that other thread tends to play a style that almost always crowds out other party members, and he started the thread seemingly as a humblebrag that even when he doesn't try to, he obsoletes his other party members, who he was also seemingly insulting.

Later in the thread he cleared things up, said he was trying to avoid his usual playstyle for this group, and clarified that he didn't mean to insult his other party members.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Don't drag baggage from one thread to the next. This rule applies to all posts, not just to posts that start threads.