How prevalent are toxic tables?

[Christew]

I've been playing/DMing D&D since 3E. I am currently playing in four different active campaigns (at two separate "tables").

I am often at a loss regarding some of the perennial issues on this forum that do not square with my own decades long experiences with this game. I refer to issues that can seemingly be solved by A) having a session zero, or B) talking to your DM about your goals/complaints.

I do not play AL and I am personally familiar with everyone that I play with. I acknowledge this is not the case for everyone, but in a recent thread a (what I would deem toxic) DM was referenced as a hypothetical in regards to "character speculation."

How many of us are actually playing at tables where we can't have a reasonable discussion with our DM about our character goals or issues we are having at the table? Has "white-rooming" extended to an assumed toxic DM or should I acknowledge the privilege of being personable with my table-mates?

[Townopolis]

I want to say that people who don't play at toxic tables don't feel the need to come online and complain about issues with the game they've found to crop up. But I also don't want to speak for other people, so I'm going to hedge it and just leave this paragraph as-is.

In my case, I've played at more toxic tables than good ones, but I think that's in part due to the fact that I leave and find a new table once I've determined that my current table is not for me. When I do find a good group, I stop looking.

[Edit]: To be clear, I've spent more time at good tables than toxic ones.

[Leon]

Twice across the time ive been playing (since start of 3e) Once in Person and once in a Discord based game.

The In person game the DM was asked to leave the house it was being hosted at and not come back and the Online game i elected to not play when it became obvious the DM had no damn clue what edition he was actually running and wouldn't take any feedback, my Friends stayed on and regretted that choice and it really put them off playing for a while.

[Christew]

I want to say that people who don't play at toxic tables don't feel the need to come online and complain about issues with the game they've found to crop up. But I also don't want to speak for other people, so I'm going to hedge it and just leave this paragraph as-is.

[Edit]: To be clear, I've spent more time at good tables than toxic ones.
I like to think that this forum is populated by grognards, optimizers, rule lawyers, savants, and complainants in varying degrees. It is well taken that complaints can seem to cut through the din (especially in the times in between significant rule changes), but I am more speaking to a pervasive underlying notion of DM inaccessibility. I have both left tables and had tables ask the DM to leave -- to a degree I think that is the hazard of honing a good table from scratch. Glad to hear your time has been mostly non-toxic.

Twice across the time ive been playing (since start of 3e) Once in Person and once in a Discord based game.

The In person game the DM was asked to leave the house it was being hosted at and not come back and the Online game i elected to not play when it became obvious the DM had no damn clue what edition he was actually running and wouldn't take any feedback, my Friends stayed on and regretted that choice and it really put them off playing for a while.
As above, I get the odd bad fit (whether DM or player), but given our similar timelines, 2 tables in 20+ years seems a pretty good ratio. Sorry that your friends were put off like that.

[Kane0]

Out of about 6 groups i've been a part of two had problem players. In one of those said player was able to be corrected with a firm but fair talk, in the other they unfortunately were not welcomed back.

[Athan Artilliam]

I only play with friends or with people I've gotten a pretty good "feel" for & vetted.

Once I played in a group of a friend of a friend. He was a power tripping DM & that was bad enough. One day he included the subject of rape in a session & I left immediately left along with my friend. I would say that you can usually feel a toxic table before it actually turns toxic. It's not worth the energy

[BW022]

How many of us are actually playing at tables where we can't have a reasonable discussion with our DM about our character goals or issues we are having at the table? Has "white-rooming" extended to an assumed toxic DM or should I acknowledge the privilege of being personable with my table-mates?

I've been playing D&D for what... 40 years.

To start, I'm not sure these behaviors or "toxic" or not in all cases. I've played in a ton of organized play and convention games. You are running four hour slots with pre-made adventures, so there isn't much time for character goals or room in the module for the DM to do it. In fact, I admire DMs who you played with enough who did manage to work anything character specific in. The same is true of most Living Campaigns, Adventure League, Premiers, etc. Likewise, if I have children at the table, I don't expect long discussions about character goals. Most are out to kill monsters and get cool stuff.

Honestly, in 40 years, I had more toxic games as a kid, but that was because we were all kids. By 20s, I think I have a couple of really toxic players (not really DMs) in that last 25 years. Most were easy enough to deal with.

In home games... it depends who is in your campaign. I don't generally deal with toxic DMs, since why would I have them in my home games? Typically, we used organized play events to find good players and invite them to our group. This should be self-selecting based on your friends.

[kingcheesepants]

The only time I've been able to regularly play in person was at college among friends and that was definitely a case where everyone knew each other and were friends and thus there wasn't a problem.

In the last few years I've done all my gaming with groups found through Discord servers or in Roll 20 and while there have been hits and misses I would say that most of the misses were more along the lines of just not liking the style or people flaking out and not showing up. No actual problems with people being creeps or jerks.

When I see the horror stories here or on youtube or reddit or what have you I also wonder about it because it 100% doesn't match my experiences in the least.

[Contrast]

Another aspect of this is that I have played with several different friend groups - the people from some of those groups would probably consider the activities at some of the other tables toxic but given the individuals involved the table is perfectly stable and everyone is having fun.

Peoples idea of what constitutes a good game differs.

[Khrysaes]

I want to say that people who don't play at toxic tables don't feel the need to come online and complain about issues with the game they've found to crop up. But I also don't want to speak for other people, so I'm going to hedge it and just leave this paragraph as-is.

In my case, I've played at more toxic tables than good ones, but I think that's in part due to the fact that I leave and find a new table once I've determined that my current table is not for me. When I do find a good group, I stop looking.

[Edit]: To be clear, I've spent more time at good tables than toxic ones.

I think whiterooming may be more about player agency and trying to remove dm fiat from what their characters can do. Thus, if you have a toxic dm you can still poay your character.

However, f i had a toxic dm i would just leave the game.

[MrStabby]

I have had bad games, but never toxic games.

I have had games I haven't enjoyed due to a poor fit to my expectations or character choice or not liking the setting (seriously, screw Eberron). There are things players do that I don't like.

Never had a toxic table. Never had a table where people were disrespectful. Never had a table where anyone was intentionally stopping anyone having fun.

Even the games I haven't enjoyed, have been with groups where I usually enjoy playing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've had one, but it only lasted one session before I said no, not coming back (I was the DM). And maybe for the right person it could have worked, but I wasn't interested in the kind of game they wanted to play.

Beyond that, I've lived a charmed life. The usual scheduling issues have caused player cycling a couple times, but no other issues really.

[MoiMagnus]

I've played in a few tables where there was a pair of players were incompatible with each other (as in, very different taste/opinion about what a RPG should be, and total inability to understand each other).

Fortunately, neither my various GMs or me were ever in such a pair, so it never fully degenerated into a toxic table (though the corresponding campaigns did died eventually). That doesn't mean all my GMs were good, but none of them were toxic, i.e. they were all trying their best to listen to feedback and become better GMs.

Admittedly, a lot of the GMs I've played with were beginners, which mean they knew they were relatively bad GMs and were willing to learn. I've never played with an old GM from the old school convinced that their way of GMing is the only true way of playing.

[Rashagar]

I'm not completely sure how negative you have to go to be described as "toxic", which probably means I've never experienced it. Hopefully it doesn't mean that I'm the bad apple haha!

I've had games I haven't enjoyed, there have been people who have annoyed me for some reason or other (most of the time it's because they've tried roleplaying with a dodgy fake Irish accent XD ), but it's always really minor stuff and doesn't actually affect the game.

I had one gaming group that was almost the opposite problem (not actually a problem, it's just different) where at one point one person's character died and they basically paused the game to check in on how the player was feeling about it and almost held a what-felt-like-hour long memorial for the character. Me and my partner both joined the group at the same time a few months before this and were just trading looks across the room thinking "what are we missing? It's a character, right? Not like, a... pet?" (We play via online with no cams so at least our bafflement didn't show). The player then took a break from the game for a couple of weeks and everyone was like "of course, that makes sense" and all I could think was "does it??" It was honestly the biggest culture shock I've ever experienced haha!

[MrStabby]

I'm not completely sure how negative you have to go to be described as "toxic", which probably means I've never experienced it. Hopefully it doesn't mean that I'm the bad apple haha!

I've had games I haven't enjoyed, there have been people who have annoyed me for some reason or other (most of the time it's because they've tried roleplaying with a dodgy fake Irish accent XD ), but it's always really minor stuff and doesn't actually affect the game.

I had one gaming group that was almost the opposite problem (not actually a problem, it's just different) where at one point one person's character died and they basically paused the game to check in on how the player was feeling about it and almost held a what-felt-like-hour long memorial for the character. Me and my partner both joined the group at the same time a few months before this and were just trading looks across the room thinking "what are we missing? It's a character, right? Not like, a... pet?" (We play via online with no cams so at least our bafflement didn't show). The player then took a break from the game for a couple of weeks and everyone was like "of course, that makes sense" and all I could think was "does it??" It was honestly the biggest culture shock I've ever experienced haha!

Honestly, though this type of play isn't for me, I would say it is hardly a bad sign.

Respect for other's characters and wanting them to have spotlight time even in death seems a good dynamic - even if taken a bit far.

[Rashagar]

Honestly, though this type of play isn't for me, I would say it is hardly a bad sign.

Respect for other's characters and wanting them to have spotlight time even in death seems a good dynamic - even if taken a bit far.

Exactly yeah. I meant it when I called it a culture shock (and almost the exact opposite of toxic), I'm not wanting to claim that it's like a "wrong" way to play or anything. =)

[Amechra]

I have been in games where (in escalating order of severity):


The DM was a control freak who showed overwhelming levels of favoritism to his girlfriend.
The ST decided that my character was the primary target of the villains for a one-shot... that got immediately derailed by the PCs having to hide a body.
The last session ended with most of us walking out on the GM and another player (who had been consistently and clumsily cheating) having an in-game pissing contest that lasted over an hour.
One of the players pulled out a (dummy) grenade. No, not his character — the player.
Two players conspired to turn a session into an impromptu BDSM roleplay. They briefly succeeded before I realized what happened and ended the game.
People entirely stopped talking to each-other as a result of in-game actions (long story short: one person thought sexually assaulting a minor was edgy and funny...)


These were all separate games with separate groups, by the way. I have no idea how prevalent toxic tables are in general, but I've managed to stumble onto quite a few.

[No brains]

I've been at tables that were largely fine, but had people of oozing, Hexus-like toxicity. The hobby does seem to attract some petty people with hateful hearts and unhelpful senses of humor. People who have others constantly cancel games when they get obnoxious and have inadequate self-awareness to see they are the problem in the pattern.

I've also encountered some weird toxicity where the hate is put on me for reading the books, getting agreements to run things as-are in the books, and then people lashing at me as if I'm pulling some devil deal lawyering by doing that. Go to hell No Brains, we don't care that you read the books and used their information to make a solid background. By the way, when can you DM again?

The last, most important thing to beware of in terms of toxicity and tables, is that you have to overcome a lot of personal biases to to realize that you might be bringing toxicity of your own. Encourage communication and trust feedback. You might hear some things that seem like illogical bull-plop, but take actions if they will help the table feel at ease. Of course, if people take this too far and you're feeling walked on, you might just have to walk on to another table.

[loki_ragnarock]

One person's toxicity is another person's friend group.

To illustrate, I'm not a fan of LARPS. At least, none of the ones in the local area (Camarilla, some other local fantasy kingdoms), largely I knew LARPers in the area who would tell me such stories of backstabbing and conniving, scheming machinations against other players or groups of players and the social fallout and real world relationship drama that came from it, that I knew it was never going to be my scene. Simply because of the social dynamic.
But they kept showing up, because it was their jam.

Some people enjoy weird stuff, man. But what ain't for me might be for thee.

[MrStabby]

One person's toxicity is another person's friend group.

To illustrate, I'm not a fan of LARPS. At least, none of the ones in the local area (Camarilla, some other local fantasy kingdoms), largely I knew LARPers in the area who would tell me such stories of backstabbing and conniving, scheming machinations against other players or groups of players and the social fallout and real world relationship drama that came from it, that I knew it was never going to be my scene. Simply because of the social dynamic.
But they kept showing up, because it was their jam.

Some people enjoy weird stuff, man. But what ain't for me might be for thee.

Never had direct experience of it myself but did one meet someone who had the "what's wrong with this game - every group I play with has someone who turns the table against me?!" Type attitude.

It turns out every table he played at didn't want him.

After I saw him in a game I became more convinced that all those other tables were not really in the wrong.

Conniving and backstabbing can sometimes just be a misinterpreted attempt to protect a game I guess.

[Telok]

The term "toxic" is a bit vague. I've had bad groups, mostly back in ad&d when we were all teen drama queens and in 5e with inexperienced dms who were... touchy... about advice and then imploded. But nothing I'd term as toxic.

[da newt]

While playing AL I had a run in or two with folks who I could not play with - the expert who bullied everyone over rules but got them wrong and took advantage of every AL loop hole to be the 'superior' PC or the tabaxi rogue who initiated combat for no reason against a vastly superior foe and then once the rest of us were in serious survival mode used all their rogue and tabaxi traits to ditch the party and was smuggly proud of themselves afterward as many of the PCs died.

I've also been in a long running game with a group of people I really like and a DM who puts in a ton of effort, but the way I think and approach games / problem solving simply clashes with the DM. He also takes everything personally/emotionally, so it creates tension that takes away from the game. I have to remind myself over and over again that this is just for fun, don't RP as if your PC is a real person, consciously choose to ignore the logical inconsistencies, imagine the game is a cartoon not a drama, choose to do things that are stupid ... but it's also only me that seems to care, so I guess I'm the problem.

And similar to Mr Stabby, I can't stand Barovia. It is specifically designed to be a campaign with no good guys, no one worth saving, no path to success, etc. Why would anyone want to play that campaign? There is no reward only risk/pain.

[loki_ragnarock]

And similar to Mr Stabby, I can't stand Barovia. It is specifically designed to be a campaign with no good guys, no one worth saving, no path to success, etc. Why would anyone want to play that campaign? There is no reward only risk/pain.

While I'd like to derail the thread here, I'll just say simply that heroism with minimal risk of failure might seem less rewarding than heroism in the face of imminent failure. Barovia might appeal to people who enjoy the film genre of "old men dying with dignity, perhaps horribly," taking the summation at face value.
There's only no good guys if you choose not to be the good guys. And when that choice is hard, it's more heroic still.

[SociopathFriend]

How many of us are actually playing at tables where we can't have a reasonable discussion with our DM about our character goals or issues we are having at the table? Has "white-rooming" extended to an assumed toxic DM or should I acknowledge the privilege of being personable with my table-mates?

Let me describe the two campaigns I considered problematic- I don't know if these coincide with "toxic" or not as you'd define it.

There was a 2e campaign and an attempt at a 5e campaign that involved the Dragon cult.

During the course of the Dragon cult campaign- one player decided he didn't like the party and so the DM enabled him to join the cult after an in-game fight and kill. Said player proceeded to warn the cult each time the rest of the party drew near and so every dungeon was empty of enemies and treasure because the evil character was being allowed to just run ahead with the bad guys and empty them out.

The DM blatantly understood this was a problem but took no steps to deal with it. The campaign eventually just folded into not being played anymore because there wasn't even a reason for enemies to still be in the locations.

The original party kills and split? Purely because the bad guy wanted to outright murder a girl and take her money and the rest of the party did not, in fact, want him to do that.



The 2e campaign was far more involved on all sides of the table- everyone was having fun playing, everyone was given free reign to design their own bases, followers, and so on. This was good- right up until players were privately communicating with the DM to get extra equipment and undercutting the bases of other players outside of sessions like stealing their stuff.

There was one point where we actually had to go kill a bunch of Trolls so that we could retroactively accept a given player had a Ring of Regeneration. Because he'd been using it for weeks/months and the DM had never actually made the player kill Trolls to get the ingredients. So the party was killing Trolls alongside the player who had the ring- to justify him being able to have had the ring the whole time.

The lack of communication and of any real reason to be a 'party' reached its peak when Spelljammer was introduced. I forget the specifics but a Cleric went to a new planet of Halflings and was happily doing a first-contact sort of thing where he introduced himself and was enjoying the Diplomacy aspect of meeting a new civilization. Another party member literally heard the DM doing this job and stated, "My character teleports in, opens up a portal, and unleashes a million undead on the planet to wipe out everything."

And that happened. Which upset the Cleric player and for good reason imo since he'd been having quite a bit of fun with that. For the record I do not know if the Necromancer was actually operating within 2e rules or not- which doesn't help the situation at all since the Cleric WAS.



Now these were not the majority of my experiences. But stuff like this also isn't for sure less than 10% of my experiences. These were tables with no hope of reforming into something pleasant- so if those are a baseline for "toxic" then I'd say toxic tables are common enough that everyone can find them but uncommon enough that they shouldn't be the majority of experiences. Because there's no reason for this sort of player or DM to change how they act- so they'll continue to be toxic unless they're forced to change.

[Psyren]

It's primarily Negativity Bias. You're not going to see a pile of threads where the opening post is "Golly I love my group and we had a great session today!" Even if those people were equally inclined to make such threads in the first place, those threads likely wouldn't stay on the front page long since there's not much discussion to be had there.

But for bad gaming experiences - well, everyone loves watching a trainwreck. So the "bad table" stories get more traction, and they seem more prevalent than they actually are in reality.

Note I'm not saying that bad groups don't happen, nor that they are vanishingly rare. Just that on a message board like this one, your odds of seeing "bad gaming" stories will end up being higher than you might expect.

[Christew]

I think whiterooming may be more about player agency and trying to remove dm fiat from what their characters can do. Thus, if you have a toxic dm you can still poay your character.
This is an interesting point. Viewing a potentially problematic DM as a possible variable/challenge to be accounted for in character design would explain a fair amount of what I'm talking about.


The term "toxic" is a bit vague.
That's fair, arguably a bit hyperbolic word choice. I'm using the term primarily to mean a table that (for whatever reason) lacks an open communication channel between players and DM both prior to and in addition to actual play.


It's primarily Negativity Bias. You're not going to see a pile of threads where the opening post is "Golly I love my group and we had a great session today!" Even if those people were equally inclined to make such threads in the first place, those threads likely wouldn't stay on the front page long since there's not much discussion to be had there.

That's a fair point. I'm more targeting a perceived underlying assumption in a variety of types of threads than a preponderance of "trainwreck" stories, but you are right that the right answer for most questions is "ask your DM" is not exactly fertile ground for discussion.

[Lunali]

I think it would help a lot if session zeros became more heavily emphasized. There's barely any time devoted to it in the books and you don't tend to hear about it until someone starts complaining about a toxic table. If you look at actual play recordings, I would say about 10% mention that they had a session zero and less than 5% actually post it (not counting session zeros that are purely character creation).

It's one of the most important factors into how much everyone enjoys the game and it gets glossed over everywhere.

[Odessa333]

It's impossible to get an accurate feel. One person can play 40 years and never have a bad group, and another can play for 2 years and have half a dozen.

Myself, I've played close to 30 years now, and I've seen several toxic groups. One was so bad it seemed like a cliche and I kept waiting for a 'you're on candid camera' moment. One of the highlights of that group was the group wanting to welcome me, a new member, in the their new member tradition of going to a gay bar and killing the **** 'as we want to in real life.' And did I mention I'm a transgender lesbian? It was such a 'yikes' moment that it sticks with me.

Other hostile groups are less obvious. One group I was in for over a year, and I considered the members good friends after a year. Things seemed well until a new person joined in. And this person, playing a trickery cleric, insisted that my bad play 'optimally' and only heal so their cleric could focus on offense. If I did ANYTHING that was not healing (such as talking, or attacking, etc, anything) I would get chewed out by them for it. And the new guy convinced the others he was right, that I was a problem player, and I should give his way of optimization a chance, etc. This went on for months, with me getting backhand insults, and being forced to apologize for doing something that was not healing. I was getting fed up with it, but stuck it out to be with my 'friends.' Yet when he could not force me out, new guy went to the DM to try to get him to kick me, and when the DM would not, new guy convinced all of the other players to quit the campaign and join a new game with him as DM to get away from the ****** (me). Having people you consider friends go along with that hurt.


I could go on. I've seen some bad/toxic groups, and I've read tales that make even this seem tame. It's such a curve where many people won't see a thing, but it does get bad and the extremes are really extreme.

[Rashagar]

I think it would help a lot if session zeros became more heavily emphasized. There's barely any time devoted to it in the books and you don't tend to hear about it until someone starts complaining about a toxic table. If you look at actual play recordings, I would say about 10% mention that they had a session zero and less than 5% actually post it (not counting session zeros that are purely character creation).

It's one of the most important factors into how much everyone enjoys the game and it gets glossed over everywhere.

As someone who considers session zeros to be unnecessary but fun if scheduling allows, can I ask what about them you feel makes them so important?

(Asking cos I'm always happy to revisit how I DM things, basically)

[Lunali]

As someone who considers session zeros to be unnecessary but fun if scheduling allows, can I ask what about them you feel makes them so important?

(Asking cos I'm always happy to revisit how I DM things, basically)

It becomes less important once you've played together for a bit, but session zeros are how you find out what everyone wants out of the game, what sorts of stories people are interested in, and more importantly, what sorts of stories they aren't interested in. Session zeros are where everyone decides the rules you're going to play by, both inside and outside the game.

[Pex]

When it's a toxic table I quit. I had to learn to do that, but I do it now. I learned it before 5E was published. For my 5E gaming experience since it was published I've quit twice. I also had quit one Pathfinder game during this time. This is a game to have fun. For me playing D&D is "poker night". I refuse to play hostile games. No Player vs Player. No Killer DMs. No Tyrant DMs. No Finders Keepers treasure keeping.

[Leon]

As above, I get the odd bad fit (whether DM or player), but given our similar timelines, 2 tables in 20+ years seems a pretty good ratio. Sorry that your friends were put off like that.

In light of what others have posted since, mine does seem very light on and there have been plenty of times across that period where it wasn't all plain sailing but we were able to work things out well without more than minor drama ~ By and large ive played with friends and friends of friends so maybe that has been a decisive factor in having better groups over the unknow quantity of a purely random selection of people.

[Townopolis]

I should probably say that a lot of what I first called toxic tables weren't so much toxic as just not for me. Some, I'm convinced, weren't for half the people at the table, including one I had to leave because the DM was running high-charop tactical dungeon crawling and the group was me, two players playing no-charop carefree romping, and one player the DM was trying to date and who was playing intrigue-style PvP.

But I have also been at tables where the diplomancer was allowed to roll to take control of other peoples' characters, where one player is granted de-facto leadership against the party's wishes, where a high-powered oracle refused to share information except to make the party do whatever he wanted while undermining us any time we tried to pursue goals other than his, and one where I was labeled a problem player when my barbarian stood up for himself against the two PCs blatantly stealing all of his stuff to sell.

So yeah, it's depressingly common. Not common per se, but more than it should be.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess there was that one table where the cleric wanted to be paid (in character, by the other characters, up front) for coming on adventures, plus paying for our own rez costs, in advance, no refunds and no rezes without having paid.

Not a fan.

[tomandtish]

It becomes less important once you've played together for a bit, but session zeros are how you find out what everyone wants out of the game, what sorts of stories people are interested in, and more importantly, what sorts of stories they aren't interested in. Session zeros are where everyone decides the rules you're going to play by, both inside and outside the game.

Yeah, the vast majority of problems that come up in a game (esp. with a newer group) could be taken care of with a session 0.

Playing a character with a code of conduct? Make sure you and the DM agree on what the code actually means. Playing a character in service to another (whether god, demon, feudal lord, etc.)? Make sure you agree what that service actually entails. Heck, just clarifying whether the game is going to be a sandlot or linear can make a difference.

As for the remaining problems, a session 0 often gives you enough info to recognize if someone's playstyle (and that could be the DM's, another player's, or your own) won't mesh with the rest of the group in this particular adventure.

[nickl_2000]

0, but I play with friends and I would rather keep it that way even if I disagree with something.

I had a Moon Druid that annoyed the DM (early levels when they are overpowered to the point of being silly) and it was clearly taking away his fun of them game. I offered to change PC to play something different to solve that. It wasn't a big deal as we levelled a few times and the power curve on the Moon Druid changed, making it less dominating.

[Sigreid]

I'm out of the loop on if things are more toxic than they used to be since I've been playing with the same people for literally decades. Except adding one guy's wife when she expressed interest.

Prior to this group, I've actually never had a problem with a table except once when I tried playing in an at school club in Junior High and there was 1 DM and about 20 players and that was just a mess I only went to once. I even got into two groups, including my current one by simply checking news groups for a group looking for people and it's always been fine. Maybe I'm just lucky.

[Burley]

I have experienced toxicity a bit, mostly with a DM who was passive aggressive to his GF(another player) and had a huge ego. That was my very first table and I don't think I've experienced it since.
Many of the horror stories (horror can be funny, right?) that I've read on this forum or others are things that happened 10-15 years ago or, without pointing to anybody's specific experience, seem a little too "good" to be true.

I think that, as gaming becomes more mainstream and more accessible, we've seen less recluses with gaming as their only form of social interaction. Likewise, gaming forums (or the internet, in general) provide a space for the worst parts of us to come out anonymously and, hopefully, get corrected without us losing our real life gaming friends.
I feel that we're living in a silver age of TTGaming. Not the best age, but we have so much access to games and playmates and ideas. We're not social pariahs, anymore, and the few toxic people are getting drowned out statistically as more and more people enter the hobby.

I'm a cosponsor for the TTGaming Club at the middle school I teach at. Our group is larger than all the other activity clubs and all the sports teams, by a wide margin. We've had days where our club represents 10% of the student body. And, except for a couple wild kids who took early cues from their groups, they're as chill as gazpacho. I'm so proud to watch these awesome kids explore the hobby.

[nickl_2000]

I'm out of the loop on if things are more toxic than they used to be since I've been playing with the same people for literally decades. Except adding one guy's wife when she expressed interest.

Prior to this group, I've actually never had a problem with a table except once when I tried playing in an at school club in Junior High and there was 1 DM and about 20 players and that was just a mess I only went to once. I even got into two groups, including my current one by simply checking news groups for a group looking for people and it's always been fine. Maybe I'm just lucky.

I wouldn't call 1 DM, 20 players toxic as much as impossible. You could have 21 people there who are all out to be perfect, friendly, nice, and great people and it would still fail.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've been playing/DMing D&D since 3E. I am currently playing in four different active campaigns (at two separate "tables"). I just lost two of the four I've been in (two are bi weekly, one dropped; one was PbP and it just went dormant ... DM needs a break).

I refer to issues that can seemingly be solved by A) having a session zero, or B) talking to your DM about your goals/complaints. And talking to the other players.

How many of us are actually playing at tables where we can't have a reasonable discussion with our DM about our character goals or issues we are having at the table? I don't play at tables like that. I have not had trouble with a DM yet in this edition. "Work with your DM" is a great way to build a relationship.

This should be self-selecting based on your friends. That's how it has usually worked best for me over the years (we started in High School in 1975) but I will say that I have met two groups on line in the past 5 years. I am still playing on and off with the first one, and the second one is DM'd by someone I met here and it's a good group with an interesting mix of personalities.)

Peoples idea of what constitutes a good game differs. That is very true. I have more trouble with players not being attentive (both sides of the screen in this edition) than DMs but that may be an artifact of VTT play.

Beyond that, I've lived a charmed life. The usual scheduling issues have caused player cycling a couple times, but no other issues really. Scheduling DC is 30, at a minimum.

The term "toxic" is a bit vague. "I know it when I see it" is perhaps true.
AL ... tabaxi rogue ... who initiated combat for no reason against a vastly superior foe and then once the rest of us were in serious survival mode used all their rogue and tabaxi traits to ditch the party and was smuggly proud of themselves afterward as many of the PCs died. Have played with that kind of {censored} in the past. The trick is to spot them early, and either remove them or remove one's self.


[QUOTE=Sigreid;25364471] Maybe I'm just lucky. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. :smallsmile:

[Sigreid]

I wouldn't call 1 DM, 20 players toxic as much as impossible. You could have 21 people there who are all out to be perfect, friendly, nice, and great people and it would still fail.

It got toxic pretty fast as a result of being a bunch of kids, with a kid DM and no possibility of anyone getting enough attention to actually do anything and getting frustrated.

[Willie the Duck]

I think negativity bias, as mentioned above, is the dominant factor. 'This bad thing happened' is an innately interesting thing to discuss, analyze, interpret, etc. That's true for the one toxic game you were part of or that one time you went out to a bar and got pulled into a barfight or the one time you watched your kid play peewee football and another parent had a tantrum over a call (or whatever scenario you can imagine).

That said, there are some factors that make gaming open to this scenario. One, the stakes are low (imaginary, even), and people who would quietly and calmly (at least in public) resolve their car being stolen or their house catching fire for some reason will throw a fit over their piece in a game getting underhandedly undone. Two, a lot of us started playing as kids -- which, experiencing my third batch of tangential/proxy childrearing, I'm again realizing is a nightmare land of bitter arguments and temporary alliances broken by ultimate betrayals (like eating the last tootsie roll). Third, many to most TTRPG players are, well, nerds*. And for all the 'getting picked on in high school by the jocks or prom court types' stereotypes, no one seems to be able to be meaner to nerds than other nerds trying to mark their territory. Plus, in the community's favor, we can also be more welcoming to some people, and sometimes that includes people with severely truncated social skills, or just coping ability. Any one of these can contribute to someone having had a problem individual or problem situation.
*self declaratively included, although my much nerdier staff would disagree with this assessment. :smalltongue:

That said, I'll go back to the point that I think that most everyone (by which I probably mean 51%-2/3rds of people here and even less amongst gamers as a whole) has had that one really bad situation and it's just more noteworthy and discussable than the rest of the perfectly well-adjusted gaming situations. I think running into massively multiple toxic situations is a significant rarity.

[Martin Greywolf]

I've been part of the scene for... well, ten to twenty yeras, depending on how you count. And by that, I mean I'v done LARPs, TTRPGs, re-enacting, HEMA, tai chi, writing fantasy stories and going to cons. And the toxicity always comes from the same place. Entitled brats.

I could go into a lot of detail, but that would get me hit with a banhammer, because it goes into politics and various current issues that are verboten on the forums, so I'll offer the cliffnotes version. There is a very definite attraction TTRPGs and other make-believe things (yes, even HEMA is one, put than longsword down) hold to the entitled brats. The desire to be the coolest, bestest, awesomest fellow around who can do whatever he wants.

That measn these entitled brats do two things: either they orbit the established groups, getting kicked out of them after a few bits only to find a new one, or they congregate into their own clusters of self-delusion.

Now, this is very important, because it shows you where you find those toxic games: in places these people can get to. If you're running a closed game with friends only, you will never run into them, as was the case for me in TTRPGs. But if you have a somewhat open format, there is a chance you will possibly either join one of those groups (I've seen some in non-TTRPG areas that were related to not-legal political movements) by accident or have one of the entitled brats join you. Some of the self-delusion groups can also grow to a disturbingly large size and get a following that is troublingly cult-like, but that's a different story.

And that's how you get toxic games and tales thereof, and why there are quite a few people who never saw one.

[Easy e]

My rule of thumb with RPGs, Board Gaming, and Wargaming is to never play a game with Random folks. Instead, spend some time getting to know them with conversation and observation first.

I may go to a store or club looking for a pick-up game, but I never join in and play until I have a good idea of who is there and what type of store culture it has. I have had some terrible experiences with pick-ups games that I do not wish to repeat.

Once I have a feel for who aligns with my style, I steal them and start a more private "club" of players. That's just me though.

[Kurt Kurageous]

the toxicity always comes from the same place. Entitled brats

Great insight, Greywolf.

My take is that unhappy people from unhappy situations find the lure of a blank slate irresistible. It's a chance to get away from all the bad stuff in your life, away from the people who make it so, away from all of your self-inflicted wounds and escape to a world where you will be accepted.

The problem is, the only constant in both worlds is you/them. The freedom from the bad stuff may cause some to act out the anger they carry from their old life into the game. Their limited skills for dealing with conflict in RL remain their limited skills in the game. Thus the bullied may become the bully, the outcast becomes the elitist, etc.

So in other words, it becomes either a leaderless therapy group or improv troupe session with every neurotic for themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Great insight, Greywolf.

My take is that unhappy people from unhappy situations find the lure of a blank slate irresistible. It's a chance to get away from all the bad stuff in your life, away from the people who make it so, away from all of your self-inflicted wounds and escape to a world where you will be accepted.

The problem is, the only constant in both worlds is you/them. The freedom from the bad stuff may cause some to act out the anger they carry from their old life into the game. Their limited skills for dealing with conflict in RL remain their limited skills in the game. Thus the bullied may become the bully, the outcast becomes the elitist, etc.

So in other words, it becomes either a leaderless therapy group or improv troupe session with every neurotic for themselves.

The one exception to this is when there's a pre-existing strong relationship of trust between the DM (usually) and the unhappy people. Then the DM can tame it fairly easily.

I encountered this while running afterschool games at a school I taught at. Had a lot of neuro-divergent, neurotic, and just strongly stressed and unhappy kids in the various groups. But because there was the background that I was a teacher they respected, I was able to divert and channel that into more productive play. And it helped a lot of them out, to be able to be someone else in a world that didn't care if they were weird, playing with a bunch of other people who were escaping reality.

[Burley]

Great insight, Greywolf.

My take is that unhappy people from unhappy situations find the lure of a blank slate irresistible. It's a chance to get away from all the bad stuff in your life, away from the people who make it so, away from all of your self-inflicted wounds and escape to a world where you will be accepted.


So, if I can add a new layer to the topic, how can we (as DM/players who can recognize and demonize toxicity) help toxic players to not be that way?
I totally understand that it's not our job to fix other people, but if we were to kick a toxic player off the table, both we and the Tox (my cool new word, TMTMTM) get a horror story, right? Or, maybe drama for us and comedy for them? Regardless of genre, how can we make things better? Can we? Is it always up to the DM to have a talk with the Tox, which often plays out in stories as a power struggle? Can we, as players or peers, do anything to help with the toxicity? Is there a social gaming equivalent of that minty sawdust schools put on puke?

The bit I quoted, Kurt, is a rather compassionate view ("self-inflicted" maybe not) of the Tox's situation. I think its a situation that's common to many of our peers. Maybe the question isn't "How do we deal with a toxic players?" Maybe its "How can we help a toxic player get to where we are?"

Does anybody have a success story? A time where a player was spoken to, thought about it and came correct next time? (Should that question be its own thread?)

[Christew]

So, if I can add a new layer to the topic, how can we (as DM/players who can recognize and demonize toxicity) help toxic players to not be that way?
I totally understand that it's not our job to fix other people, but if we were to kick a toxic player off the table, both we and the Tox (my cool new word, TMTMTM) get a horror story, right? Or, maybe drama for us and comedy for them? Regardless of genre, how can we make things better? Can we? Is it always up to the DM to have a talk with the Tox, which often plays out in stories as a power struggle? Can we, as players or peers, do anything to help with the toxicity? Is there a social gaming equivalent of that minty sawdust schools put on puke?
These are interesting questions. They also spawn follow-up questions.
- Are we dealing with a toxic behavior or a toxic player?
- Is there a ready way to tell the difference?
- Can a DM unilaterally identify toxicity or does it warrant table consensus?
- Can toxicity be addressed without veering into badwrongfun?
I think largely the answers to these kinds of questions are going to be highly dependent on factors like
the age/development of the people involved and the social relationships that undergird the table.

Two stories for some illustration:
A) One of my first groups after 5E came out was an in-person meetup that was an existing group of friends (first time playing D&D, period) that had lost a player and thus recruited me, a stranger. Most of them were lovely (still friends), but one player definitely had some toxic habits. He had mathematically impossible HP, changed classes without notice, and fudged his dice rolls shamelessly. The DM brought it up with me privately (since I had more experience) and I offered advice citing the balance of the game, the need for risk/reward, fairness to other players, etc. Ultimately he got the response that "The game will not be fun for me if [you make me follow the rules], I'd rather just not play." This kind of brinksmanship regarding a game from an adult was unacceptable to me, so I left the group. Ultimately his fun and my fun were not compatible -- total failure to ameliorate toxicity.

B) My current main group is comprised of two my close long term friends and two of their close long term friends (whom I was previously unfamiliar with). Both of the new friends were also new to the game and both demonstrated some toxic behaviors initially. Starting inappropriate combats, stepping on other's spotlight scenes, etc. Because of the close personal relationships there was an ongoing respectful dialog of what was cool, what wasn't, and why. Today they are great players -- much more successful.

I'd also argue there is a level of "maturity" related to game experience. I think most people need to indiscriminately throw fireballs and engage in barbarian big-axe "diplomacy" at some point in their TTRPG careers. Many of us got to get this out of our systems in the relatively safe space of a middle school basement where everyone was a toxic idiot, but I think this "immaturity" can appear as toxicity sometimes in adults new to the hobby.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it always up to the DM to have a talk with the Tox No, the other players should not dump that in the DM's in box. Fellow players need to also communicate with the Tox.

Does anybody have a success story? A time where a player was spoken to, thought about it and came correct next time? (Should that question be its own thread?)That would be a great separate thread with some good news stories in it.

Two stories for some illustration: {snip} Thanks for sharing the excellent examples. The maturity theme is a real one that can be bound to personality type. Seen some teenagers who were very level headed, seen adults who were not. Each table situation has its own logic.

[JLandan]

I've been playing so long (fall 1974), the law of averages applies. The vast majority of people I've played with have been great. The original group, from jr high, are still my core group, which now includes some of our kids. But there have been exceptions, some serious.

Early on, my loser brother was a DM that thought it was his place to murder the PCs. We never saw 3rd level. He had issues as a player too. Had to boot him from the group.

Never had an issue again till 3.0 came out. we brought in a new guy that never had a stat less than +1. Would actually call out 24 when he had +3. Rolled the die and picked it up immediately, then paused for a few seconds to calculate some number that he thought we might buy and called it out. Eventually we gave him the boot. But not before I got into a campaign run by his wife (seriously, the first female I ever shared a game with). She would not let us advance until we "trained" with some NPC that cost money and a great deal of time, sometimes months in game. Had to walk on that.

Bad one. Got into a group that a co-worker was in. Mostly good guys. But this one guy wouldn't stop talking out the side of his face about me, something to do with my time in the Navy. Well, it was a big table, and we were on opposite sides 'cause I was sick of him. His PC was moving and I, mistakenly, moved his mini so he wouldn't have to come all the way around the table. He threw a fit and spoke to me in a tone that I do not allow. We ended up going outside. I found out afterwards that the breach of table etiquette he claimed I committed, was not the case. I was told that they help each other move minis all the time, same as my old table. Never went back there. People that can't fight shouldn't start them, and no adult should ever start one.

One player from early on, high school, not original Jr high, but still way back. DMed once. Once. By third level we each had magic weapons and armor and at least 2 rare items. And he tried to DM a module that he had never read, by reading it as we went. Didn't boot him, but never DMed again.

Same guy, years later, made a PC with a really offensive back story. The DM asked him to change it, but he wouldn't. It was explained to him that his character's behavior was unacceptable not just at the table, but in-game, the other PCs would hang him. Wouldn't change it. So, the DM told him, he was out till it was changed the back story. Haven't heard from him since.

I guess that's six examples over 48 years. Once per eight years seems pretty rare to me. Your mileage may vary.

[f5anor]

I have had bad games, but never toxic games.

I have had games I haven't enjoyed due to a poor fit to my expectations or character choice or not liking the setting (seriously, screw Eberron). There are things players do that I don't like.

Never had a toxic table. Never had a table where people were disrespectful. Never had a table where anyone was intentionally stopping anyone having fun.

Even the games I haven't enjoyed, have been with groups where I usually enjoy playing.

This is much the same as I have experienced. I have always played with friends that have had priori RPG experience, or where otherwise socially well connect to facilitate bringing them on board.

I have experienced an interesting issue lately in this ballpark.

Lately I have had a lot of issues with players (in my view) lacking TTRPG experience and instead extensive video game RPGs, or even with experience playing tabletop games such as Gloomhaven. These players focus on micromanaging optimization to a level which is not compatible with my own (I guess) old school expectations.

I consider myself to be quite optimization and combat focused, however I always look to establish a good balance taking into account role-playing and suspension of disbelief.

Video gamers tend to assume (and insist on) automatically using abilities regardless of role playing or realism considerations, an example is expecting to have auto-cast "Guidance" in advance all the time. In one occasion insisting to cast "Guidance" on other characters, even when they would in-character object on religious grounds. The "Guidance" spell is not meant to be an automatic 1d4 to all your out of combat rolls. If you intend to use it in this manner, you should also bring the role playing to the table to justify this extreme behaviour.

A further issue which such players may bring to the table is unfamiliarity with the concept of DM rulings. They tend to read the rules and insist on a simplistic interpretation (usually suiting them the best). When the DM provides a more in-depth interpretation, possibly backed with a ruling regarding some specific aspects of the topic, then they tend to object.

[Sigreid]

Ok, so one other uncomfortable thing people might want to watch out for. If you're constantly finding yourself at 'toxic' tables, you might want to take a look and just make sure you're not engaging in any behaviors that are setting up/initiating/encouraging the behaviors that are toxic. Or simply make sure that what you're labeling as toxic isn't just a you don't personally like it thing.

Just a thought. But it's pretty easy to label as malice what is just a different preference.

[heavyfuel]

Once, back in like 2012, my friend DMed for me and a mutual friend. This mutual friend as very much a toxic player (fudging dice rolls, lying about their stats, "forgetting" about Power Attack penalties, etc).

We told him to quit doing that. He didn't. We don't play with him anymore, but we're still friends and professional colleagues.

I honestly don't understand why the complaint about toxic tables are so common. Nobody is forcing you to play a game with that person. You either quit the game, or kick the person. You can still be friends outside of D&D-time.

[MoiMagnus]

I honestly don't understand why the complaint about toxic tables are so common. Nobody is forcing you to play a game with that person. You either quit the game, or kick the person. You can still be friends outside of D&D-time.

Sunk cost fallacy, social pressure, and other reasons means that a lot of peoples keep "playing" games that make them miserable. RPGs are far from the exceptions. If anything toxic RPG tables seems to be less frequent than toxic online gaming groups (especially for "competitive" games).

[Keltest]

Sunk cost fallacy, social pressure, and other reasons means that a lot of peoples keep "playing" games that make them miserable. RPGs are far from the exceptions. If anything toxic RPG tables seems to be less frequent than toxic online gaming groups (especially for "competitive" games).

Its a decent bit harder for somebody to engage in toxic behavior when you're physically sitting across the table from somebody. Even if you arent necessarily concerned about their feelings as such, theres a serious twitch factor involved when the person you're insulting could theoretically attack you or otherwise act in reprisal.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've been playing so long (fall 1974), the law of averages applies. {snip}
I guess that's six examples over 48 years. Once per eight years seems pretty rare to me. Your mileage may vary.
Comment on this:

Video gamers tend to assume (and insist on) automatically using abilities regardless of role playing or realism considerations, an example is expecting to have auto-cast "Guidance" in advance all the time. In one occasion insisting to cast "Guidance" on other characters, even when they would in-character object on religious grounds. The "Guidance" spell is not meant to be an automatic 1d4 to all your out of combat rolls. If you intend to use it in this manner, you should also bring the role playing to the table to justify this extreme behaviour. I too have found, over the years, that the porting over of assumptions and expectations from video games to be occasionally off putting, but let's be fair to the video gamers. The movies, comic books and video games (and other media) they have consumed for the past two generations (let's call 20 years a generation for the sake of this illustration) all inform their imaginary input into the game, just as movies, pulps, TV shows, novels, comic books, legends, etc informed the first generation of D&D and other TTRPG players. So I try to not let it bug me as much as it might, and it helps that I have enjoyed and experienced a lot of those same movies, video games (not so much comics) as they did.

A further issue which such players may bring to the table is unfamiliarity with the concept of DM rulings. They tend to read the rules and insist on a simplistic interpretation (usually suiting them the best). Literalists and short attention spanners ~ I hear ya, but it ain't just the younger gamers who fall into this. :smallwink:

Nobody is forcing you to play a game with that person. You either quit the game, or kick the person. You can still be friends outside of D&D-time. Maybe and maybe not. It can work that way, but some people take a real wound if they get ostracized from a social group, regardless of its nature. I'd not hand wave that away; IME friendships have been destroyed by disputes at the game table (but that takes me back some decades ...)

[heavyfuel]

Sunk cost fallacy, social pressure, and other reasons means that a lot of peoples keep "playing" games that make them miserable. RPGs are far from the exceptions. If anything toxic RPG tables seems to be less frequent than toxic online gaming groups (especially for "competitive" games).

I suppose that's true. It took a looong time for me to realize my favorite MOBA was only making me stress out for like 99% of the time I was playing it. I did quit, eventually.


Maybe and maybe not. It can work that way, but some people take a real wound if they get ostracized from a social group, regardless of its nature. I'd not hand wave that away; IME friendships have been destroyed by disputes at the game table (but that takes me back some decades ...)

Honestly, if someone is butthurt because you told them to stop cheating at a cooperative game, that's not someone I want to be friends with anyway. To put this in perspective, another friend later joined our group and he too was found cheating (fudging dice). We told him to stop, and he did! So he still plays with us. No harm no foul.

Some people might not have this luxury if they are playing with family or a SO, but then I'd just suggest that player quit instead of kicking out the toxic person.

Again, no one is forcing you to play. Even if people insist, you can say "I really don't feel like playing, but thanks for the invite" and be off scot-free

[Kurt Kurageous]

Sunk cost fallacy, social pressure, and other reasons means that a lot of peoples keep "playing" games that make them miserable. RPGs are far from the exceptions. If anything toxic RPG tables seems to be less frequent than toxic online gaming groups (especially for "competitive" games).

I think the saying is, "Bad DnD is better than no DnD." Sometimes this is why people stay. It's the same in all interpersonal things.

Have you ever been part of a post high school sports team, company softball team, pickup basketball game? It's there bigly, too. What usually happens is the social pressure motivates people to sort themselves or "find their own tribe."

[KorvinStarmast]

Good post, I'll address only this.
Some people might not have this luxury if they are playing with family or a SO, but then I'd just suggest that player quit instead of kicking out the toxic person. Or switch games. :smallsmile: I have run into this IRL, and in one case (yeah, it's cliche, but my mother-in-law) I generally decline to play with her (not RPGs but any game) beyond a few like Center/Left/Right and the Golf card game. She's otherwise too annoying to play with, so I find other things to do if that's what's on the table (I'd rather do the dishes, TBH, and often that's where I end up, in the kitchen, cleaning up).