Detoxifying a Table

[Burley]

In another thread, we are/were discussing toxic behavior at the gaming table. I think we've all seen or heard or experienced the many "horror stories" of trying to share our hobby with people who are, perhaps, less than gracious. Maybe they have annoying habits, or they may be straight-up offensive with their RP and side conversations.

This isn't a thread to share these stories.

TTGaming is a more main-stream hobby now, but I think we can agree that, traditionally, it attracts those who don't quite fit in other groups. There are a dozen unsavory stereotypes about gamers and I've seen real life examples of each. Underneath the cheese powder-stained fingers, though, is a person, looking for acceptance from peers and release from a mundane world of expectations and disappointment.

I'd love to have a discussion on how we can help our toxic peers get to where we are. Who has a success story? Who is a success story? Let's try really hard to keep this thread honest and compassionate, please.


Kick them from the table
DM talks to them and kicks them from the table
Leave the group so you don't have to deal with it

[Waazraath]

In another thread, we are/were discussing toxic behavior at the gaming table. I think we've all seen or heard or experienced the many "horror stories" of trying to share our hobby with people who are, perhaps, less than gracious. Maybe they have annoying habits, or they may be straight-up offensive with their RP and side conversations.

This isn't a thread to share these stories.

TTGaming is a more main-stream hobby now, but I think we can agree that, traditionally, it attracts those who don't quite fit in other groups. There are a dozen unsavory stereotypes about gamers and I've seen real life examples of each. Underneath the cheese powder-stained fingers, though, is a person, looking for acceptance from peers and release from a mundane world of expectations and disappointment.

I'd love to have a discussion on how we can help our toxic peers get to where we are. Who has a success story? Who is a success story? Let's try really hard to keep this thread honest and compassionate, please.


Kick them from the table
DM talks to them and kicks them from the table
Leave the group so you don't have to deal with it



Interesting question! To stay with one's own behaviour (easier to change then someone else's), one can try to be tolerant and acceptive than usual. Of course, if you really think somebody is a horrible person, sitting at the same gaming table won't work - but the other side is that the people at your gaming table do not need to be your best friends in the rest of your life. Especially in smaller communities, you might just not have that many people who want to play the game, and you're stuck with whoever you can find. If the person at your table happens to be (for instance) that terrible munchkin power gamer, explain why *overpowered non-RAW combo* won't work, patiently explain again, and again, without getting annoyed or angry (which one would normally do having to explain something the 4th time), or explain (again) why a certain build or action is not fun for the rest of the table, and that the point of the game is that everybody should have fun.
As a DM, give the spotlight hugger time, but don't allow him/her to usurp all the time. Help and empower the really shy and insecure player by allowing it the spotlight and giving it successes in social encounters. As a player, give the new and insecure DM encouraging nods, don't get into discussions (let alone angry) when he or she has a rule wrong (maybe just ignore it and kindly point out the regular rule after the session). Help out by taking over parts of the job if that is appreciated.

I short, just be a decent, social human being, and then put a little bit of extra effort into that.

[Mastikator]

In my experience one way to detoxify a table is to identify and quantify exactly the toxic behaviors that you wish to see removed, then convince at least half of the table (which must include the DM) to outright ban this behavior with a zero tolerance.

In a group that I play in we have an anti-PVP rule that states that if a PC attacks another PC the player is allowed to say "nope" and the attack is rendered useless.Two players left and never came back in response to this.

In an old group I was in the DM made a few rules for the players, one was "no bullying allowed", but the DM bullied one of the players, it only took 3 games for them to never show up again. In retrospect I should've talked to the DM, it's not easy (for me) to tell if someone is in on the "joke" or if they're merely soldiering on.

Some people only play on the condition that they can be toxic to others at the table. Others don't realize they're being toxic and once they swallow their pride can change.

[da newt]

If there is a serious session zero type discussion that emphasizes TEAM success over personal success and an agreement that the party are the good guys in this adventure, it can really help mold expectations for the campaign and help act as a footing for any follow up conversations about less than ideal behaviors.

It also really helps if there is one person who can act in a mentor / coach type role and especially that the other players respect this person and that role. This is often easier if there is a more experienced player or DM and newer folks playing.

I also think its very helpful to emphasize that the goal is to ensure everyone is having fun while also reminding everyone that its not a competition, you don't keep score, the only way to 'win' DnD is to enjoy your time at the table with your party and look forward to next time.

I think this is one of the things that the Crit Role folks do exceptionally well - they all look for opportunities to set the others up for success and take turns in the spotlight in a very unselfish way.

[KorvinStarmast]

TEAM success over personal success and an agreement that the party are the good guys in this adventure, it can really help mold expectations for the campaign and help act as a footing for any follow up conversations about less than ideal behaviors. I can't agree with this strongly enough. I've watched people (teens/young adults) grow their small group teamwork skills at TTRPG tables when a mature/wiser fellow player, or GM, nurtures that core value. The urge to teamwork as a necessity is amplified by high lethality scenarios and with high chances of failure - if we don't work together we are all doomed.

When the shy or socially deferential player offers an idea, and it works, you can see the confidence boost flash in their eyes.

[Unoriginal]

In my experience, if the toxic people don't change their behavior when made aware it's toxic the first time, you can't.

Some people don't realize they're being jerks, and will apologize and stop doing it when asked. If they don't, they're set on continuing and will continue until they're kicked out.

Also, it is not the job of the rest of the table to "help" toxic people. It's the rest of the table who is being hurt.

[da newt]

"Also, it is not the job of the rest of the table to "help" toxic people. It's the rest of the table who is being hurt."

You are right, it's not the job / responsibility of individuals to "help" other individuals - there is no obligation, but if you all choose not to, then who will? If we all turn a blind eye or choose not to engage, then that person doesn't have anyone pointing out negative behaviors and encouraging / supporting them to improve - so how will they know / why would they change?

And doubly so if you are playing with friends - if you and your friends don't care to help out your friends ...

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience, if the toxic people don't change their behavior when made aware it's toxic the first time, you can't.

Some people don't realize they're being jerks, and will apologize and stop doing it when asked. If they don't, they're set on continuing and will continue until they're kicked out.

Also, it is not the job of the rest of the table to "help" toxic people. It's the rest of the table who is being hurt. But it never hurts to try, which you allude to.

[Burley]

Also, it is not the job of the rest of the table to "help" toxic people. It's the rest of the table who is being hurt.

Yup, its not our job to do that. I totally agree. It's almost never anybody's job to do the right thing.

But, that's not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss how we can help. Let's try to stay on the positive, compassionate and helpful side of the line. Some of us want to help our peers grow and, if you're not one of us, there's other threads.

Edit: I think people all responded at the same time, and I'm not trying to dogpile on you. I also recognize that, in asking for ways to not push out a peer for having an attitude I don't agree with, I hypocritically did that to you. But, I'm not going to delete my post, because I think its still valuable to illustrate how difficult it is to be compassionate.

Real question for you, Unoriginal: How did it feel to have three of us push back on you? Did you feel unwelcome? Defensive? Did you feel like maybe pushing back? I'm leading the question a bit here: Do you think how we or, specifically, how I responded to you made you feel a bit toxic, or made you want to be toxic?

[Christew]

snip
Kudos, Burley. Both for the insightful reflection and showing the math.

[Pex]

I have a solution, but you may not like it. I call the player out. If he changes his behavior, great! If he quits the table, great! If the DM calls me out on calling the player out, enabling the behavior, I quit. Great! I've experienced all three.

[MadBear]

Things I've tried:

1. Talking with the player privately before/after a session.

Results: Mixed bag. Sometimes the behaviour stopped. Sometimes it didn't

2. Leaving the group

Results: 100% success in avoiding the toxic player, but also had to find a new/better group, which while worth it, can take awhile.

3. Calling the behaviour out mid session and asking if it was bugging the other players. Ex. Player was repeatedly running ahead and triggering encounters without any consideration of the rest of the party

Result: Actually had great results with this one. In the above example I just said "Is it bothering anyone else that Tim keeps running ahead without seeing what others are trying to do?". Immediately everyone at the table either agreed that it was a problem, or said that they didn't care one way or another. Regardless, the fact that it was apparent that 3 people were getting frustrated with this behavior was enough for them to realize they should at least try to work as a team. Side benefit, if no one else had a problem with it, I'd know that it was a me problem and not a them problem.

4. Kicking player from the group

Results: I've only done this once, and it felt horrible, and resulted in a few ruined friendships (albeit toxic ones). Still was likely necessary.

[Burley]

I have a solution, but you may not like it. I call the player out. If he changes his behavior, great! If he quits the table, great! If the DM calls me out on calling the player out, enabling the behavior, I quit. Great! I've experienced all three.

I don't like it. At all. These are three UNHELPFUL non-solution scenarios.

How do you call a player out? Has it ever actually helped? If you have a success, please share. Your post has no specifics and your generalities exemplify the exact attitude I'm trying to avoid in this discussion and at the table.


Is this really such a foreign concept? How do we help a person be better? How do we encourage teamwork? We are members of a community of outliers seeking inclusivity. Let's stop this black-or-white, stay-or-go nonsense that is antithetic to the purpose of our hobby: bringing a group of people together to play a cooperative game.

[Darth Credence]

I think that Unoriginal is actually on point here, when you take the beginning of their comment into account. If people are told they are being toxic, and apologize and attempt to change, then everything can be smoothed out. But if they do not apologize, and instead start listing reasons why they do what they do and why its OK, then there is no way that it is going to change.

When someone is first made aware, they may not immediately be able to change, but showing that they are willing to do so is the key. Let's say someone is being creepy with members of the opposite sex - this is one of the more troubling of the common problems I've seen, so it's a good one to look at. If someone talks to them and tells them that their RPing of a horny bard is making the people they are attempting to flirt with uncomfortable, and it needs to stop, how they react matters. I've seen people react with horror, apologize for making someone uncomfortable, and say that they were just trying to role play and had no idea it was coming off poorly. They will probably stop, although they may backslide, which they would likely stop again as soon as someone raises a concern. They can be corralled, and eventually they can become perfectly fine players.

The players that, instead, begin to explain how their character was raised in a community where everyone had casual sex with everyone else, and the taboos of this new land are strange to them, so sometimes it comes off creepy, but they're a good person at heart and they should be given some leeway, then there is likely a problem that can only be resolved by kicking the player. I know of a table where this happened, and the DM immediately responded by telling them that they don't care what the background rational was, they were making other players uncomfortable, and they had to knock it off (not part of the table, just a sounding board for my friend who was the DM). The player said fine, did the same thing the next session, and was booted.

And in such a case, does the rest of the table really have any sort of duty to attempt to get such a person to stop being a creep? I absolutely think they do not, and telling people that they really should attempt to help detoxify people is ignoring the very real problems that they have to deal with. If someone at the table stabbed another person, I think we would all pretty clearly agree that they need to be removed for the good of everyone else. I think we would almost certainly all agree if I changed that to punched another person. I hope that we can all get to the point that we can agree that if someone is making racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever else comments, that it is probably hurting others at the table, and those hurt people do not have a duty to try and fix the person hurting them.

So I guess my answer to the original question - how can we help toxic peers get to be non-toxic - my answer is tell them straight up what they are doing is wrong, and if they do not apologize and promise to change, then demonstrate that they are trying to change, then kick them from the group and let the punishment of being removed from groups (probably repeatedly) show them that they need to be better if they want to be part of a new group in the future. And recognize that some things are so far beyond the pale that there is no warning - things like "joking" about raping someone, calling someone by a racial slur, and the like do not deserve any attempt by their victims to redeem them.

[Athan Artilliam]

What counts as "toxic"? I only ask because that term has kind of been changed into a Scarlet Letter.

I would also say that if the people who are "socially maladjusted" (I refuse to call anyone such a hateful term as toxic) founded the hobby, who are we to kick them out of it & change it? Just let people enjoy thing, dont try to "cure" people just because they dont adhere to your worldview.

[Burley]

What counts as "toxic"? I only ask because that term has kind of been changed into a Scarlet Letter.

I would also say that if the people who are "socially maladjusted" (I refuse to call anyone such a hateful term as toxic) founded the hobby, who are we to kick them out of it & change it? Just let people enjoy thing, dont try to "cure" people just because they dont adhere to your worldview.

That's a great point. I mean, if a player is "toxic" and the behavior is addressed and amended, is it "toxic?"

I'd say toxic behavior makes playing the game difficult or impossible. Toxic material kills people, toxic behavior kills games.

[da newt]

I think we're all sort of getting at the same kind of thing - step one is to identify toxic / unwelcome behavior, step 2 is to find a good way of letting the offender know, step 3 is to find a good way to help them correct the behavior, and step 4 is either A) offender works on improving or B) offender does not. If it turns out to be a negative outcome then either the offender leaves or the offended.

Asking folks to change is hard. Receiving criticism and accepting that is hard. Changing is hard. - All true, and there are many different ways to approach things, some better than others and every situation / person is different too, so what works this time may not work next time.

But I think the goal of this thread is to discuss what can we do to help correct unwelcome behavior? What have you seen work?

[MadBear]

I would also say that if the people who are "socially maladjusted" (I refuse to call anyone such a hateful term as toxic) founded the hobby, who are we to kick them out of it & change it? Just let people enjoy thing, dont try to "cure" people just because they dont adhere to your worldview.

I think this depends entirely on the behavior we're talking about.

If someone is repeatedly making rape jokes, I'm not going to let them stay at my table. If they make racist statements, they're not welcome at my table.

If they are just playing a lawful stupid paladin, that is making every other player miserable, I'm not going to immediately throw them out. I'll probably talk with them about how they need to play in such a way that everyone gets to have a good time. If they refuse, I'll ask them to find another group. Or, if everyone's ok with that behavior, I'll adjust to it as long as it's reasonable or I'd leave myself.

All of this is a sliding scale. I run a D&D club at my school, and while I don't mind swearing in my home games with friends, it's not something I allow during club. Some groups are totally fine with a horny bard, and other groups are gonna find it not ok. Some groups are fine with really edgy jokes, and others are not. Communication is key, but so is being willing to establish healthy boundaries with what you are and are not ok with.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't like it. At all. These are three UNHELPFUL non-solution scenarios. I disagree. They all work at detoxifying a table. Seen it, done it...but they entail additional work, away from the table, in healing / restoring / maintaining the previous relationship / friendship. They work, but they are not an easy button.
Play Is Continuous! Relationships are a continuum. You never stop working on them if you care about the person. (33 years of marriage has taught me at least that).

How do you call a player out?
You tell them that what they are doing is annoying or disruptive. While ideally this happens in a sidebar, sometimes you get fed up during play and say "wait a sec, can we stop doing this please?" and then describe what's going on. I have done it many times.

Has it ever actually helped?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends heavily on the person and the group. Some sphincters are sphincters to the bone. Though that's the minority case. As Unoriginal pointed out, there are plenty of socially clueless people who, when they are advised that what they are doing is being annoying, do their best to adjust. And everyone in that small social group, when an effort is made to be better, appreciates the effort. (That's my experience anyway).

Is this really such a foreign concept? How do we help a person be better? How do we encourage teamwork? Those are two separate but related topics. How do we encourage teamwork is tough but doable. And IME, it's actually easier that trying to reform a dyed-in-the-wool sphincter. This is bitter experience talking. I have been in groups where I still, years later, still don't like a person or two that I have gamed with, but because they were a team player I'd play with them again.

I have a solution, but you may not like it. I call the player out. If he changes his behavior, great! If he quits the table, great! If the DM calls me out on calling the player out, enabling the behavior, I quit. Great! I've experienced all three. Likewise. But you can't stop there, you need to try and heal/repair the rest of the relationship if it's someone you care about, a friend.

What counts as "toxic"? I only ask because that term has kind of been changed into a Scarlet Letter. As soon as that kind of pedantry enters the conversation, getting all wrapped up with definitions and the use of scare quotes, the level of discourse is degraded.

I would also say that if the people who are "socially maladjusted" (I refuse to call anyone such a hateful term as toxic) founded the hobby, Where is this coming from?
Gary Gygax had a wife and four kids when he and Don Kaye founded TSR ... EGG's first son was born the same year that I was. Don was married, had kids. How are they socially maladjusted?
With that said, I'll offer a reasonably supportable opinion that Dave Arneson is the Alpha, archetypical "kid playing in Mom and Dad's basement" stereotype that informs the burden that all D&D players have had to bear for a very long time until Vin Diesel redeemed us all. :smallbiggrin: And yet I remain grateful that DA was able to apply his talents in such a way that this hobby happened. You don't have to be perfect to be good at a thing or two, eh?

[Athan Artilliam]

I think this depends entirely on the behavior we're talking about.

If someone is repeatedly making rape jokes, I'm not going to let them stay at my table. If they make racist statements, they're not welcome at my table.

If they are just playing a lawful stupid paladin, that is making every other player miserable, I'm not going to immediately throw them out. I'll probably talk with them about how they need to play in such a way that everyone gets to have a good time. If they refuse, I'll ask them to find another group. Or, if everyone's ok with that behavior, I'll adjust to it as long as it's reasonable or I'd leave myself.

All of this is a sliding scale. I run a D&D club at my school, and while I don't mind swearing in my home games with friends, it's not something I allow during club. Some groups are totally fine with a horny bard, and other groups are gonna find it not ok. Some groups are fine with really edgy jokes, and others are not. Communication is key, but so is being willing to establish healthy boundaries with what you are and are not ok with.

Exactly. See my post in the other Toxic thread, I will always call rape jokes & such behavior "Toxic" & not associate with those kind of people, what I dont want, is problematic people or people who hold differing political opinions to be labeled "Toxic" out of hand & then lump them in with the truly bad. The edgy dude who broods about his orphan batman wanna be who talks egregiously of darkness in their soul should not be put in the same box as the guy who was my DM & had my character raped in the game while grinning.

That's a great point. I mean, if a player is "toxic" and the behavior is addressed and amended, is it "toxic?"

I'd say toxic behavior makes playing the game difficult or impossible. Toxic material kills people, toxic behavior kills games.
Toxic behavior is that which in my opinion, cannot be "cured". But I girl who is weird & awkward & tries to flirt with NPCs to the detriment of the game isnt neccesarily "Toxic" in by book. She just needs to be talked to.

I .
As soon as that kind of pedantry enters the conversation, getting all wrapped up with definitions and the use of scare quotes, the level of discourse is degraded.
Where is this coming from?
Gary Gygax had a wife and four kids when he and Don Kaye founded TSR ... EGG's first son was born the same year that I was. Don was married, had kids. How are they socially maladjusted?
With that said, I'll offer a reasonably supportable opinion that Dave Arneson is the Alpha, archetypical "kid playing in Mom and Dad's basement" stereotype that informs the burden that all D&D players have had to bear for a very long time until Vin Diesel redeemed us all. :smallbiggrin: And yet I remain grateful that DA was able to apply his talents in such a way that this hobby happened. You don't have to be perfect to be good at a thing or two, eh?

Quotations aren't scary & no, it's not pedantry, to ask for clarification when people are being vilified. It avoids mob rule, fascism, & the slippery slope of "until they came for me" type situations. Also, i have to express complete disgust at any perpetuation of the "basement dwelling nerd" stereotype. I dont care if you think Vin Diesel is cool either. Celebrities do not "redeem" a hobby, table top was awesome long before it was on the Big Bang Show or whatever its called.

I'll give an example. My older brother is autistic. He isnt anywhere close to special needs but he still cant "adult" like a regular person. He loves tabletop, it's a great coping mechanism & stress reliever. It allows him to play someone he struggles to be in real life, a competent person, someone others can admire. He has played for years & is actually the one who introduced me to tabletop. But he is disruptive. He is a headache sometimes. He may be a problem player & we've had to talk to him from time to time, but he is NOT "Toxic"

[stoutstien]

1) be open, upfront, and honest. If there's any behavior that the table has agreed upon as things they don't want then they need to be clearly identified and defined. The precession or session zero is a good time for this.
2) be concise. You don't need a 16-page term of use contract to play the game. If a player at a table doesn't want unsolicited player advice then make it clear. If you believe that repercussions might be needed they also need to be just as clear.
3) be kind. You can be nice and polite and still be a disruptive force. It's almost impossible do that if you're being kind.

I personally have a short code of conduct on the backside of my DM screen. It's pretty generic because I run different types of games were different behaviors are welcomed but I personally believe the minor quibbles over specifics are symptoms of a problem not inherently problems in themselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

Quotations aren't scary & no, it's not pedantry, to ask for clarification when people are being vilified. It avoids mob rule, fascism, & the slippery slope of "until they came for me" type situations. Also, i have to express complete disgust at any perpetuation of the "basement dwelling nerd" stereotype. I dont care if you think Vin Diesel is cool either. Celebrities do not "redeem" a hobby, table top was awesome long before it was on the Big Bang Show or whatever its called. I guess you don't grok the use of blue text. :smallconfused: The rest of what you wrote there is hyperbole.

Here's a newflash for you: that stereotype didn't evolve ex nihilo. As a non basement dweller, it was hardly fair to the great majority of us who, by adapting it and being enthusiastic, grew the hobby from its early "what weird stuff do you people play at" phase into the modern day.

[Townopolis]

This may not be the most inspiring or insightful anecdote, but:

I've had a pretty bad quarterbacking problem. The first time I was made (dimly) aware of it was in a group where everyone had just been playing along with it until one player had had enough and called me out in the middle of play, very loudly, and very angrily.

My behavior continued, unchanged, with that group and with others until another friend in a different group told everyone after a session that she wasn't having fun and was thinking of quitting. When asked why, she noted that she felt like she couldn't really play during encounters. Then I changed. I'm still working on it, but that's where I started.

[Edit]: Because it's going to come up, no, neither table owed me any help. This is about what kind of response, in my personal experience, is useful for eliciting change if you want it.

[Unoriginal]

but if you all choose not to, then who will?

No one, most likely, but keep in mind...



then that person doesn't have anyone pointing out negative behaviors and encouraging / supporting them to improve - so how will they know / why would they change?

as I said in my first post: you start by pointing out that they are hurting people and should stop. If they are unwilling to recognize that and continue, they are not likely to change.

I am not against giving people a chance, as said in my first post. But if they blow that chance, keeping giving them more chances won't help, because more likely they are not interested in changing.


But it never hurts to try, which you allude to.

It does not hurt to try, once.

Keep trying, and you will hurt not only yourself but every other people at the table, except the toxic person.


Yup, its not our job to do that. I totally agree. It's almost never anybody's job to do the right thing.

And keeping giving chances to toxic people isn't the right thing.




But, that's not the point of this thread. The point is to discuss how we can help. Let's try to stay on the positive, compassionate and helpful side of the line. Some of us want to help our peers grow and, if you're not one of us, there's other threads

And what I was saying is, you give your peers a chance to grow. But my experience is that past that chance, you can't help.




Real question for you, Unoriginal: How did it feel to have three of us push back on you?

Not much.



Did you feel unwelcome? Defensive? Did you feel like maybe pushing back?

Not any more than when any other person disagreed with me on this forum.



I'm leading the question a bit here: Do you think how we or, specifically, how I responded to you made you feel a bit toxic, or made you want to be toxic?

No, not at all. Why would it?

I think you and I have vastly different ideas on what constitue toxicity.

To give an example of who I consider a toxic player: I've seen a grown up man describe a graphic sexual assault perpetrated on an humanoid by a giant monster, at a table that included players below 15yo. The same man later harassed another player so much said player literally flipped a table and threw the man out.

That man was told many time he should stop that, and was given many chances to change. Over months. With friends who kept trying.

Another toxic player I've seen was someone who joined the group due to being another player's boyfriend. He turned out to be a controlling jerk who was convinced the DM wanted to make a move on his girlfriend. He tried to get the DM's regular players to turn against him.

[KorvinStarmast]

To give an example of who I consider a toxic player: I've seen a grown up man describe a graphic sexual assault perpetrated on an humanoid by a giant monster, at a table that included players below 15yo. The same man later harassed another player so much said player literally flipped a table and threw the man out.

That man was told many time he should stop that, and was given many chances to change. Over months. With friends who kept trying. Yikes, that's toxic (for starters) and a few other things besides.

[Unoriginal]

Yikes, that's toxic (for starters) and a few other things besides.

Yeah, and it was only the parts of it I got to see.

Anyway, my point isn't "don't try helping someone who's being a jerk", it's "don't keep giving chances to those who have proven they will only use said chance to hurt you".

There IS such thing as toxic positivity, and keeping someone who is both toxic and showing no desire or effort to change is not going to detoxify the table, only add to the pile.

Or to put it differently: to help people, you need to know when to stop trying to help.

[Cygnia]

Yeah, and it was only the parts of it I got to see.

Anyway, my point isn't "don't try helping someone who's being a jerk", it's "don't keep giving chances to those who have proven they will only use said chance to hurt you".

There IS such thing as toxic positivity, and keeping someone who is both toxic and showing no desire or effort to change is not going to detoxify the table, only add to the pile.

Or to put it differently: to help people, you need to know when to stop trying to help.

This. This. All of This.

And this also is something to consider: Geek Social Fallacies (https://plausiblydeniable.com/five-geek-social-fallacies/)

[Pex]

Likewise. But you can't stop there, you need to try and heal/repair the rest of the relationship if it's someone you care about, a friend.


Not applicable in my case. When a I join a group we're strangers on the internet first. Group works. Friendship after. If the player accepts it's not that type of game and plays in teamwork there after, that's fine and wonderful. He can have his player vs player jollies in another game. If he insists on player vs player and finds this game is not for him, he leaves and I get to enjoy the game with everyone else. If the DM enables such behavior telling me I'm in the wrong for making a fuss about this then I know that player's playstyle is acceptable behavior at this table which is not acceptable to me, so I leave. I have no time for such hostile play.

[Christew]

Exactly. See my post in the other Toxic thread, I will always call rape jokes & such behavior "Toxic" & not associate with those kind of people, what I dont want, is problematic people or people who hold differing political opinions to be labeled "Toxic" out of hand & then lump them in with the truly bad. The edgy dude who broods about his orphan batman wanna be who talks egregiously of darkness in their soul should not be put in the same box as the guy who was my DM & had my character raped in the game while grinning.
"Toxic" is clearly a loaded word that has different associations to different people, but Burley offered a functional definition of "behavior that kills games." I haven't seen anyone mention politics or advocate some kind of equivalency between the two behaviors you describe. An umbrella term can encompass both a moderate and an extreme example. To turn the limitations of the English language's objectivity around -- what counts as "problematic"?


Toxic behavior is that which in my opinion, cannot be "cured". But I girl who is weird & awkward & tries to flirt with NPCs to the detriment of the game isnt neccesarily "Toxic" in by book. She just needs to be talked to.
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think toxic behaviors and toxic people should be differentiated. For example, the DM you mention above for is clearly a toxic person, while the edgy dude's brooding or the girl's flirting could be toxic behaviors in a given context if they were endangering the game.


Quotations aren't scary & no, it's not pedantry, to ask for clarification when people are being vilified. It avoids mob rule, fascism, & the slippery slope of "until they came for me" type situations. Also, i have to express complete disgust at any perpetuation of the "basement dwelling nerd" stereotype. I dont care if you think Vin Diesel is cool either. Celebrities do not "redeem" a hobby, table top was awesome long before it was on the Big Bang Show or whatever its called.
I mean, slippery slope arguments are defined as logical fallacies. What "people are being vilified"? The thread purpose is to discuss methods of addressing behavior that endangers games. Asking for clarification is always reasonable, implying that the use of a term is vilification of the kind that spawns mob rule and fascism is not.


I'll give an example. My older brother is autistic. He isnt anywhere close to special needs but he still cant "adult" like a regular person. He loves tabletop, it's a great coping mechanism & stress reliever. It allows him to play someone he struggles to be in real life, a competent person, someone others can admire. He has played for years & is actually the one who introduced me to tabletop. But he is disruptive. He is a headache sometimes. He may be a problem player & we've had to talk to him from time to time, but he is NOT "Toxic"
He sounds great and I am glad you guys can enjoy the hobby together. That said, I don't think anyone is implying that your brother is toxic.

[Athan Artilliam]

I guess you don't grok the use of blue text. :smallconfused: The rest of what you wrote there is hyperbole.

Here's a newflash for you: that stereotype didn't evolve ex nihilo. As a non basement dweller, it was hardly fair to the great majority of us who, by adapting it and being enthusiastic, grew the hobby from its early "what weird stuff do you people play at" phase into the modern day.

{Scrubbed}


.
I mean, slippery slope arguments are defined as logical fallacies. What "people are being vilified"? The thread purpose is to discuss methods of addressing behavior that endangers games. Asking for clarification is always reasonable, implying that the use of a term is vilification of the kind that spawns mob rule and fascism is not.


He sounds great and I am glad you guys can enjoy the hobby together. That said, I don't think anyone is implying that your brother is toxic.
{Scrubbed}

[MornShine]

As far as I can tell, this is a wording issue.

Everyone's in agreement about the following major points (the minor points are my own elaboration):



Sometimes, there are people whose behaviors are making the rest of the table feel uncomfortable or unsafe, or just prevent them from having fun.

Corollary: Sometimes, the rest of the table is fine with behaviors that might seem disruptive to an observer.






In many circumstances, it's possible to talk to the player and change their expectations of accepted behavior (or even just bring it to their attention).

For example, the shy girl Athan Artilliam mentioned earlier-- it's not malicious and it's not ingrained, it's just a mismatch of what the table agrees the game is about. That's easily cleared up with a few words.
I have a tendency to usurp the spotlight, and while it's still there, bringing it to my attention two years ago fixed 80% of the problem.





In some circumstances, the player will not change their behavior.

In this case, there is only one option: someone has to leave the table. Irreconcilable differences.
Or, if the differences aren't irreconcilable, then the rest of the table has to change their expectations.






In some circumstances, the player cannot change their behavior, out of habit or whatever else.

In this case, it's best to give the player a handful of chances to try to change.
However, if they can't, we're back to irreconcilable differences. They cannot change, the table is unwilling to change, and someone leaves to find a new group.




I got kicked out of a group once. My friend was running a campaign for their friends, who were all new to the hobby. I was constantly getting impatient and reminding people of the rules. I was reminded twice in a single session, and I quietly left after that session-- I wasn't having fun, they weren't having fun, and they were the majority. It sucked, but it was the best outcome in those circumstances.

Had it been the other way around, with one newbie at table of experienced tables, many experienced players would probably hit the first bullet point-- it's not ideal, but the table would be fine with a newbie taking a while to learn the game, and no changes need be made.

[Burley]

Everyone's in agreement about the following major points (the minor points are my own elaboration):


I'm not in agreement, because the Major Point is: How do we help a person who is disruptive, offensive or socially combative be better? That's the point of the thread and a response that implies that people are beyond help is unhelpful to this conversation. (Not you, specifically, MornShine. Just... y'know, using your quote.)

And, I think what I've gathered is: This isn't the place for this conversation. The vibe I'm getting is "Game first, people second," and honesty and compassion give way to arguments, which is indicative of the behavior of which I'm seeking remedy. To put a fine point on it: We obviously can't have a conversation about anti-social behavior without piecemeal, passive-aggressive multi-quote forum debate. (And, referencing cultural appropriation isn't a joke, it just seems like one because you're punching down on people whose culture gets appropriated. But, there's no punch line, just a punch.)
I'll keep my eye on the thread, out of curiosity, but I'm done trying to get conversation where I want it to go, because it just might be impossible to get there.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not in agreement, because the Major Point is: How do we help a person who is disruptive, offensive or socially combative be better? That's the point of the thread and a response that implies that people are beyond help is unhelpful to this conversation.

It's lile saying that 'if X part is broken, it will not be possible to repair the computer' is unhelpful in a conversation about repairing computers.

Some people are beyond the help a gaming group can provide, and it needs to be acknowledged.

Otherwise you're just insisting that we are wrong to not accept abusive jerks at our tables no matter how many times they have proven themselves to be abusive.

If Person A is toxic and refuses to change but Person B insists that the table has to tolerate Person A because no one is beyond help, no matter how much the other people are hurt, then there is two toxic people at the table.

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} If it weren't for people buying and playing the games that the originators came up with, the hobby itself would not exist. We'd not be having this discussion. Someone (or a bunch of someones) had to be early adapters. (I suggest you read Peterson's latest book, Game Wizards. Interesting research on how much of a wing and a prayer the hobby's origins were built on).

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} {Scrubbed}

[Athan Artilliam]

If it weren't for people buying and playing the games that the originators came up with, the hobby itself would not exist. We'd not be having this discussion. Someone (or a bunch of someones) had to be early adapters. (I suggest you read Peterson's latest book, Game Wizards. Interesting research on how much of a wing and a prayer the hobby's origins were built on).

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.

You can actually enjoy a hobby & not spend any real money. Consumer culture might tell you otherwise, but all the hobby really requires is dice & paper. Creative people develop the hobby, creative people make actual content. {Scrubbed}

[Cygnia]

It's lile saying that 'if X part is broken, it will not be possible to repair the computer' is unhelpful in a conversation about repairing computers.

Some people are beyond the help a gaming group can provide, and it needs to be acknowledged.

Otherwise you're just insisting that we are wrong to not accept abusive jerks at our tables no matter how many times they have proven themselves to be abusive.

If Person A is toxic and refuses to change but Person B insists that the table has to tolerate Person A because no one is beyond help, no matter how much the other people are hurt, then there is two toxic people at the table.

Exactly.

I didn't sign on to be someone's therapist at the table (and they certainly didn't sign on to be mine!). Most of the time I'm gaming online -- with people I don't know. I need to do what I can to protect myself. And if that means it's better for me to leave I do it.

I've tried to talk, to help. And I've been made to feel like the bad guy because how dare I have a problem with Person A's constant rape jokes and no one else wants to say anything because they don't want to ever make waves.

So no, it's not my responsibility to "help and understand" people when they don't want to be helped and instead take that opportunity to gaslight and attack me even more.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can actually enjoy a hobby & not spend any real money. Consumer culture might tell you otherwise, but all the hobby really requires is dice & paper. Creative people develop the hobby, creative people make actual content. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} {Scrubbed}

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: everyone please dial down the hostility. If you don't like what someone is saying, or the position they're taking, or the conversation, it takes exactly zero effort to just not post.

[Burley]

Unoriginal and Cygnia, I know that you didn't sign on to be therapists. But, in posting in this thread, you did sign on to have a conversation about how we can help people. Not a conversation about how we can't.

I never meant to imply that you were wrong, only that I was looking for a specific conversation and we just weren't getting there. I was trying to course correct, not content correct, and I'm certainly not defending the offensive actions of people, real or imagined, at the game table.

[KorvinStarmast]

In my experience one way to detoxify a table is to identify and quantify exactly the toxic behaviors that you wish to see removed, then convince at least half of the table (which must include the DM) to outright ban this behavior with a zero tolerance.
While that social contract building can be formal or informal, sometimes the behavior that manifests as toxic arises after play has begun and was unexpected in the early goings.

To try and get back to Burley's theme, one way to detoxify that situation is to have another Session 0. :smallsmile: You could say that the aim of this would be to revise, or add an addendum to, the social contract. And a related way to identify that behavior is the old "after session debrief" tool:

What went well?
What didn't?
What did you like?
What didn't you like?
Any issues you want to bring up?


A lot of GMs in a lot of games use this tool to good effect.

Sometimes it takes a tool like that to even learn that there is a problem or a potential one.

[Unoriginal]

Unoriginal and Cygnia, I know that you didn't sign on to be therapists. But, in posting in this thread, you did sign on to have a conversation about how we can help people. Not a conversation about how we can't.

I never meant to imply that you were wrong, only that I was looking for a specific conversation and we just weren't getting there. I was trying to course correct, not content correct, and I'm certainly not defending the offensive actions of people, real or imagined, at the game table.

I get that, but my point is that a fundamental part of knowing how to help people is knowing when you can't help someone.

Once again, I'm not saying "don't help people" or "don't give a chance to people". I'm saying that we must acknowledge how trying to help toxic people can become toxic behavior too if it's done unconditionally.

I'll stop replying to this thread, though, and I sincerely hope the rest of the conversation will go as you want it to go, Burley.



To try and get back to Burley's theme, one way to detoxify that situation is to have another Session 0. :smallsmile: You could say that the aim of this would be to revise, or add an addendum to, the social contract.

Certainly. People should never be afraid to go "alright folks, this doesn't work out, we need adjustments." Be it for how people act to game rules.

[Athan Artilliam]

Unoriginal and Cygnia, I know that you didn't sign on to be therapists. But, in posting in this thread, you did sign on to have a conversation about how we can help people. Not a conversation about how we can't.

I never meant to imply that you were wrong, only that I was looking for a specific conversation and we just weren't getting there. I was trying to course correct, not content correct, and I'm certainly not defending the offensive actions of people, real or imagined, at the game table.

I'm gonna apologize to you Burley, I'm sorry I was drawn off topic by others. I'll follow the mods recommendation & just refuse to engage from now on in the thread.

My original point was that I feel like there is a difference between an effectively irredeemable person (Toxic) & a problematic or disruptive person. I'm always going to be okay with deescalating, amending, etc a difficult or disruptive person, but a Toxic person needs to be abandoned.

As for methods of deescalation. Sometimes it's best to just remind people that they are playing "real" people in a "real" world & acting like it's a video game isnt the best course if action

[Keravath]

I don't like it. At all. These are three UNHELPFUL non-solution scenarios.

How do you call a player out? Has it ever actually helped? If you have a success, please share. Your post has no specifics and your generalities exemplify the exact attitude I'm trying to avoid in this discussion and at the table.


Is this really such a foreign concept? How do we help a person be better? How do we encourage teamwork? We are members of a community of outliers seeking inclusivity. Let's stop this black-or-white, stay-or-go nonsense that is antithetic to the purpose of our hobby: bringing a group of people together to play a cooperative game.

I'm not sure I understand. If a person doesn't know they have a problem (or other people perceive a problem) they really have little hope of fixing it on their own since most people do not appear to be that aware.

I've watched players try to model how they think the game should be played without making an explicit comment but "toxic" players, in my experience, have never taken the hint. They don't model their behavior on others, they usually do their own thing. Luckily, I haven't met that many "toxic" folks.

I've watched DMs try to encourage teamwork (and done it myself) by strictly asking folks in order what they want to do in a situation. Many folks don't enjoy the structured interaction but if you want to shut down someone who is being arrogant, over-bearing, domineering, trying to force their ideas, or otherwise dominate the group then one of the few ways to combat it without singling them out is to force equality of participation. Many of the folks with this sort of personality don't realize how "toxic" that behavior can be, especially in a group with some less dominant personalities.

Also, I don't consider the character that runs ahead triggering encounters to be "toxic" play. It doesn't typically go over well with the group but depending on the character, the character will either learn it is a bad idea or the character will die (unless the DM is catering to their decisions).

However, if the player is doing it "because that is what their character would do" then the player needs to have the idea of an adventuring party explained to them. The players have a responsibility to play a character that WOULD be part of an adventuring group. Otherwise, without some backstory reasons, the characters would never get together and would never stay together. This is similar to the concept of teamwork but not identical. Characters don't always need to work together or do what the party wishes but their choices need to be consistent with the fact that the characters ARE working together as part of a team to reach certain goals or objectives. (This should be explained in session 0).

Perhaps a further definition of "toxic" play is required?
- personality issues leading one player to demand a disproportionate amount of DM involvement
- personality issues leading to one player negatively impacting the ability of other players to participate
- personality issues on the DM side leading to a significant removal of player agency
- personality issues leading to a player trying to tell other players exactly what they should do to "best solve the problem"
- player beliefs that run counter to the beliefs of others at the table and which they bring into play (political, religious, racist, misogynistic, believing role playing rape or torture is ok etc)

Almost all of the real "toxic" play I have seen comes down to personality or people issues.

A player who is playing their character (and honestly trying to be in character) in an irritating way, may be irritating but not "toxic" and in most cases a brief chat with the player explaining the problem will either correct the issue or have the player roll up a different character. This type of irritation is caused by character activities or attitudes that impact the activities of the other characters. (rather than "toxic" issues where the decisions and behavior of the player (sometimes expressed in the role play of the character) impact the other players and DM.

In terms of assisting players with any of the many personality issues that can be a problem, bringing it to their attention in a gentle, polite and respectful manner (i.e. calling it out) and sometimes using peer pressure of the group to reinforce it may be the one of the few ways to get these folks to change how they choose to behave in the game since modeling behavior rarely works in my experience.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes it's best to just remind people that they are playing "real" people in a "real" world & acting like it's a video game isnt the best course if action Tend to agree (particularly with your last bit) but (experience) when raising this point I have often discovered (sometimes by surprise) that the amount of immersion, or the degree of immersion, that a given player prefers is wildly variable.
While I prefer that approach to the game (we are playing real people in a real world) and I like a healthy dose of immersion, plenty of players don't. Finding the common ground there on preference takes some work, IME, but doing that work will usually prevent friction.

I have also found that you can't force it (immersion) you can only encourage it. Trying to force it usually ends badly.

[Easy e]

This thread is a lot to unpack, I am not a therapist at all; but a huge part of my job is getting people to want to change their behaviors. I can tell you from hard won experience you can not force anyone to do anything, you can only make them earnestly want to change.

The 101 book on the matter is Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". YOu can find a great 1-page summary here:

https://fs.blog/how-to-win-friends-and-influence-people/

However, there are two key points to understand about changing people's behaviors.

1. People only change if it helps them get what THEY want. They won't change for you, they change for themselves.

2. People will take the path of least resistance. If it is easier to not change than it is to change, they will not change. If it is easier to change than stay who they are, they will change.

The question you have to ask yourself when trying to help a person is if you know what they want, and if you are making it easier or harder to change?

Be advised, 99% of people spend 0 time thinking about their own behaviors, motivations, and needs. To help someone understand what they want is a long, long journey. Even getting to see and understand themselves takes long, long time. You must do this work before they can even see or comprehend what other people want. This is hard, but rewarding work, but I can understand why many people would never want to embark on such a path or challenge.

To change the world, you only need to change 1 person's world.

[da newt]

I've run into issues where I was the one taking things seriously - RPing as if my PC was a real person and this was their real life - the rest of the Players were much more interested in a cartoonish buddy romcom sort of a theme. My goal of realistic personal interactions and logical / rational decision making was taking away from the campaign. So when this was pointed out to me, I rolled up a new PC and decided to take everything much less seriously.

This is not to say that you are wrong, just to point out that sometimes the situation is the opposite.

I also completely agree that some folks are a lost cause and the best solution is to part ways, but I'd like to see continued discussion about good ways to address/improve things.

One stupid little thing that works way more than it should - if you call someone 'buddy,' 'brother,' 'my friend,' or something like that while providing constructive criticism people tend to be much more open and less defensive. It's cheesy but often effective.

Also, if you can phrase things like a simple question / request it can help too. Sort of a 'can you do me a favor?' For example 'Hey, how about less F-bombs and allusions to BDSM, my kids can hear you, OK?"

[da newt]

Athan - I believe what Korvin was alluding to is that on this forum BLUE text denotes sarcasm. I think his reference to Vin Diesel was about him doing one of the celebrity DnD bits and acting like a complete jerk - even TOXIC. You can find the video on youtube.

[Imbalance]

Toxic abatement is a process, and usually requires isolation to be conducted properly. Simply pointing out toxicity won't remedy it, and untrained people dealing with it can cause it to spread. It's best to have it removed by professionals.

What I read a lot of on these forums, though, are anecdotes that are less about outright harmful toxicity and more like bad allergic reactions. As a lifelong allergy sufferer, I know what steps to take to mitigate my symptoms, and weigh the value of that effort against that of experiences that might expose me to irritants. If it won't kill me, and I'll have fun, I bring my own tissue box. What I don't do is demand that there be no live flowers at the wedding.

In order to help people, be kind, lead by example, and be prepared to forgive repeatedly. Remember that even the professionals have to protect themselves before they can render harmful conditions safe for the rest of us, and that even something considered non-toxic can give certain individuals a rash.

[Burley]

One stupid little thing that works way more than it should - if you call someone 'buddy,' 'brother,' 'my friend,' or something like that while providing constructive criticism people tend to be much more open and less defensive. It's cheesy but often effective.

Also, if you can phrase things like a simple question / request it can help too. Sort of a 'can you do me a favor?' For example 'Hey, how about less F-bombs and allusions to BDSM, my kids can hear you, OK?"

I wouldn't call it stupid, at all, my dude. Terms of endearment, if genuine, are, well, endearing. I save "brother" for my brothers (really close friends that I consider family), but referring to people as a friend gets that idea in their head.

I work with middle schoolers and I get along great with kids that may be considered "problems" by other teachers, and it starts with me letting them know, immediately, that we're cool. I say "my dude," "dog," "gir" and other colloquial terms to that effect, which also covers up how bad I am at remembering names. :smalltongue:

[Easy e]

Here is Dale Carnegie in summary, since I know many folks will be reluctant to follow the link:

Techniques in Handling People

Don’t criticize, condemn or complain.
Give honest and sincere appreciation.
Arouse in the other person an eager want.



Six ways to Make People Like You

Become genuinely interested in other people.
Smile.
Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
Talk in terms of the other person’s interests.
Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely

.
Win People to Your Way of Thinking

The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, “You’re wrong.”
If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
Begin in a friendly way.
Get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately.
Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
Appeal to the nobler motives.
Dramatize your ideas.
Throw down a challenge.


Be a Leader: How to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing Resentment

Begin with praise and honest appreciation.
Call attention to people’s mistakes indirectly.
Talk about your own mistakes before criticizing the other person.
Ask questions instead of giving direct orders.
Let the other person save face.
Praise the slightest improvement and praise every improvement. Be “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise.”
Give the other person a fine reputation to live up to.
Use encouragement. Make the fault seem easy to correct.
Make the other person happy about doing the thing you suggest.



There is no need for us to re-invent the wheel on this topic.......

[Athan Artilliam]

Athan - I believe what Korvin was alluding to is that on this forum BLUE text denotes sarcasm. I think his reference to Vin Diesel was about him doing one of the celebrity DnD bits and acting like a complete jerk - even TOXIC. You can find the video on youtube.

I know that blue text means sarcasm. That's why I used blue text too. I took umbridge against a certain mentality & mindset, especially to those who are more recent in the hobby, like those brought in by celebrity, {Scrubbed}

[da newt]

Easy - all good stuff and effective (obviously created by someone who understands common human nature), but it also 'feels' manipulative to me, less than sincere or honest for some of those. It reads like it really is more "how to be a great used car salesman" and less "how to be a true friend" - but I haven't read the book.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Oh, how I wish some players in my tables past had said during session zero, "I intend to use everyone as a therapy goup to work on my own issues."
Didn't happen.

How can a DM help a person whose behaviors are counterproductive (or whatever toxic means)? I'm a behaviorist, and I believe what you punish you get less of, what you reward you get more of, and everyone gets to make a decision. This is how I analyze pretty much every interpersonal thing in my life. I apply this approach to every dysfunctional human centric system I see. Someone (Tom Northup) said, “All organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they are now getting. If we want different results, we must change the way we do things.”

If your table is "toxic," you as the DM need to try and identify what is rewarding the undesired behavior or punishing the desired behavior and change it if you can. If the problem is internal to the person who is "toxic," it may be beyond your reach.

But it's not beyond the "toxic" person. Pointing out how their behavior affects your fun and the fun of everyone at table is a good way to approach they person. There's even a outline of how to say it called "Give 'em Five." https://www.givemfive.com/give-em-five/ Yes, I'm a teacher, but replace student with player and it works just as well.

Support
– Use supportive statements that connect to your relationship with the student or identify a strength that she possesses. "I appreciate your enthusiasm for the game and you making the time to meet and play every session."
Expectation
– Let the student know the expectation you have for him in the class. "Our objective here is for everyone to have fun, right?"
Breakdown
– Communicate where you see the expectation breaking down or failing to be met. "I have to tell you, when you do (toxic behavior), it makes me feel uncomfortable and I can see/ I've been told that it makes others feel the same."
Benefit
– Tell the student how meeting the expectation benefits her. "If you could avoid doing (toxic behavior), it would help all of us have more fun, and we will be able to continue with all of us at this table."
Closure
– Determine whether the situation has been resolved or whether the conversation is at a place where you can feel comfortable moving on. "..."

[Easy e]

Easy - all good stuff and effective (obviously created by someone who understands common human nature), but it also 'feels' manipulative to me, less than sincere or honest for some of those. It reads like it really is more "how to be a great used car salesman" and less "how to be a true friend" - but I haven't read the book.

Sure, because that is how it has been used a lot, and often times very unsuccessfully. It is hard to Used car salesman these parts: Genuine, Sincere, Honest, etc. The basic, fundamental step to do this right is a genuine, real desire to help the other person. It is not about getting what you want, it is about helping them.

From my understanding, many of the players at a table may not actually BE friends. They are fellow players. This makes things more difficult, as the basic understanding of trust and reciprocity have not been established. If you want to drive change in someone's behavior, you have to actually care about that person first. Therefore, this "detoxifying" step is much harder to do in a group of players that do not have a level of friendship first, but it is not impossible. I can see why folks would want to "Nope" out of that!

I just think of Eisenhower's famous quote:
"Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because they want to do it."


Edit:

I'm a behaviorist, and I believe what you punish you get less of, what you reward you get more of, and everyone gets to make a decision. This is how I analyze pretty much every interpersonal thing in my life. I apply this approach to every dysfunctional human centric system I see. Someone (Tom Northup) said, “All organizations are perfectly designed to get the results they are now getting. If we want different results, we must change the way we do things.”

Fantastic post on the subject!

[Christew]

Easy - all good stuff and effective (obviously created by someone who understands common human nature), but it also 'feels' manipulative to me, less than sincere or honest for some of those. It reads like it really is more "how to be a great used car salesman" and less "how to be a true friend" - but I haven't read the book.
Manipulative is the principal critique of Dale Carnegie's work. There is some sensible stuff in there, but it can also be a handbook to pretty toxic behavior in itself (Charles Manson is a famous adherent, for example).

[KorvinStarmast]

Easy - all good stuff and effective (obviously created by someone who understands common human nature), but it also 'feels' manipulative to me, less than sincere or honest for some of those. It reads like it really is more "how to be a great used car salesman" and less "how to be a true friend" - but I haven't read the book. I read the book in the 80's, took the course (effective public speakin + other stuff, one of many Carnegie courses) in the late 00's. Some of it's good advice on how to speak effectively to others, some of it comes off as "faking sincerity" as an approach. A mixed bag, some good some bad. Worth a look.

The basic, fundamental step to do this right is a genuine, real desire to help the other person. It is not about getting what you want, it is about helping them. At least in terms of Burley's goals in starting this thread, yes.

From my understanding, many of the players at a table may not actually BE friends. They are fellow players. Who may also become friends through this shared experience, if the table is healthy.

I just think of Eisenhower's famous quote:
"Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because they want to do it." Yep, I think the modern term used a lot in RPG circles, that is related to this, is "buy in". :smallsmile:

Manipulative is the principal critique of Dale Carnegie's work. There is some sensible stuff in there, but it can also be a handbook to pretty toxic behavior in itself (Charles Manson is a famous adherent, for example). Yep. A mixed bag.

[Easy e]

Isn't all behavior change in essence manipulation? :)

[Xervous]

Isn't all behavior change in essence manipulation? :)

I was going to comment similarly but manipulation has a negative denotation when it comes to people.

[KorvinStarmast]

Isn't all behavior change in essence manipulation? :) Not all. If you can inform / encourage behavior change by setting a good example (yes, it can be done) that's not manipulation. :smallwink: (Yeah, I know that you used blue text, but I've run into some difficulty on the distinctions between influence and manipulation in conversation a lot in the past decade ... didn't used to have this problem).

[MadBear]

I'd love to have a discussion on how we can help our toxic peers get to where we are. Who has a success story? Who is a success story? Let's try really hard to keep this thread honest and compassionate, please.


Kick them from the table
DM talks to them and kicks them from the table
Leave the group so you don't have to deal with it



I think what could be helpful to this conversation would be you defining a few of the different behaviors that are being labeled toxic. A big reason you're not seeing the engagement that you'd like, is simply that toxic can include so many things that aren't worth fixing at a D&D table.

A more specific list could also help in directing the conversation. Because how I'd handle someone toxic entirely depends on the behavior.

Someone who repeatedly forgets to bathe is going to warrant a different solution from someone who plays a horny bard, which itself will warrant a different response from someone telling sexual assault jokes.

[Athan Artilliam]

Isn't all behavior change in essence manipulation? :)

Yes. Just like the act of breathing is technically selfish given that entropy exists. Even setting a possitive example, like being a good role model is manipulation. Taking ANY action with the idea to change people is manipulation. You just have to hope you cause as little harm as possible to justify your actions.