Finding the platonic ideal of a toxic D&D group [It's for a fic]

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, I had a random idea for a fanfic. (A Parahumans fanfic, in case that means anything to you.) Part of the premise is that the main characters were in this horribly toxic TTRPG group; multiple toxic players, an DM who enables them because they're all his friends, and some other players who feel obligated to stick with the game for one reason or another. (The group falling apart is the inciting incident.)

For the premise to work properly, it can't just be an ordinarily toxic D&D group. It needs to be something extraordinary, a perfect storm of problems, the kind of thing that people on /r/rpghorrorstories would accuse you of making up. But I don't want it to be bad in just one way that's cranked up to 11; that would be boring, absurd, and (depending on the type of toxic behavior being exaggerated) probably something I'm not comfortable writing.

The thing is, I'm lucky enough to not have much experience with toxic players. I've met one, and he was mostly bad for reasons unrelated to the game. So I would mostly build this premise out of the sorts of archetypes I've seen on places like /r/rpghorrorstories...if I spent enough time in such places to pick up more than a couple of vague archetypes of toxic players. I don't want all the toxic players to be varying shades of self-centered *******s with protagonist syndrome and/or misogynistic creeps; a toxic group of 2-4 Gastons and their victims is bad, but not bad in an interesting way.

So I'm asking anyone more familiar with ways gaming groups can go bad to talk about the kinds of garbage players that make that happen. I appreciate any input!

[Anymage]

Does it have to be a TTRPG group? LARPs have a lot more room to let toxic personalities run wild. Part of that does come from the number of people involved, which might or might not be relevant if some background characters were also around as the group blew up.

If you do want to stick with a TTRPG, you don't need to pile too many bad traits into one person to make the thing dysfunctional. @Talakeal's group horror stories have one player who's a bully who will make a big stink if anything is ruled against him, and another player who casually cheats and then acts deeply offended/victimized if a situation prevents her from rolling out of other people's sight. You could include someone with no sense of propriety who overshares about their sex life without making them a letch who tries hitting on other players in the group. A light sprinkling of toxic traits can poison a group more effectively than doubling down on making everybody obnoxious.

[Talakeal]

@Talakeal's group horror stories have one player who's a bully who will make a big stink if anything is ruled against him, and another player who casually cheats and then acts deeply offended/victimized if a situation prevents her from rolling out of other people's sight.

LOL. I was just about to suggest that the OP could mine some of my threads for ideas. I really should collect all of my horror stories and start a blog.

[Kane0]

Picking on Talakeal's group aside, you could take the 5-man band trope and toxify them.

The leader: must be centre of attention, cannot be wrong, cannot take anything seriously
The foil: massive victim complex, no sense of humor, constantly instigating
The smart one: extreme rules lawyer, analysis paralysis, disregards non-tactical concerns
The tough one: total tunnel vision, hyper murder-hobo, disconnected when isnt attacking or being attacked
The feely one: actor not gamer, completely rules-illiterate, insists on immersion to the detriment of all else

[Vahnavoi]

There are a lot more ways for a group to be dysfunctional than functional, so there isn't such thing as "the" platonic ideal. But it's easy to give a list of common traits that might cause dysfunction and then pile them up as you'd like:

1) Sibling rivalry: some or all of the members are siblings, with either the older siblings cruelly dominating their juniors, or the juniors repeatedly bullying the seniors on the premise that their parents will shield them from consequence.

2) Friendships past their sell-by date: this group formed when all members were young. As they've matured, they've all grown increasingly different, but keep getting together out of misplaced sense of loyalty.

3) They were all unpopular: the group formed from people who got rejected everywhere else. This is (perhaps their sole) common ground and core of their identity. Members either can't imagine moving to a new social circle ("they all hate us") or would see any attempt to do so as "selling out" or betraying their group ("oh, look who is one of the cool kids now".)

4) Internalized negative stereotypes of their hobby: they will talk of hobbyists as if they're perverted misogynist manchildren living in their mothers' basements, even if none of them and no hobbyists they actually know fit the profile. They will unironically identify as "nerds" or "geeks" but are still ashamed of it and deep down agree with any negative weighing on such words.

5) Deep suspicion of clubs and conventions: "tabletop gaming is for friends, right? Who would ever voluntarily play with (*gasp*) stangers? There must be obviously something wrong with those people! They must be the worst kind of social rejects, otherwise they'd be playing with their childhood friends, like us!" (Bonus irony points if group members vocalize this belief despite falling afoul of all four previous points.)

6) They don't actually like roleplaying, it's just the sole thing they can all do: either they were pushed into the hobby by parents (goes together with first point), it's the sole remaining common interest after life has caused them to drift apart (goes together with second point) or they simply didn't have the chops for anything else (goes together with third point).

7) Faux-collectivism but selfish personalities: these people parrot statements such as "roleplaying is a co-operative hobby", that there's "no I in Team" and that "the party comes first", but none of them genuinely see past their own nose. All of them are inclined to act on their individual interests, but have learned that they can't actually express this with any degree of honesty. As a result, all individual desires have to be veiled in rhetoric about "good of the party", "common interest", etc., to the degree of pretending there is a consensus of something no-one really wants just because no-one wants to get shouted at (see: Abilene paradox and other dysfunctions of consensus decision making.)

8) The referee is a doormat: the one person meant to serve as authority for the game and responsible for putting their foot down when problems arise, is a chronic people-pleaser, has intellectual and emotional issues actually being any sort of authority, and might not even want to be a referee, they just couldn't say "no" when other people pushed them in the position. More assertive players regularly walk over them and use them as rubber stamp for game directions they don't really want.

9) The most charismatic players wants no responsibility for anything: there's one player who others naturally look up to, whether due to age, experience or physical attraction. But they don't actually want to serve as referee or even as leader to other players, opting to toss the ball to less-liked members. They could solve many social problems in the group if they just stepped up, but they don't want that much spotlight.

10) Clash of egos: alternatively, everyone in the group is equals, but in the worst way possible: everyone has a strong vision, willingness to lobby for it and stubborness to do so even against the majority. Smallest things turn to heated arguments where no quarter is asked and none is given. An outside observer would be confused why they don't go their separate ways and found their own groups: for possible explanations, see points three, four and five especially.

11) Ulterior motives abound: the people aren't there to play the game. One is there because they're horny for another player (bonus points if it's one-sided, extra bonus for if that player crosses to outright harassment, super double bonus if the form of attraction is societally unacceptable), second is there just please their significant other despite disliking the activity (bonus points if the SO is clueless of this, extra bonus if they do know but think their partner is still somehow obligated to be there), third is there just for free food and lodging (bonus if this is due to serious problems at home, extra bonus if the other players could do something about it if the player would just come clean, super extra mega points if the other players know but don't want to talk about it because it would make them uncomfortable), fourth is literally using the game as cover for something illegal (scamming money off the other players, stealing things during game sessions, going through someone's private correspondence etc.) . In a sane world, exposing even one player's gig would cause this group to fall apart, but some greater force or dysfunction is keeping that from happening, such as:

12) Substance abuse or other addiction: theoretically, people could get addicted to a roleplaying game on itself (similar to gambling or video game addiction), I just don't know of documented cases of this happening. More realistically, the roleplaying is a sideshow to alcohol or drugs, and the dysfunctions listed in point eleven above stem from sad facts of this situation. But the players themselves might be in deep denial about it.

13) The players are incarcerated: might be the result or root cause of several points above. The point isn't to dunk on inmates, sometimes inmates run functional hobby groups, sometimes they do not; the important point is that the players are physically confined and unable to get rid of each other. Similar conditions can arise among children or teenagers in boarding schools or insular religious communities.

14) They're all kids: perhaps the most common example of a dysfunctional group is one where the players just haven't had the time to learn how to be functional yet. They'll be fine in five or ten years, once they've matured a bit and can look at what they're doing with benefit of hindsight, but right now they're going through the motions by trial and error.

15) They were all kids and learned the wrong lesson: goes together with second and perhaps the third point: their entire style of gaming is based on what did or didn't work when they were literally ten and they haven't re-evaluated it since. They're all looking at what they're doing with thick glasses of escapist nostalgia, either unable or unwilling to think that they can do things differently. Bonus points if this extends to their social relationship in general (everyone regresses to social roles they had in grade / highschool, no matter how little sense it makes).

[KorvinStarmast]

If you do want to stick with a TTRPG, you don't need to pile too many bad traits into one person to make the thing dysfunctional. @Talakeal's group horror stories have one player who's a bully who will make a big stink if anything is ruled against him, and another player who casually cheats and then acts deeply offended/victimized if a situation prevents her from rolling out of other people's sight. You could include someone with no sense of propriety who overshares about their sex life without making them a letch who tries hitting on other players in the group. A light sprinkling of toxic traits can poison a group more effectively than doubling down on making everybody obnoxious. I'll take this idea and riff off of it:
Establish that there are five characters in the story.
Each one embodies a single one of the Five Geek Social Fallacies (https://pkeros.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/on-the-five-geek-social-fallacies-part-i/) but is otherwise not a caricature of a geek/nerd/gamer.
Add a sixth character with whom they all interact at various times a places.

[Ionathus]

The thing that makes for a truly great rpghorrorstory (and thus perfect blueprint for your group) is plausible deniability. The idea that it's not that bad, I'm still having fun I think, why rock the boat? My favorite (least favorite? It's a horror story sub after all) stories always seem to include me muttering to myself "why the hell are you still in this game, OP???"

Humans are bizarre in their tolerance for pain, whether social or physical, and some will just grit their teeth through some truly nightmarish scenarios because they've convinced themselves it's still "worth it." Use this as a guiding principle in your story: whichever sympathetic character is meant to interact with this group, have them slowly recognize how ridiculous the group is and have them make justifications for it all the way up to the breaking point.

[LibraryOgre]

The DM is in a relationship with one player, and openly flirting with another.

The person the DM is flirting with is flirting back, and they are getting openly favorable treatment. The DM's S.O. is BIG MAD about this, but passive-aggressively. The SO of the person flirting with the DM is also upset, and just being a jerk about everything. This person might be the requisite "brooding loner" player, who wants the story to be about them.

Someone in the group is an open sleaze... while the DM is being very flirty, this is the guy whose name is "Big ****" and is always asking about having sex with PCs and NPCs.

One person is obviously about "winning" the game, and is a combination of munchkin/cheater.

One person (might be someone above; IME, it was the open sleaze) is playing "uncomfortably evil"... while the brooding loner wants to look like a cool, mysterious, anti-hero, the uncomfortably evil guy is also talking about slavery, takes trophies from dead people (body parts, bodily fluids... I've seen ****).

[Eldan]

Okay,so, this is a short one, and it happened to a colleague of mine, not myself, but it's just amazingly petty. Guy wanted to play D&D for years, but I never had space in my group, or we didn't play D&D, but he found a group online and was super excited to go. To make a good impression at his first game, he baked a cake and brought it along with him.

About three hours later, he called me, sounding almost in tears. Apparently, the DM had scoffed at him when he saw the cake and said something like "We don't eat during play time, it distracts people from the seriousness of the game." He then took the whole cake back him with him again.

Told the guy to never talk to those people again and instead finally got a few people together to run a few one-shots for him.


Edit: my brother volunteers the story of the party who went on an overland trek, told the DM they were buying enough food and supplies, then the DM laughed at them because they didn't specify "preserved food" or "travelling rations" so the food spoiled after two days and they were starving for the rest of the session.

[gbaji]

About three hours later, he called me, sounding almost in tears. Apparently, the DM had scoffed at him when he saw the cake and said something like "We don't eat during play time, it distracts people from the seriousness of the game." He then took the whole cake back him with him again.

I'd be all like "Ok. Let's test that theory!", and proceed to slice the cake, waft it in front of the other players, and basically see how much more of a distraction "cake we are not allowed to eat" is. But that's just me. I'm admittedly evil sometimes.

Um... But on the more serious side. A general rule of thumb for any social situation where you are guest. Always ask the host before bringing any kind of food/drink/whatever. Not just about gaming, but a good rule to follow in general. Even when someone isn't so uptight that they can't allow people to eat during play (seriously? No game snacks?), sometimes *what* people bring (or think is reasonable to bring) can be surprising. Had someone literally bring an unassembled salad for the group. Not a "bag of salad I'm putting in a bowl", just "ingredients I bought at the store and will now use your counter space, and knives, and whatnot to make a salad with". Oh. And didn't bring a salad bowl, or anything to serve it on. Or anything to eat it with. At least they brought pre-made dressing.

So.... Now I'm opening up my kitchen to someone to make their salad (Heh, I'm not opposed to salad, but still). And providing a serving bowl. And serving utensils, and eating utensils, and I guess I get to clean all of that stuff afterwards? Hmm....

Yeah. Talk to the host first. It's just a good idea.

[KorvinStarmast]

Edit: my brother volunteers the story of the party who went on an overland trek, told the DM they were buying enough food and supplies, then the DM laughed at them because they didn't specify "preserved food" or "travelling rations" so the food spoiled after two days and they were starving for the rest of the session. Please don't let Pex read that one ... oops, probably too late. :smalleek:

Always ask the host before bringing any kind of food/drink/whatever. Not just about gaming, but a good rule to follow in general. This is very good advice. Don't ask me how I know this.

[Velaryon]

The leader: must be centre of attention, cannot be wrong, cannot take anything seriously
The foil: massive victim complex, no sense of humor, constantly instigating
The smart one: extreme rules lawyer, analysis paralysis, disregards non-tactical concerns
The tough one: total tunnel vision, hyper murder-hobo, disconnected when isnt attacking or being attacked
The feely one: actor not gamer, completely rules-illiterate, insists on immersion to the detriment of all else

Can we make some room for the "can't be bothered" one? The one who doesn't pay attention during combat, can't be bothered to learn how their abilities work, half the time cancels on short notice or simply no shows, yet the DM refuses to kick out because they're really good friends or possibly romantic partners?

[Buufreak]

LOL. I was just about to suggest that the OP could mine some of my threads for ideas. I really should collect all of my horror stories and start a blog.

I will read the hell out of this blog. Something about the nightmare scenarios always catches my attention.

[KorvinStarmast]

Can we make some room for the "can't be bothered" one? The one who doesn't pay attention during combat, can't be bothered to learn how their abilities work, half the time cancels on short notice or simply no shows, yet the DM refuses to kick out because they're really good friends or possibly romantic partners? Describes about a third of the people I play with. Notable exception is the group I am in with PhoenixPhyre.

[RandomLunatic]

Whether or not they're true, it's tough to beat the AB3 Binder of Shame (http://albruno3.blogspot.com/p/the-binder-of-shame-rpg-rants.html) for concentrated toxicity. You've got

-The cheater

-The guy who treats roleplaying like Shakespearean theater.

-The pervert that hits on anything with boobs, in game or out.

-The hygienephobic ninja fetishist who managed to screw the pooch IRL.

-And the neo-nazi that pulled a shotgun on the rest of the group, again IRL.

And that's just some of the highlights!

[GreatWyrmGold]

Thanks for the suggestions, everyone!



LOL. I was just about to suggest that the OP could mine some of my threads for ideas. I really should collect all of my horror stories and start a blog.
If you start that blog soon, please let me know. You've started some horror story threads, but you've also started...a lot of ordinary threads.



Does it have to be a TTRPG group? LARPs have a lot more room to let toxic personalities run wild.
Maybe, but I have well over a decade of TTRPG experience and a few hours of LARP experience. I feel a lot more confident mixing ****ty people into the social dynamics of one than the other.




Establish that there are five characters in the story.
Each one embodies a single one of the Five Geek Social Fallacies (https://pkeros.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/on-the-five-geek-social-fallacies-part-i/) but is otherwise not a caricature of a geek/nerd/gamer.

That could maybe work if you were writing a story about why the Geek Social Fallacies were fallacious, and also if you could separate the five fallacies so completely and still demonstrate how they combine to be far worse than the sum of their parts. Aside from Friendship Before All, most of the fallacies are just weird quirks. Expecting friends to do everything together (for instance) is annoying, but on its own it doesn't do nearly as much damage as it can when mixed with the other four fallacies, and having one member who sees friendship as a transitive property and one who thinks friends should do everything together isn't disruptive in the way that one person thinking both can be.


I don't have anything specific to say about the other posts, but I do appreciate them.

[gatorized]

Don't forget the girl that hits on everything and everyone at the table, in game and out. :yuk:

[Phhase]

Okay,so, this is a short one, and it happened to a colleague of mine, not myself, but it's just amazingly petty. Guy wanted to play D&D for years, but I never had space in my group, or we didn't play D&D, but he found a group online and was super excited to go. To make a good impression at his first game, he baked a cake and brought it along with him.

About three hours later, he called me, sounding almost in tears. Apparently, the DM had scoffed at him when he saw the cake and said something like "We don't eat during play time, it distracts people from the seriousness of the game." He then took the whole cake back him with him again.

Told the guy to never talk to those people again and instead finally got a few people together to run a few one-shots for him.


Edit: my brother volunteers the story of the party who went on an overland trek, told the DM they were buying enough food and supplies, then the DM laughed at them because they didn't specify "preserved food" or "travelling rations" so the food spoiled after two days and they were starving for the rest of the session.

Holy crap, that would probably shake me too. What kind of absolutely joyless curmudgeon of a shriveled grognard is too good for cake? Like, come on.

In terms of stereotypes, don't forget the "Should've written a novel"-style DM who makes overtures to player freedom and choice, but in truth has a very specific way they want the story to play out and will try to "subtly" discourage anyone that strays.

[Talakeal]

I will read the hell out of this blog. Something about the nightmare scenarios always catches my attention.


If you start that blog soon, please let me know. You've started some horror story threads, but you've also started...a lot of ordinary threads.

Glad to know there is interest!

I also need someplace to post my campaign diaries as most forums aren't really set up for that format (and are losing communities to discord!) and have a few RPG articles / imponderables that I have always wanted to write.

It probably won't be soon, as I am just finishing up the artwork for Heart of Darkness and I just started playing World of Warcraft again, but I should have a lot more free time for projects like this once work slows down in October.

[Vahnavoi]

Don't forget the girl that hits on everything and everyone at the table, in game and out. :yuk:

That's a minor annoyance compared to most toxic behaviours, especially if it doesn't lead to any physical actions. Depending on game, it may really be significantly less distracting than other classic monomanic behaviours, such as picking a fight with everything, trying to loot everything or trying to steal from everyone.

[Eldan]

-And the neo-nazi that pulled a shotgun on the rest of the group, again IRL.


That reminds me of quite possibly the most horrifying "roleplaying" story on Reddit: a guy came out as gay and was soon after invited to a game by a mutual acquaintance. Where it turned out most of said acquaintances were neonazi types, didn't really know anything about roleplaying and most likely were planning to beat the guy up - or possibly worse - after he came to their house. He fled through the bathroom window and never saw his shoes or backpack again.

[Bohandas]

Here's something that happened at the house where my last group met:

"The toilet is broken but if you really have to go you can pee in the sink"

[MoiMagnus]

An important point in crafting the perfext toxic group is to have toxic reasons for those players to still be in the group. Here are a few examples.

Have the person owning the house/appartment where peoples plays be a player and not the GM, so that you can't kick them out without having to rethink the logistics. (Alternative : one player is only kept in the group because they are the "taxi" for the other players)

Have two players be in a hierarchical relation in the same company, so that there is always the threat of real-life consequences for in-game actions. (Alternative : have the child of the boss of another player be in the group)

Have one player engage in emotional blackmail. Have them make it clear to everyone how crappy their life is and how heartless the others are when they ruin the ambiance during the session because that's the only moment of their week where they get to have fun. Double down on how they couldn't imagine a life without those ttrpg sessions. Then, you can decline this emotional blackmail on various intake subjects (like the "unfair" death of their character).

[Eldan]

Also, don't forget to get politics into the game. (If you want that in your story. Understandable if you don't.)

Examples omitted because of forum rules, but nothing quite ruins the mood at the table like "Wow, this bad guy is just like [politician]."

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Talakeal
I really should collect all of my horror stories and start a blog.

Blog nothin’, you could write a book. True Tales of Horror from Beyond (the DM Screen).

Seriously. If Keith Ammann can do it, so can you.


Originally Posted by Velaryon
…half the time cancels on short notice or simply no shows….

Or, as I witnessed in one game, a player signs up for a group gaming on Saturday afternoons, without telling anyone that he always works on Saturday afternoons.

[Talakeal]

Blog nothin’, you could write a book. True Tales of Horror from Beyond (the DM Screen).

Seriously. If Keith Ammann can do it, so can you.

So, thinking about my blog, off the top of my head I think I have about 100 gaming stories. Not all are horror stories, some are just funny, but still... that's a lot. And I have yet to consult with my group or check my old threads.

But I was also thinking I also have so many stories about my crazy family, my friend Dave and tales of debauchery, and online interactions (mostly MMOs) I could probably write 3 or 4 books.

Ah well, best focus on a gaming blog for now.

[Quertus]

IMO, true art would involve crafting it such that each player's reasons for staying are different, For example, the Optimist just blindly believes that if the <Hater> is introduced to enough individuals they hate, then surely they will eventually, through the power of rainbows and unicorns, their hatred will go away. The Thief knows that the constant presence of hatred makes their actions easy to blame on others. The Coach feels that they are making real progress with one of the players (or the GM), so they're willing to put up with the pain in order to help their target.

Eh, I'm not saying this well. What I failed to construct was something where the different players aren't actually considering the same details in their evaluation of events. Because humans rarely do. Like, one could be evaluating things based on cost/benefit, and considers this hobby to have a lower cost (books & dice once, gas each session (or maybe it's within walking distance, or they even host it)), and therefore accepts that it might be lower quality than other uses of their time. One might look at it in terms of aspiring to do something (write, act, create an RPG of their own), and considers all the problems to arguably be a benefit to their own growth. But these two characters, if asked about the problems in the group, would list different things, maybe only sharing 1 or 2 items on their top 5 problems list, and some of these "problems" are what other players consider "the good part".

That's the kind of painstaking crafting of personalities and scenarios that I would consider a work of art worthy of consideration for being called an incarnation of the platonic ideal. Where even if the players agreed that they wanted things to change, the wouldn't be on the same page at all about how they want things to change.

But that's me. OP, what do you mean when you say you're looking for the platonic ideal?

[GeoffWatson]

There's some comics about toxic D&D groups that might give you some inspiration.
"Knights of the Dinner Table" and "Full Frontal Nerdity" are some I used to read regularly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, don't forget to get politics into the game. (If you want that in your story. Understandable if you don't.)

Examples omitted because of forum rules, but nothing quite ruins the mood at the table like "Wow, this bad guy is just like [politician]."

Yeah. Personally, I'm in a game where I had to bite my tongue pretty hard and consider the future of my involvement because of the casual way the majority were slandering people who share some of my beliefs.

[Bohandas]

Have three political characters. One who's hard right, one who's hard left, and one who's middle of the road but not in a good way, in that they support the most controversial and/or harebrained ideas from both sides of the aisle while at the same time finding fault with the few positions the hard left guy and hard right guy agree on

[Vahnavoi]

Bah. Outside forums such as this, discussion of politics is entirely normal part of adult life, and political commentary, caricatures and satire exceedingly common - even genre appropriate for several types of roleplaying games (Cyberpunk and Twilight, for example). Group inability to do this may indicate this but it's not the cause.

[gatorized]

That's a minor annoyance compared to most toxic behaviours, especially if it doesn't lead to any physical actions. Depending on game, it may really be significantly less distracting than other classic monomanic behaviours, such as picking a fight with everything, trying to loot everything or trying to steal from everyone.

It's killed more of my groups than all other toxic behaviors combined.

[Vahnavoi]

That's useless statement without knowing how many groups you've played in.

[gatorized]

That's useless statement without knowing how many groups you've played in.

Did the OP indicate any such requirement for suggestions?

[Anymage]

Multiple toxic political personalities would be tricky. First would come the question of how they managed to stay in a group and stay in communication without one either booting the other or leaving themselves. The second on a meta level would be that it would be hard to write a caricature of a far left/right political devotee without having it be read as the author making a claim about people who fall into that broader political camp.

People who make their whole personality about their political party are generally pushy and annoying. The same applies to religion, sides of the gender war, etc. It's just tricky to make that feel like a toxic gamer trait instead of a wider statement.

[Bohandas]

The second on a meta level would be that it would be hard to write a caricature of a far left/right political devotee without having it be read as the author making a claim about people who fall into that broader political camp.

This could be solved with a character who's middle of the road but in a controversial way. Like thay support both the controversial thing that the left says is an important right but the right disagrees with AND the other equally controversial thing that the right says is an important right but the left disagrees with

edit:
or they're against both of them

[gbaji]

Yeah. Personally, I'm in a game where I had to bite my tongue pretty hard and consider the future of my involvement because of the casual way the majority were slandering people who share some of my beliefs.

Been there. Experienced that. Have a guy at a regular game who, whenever he's upset about something, just yells out "F'ing <political party members>". Like. That's just his default curse. He's otherwise a great player, and nice guy. But yeah, it's quite awkward to me to hear that, since I"m a member of said political party, and he's basically suggesting that said members (including me) are to blame for all terrible evil things that happen in the world.


Have three political characters. One who's hard right, one who's hard left, and one who's middle of the road but not in a good way, in that they support the most controversial and/or harebrained ideas from both sides of the aisle while at the same time finding fault with the few positions the hard left guy and hard right guy agree on

Scary thing is that I know a guy who is basically the middle person. Call him "Conspiracy theory Joe". Like, the most insane thing you could think of, aligned at "them" (which, again, he's totally agnostic in terms of political direction), will come out of his brain. It would be far more amusing except that he honestly does seem to actually believe every single one of them. He's not someone I game with though.


I will also say that I've seen the whole "GM's girlfriend" thing. Rarely ends well. Well, honestly, romantic relationships and gaming just doesn't often mix across the board (though I have seen it work, like, once. so...).


Honestly though, I can usually deal with the drama stuff just fine. Seen a lot of it. Over time, you learn that it rarely directly affects the game, so my usual approach is to just ignore it and or give a generic "can we focus on the game" statement (avoids picking a "side", while hopefully derailing the drama/conflict). Players who insist on inserting their personal drama/politics/social-agenda into the actions by their characters in the game (which often contains none of the relevant things anyway), are often the hardest to deal with, since you can't actually just ignore or avoid it.

I suppose another type of toxic player is the overly competitive ones. These are the people who just have to "beat another player" at any cost. Even in what should be a cooperative roleplaying game. Note, I didn't say "win", because often in the process of making sure someone else fails, they cause some degree of failure to themselves. This is the player who will hold 18 cards in their hand in Cataan, risking losing them to the robber, just so they can play 5 roads and a settlement in one turn, on a crappy coastal spot (despite there being several better build locations closer), just so they "cut off" someone else's possible play advancement. They almost always lose, but almost always manage to take someone else down with them (I actually know a person that whenever I play Cataan or similar games with them, my entire starting build strategy is "don't start next to them"). These players do the same thing in RPGs too. They will intentional sabotage other characters, sometimes very directly, just "because I can" or "because I didn't want them to get <some good thing>". Like they've adopted a fully zero-sum view of gaming, so anything they do that hurts someone else must therefore help them. Oddly, these players rarely seem to notice how much their win/loss ratio suffers as a result.

[Iamyourking]

What if they have diametrically opposed views on what sort of game they should be playing? For instance, most of the group are rabid 5E extremists who respond to any kind of mechanical complexity or character optimization by calling the offending party a Grognard or Try Hard then complain to the DM if their character faces any sort of challenge. The DM meanwhile wants to be playing something crunchy but got browbeat into the current game and is deeply unhappy about having to tone everything down to the players' level, and the one remaining player just wants to be playing a social game and takes every opportunity to shut the rest of the group out so they can engage in long-winded and melodramatic conversations with NPCs.

[Buufreak]

Yeah. Personally, I'm in a game where I had to bite my tongue pretty hard and consider the future of my involvement because of the casual way the majority were slandering people who share some of my beliefs.

Stronger person than I. That's a gtfo situation for me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Stronger person than I. That's a gtfo situation for me.
So far it's just been the once. If it happens again, yeah. I'm out.

[Bohandas]

Scary thing is that I know a guy who is basically the middle person. Call him "Conspiracy theory Joe". Like, the most insane thing you could think of, aligned at "them" (which, again, he's totally agnostic in terms of political direction), will come out of his brain.

Which reminds me, there's a fourth political character to round out the set, the guy who's dismissive of everything and a little nihilistic. He will not only dismiss all of the conspiracy guy's ideas out of hand, but will also dismiss everything on the news as some combination of irrelevant, cherrypicking, fearmongering, sensationalism, statistical anomalies, or raising a tempest in a teapot (but will never claim that it's actually fake or anything similarly conspiratorial). In regard to the leftist and the rightist guy he will interject into every argument where the left leaning guy is saying that some major sociocultural institution needs to be changed to be more inclusive and progressive and the right leaning guy is insisting that it shouldn't be changed from its traditional version and that the traditional version is the only valid version, and our new guy will interject with the suggestion that maybe said institution should be abandoned by society entirely and not exist in either a traditional OR a progressive form. This last argument could go in one or both of two ways, either a way that attempts to be concilitory but doesn't work, agreeing with the rightist that the traditional version is the only valid version but also agreeing with the leftist that the traditional version is highly problematic, or it could be (or progress into) more aggressive and colorfully dismissive, accusing the leftwing guy of throwing good money after bad, unironically quoting the "sad devotion..." line from Star Wars 4 at the rightwing guy, and making excessive use of the phrase "a plague on both your houses".

[Eldan]

If this is at least slightly a comedic story, you can also just make your political ranter's takes absolutely derranged and disconnected from anything real, so much that no one can really connect it to real ideology. That's hard to pull off, though. (I'm playing a conspiracy theorist in a game of Unknown Armies. It was really hard to come up with conspiracy theories that aren't real-world political in some way.)

[KorvinStarmast]

If this is at least slightly a comedic story, you can also just make your political ranter's takes absolutely derranged and disconnected from anything real, so much that no one can really connect it to real ideology. That's hard to pull off, though. (I'm playing a conspiracy theorist in a game of Unknown Armies. It was really hard to come up with conspiracy theories that aren't real-world political in some way.) How to play off of that style ...
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they are not out to get you. :smallwink:

[Bohandas]

If this is at least slightly a comedic story, you can also just make your political ranter's takes absolutely derranged and disconnected from anything real, so much that no one can really connect it to real ideology. That's hard to pull off, though.

Lizard people are propping up the market for synthetic milk-substitutes (ie soy milk, hemp milk, almond milk, etc.)

EDIT:
Or the conspiracy theory is multiple layers deep, and whenever we come in he's already finished telling everyone who he thinks the illuminati are controlling and is on to ranting about how aliens are controlling the illuminati

[gbaji]

What if they have diametrically opposed views on what sort of game they should be playing? For instance, most of the group are rabid 5E extremists who respond to any kind of mechanical complexity or character optimization by calling the offending party a Grognard or Try Hard then complain to the DM if their character faces any sort of challenge. The DM meanwhile wants to be playing something crunchy but got browbeat into the current game and is deeply unhappy about having to tone everything down to the players' level, and the one remaining player just wants to be playing a social game and takes every opportunity to shut the rest of the group out so they can engage in long-winded and melodramatic conversations with NPCs.

Yeah. That can be tricky. Not sure if managing a group with different playstyles or play-wants is quite the same level as "toxic". But it's definitely something that can be a source of conflict.

Though I have to say that I haven't run into the "soft" vs "crunchy" issue as much as the "tactical" vs "social/RP" type players. IME, most players can adjust in terms of how much detail/realism/whatever a game has and just move on. But yeah. You get one player who just wants to "rollplay", and another who wants to do nothing but "roleplay", and that can be... "interesting".

[DammitVictor]

My thought is to make a list of toxic player types: (for example)

The dishonest/cheating powergamer
The guy who only wants to play the One True Game, and this isn't it
The pizza cutter (all edge, no point)
"It's what my character would do"
The Incel
The guy who wants to bring his religion/politics into it
The suckup who's only there to curry favor with the GM and/or their SO
The Belligerent
and so on and so on


But instead of turning any of these up to 11, have everyone at the table rocking two or three of them at about a 7 and "ganging up" when someone else is playing up one of their schticks, so everyone's kinda being different kinds of toxic at different times, and everyone's being variously toxic to everyone else instead of clear battle lines.

[Metastachydium]

The pizza cutter (all edge, no point)


The pizza eater (only in it for the free pizza)




The guy who wants to bring his religion/politics into it


…especially if the two are the same (the Reptilians control everything, so humanity's best bet is to worship them and their flying saucers!).

[Iamyourking]

Yeah. That can be tricky. Not sure if managing a group with different playstyles or play-wants is quite the same level as "toxic". But it's definitely something that can be a source of conflict.

Though I have to say that I haven't run into the "soft" vs "crunchy" issue as much as the "tactical" vs "social/RP" type players. IME, most players can adjust in terms of how much detail/realism/whatever a game has and just move on. But yeah. You get one player who just wants to "rollplay", and another who wants to do nothing but "roleplay", and that can be... "interesting".

I suggested it because it's something that's explicitly game-related and ensures that even when they aren't arguing at least one person isn't having fun. That way the people who aren't enjoying themselves have more reason to snipe at the others and start arguments.

[Eldan]

Lizard people are propping up the market for synthetic milk-substitutes (ie soy milk, hemp milk, almond milk, etc.)

See, you'd believe that, but this is already seriously political in the real world in ways I can't get into, nor would be allowed to on the forum. Let's just say that "lizard people" is a famous dog whistle and soy milk is very frantically discussed on some forums. See "soy boys".

[Bohandas]

Ooh! That gives me an idea! How about two of them have diametrically opposed politically charged interpretations of some completely innocuous piece of fluff text in one of the rulebooks. And like it's something where there's clearly nothing there. Like they read the sentence "Of all classes, fighters have the best all-around fighting capabilities (hence the name)" (3.5e PHB, pg 37) and from that alone they both see some profound and provocative hidden message but completely disagree on what it is (at best maybe they both think it's a commentary on the military, but that might not be disconnected enough, it would be better if they saw it as a commentary on the economy or on religion or something, or better yet one sees one and the other sees the other)

[KorvinStarmast]

I am not sure which comedian or writer said this, but "every family is dysfunctional in its own way" is a framework that seems to fit RPG groups as well, if you are delving into the groups that grow into the toxic kind.

Which means that maybe there isn't an ideal one, but each group can be toxic in its own unique way.

[Bohandas]

If this is at least slightly a comedic story, you can also just make your political ranter's takes absolutely derranged and disconnected from anything real, so much that no one can really connect it to real ideology.

Two ideas 1.) conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories; 2.) Conspiracy theories that seem to be the result of an eroding ability to distinguish sci-fi and fantasy fron reality

and both of these together

For example, "[premise of existing conspiracy theory] is a hallucination brought on by exposure to the great old ones and their minions" or "[controversial occurrence with multiple conflicting accounts] was a dragon break (https://elderscrolls.fandom.com/wiki/Dragon_Break)"

[Eldan]

See, I just blamed the Statue of Liberty on Vikings.

[Kesnit]

3) They were all unpopular: the group formed from people who got rejected everywhere else. This is (perhaps their sole) common ground and core of their identity. Members either can't imagine moving to a new social circle ("they all hate us") or would see any attempt to do so as "selling out" or betraying their group ("oh, look who is one of the cool kids now".)

11) Ulterior motives abound: the people aren't there to play the game. One is there because they're horny for another player (bonus points if it's one-sided, extra bonus for if that player crosses to outright harassment, super double bonus if the form of attraction is societally unacceptable), second is there just please their significant other despite disliking the activity (bonus points if the SO is clueless of this, extra bonus if they do know but think their partner is still somehow obligated to be there), third is there just for free food and lodging (bonus if this is due to serious problems at home, extra bonus if the other players could do something about it if the player would just come clean, super extra mega points if the other players know but don't want to talk about it because it would make them uncomfortable), fourth is literally using the game as cover for something illegal (scamming money off the other players, stealing things during game sessions, going through someone's private correspondence etc.) . In a sane world, exposing even one player's gig would cause this group to fall apart, but some greater force or dysfunction is keeping that from happening, such as:

13) The players are incarcerated: might be the result or root cause of several points above. The point isn't to dunk on inmates, sometimes inmates run functional hobby groups, sometimes they do not; the important point is that the players are physically confined and unable to get rid of each other. Similar conditions can arise among children or teenagers in boarding schools or insular religious communities.

I listen to a podcast about life in prison. There was an episode a few years ago that said that sticking with your race is a thing - with one exception. If you are a gamer, you hang with the gamers, regardless of race. That could also roll into the idea of the group members being rejected by everyone else.


I will also say that I've seen the whole "GM's girlfriend" thing. Rarely ends well. Well, honestly, romantic relationships and gaming just doesn't often mix across the board (though I have seen it work, like, once. so...).

As someone who met his wife through TTRPGs and has been married 11 years, I beg to differ. :smallbiggrin:

Having said that, I do have a toxic story involving someone trying (and failing) to flirt in-game. A guy we knew wanted to run a game in a certain system that he had not run before (but was similar to a system he had played in). He knew my now-wife (she and I were engaged at the time) and I knew the system, so asked us to join so we could give him pointers. First campaign arc focused on my wife's PC's background. "No problem," I thought, "he plans to have an arc focusing on each PC in turn." Second campaign arc focus's on - my wife's PC's backstory. That's when we figured out he was (very badly) trying to hit on her. We left the game and never gamed with him again.


The guy who wants to bring his religion/politics into it

A few years ago, my wife started up an Exalted game. We had a player ask if they could select their divine parent from a homebrew pantheon based on a certain real-world religion that is the majority religion in the country.

[DammitVictor]

A few years ago, my wife started up an Exalted game. We had a player ask if they could select their divine parent from a homebrew pantheon based on a certain real-world religion that is the majority religion in the country.

I ran Shadowrun for a guy once who wanted to play a Mage and wanted to change a whole bunch of the rules for spellcasting and astral travel, just for his character, because of his character's deeply-held religious beliefs that happened to also be the player's deeply-held religious beliefs. And all of these changes were to his benefit, of course.

I allowed it because I was sleeping with his daughter and bad life choices travel in packs.

[KorvinStarmast]

I allowed it because I was sleeping with his daughter and bad life choices travel in packs.

Best sentence I've read on the internet in months. :smallsmile:
Plus eleventy.

[pocketwatch]

The player who secretly hates the campaign premise and is disengaged and undermining the game for other characters with his Chaotic Neutral (TM) choices.

The player who tries to settle rules disputes with "I can get the swords from my bedroom and show you how it works right now".

The player who asks a fellow player out, doesn't like taking no for an answer, and causes a TPK.

The player who has come up with This Weird Trick For Rolling Well (Cheating).

The player who only really wanted to play because she could have a pet wolf as a ranger, and only wants to roleplay with the wolf.

The DM who plays blatant favorites with his partner, who is immune to everything he throws at the party.

I could go on. I've played some really bad games.

[gbaji]

As someone who met his wife through TTRPGs and has been married 11 years, I beg to differ. :smallbiggrin:

Well, given your listed location is on the opposite coast of the one successful gaming couple I know, that now doubles the number. Congrats!


Having said that, I do have a toxic story involving someone trying (and failing) to flirt in-game. A guy we knew wanted to run a game in a certain system that he had not run before (but was similar to a system he had played in). He knew my now-wife (she and I were engaged at the time) and I knew the system, so asked us to join so we could give him pointers. First campaign arc focused on my wife's PC's background. "No problem," I thought, "he plans to have an arc focusing on each PC in turn." Second campaign arc focus's on - my wife's PC's backstory. That's when we figured out he was (very badly) trying to hit on her. We left the game and never gamed with him again.

Hey. Don't sell your finacee, now wife, short. Maybe she just came up with a really awesome and interesting backstory. It could happen...

[LibraryOgre]

Well, given your listed location is on the opposite coast of the one successful gaming couple I know, that now doubles the number. Congrats!

I'll add another 50% on top of that; the Spoose and I have been married for 9 years, together for 10, and we met gaming (Vampire: The Requiem), and early dates involved talking about Hackmaster.

[KorvinStarmast]

early dates involved talking about Hackmaster. You knew you had "a keeper" right then and there, didn't you? :smallbiggrin: (Congrats on the longevity, you have already beat the national average).