I've never played a fighter, and was trying to think of an interesting angle, and it occured to me that the fighter is more or less the jock of the party. That got me thinking about how it might be fun to roleplay a satirical representation of toxic masculinity, not unlike Hardwon Surefoot on Not Another D&D Podcast.
As far as how that might express itself, I was curious what could be gamified. So far all I've come up with has been protein farts blowing stealth opportunities and yelling "ball tap!" and making party members roll Dex saves or roll damage, and always in dungeons where overall health is a concern. What are some alternativetitles you all can think of? What ways could I implement this character type without becoming a pariah within my playgroup?
I mean, toxic masculinity is a bad thing, so why would you want to bring that into your game, even in satirical form?
Remember that satirical humour is entertaining from an observational standpoint; satire is enjoyable to watch/read/observe. However, D&D is not an observational game, it's an experiential game. This is a trap a lot of players fall into, making a character concept that's amusing to watch, but not amusing to interact with. I think a 'gamified toxically masculine' character would be (maybe) amusing to observe (you mentioned a D&D podcast, which is exactly just that, observational entertainment) but likely not fun to experience.
I mean, toxic masculinity is a bad thing, so why would you want to bring that into your game, even in satirical form?
Remember that satirical humour is entertaining from an observational standpoint; satire is enjoyable to watch/read/observe. However, D&D is not an observational game, it's an experiential game. This is a trap a lot of players fall into, making a character concept that's amusing to watch, but not amusing to interact with. I think a 'gamified toxically masculine' character would be (maybe) amusing to observe (you mentioned a D&D podcast, which is exactly just that, observational entertainment) but likely not fun to experience.
I dunno, I feel like there's still space to satirize toxic masculinity in roleplay, as long as it's very clear that you're punching up at the concept, otherwise you might fall into the trap of merely having your character parrot toxicity.
By in order to avoid making a character that's simply a pain to interact with, as Davedamon cautions, I might recommend you focus on satirizing internalized/personal traits of toxic masculinity, that way interpersonal interactions with other PC's aren't, y'know, terrible. You could make a character that's vulnerable but pretends otherwise, doesn't ask for healing when he needs it, a character that denies himself simple pleasures he deems unmanly, a character with a lot of feelings that he's ultimately ashamed of feeling, etc.
The main thing when satirizing though is that roleplaying these things should be hyperbolic and to a ridiculous extent, and must clearly show the character as the butt of the joke, otherwise again, you may just fall into the trap of merely portraying a character with toxic masculinity.
As Davedamon said however, it could be that this does turn out to be a character that's more fun to listen to than to play with-- but where I disagree with them is that your fellow players are also something of an audience, so if they'd be down to play with that character and they get the joke and they like it, then you're golden. Maybe run the concept by them first. And once you get playing, if the joke turns stale and you're not enjoying it anymore, remember you can have your characters' personalities grow and change over time, so no reason you can't do that.
First, I don’t necessarily agree that the fighter is the jock of the party. It could be, but literally any character can be since that more of a role playing choice than one that has anything to do with the mechanics of class. That said, you want this character to be that guy, so my advice would be this.
I think you kind of hit on the most important part at the end: do it without becoming a pariah. Remember that if your in game character is being a jerk, other player’s in game characters would not want to be around you and realistically would simply kick you out of the party. Someone who does things that harm other characters like you describe would not be the kind of person they bring along. (If you ever find yourself saying “but that’s what my character would do” that’s a big red flag that you are behaving badly.) Really, even the biggest D-bag understands there are times to shut up and be serious, make sure your character does, too.
Keeping that in mind, I’d suggest an out of character discussion with your table (players and DM). None of us here know what their limits are going to be. Tell them what you are planning to do and see what their limits are. How far can you push it before the players (not necessarily the characters) would get annoyed. I’d say to make that distinction specifically — characters annoyed at each other can be fun, players annoyed at each other can be game-breaking. Not that you are quite asking for permission to play your concept, just that you want to understand where it is that your idea of fun starts rubbing up against their idea of not fun, so you can play the character you want without ruining it for everyone else.
Awesome and super thoughtful responses! I'm really excited and impressed to get such excellent feedback, if not surprised. This community is awesome, thanks ya'll! This gives me A LOT to consider!
I find that satirical representations of toxic personality traits is only viable when they are DM NPCs. As Dave mentioned, this is an experiential game; players are eventually going to get sick of playing alongside a party member with those traits. Hell, I'd be more concerned if they didn't.
As NPCs? Yeah, it can work, but I'm not talking about the BBEG. Villagers with toxic traits? Players can react to them organically, and move on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I find that satirical representations of toxic personality traits is only viable when they are DM NPCs. As Dave mentioned, this is an experiential game; players are eventually going to get sick of playing alongside a party member with those traits. Hell, I'd be more concerned if they didn't.
As NPCs? Yeah, it can work, but I'm not talking about the BBEG. Villagers with toxic traits? Players can react to them organically, and move on.
I feel Not Another D&D podcast does a good job representing a toxic male player. It seems that most of the damage done with that character is inward, so I've found a lot of the suggestions in this thread pushing this idea in that direction especially helpful!
I think my biggest takeaway from this conversation is that the toxic elements shouldn't be the primary trait of the character, and should perhaps receed as the campaign moves forward and the character grows less insecure.
The "dumb jock" trope has variants which can include a child-like innocence of good intentions without the wisdom or intelligence or cultural awareness to back it up. This variant doesn't inflict the personality upon other people or upon a situation. This variant tends to vocalize intents prior to actions, giving plenty of opportunities of facepalms and overruling before any harm is done. In this case, it remains all hypothetical storytelling without actual in-game experiences.
It's more "talk before you think before you act" than "act before you think".
As always, consider the other players. Even talk can turn a situation uncomfortable and not enjoyable. This is about the character's personal flaws - and most likely personal growth of the character - and not about they might negatively affect the group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
The "dumb jock" trope has variants which can include a child-like innocence of good intentions without the wisdom or intelligence or cultural awareness to back it up. This variant doesn't inflict the personality upon other people or upon a situation. This variant tends to vocalize intents prior to actions, giving plenty of opportunities of facepalms and overruling before any harm is done. In this case, it remains all hypothetical storytelling without actual in-game experiences.
It's more "talk before you think before you act" than "act before you think".
As always, consider the other players. Even talk can turn a situation uncomfortable and not enjoyable. This is about the character's personal flaws - and most likely personal growth of the character - and not about they might negatively affect the group.
Like a Dudley Do-Right or George of the Jungle type you mean?
I find that satirical representations of toxic personality traits is only viable when they are DM NPCs. As Dave mentioned, this is an experiential game; players are eventually going to get sick of playing alongside a party member with those traits. Hell, I'd be more concerned if they didn't.
As NPCs? Yeah, it can work, but I'm not talking about the BBEG. Villagers with toxic traits? Players can react to them organically, and move on.
I feel Not Another D&D podcast does a good job representing a toxic male player. It seems that most of the damage done with that character is inward, so I've found a lot of the suggestions in this thread pushing this idea in that direction especially helpful!
I think my biggest takeaway from this conversation is that the toxic elements shouldn't be the primary trait of the character, and should perhaps receed as the campaign moves forward and the character grows less insecure.
Keep in mind that these are professionals whom have experience with separating the conduct of a character from the player; they know when a character is being an *******, rather than the player. You should not expect the same from anyone else.
At the end of the day, all I can really say is that you know your own group better than anyone, so just be careful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I find that satirical representations of toxic personality traits is only viable when they are DM NPCs. As Dave mentioned, this is an experiential game; players are eventually going to get sick of playing alongside a party member with those traits. Hell, I'd be more concerned if they didn't.
As NPCs? Yeah, it can work, but I'm not talking about the BBEG. Villagers with toxic traits? Players can react to them organically, and move on.
I feel Not Another D&D podcast does a good job representing a toxic male player. It seems that most of the damage done with that character is inward, so I've found a lot of the suggestions in this thread pushing this idea in that direction especially helpful!
I think my biggest takeaway from this conversation is that the toxic elements shouldn't be the primary trait of the character, and should perhaps receed as the campaign moves forward and the character grows less insecure.
Keep in mind that these are professionals whom have experience with separating the conduct of a character from the player; they know when a character is being an *******, rather than the player. You should not expect the same from anyone else.
At the end of the day, all I can really say is that you know your own group better than anyone, so just be careful.
Fair points, no question. I certainly wouldn't plan on proceeding without caution, which is a lot of why I wanted to put some feelers out. My goal is to ensure that if I decided to to roll with this kind of character, I would have a pretty thoughtful gameplan on how to execute it in a way that was enjoyable for the whole party.
I would also be careful about assuming your roleplay will impact game mechanics (the protein fart/ball tap things you mention). Where a role can be played without affecting the other players enjoyment of the game (even an "annoying" or "toxic" role), impacts on the game mechanics will get old real fast, especially if you blow another players big moment by ruining a stealth check, etc.
Also, your DM would be the one calling for checks and saving throws. if you want to talk to him about the flavor of how your characters skill checks are made, thats fine, but again, don't force them to adopt game mechanics that aren't in the game just for the sake of roleplay.
I would also be careful about assuming your roleplay will impact game mechanics (the protein fart/ball tap things you mention). Where a role can be played without affecting the other players enjoyment of the game (even an "annoying" or "toxic" role), impacts on the game mechanics will get old real fast, especially if you blow another players big moment by ruining a stealth check, etc.
Also, your DM would be the one calling for checks and saving throws. if you want to talk to him about the flavor of how your characters skill checks are made, thats fine, but again, don't force them to adopt game mechanics that aren't in the game just for the sake of roleplay.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Leaving the flatulence roll to the DM especially.
I've always felt that Toxic Masculinity was a poorly coined phrase. The ignorant see it as a literal bias against Masculinity, and not more correctly focused at erroneous or supposed qualities of Masculinity. More directly put, pure Male Chauvinism under the guise of supposed Masculinity.
This also applies when people use Feminism in a negative connotation.
If a woman claims to be a Feminist and focuses on bashing men and Masculinity, she is a Female Chauvinist, not a feminist. If another women promotes ideas about the concept of gender equality and respect, that is a Feminist.
TLDR: All that being said, and it was a lot, I do have an example of this "Toxic Masculinity" that I like to see.
It's usually a movie character that everyone hates, in the beginning. They seem to be one-dimensional, egocentric asses. Then, they do something that makes you think: "Well, they aren't so bad". By the end of the movie, they have became your favorite character and you root for them despite their many flaws. When you talk about the Toxic Masculinity not being your only character traits, that's where you fill in the rest. Maybe the character never gives up on an ally, even one who didn't really like him at all. Maybe the character has an epiphany that broadens his worldview and is a respectable work in progress of self betterment.
"Toxic Perception of Arbitrary Gender Roles in Society" is more precise
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Good morning!
I've never played a fighter, and was trying to think of an interesting angle, and it occured to me that the fighter is more or less the jock of the party. That got me thinking about how it might be fun to roleplay a satirical representation of toxic masculinity, not unlike Hardwon Surefoot on Not Another D&D Podcast.
As far as how that might express itself, I was curious what could be gamified. So far all I've come up with has been protein farts blowing stealth opportunities and yelling "ball tap!" and making party members roll Dex saves or roll damage, and always in dungeons where overall health is a concern. What are some alternativetitles you all can think of? What ways could I implement this character type without becoming a pariah within my playgroup?
Thank you in advance for your feedback!
I mean, toxic masculinity is a bad thing, so why would you want to bring that into your game, even in satirical form?
Remember that satirical humour is entertaining from an observational standpoint; satire is enjoyable to watch/read/observe. However, D&D is not an observational game, it's an experiential game. This is a trap a lot of players fall into, making a character concept that's amusing to watch, but not amusing to interact with. I think a 'gamified toxically masculine' character would be (maybe) amusing to observe (you mentioned a D&D podcast, which is exactly just that, observational entertainment) but likely not fun to experience.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I dunno, I feel like there's still space to satirize toxic masculinity in roleplay, as long as it's very clear that you're punching up at the concept, otherwise you might fall into the trap of merely having your character parrot toxicity.
By in order to avoid making a character that's simply a pain to interact with, as Davedamon cautions, I might recommend you focus on satirizing internalized/personal traits of toxic masculinity, that way interpersonal interactions with other PC's aren't, y'know, terrible. You could make a character that's vulnerable but pretends otherwise, doesn't ask for healing when he needs it, a character that denies himself simple pleasures he deems unmanly, a character with a lot of feelings that he's ultimately ashamed of feeling, etc.
The main thing when satirizing though is that roleplaying these things should be hyperbolic and to a ridiculous extent, and must clearly show the character as the butt of the joke, otherwise again, you may just fall into the trap of merely portraying a character with toxic masculinity.
As Davedamon said however, it could be that this does turn out to be a character that's more fun to listen to than to play with-- but where I disagree with them is that your fellow players are also something of an audience, so if they'd be down to play with that character and they get the joke and they like it, then you're golden. Maybe run the concept by them first. And once you get playing, if the joke turns stale and you're not enjoying it anymore, remember you can have your characters' personalities grow and change over time, so no reason you can't do that.
First, I don’t necessarily agree that the fighter is the jock of the party. It could be, but literally any character can be since that more of a role playing choice than one that has anything to do with the mechanics of class. That said, you want this character to be that guy, so my advice would be this.
I think you kind of hit on the most important part at the end: do it without becoming a pariah. Remember that if your in game character is being a jerk, other player’s in game characters would not want to be around you and realistically would simply kick you out of the party. Someone who does things that harm other characters like you describe would not be the kind of person they bring along. (If you ever find yourself saying “but that’s what my character would do” that’s a big red flag that you are behaving badly.) Really, even the biggest D-bag understands there are times to shut up and be serious, make sure your character does, too.
Keeping that in mind, I’d suggest an out of character discussion with your table (players and DM). None of us here know what their limits are going to be. Tell them what you are planning to do and see what their limits are. How far can you push it before the players (not necessarily the characters) would get annoyed. I’d say to make that distinction specifically — characters annoyed at each other can be fun, players annoyed at each other can be game-breaking. Not that you are quite asking for permission to play your concept, just that you want to understand where it is that your idea of fun starts rubbing up against their idea of not fun, so you can play the character you want without ruining it for everyone else.
Awesome and super thoughtful responses! I'm really excited and impressed to get such excellent feedback, if not surprised. This community is awesome, thanks ya'll! This gives me A LOT to consider!
I find that satirical representations of toxic personality traits is only viable when they are DM NPCs. As Dave mentioned, this is an experiential game; players are eventually going to get sick of playing alongside a party member with those traits. Hell, I'd be more concerned if they didn't.
As NPCs? Yeah, it can work, but I'm not talking about the BBEG. Villagers with toxic traits? Players can react to them organically, and move on.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I feel Not Another D&D podcast does a good job representing a toxic male player. It seems that most of the damage done with that character is inward, so I've found a lot of the suggestions in this thread pushing this idea in that direction especially helpful!
I think my biggest takeaway from this conversation is that the toxic elements shouldn't be the primary trait of the character, and should perhaps receed as the campaign moves forward and the character grows less insecure.
The "dumb jock" trope has variants which can include a child-like innocence of good intentions without the wisdom or intelligence or cultural awareness to back it up. This variant doesn't inflict the personality upon other people or upon a situation. This variant tends to vocalize intents prior to actions, giving plenty of opportunities of facepalms and overruling before any harm is done. In this case, it remains all hypothetical storytelling without actual in-game experiences.
It's more "talk before you think before you act" than "act before you think".
As always, consider the other players. Even talk can turn a situation uncomfortable and not enjoyable. This is about the character's personal flaws - and most likely personal growth of the character - and not about they might negatively affect the group.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Like a Dudley Do-Right or George of the Jungle type you mean?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Keep in mind that these are professionals whom have experience with separating the conduct of a character from the player; they know when a character is being an *******, rather than the player. You should not expect the same from anyone else.
At the end of the day, all I can really say is that you know your own group better than anyone, so just be careful.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Fair points, no question. I certainly wouldn't plan on proceeding without caution, which is a lot of why I wanted to put some feelers out. My goal is to ensure that if I decided to to roll with this kind of character, I would have a pretty thoughtful gameplan on how to execute it in a way that was enjoyable for the whole party.
I would also be careful about assuming your roleplay will impact game mechanics (the protein fart/ball tap things you mention). Where a role can be played without affecting the other players enjoyment of the game (even an "annoying" or "toxic" role), impacts on the game mechanics will get old real fast, especially if you blow another players big moment by ruining a stealth check, etc.
Also, your DM would be the one calling for checks and saving throws. if you want to talk to him about the flavor of how your characters skill checks are made, thats fine, but again, don't force them to adopt game mechanics that aren't in the game just for the sake of roleplay.
I think that makes a lot of sense. Leaving the flatulence roll to the DM especially.
I've always felt that Toxic Masculinity was a poorly coined phrase. The ignorant see it as a literal bias against Masculinity, and not more correctly focused at erroneous or supposed qualities of Masculinity. More directly put, pure Male Chauvinism under the guise of supposed Masculinity.
This also applies when people use Feminism in a negative connotation.
If a woman claims to be a Feminist and focuses on bashing men and Masculinity, she is a Female Chauvinist, not a feminist. If another women promotes ideas about the concept of gender equality and respect, that is a Feminist.
TLDR: All that being said, and it was a lot, I do have an example of this "Toxic Masculinity" that I like to see.
It's usually a movie character that everyone hates, in the beginning. They seem to be one-dimensional, egocentric asses. Then, they do something that makes you think: "Well, they aren't so bad". By the end of the movie, they have became your favorite character and you root for them despite their many flaws. When you talk about the Toxic Masculinity not being your only character traits, that's where you fill in the rest. Maybe the character never gives up on an ally, even one who didn't really like him at all. Maybe the character has an epiphany that broadens his worldview and is a respectable work in progress of self betterment.
"Toxic Perception of Arbitrary Gender Roles in Society" is more precise
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
For sure want to use it as an extreme to mark a starting point of character progression, I think that is spot on.
I prefer the Lindsey-Ellis-coined terms "machismo no bueno" or "patriarchy frown frown" haha
*edit: link to video https://youtu.be/8VulkN5OLEM