What I am saying is that, by responding to this question and others like it with "it's just a game", you dismiss the experiences of those who are affected by it. You tell them that their experiences don't matter, that they should not find anything in the game upsetting, because "it's just a game". You tell them that you don't care how they feel, what they have been through.
And that IS insensitive.
I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort?
That's fair enough, I apologise if I've got you mixed up, but that's what I was discussing. If you were not dismissing people with "it's just a game", I'm not sure why you were arguing with me, as that was the point I was making.
But for there to be relevant link, doesn't it have to be something other than 'Well that condition exists in real life?' Otherwise we have to toss out all elemental damage, all weapon damage... falling damage.
Animals should not be portrayed in game. Humans should not be portrayed in game. Where are you drawing the line here?
The line you are drawing would seem to say every game is linked to real world issues and no game is 'merely a game.'
How relevant a link there is for someone is not for you to decide. It's not for me to decide, either.
What I am saying is that dismissing someone else's life experiences and telling them they should not be offended or find something upsetting because "it's just a game" is callous, insensitive, and generally a horrible way to treat another human being.
When it is for neither of us to decide, and likely not for the OP to decide either, why, exactly, are we wringing our hands over it?
No one here is dismissing anyone's life experiences. Many in this thread have stated that they, personally, have or have had relevant life experiences and that this does not bother them personally.
The OP seems to be taking the position that someone 'might' be offended and every questioning of evidence seems to come back to 'Well you cannot prove that absolutely no one would be offended.' We are being asked to prove a negative, which is almost always impossible to do.
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking people to stop responding to those who either say that something in D&D offends or updates them, or those who all a reasonable question about whether something within the game could upset people, with "it's just a game". I'm asking people to accept the feelings of others and not dismiss them out of hand.
If you have a point to make which is not just dismissing the feelings of others, then it's fine to discuss it. But saying "it's just a game" is insensitive at best.
I actually stated that I am personally adversely affected by the depictions of mental illness in D&D as it plays into the toxic stereotypes that stigmatize mental illness and make seeking help a difficult and scary proposition. As I mentioned, the 'dangerous, raving lunatic' tropes create harmful portrayals of mental illness, portrayals that have personally affected how I feel about myself, my own mental illness, and my ability to seek help.
Again, as I mentioned, a appreciate WotCs move in Ravenloft towards using fears and stressors; using language and framing the external factors rather than exclusively focusing on the internal state.
This is just my experience, but one that deeply relates to something that affects me on my day to day life. Seeing some of the comments here, ones dismissing the impact or trivialising it, have also affected me.
So to say, directly or indirectly, that this topic doesn't affect anyone, is false. I speak for my experience and my experience only, but an experience that exists none the less
Kotath, a certain subsection of the forum userbase here has been using "It's just a game, you're not allowed to get offended at a game" as a crowbar with which to bludgeon anyone who has any issues with D&D into sullen silence for many months now. urth is trying to get the idea across that this is in no way a valid argument. Same with "this isn't worth getting upset about, and if you're upset by it you're a bad person", the new version of the same argument that [Someone] brought up in this thread.
The specific issue under discussion here may not be critical to you, or me, or Urth. But the same dissension-crushing, get-off-my-lawn crowbar has been used on us to try and get us to shut up about issues that are important to us. We've all spent hundreds of dollars on this hobby, this game is important to us. It matters, we're invested in it, and that means we're going to talk about things that upset us and try to find solutions. When people tell us "it's just a game, your feelings don't matter" or "the world is in trouble, your feelings don't matter", or otherwise give us some version of "this doesn't matter so stop talking about it"?
That's exactly what Urth, Davyd, myself, and others have been advocating against. It's actively, maliciously dismissing people's pain, stress, and fear - telling them their experiences aren't real. And that is not okay.
So please stop, if you would. Nobody is accusing you or anyone else of being a bad human being. Not like folks have accused me of, at any rate. We're just trying to point out a situation where people may be stepping on someone's emotions without meaning to, or even knowing. Remember - a lot of folks have had unfortunately far too much practice at simply burying our pain and putting on a smile, because we know it'll only get worse if we try to fix it.
You're not seeing new problems, Kotath. You're seeing years-long, even decades-long issues that people are only just now feeling like it's okay to talk about, for the first time. So please kindly listen, rather than dismissing people's experiences as irrelevant, immaterial, or not-real.
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking people to stop responding to those who either say that something in D&D offends or updates them, or those who all a reasonable question about whether something within the game could upset people, with "it's just a game". I'm asking people to accept the feelings of others and not dismiss them out of hand.
If you have a point to make which is not just dismissing the feelings of others, then it's fine to discuss it. But saying "it's just a game" is insensitive at best.
But that's the thing.... who here is actually saying it offends or affects, them themselves?
There are people arguing that these are descriptions of real conditions and therefore it might offend people, but not seen anyone saying it does actually offend them personally.
Davyd has just said and said earlier in the thread that he was affected. There have been another couple too, earlier in the thread.
And even if nobody had said so, by being so dismissive anyone who came to the thread later would be faced with that.
This is kind of the point. People in both this thread and others use "it's just a game" really often. This is insensitive and dismissive to anyone who has an issue with the topic. Even if nobody has mentioned their issue with it yet, it is being dismissive in advance without even hearing their story.
I was specifically talking about the section in the DMG about madness, not about the more general treatment of madness in D&D. For those who have an issue, is it actually those rules that you have issues with, or is it more with other things? I will say that CoS takes a 19th century attitude towards a large number of things that are problematic by modern standards, and mental illness is one of those things.
Changing the language used matters to me because it means it'll change how people think about it. The stories we tell each other shape how we think; they tell each other what we value, what judgements we make, how we view the world. The language we use in these stories likewise shapes our thoughts and feelings. Moving from a sensationalistic, gauche language to psychologically informed terminology is a step towards embedding empathic language in the stories we tell with this game.
This isn't pie in the sky thinking, but actual psychologically informed mechanisms by which how we talk about things affects how we think about them. Empathic language engenders empathic perspectives and that's a road WotC has (thankfully) been heading further down in recent releases.
Personal story; I have during my life avoided seeking therapy for fear of being seen as dangerous thanks to pop culture portrayals of mental illness. I have a fear of being institutionalised due to the classic 'lunatic in a straight jacket' cliche. It's only in recent years, with more exposure to healthy attitudes towards mental health (thanks due in no small part to my fiancee, a doctor in psychology and trained counselor and therapist) that I've become comfortable seeking help to improve my mental health. I personally hope no one is ever scared from getting the same help by incentive portrayals of mental illness like I was, portrayals not dissimilar to those found in D&D, at least in the earlier books.
I don't begrudge Wizards of the Coast for this though; they're reflecting a systemic, cultural attitude, one that goes well beyond D&D. I'm just glad to see them being part of a positive change.
When I read threads like this, it brings to mind a lot og what my wife's Psychiatrist has told us numerous times. She needs to separate actual references and inferences from those SHE CREATES in her mind, to progress and work through her issues. Validating an inane claim of reference is as harmful or more than outright mocking the situation in many cases. People who are offended by purely fantasy things, be it a condition, a mythical race or a war, should be helped in understanding the line between fantasy and reality exists and there is no reason for them to try and tie these together, as it does nothing but set them farther back and make their issues MORE difficult to deal with.
Having lived with someone who has a myriad of mental health issues, from depression to anxiety to a near bipolar personality, I can assure you, supporting fantastic stretches of belief is not helpful. It is significantly more productive to help these folks understand that term/condition/race/whatever X to a real life situation or application is harmful. Trying to say that the madness in D&D is a direct relation to mental health in RL is harmful to those who live with these conditions. These folks would be MUCH better served if their therapist/partner/family/friends would help them realize what is in D&D is no more real than a ring of wishes and while it MAY at times come close to RL stuff, IT ISN'T. I am tired of today's "cancel culture" trying to make every little fictional thing a reflection or representation of RL things. It simply isn't so and by supporting these delusions, it only solidifies the hold their illness has on them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
That is a much better presentation. Thank you for that understanding, Kotath.
I don't see Helhawke's original post as attempting to censure, sanitize, or stigmatize the issue. I see it as a request for discussion on whether the term 'Madness' is not a good one and if there's a better way to handle such things in D&D. The ask isn't for censorship but for awareness - frankly, the opposite of censorship. The question can be asked, and people can contribute their own opinions, and in the sharing of ideas and opinions we can all become richer and more able to handle such topics in our own games and our own lives. I saw no issue with 'Madness' from the comfort of my own experience sphere, but others have stated that the term is very much an issue for them. I would not have known this, as deeply buried in fiction trope/fantasy tropes as I am, had Helhawke not asked and started the discussion. I am more aware than I was before this thread was created, and that is only a positive thing.
At my specific table, there is no need to replace the word 'madness', though now I may do so anyways if I can find a properly evocative and less loaded word to describe the sorts of mind-twisting psychic wounds that fantasy 'Madness' is supposed to be. At a table including Davyd, or others within this thread, the word should be avoided and the way people think about the system should be guided, as gently as possible, towards a more empathetic course. That won't always work, but it's the goal.
The 'Practical Solution', as it were, is not to treat this as a one-and-done problem somebody can fix once and then everybody can go back to ignoring. The practical solution is to recognize that this is an area of the gamespace where people can have strong emotions and suffer from negative connections back to real-world trauma, and to tread in that space with care and respect. Awareness is the practical solution, which is why these discussions are a good, healthy thing. When not spoiled by people denigrating and dismissing other people's experiences, at least.
So fair question, with how often people ask for tweaks to rules or wishing D&D as a game provided more options or depth and the amount of people that come out and say well just play a different game system if thats what you want than how does that not apply to all the bemoaning over a condition name or label? If it's truly a real issue and not just a backpat "look what I pointed out give me twitter points" issue than theres bounds more systems out there than needing to change everything about D&D
Also, we have massive global cyber attacks hitting buisness' daily, the oil pipeline in the NE is shut down due to ransomware attacks and we're seeing its effects, covids sent inflation into a spiral, have you looked at the price of lumber lately? its up 300% at least. we have people dying in the new Israel/Palestine missile and rocket attacks. By 2050 there will be more plastic by mass than fish in the worlds oceans. People in India are dying to Covid at an insane pace. Asian peoples in the US are getting beat daily due to stigma but THIS, this is the issue?
Seriously.. take a step back and evaluate your life if the biggest hurdle your facing today is that D&D uses the term madness in it, than maybe you can realize how trivial the problem is and move past it and put your focus on something far more deserving
I believe that this is all that needs to be said about this post:
I will say that CoS takes a 19th century attitude towards a large number of things that are problematic by modern standards, and mental illness is one of those things.
So, you're saying that modern pieces of the hobby that take place in previous centuries (or equivalent settings to previous centuries) should use the same social standards that previous centuries used?
That's BS. So, by that "logic", the Vistani people should be called the derogatory term "gypsies" because Europeans in those centuries used that term to describe the Romani people? Any other setting that takes place in a previous time period should use the language used by that time period, so a Shakespearean setting book should be written filled with "thou" and "thee". Any derogatory term is A-okay as long as it was used in the time period that the setting is?
No. I reject that, as should everyone. D&D is a modern game, and it obeys modern standards, even if the individual settings take place in previous time periods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Personally I think it would be far more offensive to call madness “mental illness” or something like that. The Lovecraftian madness of the game is not meant to reflect real-world mental illness: it’s meant to be a little campy and, well, fictional. But I do think we should be careful not to blur the lines between classic horror “madness” and actual mental illness, because that can be hurtful, uncomfortable, and unfun.
Yeah, pretty much this. And D&D's madness is an optional rule that can easily be left out of a game if players are uncomfortable with such things.
But that leads to a different question. More than one poster in this thread has made comments to me where they state "If you don't like a particular playstyle for a group, walk away from that group." OK, if that logic is followed, if one player in a group is offended by some subset of rules/features in the game, and the rest of the group is not, what is supposed to happen? It appears that the OP is suggesting that WOTC should remove even the potential of this situation from happening.
This is a false equivalency. If you don't like a table's playstyle, the best thing to do is to walk away. However, offensive language is not a "playstyle". Playstyles are founded upon things that make the game fun or a specific person or group of people. If people have fun because they use offensive language (not in spite of it, but because of it), that is objectively badwrongfun, because it's harmful to society.
The reason why "ignore it and walk away" isn't a good solution (or even a solution) in this case is because offensive language isn't a playstyle and ignoring a problem is worse than acknowledging it. That's telling the people who are genuinely offended/harmed by this term that their feelings don't matter, only yours do, and that they just have to suck it up and deal with the "natural order of things", which just happens to be allowing themselves to be walked over and insulted by whomever feels in the mood to offend someone with no consequences.
So, yeah, this is both a red herring and false equivalency, as well as a strawman on what the OP was about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Allow me to point out that if they remove from D&D absolutely 100% of absolutely everything that might possibly be offensive to someone then there will be absolutely nothing left.
That's telling the people who are genuinely offended/harmed by this term that their feelings don't matter, only yours do, and that they just have to suck it up and deal with the "natural order of things", which just happens to be allowing themselves to be walked over and insulted by whomever feels in the mood to offend someone with no consequences.
Funnily enough, this is the same as telling someone that their playstyle is wrong, even though it is fun for them and the rest of the group. It's telling them that their feelings don't matter, that only yours do.
I will say that CoS takes a 19th century attitude towards a large number of things that are problematic by modern standards, and mental illness is one of those things.
So, you're saying that modern pieces of the hobby that take place in previous centuries (or equivalent settings to previous centuries) should use the same social standards that previous centuries used?
No, I'm saying that CoS was written in that way, and it's a problem. There's a general problem with trying to emulate literary genres: accurately emulating genres includes emulating the bad parts.
That's telling the people who are genuinely offended/harmed by this term that their feelings don't matter, only yours do, and that they just have to suck it up and deal with the "natural order of things", which just happens to be allowing themselves to be walked over and insulted by whomever feels in the mood to offend someone with no consequences.
Funnily enough, this is the same as telling someone that their playstyle is wrong, even though it is fun for them and the rest of the group. It's telling them that their feelings don't matter, that only yours do.
But it's not. Yes, it is telling them that their fun is wrong, but that's because this is one of the rare cases where that can be true. Fun can only be wrong if it directly harms other people. It's a false equivalency to say that someone telling someone else to just not play with Powergamers if they don't like that playstyle and someone telling someone else to just not play with people of use offensive language are the same thing. They're not the same thing, because one is an objectively harmless playstyle to the larger community and world (Powergaming), and the other isn't harmless (using offensive terms).
Again, I'll link this thread of mine. It seems like it's hypocritical or a paradox, but it isn't.
(I'm not saying that D&D's "Madness system" is harmful or that people who use it are playing the game wrong, I'm merely rejecting the notion that Vince promoted saying that these two situations are the same thing. They're not, for a very large and key reason that I have discussed extensively in this post and my previous one on this subject.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Allow me to point out that if they remove from D&D absolutely 100% of absolutely everything that might possibly be offensive to someone then there will be absolutely nothing left.
Sposta, we're friends. We're both in the Loudmouth Club, which I will invoke the purpose of in this post.
This argument doesn't hold water. This is the same argument as saying "We can't send anyone to prison because everyone breaks the law sometimes, and then our system would collapse".
Everyone will be offended by something sometime, but that isn't an argument for the status quo. The more people that are offended by something, the more "valid" a concern that is to possibly need changing. If WotC hears from the community that they don't like the term "Madness" or whatever other language there is used in that system to describe what would be called "Mental Health Conditions" in the real world, and they hear it enough, they should consider changing it. However, if someone is offended that the D&D ruleset includes rules for weapons because they had a traumatic experience related to weapons, that one person will only be one voice asking for change. There have been multiple people in this thread and on other platforms that have expressed discomfort caused by this part of D&D, or by the language used to describe certain races in the game mirroring language used by white supremacists, and other places where they and a noticeable amount of others have been turned off/harmed by a specific part of the hobby.
The amount of people being offended matters. That's why this is a valid question to ask. That's why the language describing the Vistani has been changed in Curse of Strahd and why Van Richten's and Tasha's are taking a new viewpoint on the Vistani people. It's because the thing causing offense was noticeable enough to gain the attention of enough people for WotC to change it. That's how society progresses. That's why a lot of terms that were commonly in use a decade or two ago are now considered taboo by modern standards. Society marches on, and that doesn't mean that D&D will be destroyed because "everything can be offensive to anyone", it's that the community is deciding where to draw the line and when to move more problematic parts of the hobby across the line.
That's telling the people who are genuinely offended/harmed by this term that their feelings don't matter, only yours do, and that they just have to suck it up and deal with the "natural order of things", which just happens to be allowing themselves to be walked over and insulted by whomever feels in the mood to offend someone with no consequences.
Funnily enough, this is the same as telling someone that their playstyle is wrong, even though it is fun for them and the rest of the group. It's telling them that their feelings don't matter, that only yours do.
But it's not. Yes, it is telling them that their fun is wrong, but that's because this is one of the rare cases where that can be true. Fun can only be wrong if it directly harms other people. It's a false equivalency to say that someone telling someone else to just not play with Powergamers if they don't like that playstyle and someone telling someone else to just not play with people of use offensive language are the same thing. They're not the same thing, because one is an objectively harmless playstyle to the larger community and world (Powergaming), and the other isn't harmless (using offensive terms).
Again, I'll link this thread of mine. It seems like it's hypocritical or a paradox, but it isn't.
(I'm not saying that D&D's "Madness system" is harmful or that people who use it are playing the game wrong, I'm merely rejecting the notion that Vince promoted saying that these two situations are the same thing. They're not, for a very large and key reason that I have discussed extensively in this post and my previous one on this subject.)
Apologies, I don't think I made myself clear. I agree with you. I meant that telling people to just put up with things which offend them in the game or not play it is like telling people that their play style is wrong. Both are putting your own wishes ahead of anyone elses, and telling the other person that their feelings don't matter.
Is everybody just skipping eachother's posts? Or just cherry picking.
Let's be clear. We're talking about made up stuff in a makebelieve game. Ask if you're getting upset for someone before you even understand if you should. This isn't the Drow, Dwarf, or Giant conversation. Dwarfism and Gigantism are real medical condition with more PC terms.
Madness isn't Dementia / alstimers. Madness isn't autism. Madness isn't a real disease. Madness and Lunacy don't even come from real mental disorders. Madness is literally being so spiteful that you do things against your own interest to harm someone. Lunacy is being so self-obcessed that you look at your reflection until the moon rises.
What's important is that the diseases listed aren't actual illnesses and conditions. Which illness in game makes light of a real disease? That's a serious question. I feel like we're missing the actual point. It's like telling someone to stop calling Saltines "crackers" because it might upset white people. Nobody will get upset if you call a cracker a cracker.
What I'm curious about is if the OP or anybody here is in a country where Madness is a slur. Here in the US, Jay was once a slur for Autism. There is the R word now here in the US that is a catch all slur for several illnesses. In the UK there's the M word (M*n*c, not madness).
We aren't calling people with ADHD, lisps or PTSD mad for their struggles and trauma. We're saying that an illness leaves you speaking in Greek for a bit.
Other than saying "mental problems (not illness) exists in our game" what is possibly problematic?
If someone is offended by some words on a piece of paper, or words uttered in a small group, that person can choose not read those words, or remove themselves from that conversation. That person can then gather with like-minded individuals and play any game they wish, censoring any concepts they wish within that group.
But if no one has the right to cast judgement on what may offend someone, the natural extension is that same person may not decide what is right for my group. In my group, the concept of madness is just fine to deal with in a game, because we are adults capable of differentiating between reality and fantasy. If someone does not like that, they can walk away, no hard feelings. They may NOT tell me my group is engaging in, what is the term thrown at me...oh yes, badwrongfun. And they may NOT tell me it is wrong on a forum either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's fair enough, I apologise if I've got you mixed up, but that's what I was discussing. If you were not dismissing people with "it's just a game", I'm not sure why you were arguing with me, as that was the point I was making.
I'm not asking you to prove anything. I'm asking people to stop responding to those who either say that something in D&D offends or updates them, or those who all a reasonable question about whether something within the game could upset people, with "it's just a game". I'm asking people to accept the feelings of others and not dismiss them out of hand.
If you have a point to make which is not just dismissing the feelings of others, then it's fine to discuss it. But saying "it's just a game" is insensitive at best.
I actually stated that I am personally adversely affected by the depictions of mental illness in D&D as it plays into the toxic stereotypes that stigmatize mental illness and make seeking help a difficult and scary proposition. As I mentioned, the 'dangerous, raving lunatic' tropes create harmful portrayals of mental illness, portrayals that have personally affected how I feel about myself, my own mental illness, and my ability to seek help.
Again, as I mentioned, a appreciate WotCs move in Ravenloft towards using fears and stressors; using language and framing the external factors rather than exclusively focusing on the internal state.
This is just my experience, but one that deeply relates to something that affects me on my day to day life. Seeing some of the comments here, ones dismissing the impact or trivialising it, have also affected me.
So to say, directly or indirectly, that this topic doesn't affect anyone, is false. I speak for my experience and my experience only, but an experience that exists none the less
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Kotath, a certain subsection of the forum userbase here has been using "It's just a game, you're not allowed to get offended at a game" as a crowbar with which to bludgeon anyone who has any issues with D&D into sullen silence for many months now. urth is trying to get the idea across that this is in no way a valid argument. Same with "this isn't worth getting upset about, and if you're upset by it you're a bad person", the new version of the same argument that [Someone] brought up in this thread.
The specific issue under discussion here may not be critical to you, or me, or Urth. But the same dissension-crushing, get-off-my-lawn crowbar has been used on us to try and get us to shut up about issues that are important to us. We've all spent hundreds of dollars on this hobby, this game is important to us. It matters, we're invested in it, and that means we're going to talk about things that upset us and try to find solutions. When people tell us "it's just a game, your feelings don't matter" or "the world is in trouble, your feelings don't matter", or otherwise give us some version of "this doesn't matter so stop talking about it"?
That's exactly what Urth, Davyd, myself, and others have been advocating against. It's actively, maliciously dismissing people's pain, stress, and fear - telling them their experiences aren't real. And that is not okay.
So please stop, if you would. Nobody is accusing you or anyone else of being a bad human being. Not like folks have accused me of, at any rate. We're just trying to point out a situation where people may be stepping on someone's emotions without meaning to, or even knowing. Remember - a lot of folks have had unfortunately far too much practice at simply burying our pain and putting on a smile, because we know it'll only get worse if we try to fix it.
You're not seeing new problems, Kotath. You're seeing years-long, even decades-long issues that people are only just now feeling like it's okay to talk about, for the first time. So please kindly listen, rather than dismissing people's experiences as irrelevant, immaterial, or not-real.
Please do not contact or message me.
Davyd has just said and said earlier in the thread that he was affected. There have been another couple too, earlier in the thread.
And even if nobody had said so, by being so dismissive anyone who came to the thread later would be faced with that.
This is kind of the point. People in both this thread and others use "it's just a game" really often. This is insensitive and dismissive to anyone who has an issue with the topic. Even if nobody has mentioned their issue with it yet, it is being dismissive in advance without even hearing their story.
I was specifically talking about the section in the DMG about madness, not about the more general treatment of madness in D&D. For those who have an issue, is it actually those rules that you have issues with, or is it more with other things? I will say that CoS takes a 19th century attitude towards a large number of things that are problematic by modern standards, and mental illness is one of those things.
Changing the language used matters to me because it means it'll change how people think about it. The stories we tell each other shape how we think; they tell each other what we value, what judgements we make, how we view the world. The language we use in these stories likewise shapes our thoughts and feelings. Moving from a sensationalistic, gauche language to psychologically informed terminology is a step towards embedding empathic language in the stories we tell with this game.
This isn't pie in the sky thinking, but actual psychologically informed mechanisms by which how we talk about things affects how we think about them. Empathic language engenders empathic perspectives and that's a road WotC has (thankfully) been heading further down in recent releases.
Personal story; I have during my life avoided seeking therapy for fear of being seen as dangerous thanks to pop culture portrayals of mental illness. I have a fear of being institutionalised due to the classic 'lunatic in a straight jacket' cliche. It's only in recent years, with more exposure to healthy attitudes towards mental health (thanks due in no small part to my fiancee, a doctor in psychology and trained counselor and therapist) that I've become comfortable seeking help to improve my mental health. I personally hope no one is ever scared from getting the same help by incentive portrayals of mental illness like I was, portrayals not dissimilar to those found in D&D, at least in the earlier books.
I don't begrudge Wizards of the Coast for this though; they're reflecting a systemic, cultural attitude, one that goes well beyond D&D. I'm just glad to see them being part of a positive change.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
When I read threads like this, it brings to mind a lot og what my wife's Psychiatrist has told us numerous times. She needs to separate actual references and inferences from those SHE CREATES in her mind, to progress and work through her issues. Validating an inane claim of reference is as harmful or more than outright mocking the situation in many cases. People who are offended by purely fantasy things, be it a condition, a mythical race or a war, should be helped in understanding the line between fantasy and reality exists and there is no reason for them to try and tie these together, as it does nothing but set them farther back and make their issues MORE difficult to deal with.
Having lived with someone who has a myriad of mental health issues, from depression to anxiety to a near bipolar personality, I can assure you, supporting fantastic stretches of belief is not helpful. It is significantly more productive to help these folks understand that term/condition/race/whatever X to a real life situation or application is harmful. Trying to say that the madness in D&D is a direct relation to mental health in RL is harmful to those who live with these conditions. These folks would be MUCH better served if their therapist/partner/family/friends would help them realize what is in D&D is no more real than a ring of wishes and while it MAY at times come close to RL stuff, IT ISN'T. I am tired of today's "cancel culture" trying to make every little fictional thing a reflection or representation of RL things. It simply isn't so and by supporting these delusions, it only solidifies the hold their illness has on them.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
That is a much better presentation. Thank you for that understanding, Kotath.
I don't see Helhawke's original post as attempting to censure, sanitize, or stigmatize the issue. I see it as a request for discussion on whether the term 'Madness' is not a good one and if there's a better way to handle such things in D&D. The ask isn't for censorship but for awareness - frankly, the opposite of censorship. The question can be asked, and people can contribute their own opinions, and in the sharing of ideas and opinions we can all become richer and more able to handle such topics in our own games and our own lives. I saw no issue with 'Madness' from the comfort of my own experience sphere, but others have stated that the term is very much an issue for them. I would not have known this, as deeply buried in fiction trope/fantasy tropes as I am, had Helhawke not asked and started the discussion. I am more aware than I was before this thread was created, and that is only a positive thing.
At my specific table, there is no need to replace the word 'madness', though now I may do so anyways if I can find a properly evocative and less loaded word to describe the sorts of mind-twisting psychic wounds that fantasy 'Madness' is supposed to be. At a table including Davyd, or others within this thread, the word should be avoided and the way people think about the system should be guided, as gently as possible, towards a more empathetic course. That won't always work, but it's the goal.
The 'Practical Solution', as it were, is not to treat this as a one-and-done problem somebody can fix once and then everybody can go back to ignoring. The practical solution is to recognize that this is an area of the gamespace where people can have strong emotions and suffer from negative connections back to real-world trauma, and to tread in that space with care and respect. Awareness is the practical solution, which is why these discussions are a good, healthy thing. When not spoiled by people denigrating and dismissing other people's experiences, at least.
Please do not contact or message me.
I believe that this is all that needs to be said about this post:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
So, you're saying that modern pieces of the hobby that take place in previous centuries (or equivalent settings to previous centuries) should use the same social standards that previous centuries used?
That's BS. So, by that "logic", the Vistani people should be called the derogatory term "gypsies" because Europeans in those centuries used that term to describe the Romani people? Any other setting that takes place in a previous time period should use the language used by that time period, so a Shakespearean setting book should be written filled with "thou" and "thee". Any derogatory term is A-okay as long as it was used in the time period that the setting is?
No. I reject that, as should everyone. D&D is a modern game, and it obeys modern standards, even if the individual settings take place in previous time periods.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
This is a false equivalency. If you don't like a table's playstyle, the best thing to do is to walk away. However, offensive language is not a "playstyle". Playstyles are founded upon things that make the game fun or a specific person or group of people. If people have fun because they use offensive language (not in spite of it, but because of it), that is objectively badwrongfun, because it's harmful to society.
The reason why "ignore it and walk away" isn't a good solution (or even a solution) in this case is because offensive language isn't a playstyle and ignoring a problem is worse than acknowledging it. That's telling the people who are genuinely offended/harmed by this term that their feelings don't matter, only yours do, and that they just have to suck it up and deal with the "natural order of things", which just happens to be allowing themselves to be walked over and insulted by whomever feels in the mood to offend someone with no consequences.
So, yeah, this is both a red herring and false equivalency, as well as a strawman on what the OP was about.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Allow me to point out that if they remove from D&D absolutely 100% of absolutely everything that might possibly be offensive to someone then there will be absolutely nothing left.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Funnily enough, this is the same as telling someone that their playstyle is wrong, even though it is fun for them and the rest of the group. It's telling them that their feelings don't matter, that only yours do.
No, I'm saying that CoS was written in that way, and it's a problem. There's a general problem with trying to emulate literary genres: accurately emulating genres includes emulating the bad parts.
But it's not. Yes, it is telling them that their fun is wrong, but that's because this is one of the rare cases where that can be true. Fun can only be wrong if it directly harms other people. It's a false equivalency to say that someone telling someone else to just not play with Powergamers if they don't like that playstyle and someone telling someone else to just not play with people of use offensive language are the same thing. They're not the same thing, because one is an objectively harmless playstyle to the larger community and world (Powergaming), and the other isn't harmless (using offensive terms).
Again, I'll link this thread of mine. It seems like it's hypocritical or a paradox, but it isn't.
(I'm not saying that D&D's "Madness system" is harmful or that people who use it are playing the game wrong, I'm merely rejecting the notion that Vince promoted saying that these two situations are the same thing. They're not, for a very large and key reason that I have discussed extensively in this post and my previous one on this subject.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sposta, we're friends. We're both in the Loudmouth Club, which I will invoke the purpose of in this post.
This argument doesn't hold water. This is the same argument as saying "We can't send anyone to prison because everyone breaks the law sometimes, and then our system would collapse".
Everyone will be offended by something sometime, but that isn't an argument for the status quo. The more people that are offended by something, the more "valid" a concern that is to possibly need changing. If WotC hears from the community that they don't like the term "Madness" or whatever other language there is used in that system to describe what would be called "Mental Health Conditions" in the real world, and they hear it enough, they should consider changing it. However, if someone is offended that the D&D ruleset includes rules for weapons because they had a traumatic experience related to weapons, that one person will only be one voice asking for change. There have been multiple people in this thread and on other platforms that have expressed discomfort caused by this part of D&D, or by the language used to describe certain races in the game mirroring language used by white supremacists, and other places where they and a noticeable amount of others have been turned off/harmed by a specific part of the hobby.
The amount of people being offended matters. That's why this is a valid question to ask. That's why the language describing the Vistani has been changed in Curse of Strahd and why Van Richten's and Tasha's are taking a new viewpoint on the Vistani people. It's because the thing causing offense was noticeable enough to gain the attention of enough people for WotC to change it. That's how society progresses. That's why a lot of terms that were commonly in use a decade or two ago are now considered taboo by modern standards. Society marches on, and that doesn't mean that D&D will be destroyed because "everything can be offensive to anyone", it's that the community is deciding where to draw the line and when to move more problematic parts of the hobby across the line.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Apologies, I don't think I made myself clear. I agree with you. I meant that telling people to just put up with things which offend them in the game or not play it is like telling people that their play style is wrong. Both are putting your own wishes ahead of anyone elses, and telling the other person that their feelings don't matter.
Is everybody just skipping eachother's posts? Or just cherry picking.
Let's be clear. We're talking about made up stuff in a makebelieve game. Ask if you're getting upset for someone before you even understand if you should. This isn't the Drow, Dwarf, or Giant conversation. Dwarfism and Gigantism are real medical condition with more PC terms.
Madness isn't Dementia / alstimers. Madness isn't autism. Madness isn't a real disease. Madness and Lunacy don't even come from real mental disorders. Madness is literally being so spiteful that you do things against your own interest to harm someone. Lunacy is being so self-obcessed that you look at your reflection until the moon rises.
What's important is that the diseases listed aren't actual illnesses and conditions. Which illness in game makes light of a real disease? That's a serious question. I feel like we're missing the actual point. It's like telling someone to stop calling Saltines "crackers" because it might upset white people. Nobody will get upset if you call a cracker a cracker.
What I'm curious about is if the OP or anybody here is in a country where Madness is a slur. Here in the US, Jay was once a slur for Autism. There is the R word now here in the US that is a catch all slur for several illnesses. In the UK there's the M word (M*n*c, not madness).
We aren't calling people with ADHD, lisps or PTSD mad for their struggles and trauma. We're saying that an illness leaves you speaking in Greek for a bit.
Other than saying "mental problems (not illness) exists in our game" what is possibly problematic?
It is real simple.
If someone is offended by some words on a piece of paper, or words uttered in a small group, that person can choose not read those words, or remove themselves from that conversation. That person can then gather with like-minded individuals and play any game they wish, censoring any concepts they wish within that group.
But if no one has the right to cast judgement on what may offend someone, the natural extension is that same person may not decide what is right for my group. In my group, the concept of madness is just fine to deal with in a game, because we are adults capable of differentiating between reality and fantasy. If someone does not like that, they can walk away, no hard feelings. They may NOT tell me my group is engaging in, what is the term thrown at me...oh yes, badwrongfun. And they may NOT tell me it is wrong on a forum either.