If you're not already familiar with her work, I highly recommend Ursula K. Leguin's writing. She often delves into the problems with utopias. One of my favourites is a short-story called, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
If you're not already familiar with her work, I highly recommend Ursula K. Leguin's writing. She often delves into the problems with utopias. One of my favourites is a short-story called, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
The Left Hand of Darkness was required reading for one of my English classes at university.
Your ideas and mine are very different, which is why it's not just about any one person's opinions, but the opinions of everyone in this hobby and everyone who wants to approach this hobby.
Also, your comment on conquest paladins and aboleths and dragons etc is a misdirect. We're not talking to those things, if they're problematic or harmful, we're just talking to a very specific situation. Are those things harmful? I don't know. I personally don't find them to be so, but I haven't actually analysed them or spoke to people about the matter. There may be subject matter nested within them that is harmful to some and possibly worth addressing. The key is to approach the matter with an open mind and a willingness to listen to people, to treat their feelings on the matter as valid, and to be ready to engage in discussion and compromise.
And yes, I've seen all those movies, but again, this is a misdirect. We are not speaking to recreational terror in the form of horror movies. D&D is not Alien, your comparison is invalid and irrelevant. In 'my world' those films would very much still have been made because I am not suggesting that nothing that induces fear should not exist; that is a straw man form of what I'm saying.
So please, don't do yourself the disservice of persistently misrepresenting my stance; I am not saying to get rid of anything scary from the world. Heck, I'm not even saying to get rid of mechanics from D&D that emulate terror and hopelessness and fear. What I am saying is to abandon the harmful language. Use more considered language in its place. Include tools to help the DM run horror that is scary, but safe. There's a line in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that was highlighted by Doctor B on twitter that I whole heartedly agree with "Scare, don't scar".
As for your hypothetical Vince, you seem intent to paint a caricature of a real scenario, one that doesn't actually model any real interaction but instead a villainous, worst case scenario in an attempt to ridicule my stance. Kinda needless, but I'll do my best to engage from a reasonable perspective.
I personally would not be bothered by the necrotic shroud feature. However, if in session 0 it had been mentioned that depictions of said themes would be off the table, I'd quickly take a moment to just pause the action and check in with the DM and other players. "Hey DM, isn't this something that was supposed to be off the table? Hey other players, all good?" If people aren't 'all good', then we'd figure out what to do with the scene; either a rewind, tone shift, retcon or other solution.
However, I'd once again point out that I'm not speaking to removing all horror and fear themes from the game (something you seem to have misconstrued from this thread). I am instead saying that harmful language for such themes shouldn't be used in future official published material. What happens at your table, and stays at your table, is your business.
Am I now to put a sign above my table warning that psychologically damaging events could happen in my game, or should I censor out any potential encounter that could trigger someone in the wide wide pantheon of mental illnesses, on the oft chance one of these walk-in's (my table are fine with everything I throw at them) has a mental illness.
There are actually some really great resources for content surveys and safety tools. You don't need a sigh, but a simple "I run a mature table, please ask if you're concerned about themes" goes a long way.
What you describe is your form of a utopia. I live in the real world, where what you want is not reasonable.
If you consider what I'm describing an unobtainable utopia, you've either misunderstood all that I've said, or you have a very dire view of the world and for that you have my sympathy. Consideration, empathy and respect are not the criteria of an unobtainable utopia.
I'm going to duck out of this discussion; things are reaching the point where I'm saying the same things repeatedly which isn't really a valuable use of my time, as well as for my own mental wellbeing. Here's a list of my posts in this thread:
Your ideas and mine are very different, which is why it's not just about any one person's opinions, but the opinions of everyone in this hobby and everyone who wants to approach this hobby.
Also, your comment on conquest paladins and aboleths and dragons etc is a misdirect. We're not talking to those things, if they're problematic or harmful, we're just talking to a very specific situation. Are those things harmful? I don't know. I personally don't find them to be so, but I haven't actually analysed them or spoke to people about the matter. There may be subject matter nested within them that is harmful to some and possibly worth addressing. The key is to approach the matter with an open mind and a willingness to listen to people, to treat their feelings on the matter as valid, and to be ready to engage in discussion and compromise.
And yes, I've seen all those movies, but again, this is a misdirect. We are not speaking to recreational terror in the form of horror movies. D&D is not Alien, your comparison is invalid and irrelevant. In 'my world' those films would very much still have been made because I am not suggesting that nothing that induces fear should not exist; that is a straw man form of what I'm saying.
So please, don't do yourself the disservice of persistently misrepresenting my stance; I am not saying to get rid of anything scary from the world. Heck, I'm not even saying to get rid of mechanics from D&D that emulate terror and hopelessness and fear. What I am saying is to abandon the harmful language. Use more considered language in its place. Include tools to help the DM run horror that is scary, but safe. There's a line in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that was highlighted by Doctor B on twitter that I whole heartedly agree with "Scare, don't scar".
Nope. You are wrong. And I have every right to say that, as I am part of the "everybody in the hobby". You can censor me, but your opinion would still be utterly wrong. You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
Quite frankly, D&D is not the game for you. If so many facets of the game affect you so negatively, you should find another game. I find many games and past times repellent for any number of reasons, but I don't mount campaigns to have them changed into something else. I simply don't engage in them.
Oh, and the Paladin example was directly on point, or my game cafe situation, but you chose to wave it away, because you can't face the uncomfortable facts.
And Alien IS EXACTLY like a D&D game, just in a different setting. And not that far off, given I keep reading about people trying to modify D&D for science fiction settings.
You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
There a many a word that has been culturally appropriated by a group and then made to be to somehow be "traumatizing" to some sub-set of humanity. Not that I don't think that word has always been abhorrent, but the "n-word" is one where if you are non-black, it is a horrifying word, but if you are a black rapper, or Samuel L. Jackson, it is art. You can get in serious trouble if you use the word "Negroid", which is on the same level as Asian and Caucasian, when it comes to defining races.
Now "master" and "slave" when talking in terms of computer hardware and software is going bye-bye, and will get you fired if you refer to gear that way.
I will give you another silly example. It may not even make it past the auto-censors here, let alone the moderators, centred around another culturally appropriated word: gay. The "Gay Nineties" is a historic term that refers to the 1890's of the United States. I had a post on another website auto-censored, talking about baseball pitchers doctoring balls, when I referenced a living Hall of Famer, by the name of Gaylord Perry. That is his given name. It was the name of his dad's best friend. The man was born in 1938, pitched in the majors until 1982. You try calling someone that today, in general conversation, and watch what happens.
So a word is supposed to be perfectly fine for decades, or hundreds of years, then suddenly "traumatizing". I recognize that English, and dozens of other languages, are living things and evolving. But to suggest that a single word can "traumatize" someone, well, that person has got a priority scale way out of whack. We are living in a world of hysteria. People are dying in a pandemic, and rightly or wrongly, people are losing their collective minds over it. We have a biosphere that is teetering on the edge of catastrophe. The U.S. came within inches of becoming a dictatorship, and there is a very good chance it will still. China invading Taiwan could very well trigger a regional war, and it sure looks like it will, not can, happen.
Yet we are supposed to worry about whether WOTC is insensitive to the word "madness" and consider removing all aspects of the game that invoke "real harm" over said aspects? How about no. Collectively we have way more to worry about.
Stop the Press, in bizarro land I find myself agreeing with Vince on this one. D&D is a game. It is one game amongst many millions of games. Instead of trying to play a game which you don't like because it is too scary for you, and you only joined to convince the game makers to make the bad scary man go away, here's a thought...... go play a different game that doesn't scare you, and let the grownups continue to enjoy the game that some of them have been playing since before you were born.
You could also... [REDACTED], just play the fun PG rated bits. [REDACTED]
And Vince thought I didn't like him :)
Hey, I realize that MOST regular posters here don't like me. Many despise me. It does not stop me from being right.
The fact that you have to continue pointing this out all the time might be a point to reconsider this stance. This isn't about YOU being right. It's about how OTHERS feel about the term.
You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
There a many a word that has been culturally appropriated by a group and then made to be to somehow be "traumatizing" to some sub-set of humanity. Not that I don't think that word has always been abhorrent, but the "n-word" is one where if you are non-black, it is a horrifying word, but if you are a black rapper, or Samuel L. Jackson, it is art. You can get in serious trouble if you use the word "Negroid", which is on the same level as Asian and Caucasian, when it comes to defining races.
Now "master" and "slave" when talking in terms of computer hardware and software is going bye-bye, and will get you fired if you refer to gear that way.
I will give you another silly example. It may not even make it past the auto-censors here, let alone the moderators, centred around another culturally appropriated word: gay. The "Gay Nineties" is a historic term that refers to the 1890's of the United States. I had a post on another website auto-censored, talking about baseball pitchers doctoring balls, when I referenced a living Hall of Famer, by the name of Gaylord Perry. That is his given name. It was the name of his dad's best friend. The man was born in 1938, pitched in the majors until 1982. You try calling someone that today, in general conversation, and watch what happens.
So a word is supposed to be perfectly fine for decades, or hundreds of years, then suddenly "traumatizing". I recognize that English, and dozens of other languages, are living things and evolving. But to suggest that a single word can "traumatize" someone, well, that person has got a priority scale way out of whack. We are living in a world of hysteria. People are dying in a pandemic, and rightly or wrongly, people are losing their collective minds over it. We have a biosphere that is teetering on the edge of catastrophe. The U.S. came within inches of becoming a dictatorship, and there is a very good chance it will still. China invading Taiwan could very well trigger a regional war, and it sure looks like it will, not can, happen.
Yet we are supposed to worry about whether WOTC is insensitive to the word "madness" and consider removing all aspects of the game that invoke "real harm" over said aspects? How about no. Collectively we have way more to worry about.
This thread isn't about you. It's just not. If you aren't offended by this, fantastic, but that doesn't mean that others aren't.
Things change and evolve, as does our understanding. These are good things. If your reaction is to go "Hey, the hobby that you have enjoyed, that has bettered you for years is not for you?" That's offensive to that person. I don't think it's hard to realize that. If it is hard to realize that, maybe it's time to take that step back and re-evaluate.
I think I can say your intent isn't about being excellent to everyone, it's about being exclusionary based off the fact you literally told someone to stop playing the game they loved. Your posts in your thread about fudging dice rolls made it evident you wanted that other player kicked out for not playing the game you wanted, and posts in other threads have made it clear that if the game isn't played in specifically your way you don't even recognize it as valid D&D. In a thread about inclusion, you enter and speak of exclusion.
How is this good for the game? How is this good for this discussion? How is this good for these forums?
I think you're a smart individual, I think you bring a lot of ideas to the table and I think you want to be helpful, but man is it hard to get through to those pieces under the rest of it. Being blunt and even abrasive is fine, but empathy towards others is just something that should exist in droves. In a game seeing a social resurgence thanks to its attempt at making itself better, realizing the flaws in its past and being more inclusive combined with a global pandemic that changed how we play it, here we are talking about how words are fine and we should be able to use all the words regardless of how other people feel. That isn't right.
I just don't know what else to say. Again, this isn't about you or me. Like I stated earlier, I'm a plain cis-white male with zero mental disorders, but I have seen the actual pain that these tropes have brought to people. I don't give two shits about it in terms of my own personal stance, but when it comes to people I consider my friends, I want to be an ally and help them in whatever way I can. If that means I run my game differently? So be it. If that means I don't use certain words? So be it. If that means I don't bring up certain topics? So be it. I then take that stance to places like this, where I can say "Look it doesn't affect me, here is the pain it has caused others, can't you see that?"
If that person can't see it? Generally, my answer is to stop having discourse with that person. I don't think people want to stop talking to you, but I do think people want to stop feeling like they're being beaten over the head with your ideas over and over again because there is a flat refusal to even consider the other side of the coin.
I think we should keep "woke" and political correctness out of DnD. You do you, but I don't think these considerations should be made for the official content, because when does it stop? There will eventually be nothing but an empty husk left.
There are three things here I wanna break down:
I think we should keep "woke" and political correctness out of DnD.
None of what has been mentioned is 'woke' or political correctness. It's people, myself included, saying "This language is actively harmful to myself and others in a non-speculative sense. Let's fix that". There is no politics here, just people and their experiences.
You do you, but I don't think these considerations should be made for the official content
The official content is exactly where these considerations should be made because, unlike what happens at your table or mine, the official content is what's put out into the world. It's what people experience when they pick up a book to see what D&D is about. The official content is the ambassador to the game.
because when does it stop? There will eventually be nothing but an empty husk left.
Well firstly, it doesn't 'stop'. D&D will never be perfect and, as times change, so will D&D. It will either grow and improve and become something more and more people can approach, or it will wither and die a stagnant, dated mess. But this presupposes to incorrect assumptions; this is about removing rather than fixing, and secondly that there is nothing redeemable in D&D and if we were to remove it, there'd be nothing left. I wouldn't say that about this hobby, this game. Sure, it has it's rough edges and harmful themes, but not as many as it used to have, and it'll hopefully have less in the future. It'll still be D&D, it'll just be better. To assume that D&D minus the problematic elements would be 'nothing but an empty husk' truly does a disservice to the hobby, the stories people tell with it, the experiences people have.
So no, this isn't about "wokeness" or "political correctness" or taking anything out. It's about moving D&D forwards, it's about compassion and respect and empathy. It's about acknowledging that D&D isn't perfect and never will be. There's an old adage; "perfect is the enemy of good". D&D may never will be perfect, but it can always be better. That's what this is about. Making D&D better.
If we censor everything that can be construed as inconsiderate to a group of people, then there won't be much left in the end. That's what I'm saying.
I don't think the term "madness" in D&D is something that should offend anyone really, but even if does offend someone, then I think people should expect that they can't go through life 100% unoffended. I'm often offended at other people, but I can't really do anything about it other than shrug my shoulders and accept that I'm different from them.
What someone finds inoffensive may well be offensive to me, but I don't expect it removed from mainstream media.
You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
Yep, Vince is setting up a false dichotomy here: either we include all scary stuff, even that which crosses a line for our players, or we have none at all. That’s wrong. True, if we removed everything from the rules that crossed a line for anyone, that would leave us with nothing, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. What’s being talked about is whether you should avoid specific things so your friends and fellow players can enjoy the chills as intended. And if you give a rat’s butt about your friends, of course you should.
It doesn’t even have to be a big conversation. I’ve run a few very successful horror games in which my players admitted to being quite scared. In one of them, my story featured a Ouija board that the characters were to use, and one of my players, who is religious, said “I don’t think I’m really comfortable with that.” I said “no problem,” the characters threw the board in the trash, and we continued the story another way. Avoiding that one thing that crossed a line didn’t make the rest of the game any less frightening. I’m not saying we should remove Ouija boards, or madness for that matter, from the game. But I am saying we need to be compassionate with our friends and change our individual games so everyone can have fun.
You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do,preciselyhorrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
Yep, Vince is setting up a false dichotomy here: either we include all scary stuff, even that which crosses a line for our players, or we have none at all. That’s wrong. True, if we removed everything from the rules that crossed a line for anyone, that would leave us with nothing, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. What’s being talked about is whether you should avoid specific things so your friends and fellow players can enjoy the chills as intended. And if you give a rat’s butt about your friends, of course you should.
It doesn’t even have to be a big conversation. I’ve run a few very successful horror games in which my players admitted to being quite scared. In one of them, my story featured a Ouija board that the characters were to use, and one of my players, who is religious, said “I don’t think I’m really comfortable with that.” I said “no problem,” the characters threw the board in the trash, and we continued the story another way. Avoiding that one thing that crossed a line didn’t make the rest of the game any less frightening. I’m not saying we should remove Ouija boards, or madness for that matter, from the game. But I am saying we need to be compassionate with our friends and change our individual games so everyone can have fun.
If that was the convo I don't think this would of gotten as much flak as it had, again if your table doesnt like something dont do it. This topic is literally "is WotC treading a line" so does this need to change from a WotC perspective.. so we are talking about removing/changing said item (just like racial ASI's months ago), this wasn't a topic that started off with "hey at my table I have this player thats -whatever- about madness so I changed the name or did something different"
So while Vince is setting up an all or nothing I understand his point because this is feeling more and more lately like "if something offends someone WotC needs to remove it from D&D" (and I dont just mean THIS topic but the general discussions about D&D, it's been a barrage of we need to remove something because I think someone might find it insensative)
Stop the Press, in bizarro land I find myself agreeing with Vince on this one. D&D is a game. It is one game amongst many millions of games. Instead of trying to play a game which you don't like because it is too scary for you, and you only joined to convince the game makers to make the bad scary man go away, here's a thought...... go play a different game that doesn't scare you, and let the grownups continue to enjoy the game that some of them have been playing since before you were born.
You could also... [REDACTED] just play the fun PG rated bits. [REDACTED]
And Vince thought I didn't like him :)
While I don't 100% agree with the tone in your post, I must also join the club of "I've agreed with Vince". I think my stance on this subject is apparent in the posts I've made in this thread. I don't want anyone to get emotionally scarred from playing, but then modify what you need to modify at your table at session 0.
There's plenty of us that want to be grossed out, terrified etc. when playing. Some of us like the horror aspects of D&D.
So while Vince is setting up an all or nothing I understand his point because this is feeling more and more lately like "if something offends someone WotC needs to remove it from D&D" (and I dont just mean THIS topic but the general discussions about D&D, it's been a barrage of we need to remove something because I think someone might find it insensative)
I don't think "madness" is particularly troublesome myself. Nonetheless, I can understand why it might be to others. We don't get to decide what others can take offense at (including taking offense at an entire book because of some mechanics in it someone disagrees with). So, should that word be removed from D&D? Not on my account, but I won't be upset if it does.
That's not the direction this conversation is going though. Some apparently argue removing anything due to it being offensive would be bad - all words must be fine, everything must be acceptable. And that's silly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, I'm finding the lack of empathy in this thread really, really disturbing, but honestly I'm not surprised given who it's coming from (and honestly, for one of you, since you get offended enough to, in your own words "scream at the wall" by, lets see here, roll 4d6 drop lowest, a player possibly fudging rolls, and freaking Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, I'd say you should just hold your tongue here). If you really, really don't think words hurt, then why do you care if WoTC or your fellow players decide to use different ones? If you really, really think that, then changing language should mean nothing to you, since one word is just as good as another, right?.
I'll leave the following quote (from Dolly Parton, no less) and get the heck out of dodge before my ire really gets up:
"There’s such a thing as innocent ignorance, and so many of us are guilty of that," she observes. "When they said 'Dixie' was an offensive word, I thought, 'Well, I don’t want to offend anybody. This is a business. We’ll just call it the Stampede.'"
"As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it," Parton adds. "Don’t be a dumbass. That’s where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose."
Honestly, I'm finding the lack of empathy in this thread really, really disturbing, but honestly I'm not surprised given who it's coming from (and honestly, for one of you, since you get offended enough to, in your own words "scream at the wall" by, lets see here, roll 4d6 drop lowest, a player possibly fudging rolls, and freaking Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, I'd say you should just hold your tongue here). If you really, really don't think words hurt, then why do you care if WoTC or your fellow players decide to use different ones? If you really, really think that, then changing language should mean nothing to you, since one word is just as good as another, right?.
I'll leave the following quote (from Dolly Parton, no less) and get the heck out of dodge before my ire really gets up:
"There’s such a thing as innocent ignorance, and so many of us are guilty of that," she observes. "When they said 'Dixie' was an offensive word, I thought, 'Well, I don’t want to offend anybody. This is a business. We’ll just call it the Stampede.'"
"As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it," Parton adds. "Don’t be a dumbass. That’s where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose."
All so inoffensive ideas, each in and of itself, harmless and sounding like something that is just and reasonable. Until WOTC announces 6e was game tested by 8 year old children to make sure it did not offend or scare anyone.
D&D is supposed to be a tough game, where success hard fought, players have to be intelligent, and face stuff unimaginable in the real world. If there is a segment of the population that can't deal with that fact, D&D is not for them. I am doing my part, on a single web site, to fight the good fight, and will die on that hill.
I think a lot of this is solved if we recognize that we are not removing anything.
They are changing the language involved to be more specific and with less offensive baggage.
All the arguments such as "If we censor everything that can be construed as inconsiderate to a group of people, then there won't be much left in the end. That's what I'm saying. I don't think the term "madness" in D&D is something that should offend anyone really" are mostly irrelevant because
1. Nothing is really being censored, WoTC is just using more specific & emphatic language. I mean, censorship is something we can discuss, but this isn't really the forum for it.
2. Several people have shown to be offended by it, what you feel is true is not factual.
3. Yes I agree we cannot remove everything that offends people, but we can find the things that cause the most offence and improve them. Not censor, not remove, improve.
No one is advocating for removing anything, some people just want to take what we have and make it better.
Edit: At least with the racial bonuses from TCoE there was more to argue because it was a mechanical change and had connections to biology. This is basically a title change as far as I know right now.
If we censor everything that can be construed as inconsiderate to a group of people, then there won't be much left in the end. That's what I'm saying. I don't think the term "madness" in D&D is something that should offend anyone really.
What someone finds inoffensive may well be offensive to me, but I don't expect it removed from mainstream media.
This isn't about censorship, though. This isn't about "cancelling", or "wokeness", or "political correctness". None of this is political. If you think it's political, you're thinking about this subject incorrectly. If you consider "not offending a group of people" "woke", that's just plain wrong and a horrible way to look at the world. The n-word is offensive to black people, the r-word is offensive to people with mental conditions, and the c-word is offensive to women (at least in America, it's different in some other countries, but that's neither here nor there). If you think it's "woke" to not use the term "madness" to describe effects that at the very least similar to real life mental illnesses, I don't think I want to know what your opinion on similar matters are. If it's "woke" or "political correctness" to not use the term "madness" in a fantasy game, than it's also "woke" to not use the n-word, the r-word, and the c-word.
It's not about any of that. It's about not using terms and language that offends real people. The people who get offended by the n-word don't choose to be offended, society chose to give that word baggage and to use it to harm others. The same applies to similar derogatory terms. This is like someone claiming it's "woke" or "censorship" that they're not allowed to go online and tell everyone they come across that they're idiots with no provocation. It's not "woke" to disallow that, it's just human decency.
Because that's what this is all about. It's about not offending people when there is no reason to offend them and to replace the offense with better, more accurate, and inclusive terms. "Madness/Insanity" becoming "Stress and Fears" isn't "woke", it isn't "censorship", and it isn't "cancel culture", it's human decency and it's using more accurate descriptors.
Just stop with the strawmen, the personal attacks against the people you disagree with, and the red herrings. Those are logical fallacies and aren't helpful to the discussion in general and isn't helpful to your side of the argument. Arguing in bad faith on accident is bound to happen sometimes to even the best of us, but once you've been pointed out to be doing it, you need to correct your argument and begin using good faith arguments. This applies to not only you, but it applies to Vince, RodneyMcNeely, and everyone else that is protesting against this change that has already happened.
I've pointed out you arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't on purpose, that's fine as long as you change your tactics to valid forms of debate. If you don't, that's by definition trolling (I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just pointing out that you and the others on your side could begin to troll if your debate tactics don't change).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Honestly, I'm finding the lack of empathy in this thread really, really disturbing, but honestly I'm not surprised given who it's coming from (and honestly, for one of you, since you get offended enough to, in your own words "scream at the wall" by, lets see here, roll 4d6 drop lowest, a player possibly fudging rolls, and freaking Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, I'd say you should just hold your tongue here). If you really, really don't think words hurt, then why do you care if WoTC or your fellow players decide to use different ones? If you really, really think that, then changing language should mean nothing to you, since one word is just as good as another, right?.
I'll leave the following quote (from Dolly Parton, no less) and get the heck out of dodge before my ire really gets up:
"There’s such a thing as innocent ignorance, and so many of us are guilty of that," she observes. "When they said 'Dixie' was an offensive word, I thought, 'Well, I don’t want to offend anybody. This is a business. We’ll just call it the Stampede.'"
"As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it," Parton adds. "Don’t be a dumbass. That’s where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose."
All so inoffensive ideas, each in and of itself, harmless and sounding like something that is just and reasonable. Until WOTC announces 6e was game tested by 8 year old children to make sure it did not offend or scare anyone.
D&D is supposed to be a tough game, where success hard fought, players have to be intelligent, and face stuff unimaginable in the real world. If there is a segment of the population that can't deal with that fact, D&D is not for them. I am doing my part, on a single web site, to fight the good fight, and will die on that hill.
(sigh) We all know that Vince...and what's bad, you've already lost (and I think you know it). The game is moving on without you. Tasha's exists with it's changes to racial attributes, the changes relating to this topic in the new Ravenloft book exist. the vast majority of the player base is fine with the changes being made (at least, looking at book sales for Tasha's, anyway). Soon your attitudes and mindset will be a relic, and the rest of us will continue enjoying the game while you continue to scream at the wall about this and that until your voice gives out.
(Its not really a good fight you are fighting, either)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you're not already familiar with her work, I highly recommend Ursula K. Leguin's writing. She often delves into the problems with utopias. One of my favourites is a short-story called, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
The Left Hand of Darkness was required reading for one of my English classes at university.
Your ideas and mine are very different, which is why it's not just about any one person's opinions, but the opinions of everyone in this hobby and everyone who wants to approach this hobby.
Also, your comment on conquest paladins and aboleths and dragons etc is a misdirect. We're not talking to those things, if they're problematic or harmful, we're just talking to a very specific situation. Are those things harmful? I don't know. I personally don't find them to be so, but I haven't actually analysed them or spoke to people about the matter. There may be subject matter nested within them that is harmful to some and possibly worth addressing. The key is to approach the matter with an open mind and a willingness to listen to people, to treat their feelings on the matter as valid, and to be ready to engage in discussion and compromise.
And yes, I've seen all those movies, but again, this is a misdirect. We are not speaking to recreational terror in the form of horror movies. D&D is not Alien, your comparison is invalid and irrelevant. In 'my world' those films would very much still have been made because I am not suggesting that nothing that induces fear should not exist; that is a straw man form of what I'm saying.
So please, don't do yourself the disservice of persistently misrepresenting my stance; I am not saying to get rid of anything scary from the world. Heck, I'm not even saying to get rid of mechanics from D&D that emulate terror and hopelessness and fear. What I am saying is to abandon the harmful language. Use more considered language in its place. Include tools to help the DM run horror that is scary, but safe. There's a line in Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft that was highlighted by Doctor B on twitter that I whole heartedly agree with "Scare, don't scar".
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
As for your hypothetical Vince, you seem intent to paint a caricature of a real scenario, one that doesn't actually model any real interaction but instead a villainous, worst case scenario in an attempt to ridicule my stance. Kinda needless, but I'll do my best to engage from a reasonable perspective.
I personally would not be bothered by the necrotic shroud feature. However, if in session 0 it had been mentioned that depictions of said themes would be off the table, I'd quickly take a moment to just pause the action and check in with the DM and other players. "Hey DM, isn't this something that was supposed to be off the table? Hey other players, all good?" If people aren't 'all good', then we'd figure out what to do with the scene; either a rewind, tone shift, retcon or other solution.
However, I'd once again point out that I'm not speaking to removing all horror and fear themes from the game (something you seem to have misconstrued from this thread). I am instead saying that harmful language for such themes shouldn't be used in future official published material. What happens at your table, and stays at your table, is your business.
There are actually some really great resources for content surveys and safety tools. You don't need a sigh, but a simple "I run a mature table, please ask if you're concerned about themes" goes a long way.
If you consider what I'm describing an unobtainable utopia, you've either misunderstood all that I've said, or you have a very dire view of the world and for that you have my sympathy. Consideration, empathy and respect are not the criteria of an unobtainable utopia.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I'm going to duck out of this discussion; things are reaching the point where I'm saying the same things repeatedly which isn't really a valuable use of my time, as well as for my own mental wellbeing. Here's a list of my posts in this thread:
Additionally, here are some useful tools:
Consent in Gaming by Monte Cook games
Mental health hotlines for the UK, US and Aus
My PMs are always open if anyone wants to ask me any questions.
Please, please, be kind to each other. Be excellent to each other. And don't forget to love each other.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Nope. You are wrong. And I have every right to say that, as I am part of the "everybody in the hobby". You can censor me, but your opinion would still be utterly wrong. You can't replace images horror and traumatizing language with "safer versions" because then said images and words lose their power to do exactly what they are supposed to do, precisely horrify and traumatize. Horror works when it takes a person far far away from their comfort zone and confronts them with a situation that can't escape. By making the concepts and language safer, that is the exact opposite manner of how to create horror. People can't be scared if they feel "safe".
Quite frankly, D&D is not the game for you. If so many facets of the game affect you so negatively, you should find another game. I find many games and past times repellent for any number of reasons, but I don't mount campaigns to have them changed into something else. I simply don't engage in them.
Oh, and the Paladin example was directly on point, or my game cafe situation, but you chose to wave it away, because you can't face the uncomfortable facts.
And Alien IS EXACTLY like a D&D game, just in a different setting. And not that far off, given I keep reading about people trying to modify D&D for science fiction settings.
This is doing language a terrible disservice - language is powerful enough to evoke whatever it needs to without using words that have become hurtful due to historical connotations. Furthermore, since we're talking about words to are hurtful to some: how is such a word supposed to horrify and traumatize if it only has that effect on some people due to their personal experiences and history? That's just silly. A word that traumatizes me because of a connotation might not have any such effect on you, which makes it useless for creating horror.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There a many a word that has been culturally appropriated by a group and then made to be to somehow be "traumatizing" to some sub-set of humanity. Not that I don't think that word has always been abhorrent, but the "n-word" is one where if you are non-black, it is a horrifying word, but if you are a black rapper, or Samuel L. Jackson, it is art. You can get in serious trouble if you use the word "Negroid", which is on the same level as Asian and Caucasian, when it comes to defining races.
Now "master" and "slave" when talking in terms of computer hardware and software is going bye-bye, and will get you fired if you refer to gear that way.
I will give you another silly example. It may not even make it past the auto-censors here, let alone the moderators, centred around another culturally appropriated word: gay. The "Gay Nineties" is a historic term that refers to the 1890's of the United States. I had a post on another website auto-censored, talking about baseball pitchers doctoring balls, when I referenced a living Hall of Famer, by the name of Gaylord Perry. That is his given name. It was the name of his dad's best friend. The man was born in 1938, pitched in the majors until 1982. You try calling someone that today, in general conversation, and watch what happens.
So a word is supposed to be perfectly fine for decades, or hundreds of years, then suddenly "traumatizing". I recognize that English, and dozens of other languages, are living things and evolving. But to suggest that a single word can "traumatize" someone, well, that person has got a priority scale way out of whack. We are living in a world of hysteria. People are dying in a pandemic, and rightly or wrongly, people are losing their collective minds over it. We have a biosphere that is teetering on the edge of catastrophe. The U.S. came within inches of becoming a dictatorship, and there is a very good chance it will still. China invading Taiwan could very well trigger a regional war, and it sure looks like it will, not can, happen.
Yet we are supposed to worry about whether WOTC is insensitive to the word "madness" and consider removing all aspects of the game that invoke "real harm" over said aspects? How about no. Collectively we have way more to worry about.
The fact that you have to continue pointing this out all the time might be a point to reconsider this stance. This isn't about YOU being right. It's about how OTHERS feel about the term.
This thread isn't about you. It's just not. If you aren't offended by this, fantastic, but that doesn't mean that others aren't.
Things change and evolve, as does our understanding. These are good things. If your reaction is to go "Hey, the hobby that you have enjoyed, that has bettered you for years is not for you?" That's offensive to that person. I don't think it's hard to realize that. If it is hard to realize that, maybe it's time to take that step back and re-evaluate.
I think I can say your intent isn't about being excellent to everyone, it's about being exclusionary based off the fact you literally told someone to stop playing the game they loved. Your posts in your thread about fudging dice rolls made it evident you wanted that other player kicked out for not playing the game you wanted, and posts in other threads have made it clear that if the game isn't played in specifically your way you don't even recognize it as valid D&D. In a thread about inclusion, you enter and speak of exclusion.
How is this good for the game? How is this good for this discussion? How is this good for these forums?
I think you're a smart individual, I think you bring a lot of ideas to the table and I think you want to be helpful, but man is it hard to get through to those pieces under the rest of it. Being blunt and even abrasive is fine, but empathy towards others is just something that should exist in droves. In a game seeing a social resurgence thanks to its attempt at making itself better, realizing the flaws in its past and being more inclusive combined with a global pandemic that changed how we play it, here we are talking about how words are fine and we should be able to use all the words regardless of how other people feel. That isn't right.
I just don't know what else to say. Again, this isn't about you or me. Like I stated earlier, I'm a plain cis-white male with zero mental disorders, but I have seen the actual pain that these tropes have brought to people. I don't give two shits about it in terms of my own personal stance, but when it comes to people I consider my friends, I want to be an ally and help them in whatever way I can. If that means I run my game differently? So be it. If that means I don't use certain words? So be it. If that means I don't bring up certain topics? So be it. I then take that stance to places like this, where I can say "Look it doesn't affect me, here is the pain it has caused others, can't you see that?"
If that person can't see it? Generally, my answer is to stop having discourse with that person. I don't think people want to stop talking to you, but I do think people want to stop feeling like they're being beaten over the head with your ideas over and over again because there is a flat refusal to even consider the other side of the coin.
If we censor everything that can be construed as inconsiderate to a group of people, then there won't be much left in the end. That's what I'm saying.
I don't think the term "madness" in D&D is something that should offend anyone really, but even if does offend someone, then I think people should expect that they can't go through life 100% unoffended. I'm often offended at other people, but I can't really do anything about it other than shrug my shoulders and accept that I'm different from them.
What someone finds inoffensive may well be offensive to me, but I don't expect it removed from mainstream media.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Yep, Vince is setting up a false dichotomy here: either we include all scary stuff, even that which crosses a line for our players, or we have none at all. That’s wrong. True, if we removed everything from the rules that crossed a line for anyone, that would leave us with nothing, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. What’s being talked about is whether you should avoid specific things so your friends and fellow players can enjoy the chills as intended. And if you give a rat’s butt about your friends, of course you should.
It doesn’t even have to be a big conversation. I’ve run a few very successful horror games in which my players admitted to being quite scared. In one of them, my story featured a Ouija board that the characters were to use, and one of my players, who is religious, said “I don’t think I’m really comfortable with that.” I said “no problem,” the characters threw the board in the trash, and we continued the story another way. Avoiding that one thing that crossed a line didn’t make the rest of the game any less frightening. I’m not saying we should remove Ouija boards, or madness for that matter, from the game. But I am saying we need to be compassionate with our friends and change our individual games so everyone can have fun.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
If that was the convo I don't think this would of gotten as much flak as it had, again if your table doesnt like something dont do it. This topic is literally "is WotC treading a line" so does this need to change from a WotC perspective.. so we are talking about removing/changing said item (just like racial ASI's months ago), this wasn't a topic that started off with "hey at my table I have this player thats -whatever- about madness so I changed the name or did something different"
So while Vince is setting up an all or nothing I understand his point because this is feeling more and more lately like "if something offends someone WotC needs to remove it from D&D" (and I dont just mean THIS topic but the general discussions about D&D, it's been a barrage of we need to remove something because I think someone might find it insensative)
While I don't 100% agree with the tone in your post, I must also join the club of "I've agreed with Vince". I think my stance on this subject is apparent in the posts I've made in this thread. I don't want anyone to get emotionally scarred from playing, but then modify what you need to modify at your table at session 0.
There's plenty of us that want to be grossed out, terrified etc. when playing. Some of us like the horror aspects of D&D.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I don't think "madness" is particularly troublesome myself. Nonetheless, I can understand why it might be to others. We don't get to decide what others can take offense at (including taking offense at an entire book because of some mechanics in it someone disagrees with). So, should that word be removed from D&D? Not on my account, but I won't be upset if it does.
That's not the direction this conversation is going though. Some apparently argue removing anything due to it being offensive would be bad - all words must be fine, everything must be acceptable. And that's silly.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Honestly, I'm finding the lack of empathy in this thread really, really disturbing, but honestly I'm not surprised given who it's coming from (and honestly, for one of you, since you get offended enough to, in your own words "scream at the wall" by, lets see here, roll 4d6 drop lowest, a player possibly fudging rolls, and freaking Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, I'd say you should just hold your tongue here). If you really, really don't think words hurt, then why do you care if WoTC or your fellow players decide to use different ones? If you really, really think that, then changing language should mean nothing to you, since one word is just as good as another, right?.
I'll leave the following quote (from Dolly Parton, no less) and get the heck out of dodge before my ire really gets up:
All so inoffensive ideas, each in and of itself, harmless and sounding like something that is just and reasonable. Until WOTC announces 6e was game tested by 8 year old children to make sure it did not offend or scare anyone.
D&D is supposed to be a tough game, where success hard fought, players have to be intelligent, and face stuff unimaginable in the real world. If there is a segment of the population that can't deal with that fact, D&D is not for them. I am doing my part, on a single web site, to fight the good fight, and will die on that hill.
I think a lot of this is solved if we recognize that we are not removing anything.
They are changing the language involved to be more specific and with less offensive baggage.
All the arguments such as "If we censor everything that can be construed as inconsiderate to a group of people, then there won't be much left in the end. That's what I'm saying. I don't think the term "madness" in D&D is something that should offend anyone really" are mostly irrelevant because
1. Nothing is really being censored, WoTC is just using more specific & emphatic language. I mean, censorship is something we can discuss, but this isn't really the forum for it.
2. Several people have shown to be offended by it, what you feel is true is not factual.
3. Yes I agree we cannot remove everything that offends people, but we can find the things that cause the most offence and improve them. Not censor, not remove, improve.
No one is advocating for removing anything, some people just want to take what we have and make it better.
Edit: At least with the racial bonuses from TCoE there was more to argue because it was a mechanical change and had connections to biology. This is basically a title change as far as I know right now.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
This isn't about censorship, though. This isn't about "cancelling", or "wokeness", or "political correctness". None of this is political. If you think it's political, you're thinking about this subject incorrectly. If you consider "not offending a group of people" "woke", that's just plain wrong and a horrible way to look at the world. The n-word is offensive to black people, the r-word is offensive to people with mental conditions, and the c-word is offensive to women (at least in America, it's different in some other countries, but that's neither here nor there). If you think it's "woke" to not use the term "madness" to describe effects that at the very least similar to real life mental illnesses, I don't think I want to know what your opinion on similar matters are. If it's "woke" or "political correctness" to not use the term "madness" in a fantasy game, than it's also "woke" to not use the n-word, the r-word, and the c-word.
It's not about any of that. It's about not using terms and language that offends real people. The people who get offended by the n-word don't choose to be offended, society chose to give that word baggage and to use it to harm others. The same applies to similar derogatory terms. This is like someone claiming it's "woke" or "censorship" that they're not allowed to go online and tell everyone they come across that they're idiots with no provocation. It's not "woke" to disallow that, it's just human decency.
Because that's what this is all about. It's about not offending people when there is no reason to offend them and to replace the offense with better, more accurate, and inclusive terms. "Madness/Insanity" becoming "Stress and Fears" isn't "woke", it isn't "censorship", and it isn't "cancel culture", it's human decency and it's using more accurate descriptors.
Just stop with the strawmen, the personal attacks against the people you disagree with, and the red herrings. Those are logical fallacies and aren't helpful to the discussion in general and isn't helpful to your side of the argument. Arguing in bad faith on accident is bound to happen sometimes to even the best of us, but once you've been pointed out to be doing it, you need to correct your argument and begin using good faith arguments. This applies to not only you, but it applies to Vince, RodneyMcNeely, and everyone else that is protesting against this change that has already happened.
I've pointed out you arguing in bad faith. If it wasn't on purpose, that's fine as long as you change your tactics to valid forms of debate. If you don't, that's by definition trolling (I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just pointing out that you and the others on your side could begin to troll if your debate tactics don't change).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Insofar as this is even true, none of it has anything to do with insensitive vocabulary (quick reminder: yes, that is the topic at hand).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
(sigh) We all know that Vince...and what's bad, you've already lost (and I think you know it). The game is moving on without you. Tasha's exists with it's changes to racial attributes, the changes relating to this topic in the new Ravenloft book exist. the vast majority of the player base is fine with the changes being made (at least, looking at book sales for Tasha's, anyway). Soon your attitudes and mindset will be a relic, and the rest of us will continue enjoying the game while you continue to scream at the wall about this and that until your voice gives out.
(Its not really a good fight you are fighting, either)