Someone, or some group, at WOTC is making a business decision, based solely on how many books or widgets they will sell. They did some calculus and decided they will sell more if they cave to the SJD's. I, and obviously others, are saying that no, that calculus is wrong. They will not sell more by caving to the SJD's, but will sell more by staying true to the values of D&D the past 50 years.
Someone, or some group, at WOTC is making a business decision, based solely on how many books or widgets they will sell. They did some calculus and decided they will sell more if they cave to the SJD's. I, and obviously others, are saying that no, that calculus is wrong. They will not sell more by caving to the SJD's, but will sell more by staying true to the values of D&D the past 50 years.
(I know what you mean, but maybe you should blow your dog whistle a little louder...)
Jesus Christ, Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm X, Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thumberg, Aleksei Navalny, there were, or are, "warriors". They all have or had skin in the game. Anyone who just posts anonymously on a fan site (including me) , or screams on Twitter is a dilettante. And that is what this thread, or so many others are all about. Dilettantes burning time. I am no better than anyone else in that regard.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”? People are far too sheltered an mollycoddled in today’s society.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”? People are far too sheltered an mollycoddled in today’s society.
There is a reality that names can hurt one. Again, if words had no power, none of us would use them. Even when words themselves do not hurt directly, they can convince others to cause physical harm.
There is a line and it is worth discussing where that line should be.
Agreed. The world watched on Jan 6th what happens with "words". But in the context of D&D, that line is wildly out of whack, and moving more out of whack every day.
Again, though, if there is a player sensitive to any given subject in any given campaign, they should be taken seriously and any given trigger topics be avoided for their sake. However that does not mean that all potential triggers should be removed 'just in case.'
It is like the push to ban peanut butter. There are people deathly allergic to peanuts and thus to peanut butter. It is a real risk, and just as with the issues being discussed here, one linked to real harm. However that does not mean that a society wide ban is justified.
That is freaking not what our argument is, and we've said that about a dozen times, and you know it, Kotath. It's not to remove "all potential triggers", as that is literally and functionally impossible to do. It is to remove "the words and concepts that are triggersthat do offend/hurt marginalized people commonly enough for it to be a noticeable problem".
This is like a push to ban cooking with peanut oil in cases where it doesn't need to be used, and to clearly mark it in the cases where it is being used to warn those with a sensitivity to it.
I have allergies. A ton of them. It would take me over an hour of typing to list every allergy I have, whether it be to a type of food, plant, animal, mold, medicine, or pollen. I know the difficulties of having to check every kind of food that I ever eat that I'm not familiar with in order to make sure it won't endanger me. I know how harmful it can be when those types of ingredients that can hurt me aren't marked down for me to check.
That's what we're trying to do. Not to cleanse every food from every type of possible allergen, but to remove the common "allergens" from the "foods" that they don't need to be in, and clearly markthem in the "foods" that they need to be in (Eldritch Horror and similar themes that rely on "madness" systems).
This is the last time that I'm correcting your side's view of our argument, because the strawmen are getting really frustrating. I kindly ask you to cease with the mischaracterization.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
WoTC may be treading an insensitive line concerning mental illnesses when it comes to describing "madness." The Dungeon Master’s Guidehas a section dedicated to short-term "madness," long-term "madness," and indefinite "madness." However, the use of these terms seems unnecessary as it's really a table of effects including paralysis, incapacitation, fright, "babbling" (inability to speak/spellcast), disadvantage on ability checks, a charm-like effect, pica, stun, and unconsciousness.
On one, hand, portrayals of "madness" have some history with horror tropes, however, it seems that as we understand more about how labels have the potential to stigmatize, WoTC (and those who write about their products) might want want to reconsider how they portray mental illnesses in their materials. It seems that it is unnecessary to label a group of imposed effects by this term.
Quite a number of people, judging by the length and intensity of this thread. You may want to read through it, rather than simply dismiss it out of hand. While the vitriol is depressing, there's good information and discussion to be had here as well.
Wow, I'm really glad that I took the weekend off from this lot.
I think that, for the most part, others have put things much better than I could and have covered off almost everything I would have liked to say.
There is one thing I would like to point out. Taken from Vince's own signature:
Facts trump feelings. Facts hurting your feelings is not anyone's problem but your own.
Several people have pointed out that the phrase "madness" is harmful to them. It is a Fact that they are damaged by this.
So, if your signature is correct, whose problem would it be that you Feel they should not be harmed/upset/hurt/damaged/offended by this?
Where does it stop though?
There are several things that I can point to in different media that can be hurtful to someone's feelings. That's a fact, but it doesn't mean that I think we should avoid those things in media.
Now we have discussed at lengths in this thread. What's the solution?
I personally am very strongly opposed against anything that resembles censorship. I would be fine with the invention of trigger label warnings on media/content etc. That way people that can get triggered over certain things can petition a central government unit (whatever thingie) to have their trigger added to the label warning system, and then we can have a whole industry of trigger-consultants that specialize in helping content creaters sniff out content that should go on the trigger warning label.
This is a serious take, not a joke, so if you think it reads as a joke, note that it's not meant to be one. This is an attempt to move on from pointing fingers and move onto solution talks. We are clearly not going to get everyone to agree.
I think the solution, as I have posted time and again in this thread, is for people to be considerate and kind towards each other, and recognise that the pain of others (which will often have gone unspoken for a long time) is valid, and try not to cause them further pain.
With regard to madness in D&D, it sounds like they have already started to deal with this by relabelling it "fear and stress".
I personally am very strongly opposed against anything that resembles censorship.
Me too. However, avoiding saying something which you know causes pain to another human being (because they have told you) is not censorship, it's kindness.
That's a perfectly fine question. What it's not, is an argument. That it has to stop somewhere (as clearly it should) doesn't mean it shouldn't ever start. This question should engage debate, not end it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
That's a perfectly fine question. What it's not, is an argument. That it has to stop somewhere (as clearly it should) doesn't mean it shouldn't ever start. This question should engage debate, not end it.
I completely agree.
As an example, most people understand that we need to reduce the amount of plastic packaging we use. However, very few argue that we should stop using any plastic at all in any product. We need to find the balance, using plastic in ways where its benefit outweighs any down sides, but stopping its use where the harm outweighs the benefit. It is very beneficial to discuss where that point occurs, but unhelpful to say we should not make any changes to our plastic use because some things will still be made of it.
Is 'You are suffering from a form of madness. It is not your fault and we will do our best to help you' really worse than "Oh, it is just fear and stress?"
When I hear "Fear and Stress," I think of the old military concept that anyone who breaks is just weak and just needs to be yelled at more to get them right back out there to fight. Or worse, that they are some sort of coward who should be persecuted for dereliction of duty or even for desertion.
I still see the need here as being getting people to think of those suffering as victims to be helped rather than as themselves somehow at fault.
I'm going to wade back in here just once to say yes, 'Fear and Stress' are better terms to use from a mechanical language perspective, and it's all about psychologically informed language. Fear and stress are terms everyone is familiar with, everyone experiences fear and stress. There's no scary, alien concept of madness that has become inexorably intertwined with decades of toxic pop culture portrayal that is actively harmful to those with mental illness.
As I've mentioned several times before, Doctor B (an actual doctor of psychology and clinical director of a mental health charity) has commented on twitter about the benefits of this language:
Madness and insanity is judgement based language, and negative judgement at that. However, Fear and Stress are externalized, situational characteristics that don't carry the same baggage.
Also, I've seen at least my point misrepresented a lot in this thread, so I'm going to clarify:
I do want horror to remain in D&D. I want DMs to be able to run scary games should that be something they and their players want. I don't want these themes taken out of D&D; I run those themes actively in my games. What I do want is the harmful, dated, judgemental language modernised to fit with what we know about mental illness. I want it to be easier for DMs to safely run horror games, or games with themes surrounding mental illness, fear, and stress. I don't want anything taken out of D&D, I want things updated. D&D was released in the 70s. It's now the 2020s; to assume nothing in the way we speak about mental illness has changed in that time is absurd. But the way we speak about mental illness has honestly changed and advanced in the span of this edition. As such, things should change to match that. We don't get to tout around harmful language just because "it's always been that way". Legacy is no excuse for doing harm.
I hope this clarifies what is actually expected of WotC and D&D, what is actually being done and what I actually am saying. I'm going to duck out again; hopefully I won't feel the need to rebut false representation of my stance, nor the general stance being made, again.
I am going to lay out a game in which these things really occurred. First off, the demographics of the game: Including the DM, 5 guys, 4 of them 45 plus, one 25. And I am NOT DM'ing, and have zero say in the content.
Three sessions ago: Group comes upon a BBEG sacrificing a child somewhere between 10 and 12. There is clear evidence, in the way of bodies, that this was was far from the first. This is the 2nd time we have come across humanoid sacrifices.
Last session. We encounter a small city under attack, from the combined forces of a dragon, dragonmen of some type, humans, and some hyena-like creature (re-typed Gnolls I assume), that are laying waste to the city and enslaving the citizens (putting controlling collars on them), for the purpose of working and/or eating them.
No one said boo about it, yet we have encountered child sacrifice, terror from a dragon which is clearly a mental health issue, slavery, and the equivalent of cannibalism, in the past 3 sessions. Plus, clearly one of the players would be considered insane by any modern standards, as he believes his god will get him, but not the rest of us, through any crisis, and we should wade into any battle, no matter what the odds. If he was an officer in war, his own soldiers would have shot him.
We discussed NONE of these "triggers" in any session 0, which was about game and char mechanics. Yet everyone seems thrilled with what is happening, RP'ing most of it, and not a single person has said, at least in game, "wait, I am uncomfortable with this particular thing". And I can tell you why. These guys have all played D&D, as is, for some period of time, and we all knew what we signed up for.
If people don't like the concepts that occur in D&D, don't wreck it for the majority that love this stuff. Go find like-minded people, House Rule your own version, create your own non-D&D game, or play another game. Do not impose your recently updated social values on a game that has an entrenched set of values that has existed longer than many of these posters have been alive. I don't need some 24 year old who is just starting to experience the real world in all its glory and horribleness to tell what I can and can't do, what of my views is wrong or right.
Because I guarantee if there are people offended by the gender, race (and for the millionth time, it is separate species, not race), and mental health issues in D&D, there will most certainly be people offended by child sacrifice, slavery, and cannibalism, who will want to "update" and "modernise" D&D around these concepts.
The impact of language has been researched and it has been shown, to modify an adage, that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can lead to permanent psychological damage that can manifest traumatically, including as self harm and even suicide". My fiancee, a doctor of psychology and qualifiers counsellor and therapist, works developing PIEs; psychologically informed environments where factors such as language used are evaluated for the harm they can cause. This isn't some novel field of study, this is something that WotC is simply very slow on picking up on.
If people don't like the concepts that occur in D&D, don't wreck it for the majority that love this stuff. Go find like-minded people, House Rule your own version, create your own non-D&D game, or play another game. Do not impose your recently updated social values on a game that has an entrenched set of values that has existed longer than many of these posters have been alive. I don't need some 24 year old who is just starting to experience the real world in all its glory and horribleness to tell what I can and can't do, what of my views is wrong or right.
If none of the social values in D&D are updated as the values within society change, D&D will fade into irrelevance. There will be fewer and fewer new players every year, the number of players will gradually reduce. The fewer players there are, the less content will be produced for the game. Gradually, D&D will disappear.
Also, please note that nobody is telling you how to play your game. Nobody is trying to impose their social values on you, although we are asking you to be respectful of others. Everybody is free to play however they choose. However, the way WotC present their product to the world will affect their sales. If they sell a product which offends enough people, their sales will fall and D&D will die.
Vince, I'm not talking about your game. I'm not talking about my game. I'm not talking about anybody's game, how they choose to run it, what themes they include or what consideration or lack thereof they give to their players. I'm not even talking about actually playing the game.
What I'm talking about is the products WotC puts out into the world, the words they put in their book that frame the game. The words people read when they pick up a book and crack it open, maybe for the first time in their TTRPG journey. So whatever happens at your table is of no consequence to this discussion; no one is going to stop you from running your game however you want. You can include whatever themes you wish, coded however you want, with as much or little safety tools.
D&D is, and always has been, two different things at once; it's the product that TSR, then WotC, puts into the world, and it's the experience each DM currates at their table. While they both affect each other in a cycle of feedback and growth, it's important to separate the two in discussions such as this.
No matter what language WotC uses, you'll still be free to use whatever language you see fit at your table. However, that has no bearing on the experience people have when reading that language in the books they've paid for, books that expose them to the game.
So you can keep your anecdotes of how your games are completely fine and don't need safety tools Vince, that's fine and dandy. That's not what this is about, and if you have never had a harmful experience with something said or read, that's great. I wouldn't wish that kind of harm on anyone. But this isn't about the people it doesn't harm, it's about the people it does. No harm, not an iota, not a drop of harm will be done to you or anyone else on your side of this discussion, by changing the language from something that doesn't affect you negatively, to something else that doesn't affect you negative. But it will benefit those who are harmed by that language. And that's called a net benefit.
Also, please note that nobody is telling you how to play your game. Nobody is trying to impose their social values on you, although we are asking you to be respectful of others. Everybody is free to play however they choose. However, the way WotC present their product to the world will affect their sales. If they sell a product which offends enough people, their sales will fall and D&D will die.
Actually, by censoring the wording, and altering game mechanics (as were done in the book that shall not be named, and apparently will be with Ravenloft), people ARE TELLING me how to play my game. That is precisely what is happening. My rules that were canon, now have to House Ruled, and considered outside of the norm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Doctors of Juridical Science? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SJD) What do lawyers have to do with this?
(I know what you mean, but maybe you should blow your dog whistle a little louder...)
Jesus Christ, Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm X, Malala Yousafzai, Greta Thumberg, Aleksei Navalny, there were, or are, "warriors". They all have or had skin in the game. Anyone who just posts anonymously on a fan site (including me) , or screams on Twitter is a dilettante. And that is what this thread, or so many others are all about. Dilettantes burning time. I am no better than anyone else in that regard.
Whatever happened to “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me”? People are far too sheltered an mollycoddled in today’s society.
Agreed. The world watched on Jan 6th what happens with "words". But in the context of D&D, that line is wildly out of whack, and moving more out of whack every day.
That is freaking not what our argument is, and we've said that about a dozen times, and you know it, Kotath. It's not to remove "all potential triggers", as that is literally and functionally impossible to do. It is to remove "the words and concepts that are triggers that do offend/hurt marginalized people commonly enough for it to be a noticeable problem".
This is like a push to ban cooking with peanut oil in cases where it doesn't need to be used, and to clearly mark it in the cases where it is being used to warn those with a sensitivity to it.
I have allergies. A ton of them. It would take me over an hour of typing to list every allergy I have, whether it be to a type of food, plant, animal, mold, medicine, or pollen. I know the difficulties of having to check every kind of food that I ever eat that I'm not familiar with in order to make sure it won't endanger me. I know how harmful it can be when those types of ingredients that can hurt me aren't marked down for me to check.
That's what we're trying to do. Not to cleanse every food from every type of possible allergen, but to remove the common "allergens" from the "foods" that they don't need to be in, and clearly mark them in the "foods" that they need to be in (Eldritch Horror and similar themes that rely on "madness" systems).
This is the last time that I'm correcting your side's view of our argument, because the strawmen are getting really frustrating. I kindly ask you to cease with the mischaracterization.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Who cares?
Quite a number of people, judging by the length and intensity of this thread. You may want to read through it, rather than simply dismiss it out of hand. While the vitriol is depressing, there's good information and discussion to be had here as well.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you haven't anything nice to say, best not say anything at all.
Wow, I'm really glad that I took the weekend off from this lot.
I think that, for the most part, others have put things much better than I could and have covered off almost everything I would have liked to say.
There is one thing I would like to point out. Taken from Vince's own signature:
Several people have pointed out that the phrase "madness" is harmful to them. It is a Fact that they are damaged by this.
So, if your signature is correct, whose problem would it be that you Feel they should not be harmed/upset/hurt/damaged/offended by this?
Where does it stop though?
There are several things that I can point to in different media that can be hurtful to someone's feelings. That's a fact, but it doesn't mean that I think we should avoid those things in media.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Now we have discussed at lengths in this thread. What's the solution?
I personally am very strongly opposed against anything that resembles censorship. I would be fine with the invention of trigger label warnings on media/content etc. That way people that can get triggered over certain things can petition a central government unit (whatever thingie) to have their trigger added to the label warning system, and then we can have a whole industry of trigger-consultants that specialize in helping content creaters sniff out content that should go on the trigger warning label.
This is a serious take, not a joke, so if you think it reads as a joke, note that it's not meant to be one. This is an attempt to move on from pointing fingers and move onto solution talks. We are clearly not going to get everyone to agree.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I think the solution, as I have posted time and again in this thread, is for people to be considerate and kind towards each other, and recognise that the pain of others (which will often have gone unspoken for a long time) is valid, and try not to cause them further pain.
With regard to madness in D&D, it sounds like they have already started to deal with this by relabelling it "fear and stress".
Me too. However, avoiding saying something which you know causes pain to another human being (because they have told you) is not censorship, it's kindness.
That's a perfectly fine question. What it's not, is an argument. That it has to stop somewhere (as clearly it should) doesn't mean it shouldn't ever start. This question should engage debate, not end it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I completely agree.
As an example, most people understand that we need to reduce the amount of plastic packaging we use. However, very few argue that we should stop using any plastic at all in any product. We need to find the balance, using plastic in ways where its benefit outweighs any down sides, but stopping its use where the harm outweighs the benefit. It is very beneficial to discuss where that point occurs, but unhelpful to say we should not make any changes to our plastic use because some things will still be made of it.
I'm going to wade back in here just once to say yes, 'Fear and Stress' are better terms to use from a mechanical language perspective, and it's all about psychologically informed language. Fear and stress are terms everyone is familiar with, everyone experiences fear and stress. There's no scary, alien concept of madness that has become inexorably intertwined with decades of toxic pop culture portrayal that is actively harmful to those with mental illness.
As I've mentioned several times before, Doctor B (an actual doctor of psychology and clinical director of a mental health charity) has commented on twitter about the benefits of this language:
Whole thread here
Madness and insanity is judgement based language, and negative judgement at that. However, Fear and Stress are externalized, situational characteristics that don't carry the same baggage.
Also, I've seen at least my point misrepresented a lot in this thread, so I'm going to clarify:
I do want horror to remain in D&D. I want DMs to be able to run scary games should that be something they and their players want. I don't want these themes taken out of D&D; I run those themes actively in my games. What I do want is the harmful, dated, judgemental language modernised to fit with what we know about mental illness. I want it to be easier for DMs to safely run horror games, or games with themes surrounding mental illness, fear, and stress. I don't want anything taken out of D&D, I want things updated. D&D was released in the 70s. It's now the 2020s; to assume nothing in the way we speak about mental illness has changed in that time is absurd. But the way we speak about mental illness has honestly changed and advanced in the span of this edition. As such, things should change to match that. We don't get to tout around harmful language just because "it's always been that way". Legacy is no excuse for doing harm.
I hope this clarifies what is actually expected of WotC and D&D, what is actually being done and what I actually am saying. I'm going to duck out again; hopefully I won't feel the need to rebut false representation of my stance, nor the general stance being made, again.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I am going to lay out a game in which these things really occurred. First off, the demographics of the game: Including the DM, 5 guys, 4 of them 45 plus, one 25. And I am NOT DM'ing, and have zero say in the content.
Three sessions ago: Group comes upon a BBEG sacrificing a child somewhere between 10 and 12. There is clear evidence, in the way of bodies, that this was was far from the first. This is the 2nd time we have come across humanoid sacrifices.
Last session. We encounter a small city under attack, from the combined forces of a dragon, dragonmen of some type, humans, and some hyena-like creature (re-typed Gnolls I assume), that are laying waste to the city and enslaving the citizens (putting controlling collars on them), for the purpose of working and/or eating them.
No one said boo about it, yet we have encountered child sacrifice, terror from a dragon which is clearly a mental health issue, slavery, and the equivalent of cannibalism, in the past 3 sessions. Plus, clearly one of the players would be considered insane by any modern standards, as he believes his god will get him, but not the rest of us, through any crisis, and we should wade into any battle, no matter what the odds. If he was an officer in war, his own soldiers would have shot him.
We discussed NONE of these "triggers" in any session 0, which was about game and char mechanics. Yet everyone seems thrilled with what is happening, RP'ing most of it, and not a single person has said, at least in game, "wait, I am uncomfortable with this particular thing". And I can tell you why. These guys have all played D&D, as is, for some period of time, and we all knew what we signed up for.
If people don't like the concepts that occur in D&D, don't wreck it for the majority that love this stuff. Go find like-minded people, House Rule your own version, create your own non-D&D game, or play another game. Do not impose your recently updated social values on a game that has an entrenched set of values that has existed longer than many of these posters have been alive. I don't need some 24 year old who is just starting to experience the real world in all its glory and horribleness to tell what I can and can't do, what of my views is wrong or right.
Because I guarantee if there are people offended by the gender, race (and for the millionth time, it is separate species, not race), and mental health issues in D&D, there will most certainly be people offended by child sacrifice, slavery, and cannibalism, who will want to "update" and "modernise" D&D around these concepts.
The impact of language has been researched and it has been shown, to modify an adage, that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can lead to permanent psychological damage that can manifest traumatically, including as self harm and even suicide". My fiancee, a doctor of psychology and qualifiers counsellor and therapist, works developing PIEs; psychologically informed environments where factors such as language used are evaluated for the harm they can cause. This isn't some novel field of study, this is something that WotC is simply very slow on picking up on.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
If none of the social values in D&D are updated as the values within society change, D&D will fade into irrelevance. There will be fewer and fewer new players every year, the number of players will gradually reduce. The fewer players there are, the less content will be produced for the game. Gradually, D&D will disappear.
Also, please note that nobody is telling you how to play your game. Nobody is trying to impose their social values on you, although we are asking you to be respectful of others. Everybody is free to play however they choose. However, the way WotC present their product to the world will affect their sales. If they sell a product which offends enough people, their sales will fall and D&D will die.
Vince, I'm not talking about your game. I'm not talking about my game. I'm not talking about anybody's game, how they choose to run it, what themes they include or what consideration or lack thereof they give to their players. I'm not even talking about actually playing the game.
What I'm talking about is the products WotC puts out into the world, the words they put in their book that frame the game. The words people read when they pick up a book and crack it open, maybe for the first time in their TTRPG journey. So whatever happens at your table is of no consequence to this discussion; no one is going to stop you from running your game however you want. You can include whatever themes you wish, coded however you want, with as much or little safety tools.
D&D is, and always has been, two different things at once; it's the product that TSR, then WotC, puts into the world, and it's the experience each DM currates at their table. While they both affect each other in a cycle of feedback and growth, it's important to separate the two in discussions such as this.
No matter what language WotC uses, you'll still be free to use whatever language you see fit at your table. However, that has no bearing on the experience people have when reading that language in the books they've paid for, books that expose them to the game.
So you can keep your anecdotes of how your games are completely fine and don't need safety tools Vince, that's fine and dandy. That's not what this is about, and if you have never had a harmful experience with something said or read, that's great. I wouldn't wish that kind of harm on anyone. But this isn't about the people it doesn't harm, it's about the people it does. No harm, not an iota, not a drop of harm will be done to you or anyone else on your side of this discussion, by changing the language from something that doesn't affect you negatively, to something else that doesn't affect you negative. But it will benefit those who are harmed by that language. And that's called a net benefit.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Actually, by censoring the wording, and altering game mechanics (as were done in the book that shall not be named, and apparently will be with Ravenloft), people ARE TELLING me how to play my game. That is precisely what is happening. My rules that were canon, now have to House Ruled, and considered outside of the norm.