'Exotic' is only alienating when you use it in such a manner. "Normal" implies that their ways are the same as yours, which is just as problematic, especially if you are talking about a region that has multiple cultures hostile to each other already.
If you describe something as 'exotic', you are making an assumption about who you are talking to -- you are assuming that the people you are talking to will agree that it is exotic. This means people who don't find it exotic will feel excluded. Normal does in fact have the same problem, and thus, when speaking to an unknown audience (such as writing a book) both terms should be avoided. With a known audience it may not be a problem.
Firstly, let's keep things on topic. The discussion has begun to drift, let's pull it back
Secondly, let's be civil to each other. You can disagree, criticise arguments, point out errors and fallacies, all as long as you are respectful and civil to each other
Yes, essentially this is the problem of feeding the mob instead of getting a little iron in your spine and telling them to grow up, because they will never be satisfied. Soon enough it won't be enough for Orks to EVER be Evil cause, you know, that's racist, even though its literally based on the Orcneas mentioned in Beowulf and in D&D they're pig-faced monsters.
So the answer is for those who are caused pain by the subjects involved to ignore their pain and get "a little iron in their spine"? Or, in other words, toughen up and shut up?
As has been pointed out several times in this thread and others, that's what people have been doing for a very long time. They have been in pain, but they have kept quiet about it, mostly because the conditions in society at the time many that this would only have made things worse. Society has now moved on to the point where they can finally talk about what is causing them pain in society, and society is reacting by attempting to reduce the pain caused.
Now you want to shove them back in their boxes? You want them to go back to screaming on the inside but putting on a fake smile, because that makes you feel better? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work...
Yes, essentially this is the problem of feeding the mob instead of getting a little iron in your spine and telling them to grow up, because they will never be satisfied. Soon enough it won't be enough for Orks to EVER be Evil cause, you know, that's racist, even though its literally based on the Orcneas mentioned in Beowulf and in D&D they're pig-faced monsters.
In my opinion, telling people to grow a spine and face prejudice and racism head on is no different from telling people to grow up because the real world and Wizards are leaving them behind. It is not really helpful. The simplest way I can put it is that Wizards wants to push the least amount of buttons as possible, and as far as I can tell, it is not only working, it is also very, very profitable. I do not think I need to explain the profit part, but I will try to explain the pushing buttons part since you do not seem to comprehend the gravity of it.
Imagine how awkward and embarrassing it would be to invite some new black players to the table, and you read the description of orcs right in front of their face as you introduce the various races. If you cannot see how that would push anyone's button, then imagine Wizards making a new race called Alpine Drow, and they are described as a cultish race of religious fanatics obsessed with genetic purity and incest; they believe all healing potion are toxic, and they only accept healing word and healing touch as long as the name of their god is invoked; they keep a huge slave population to work their plantations; and despite being elves, they are all fat because all they eat are donuts. I hope it should not take long for anyone to connect this deplorable fictional race with a group of real life people, and I hope you realize how problematic this would be if Wizards published it. Wizards can certainly publish this race for my amusement and enjoyment, but this is going to push a lot of buttons and cause a lot of unnecessary controversy given the current state of America, not to mention that it may lose Wizards customers.
While "Madness" does not push your button or my button, it can push someone else's button, and those buttons can be pretty painful. Slavery, apartheid, racism, etc. might not mean much to you, but it is a big deal for other people, and these things often evoke anguish and trauma. Madness is much the same way, although probably affects less people, but that does not mean Wizards should not try to avoid pushing that button. In your eyes, madness can hardly compare to something like the Holocaust, but for people going through mental problems and challenges, madness can represent years of bullying, misunderstanding, and ostracization, and it can also remind them of even worse things like violence, ****, and death depending on what they have been through. From what I understand, madness as a word by itself does not seem to be the main issue, but it is the way it is used and the mechanical reflections in the game that can potentially cause issues, and renaming it from madness to something else helps mitigate those potential issues.
Or put it another way, ask yourself what are your buttons besides D&D and TTRPG related things. Think about what makes you insecure and vulnerable. Would it really be helpful if society, businesses, and other people tell you to just man up and deal with it? Some are dealing with weight. Some have employment and money problems. Some got marriage issues. I have my own insecurities and shit to work out. I do not think anybody needs to be reminded of what is bothering them in real life when they are indulging in a hobby. Your button might not be weight, money, marriage, race, sex, religion, or mental illness, but would you still play D&D if Wizards keeps pushing whatever your buttons are?
But it is just fear and stress, right? (Wizard's new choice of words, not mine).
I mean, it's never just fear and stress, is it? Fear and stress are terrible things to experience, which is why they're part of the horror book that is Ravenloft. I'd hope you appreciate that they're draining, taxing and overwhelming emotions.
However, what they're not are stereotypically exclusively internalised experiences that carry shame and judgement of several centuries of toxic portrayal of mental illness. That's what makes the movement to fear and stress based systems significant; they are non-judgemental externalised stressors from common experience. Not everyone may have experienced mental illness, but everyone has been stressed or afraid. It's empathetic language because while conveying the same intent gameplay wise, it doesn't carry the stereotyped othering that comes with words like 'madness' and 'insanity'.
Ok getting back to the question as anyone who has played a variety of tabletop systems will tell you the Madness mechanic in DnD is actually fairly average. It needs to be called something, and in a fantasy setting where there is no Medical definition and where people hearing voices might be imagining it, or might be a god that gives them power, or it might be both.
My question to those who think it needs to change is, what do you call it instead? You need to have something that represents that mental impact of adventuring or of conditions if the DM chooses to implement it.
DnD is just one of many many game systems, most have some form of mechanic to simulate the mental stresses on the characters. Cthulhu calls it Insanity and leans into it making it a key mechanic of the game. Cyberpunk it is the essence of a human become machine, the more cybernetics you get the less connected to humanity you become, Legend of the 5 rings had shadow points the side effects where a table of clear psychological issues, in addition at character creation you could take traits like delusional, alcoholic, drug dependant, psychotic as disadvantages to give extra points to spend on your stats.
warhammer roleplay systems have tables and tables of physical and mental conditions that can affect a character, some can be taken at creation, others are side effects of fighting demons and other alien creatures.
So no In the grand scheme of tabletop roleplay systems WOTC is not treading an insensitive line, it is fully accepted that the fantasy version of Madness is different to the real life version, are people complaining about the king in game of thrones being referred to as the mad king instead of the, bipolar king, or the paranoid king and he almost burnt down a whole city.
I like role playing flawed characters, characters who are drug dependant, or have anxiety or depression, characters who don’t “overcome” there quirks but learn to process and deal with them and sometimes slip. I have roleplayed out a full intervention in one game, a group of characters forcing another to see the impact there behavior was having and help them get help, we didn’t magic away the issue, the player roleplayed through the characters process of gaining help.
But if we expect a system to properly address these things then we have to accept it would take multiple sourcebooks and many many rule variants, it is better to have a table or a small section that DMs and players can then ignore, or expand on as necessary for that campaign/one shot and if we have to call it something madness seems as good a word as any.
But it is just fear and stress, right? (Wizard's new choice of words, not mine).
I mean, it's never just fear and stress, is it? Fear and stress are terrible things to experience, which is why they're part of the horror book that is Ravenloft. I'd hope you appreciate that they're draining, taxing and overwhelming emotions.
However, what they're not are stereotypically exclusively internalised experiences that carry shame and judgement of several centuries of toxic portrayal of mental illness. That's what makes the movement to fear and stress based systems significant; they are non-judgemental externalised stressors from common experience. Not everyone may have experienced mental illness, but everyone has been stressed or afraid. It's empathetic language because while conveying the same intent gameplay wise, it doesn't carry the stereotyped othering that comes with words like 'madness' and 'insanity'.
But 'Its just fear and stress' has been used to dismiss mental illness for those same centuries. It is just a different stereotype.
I hope this is not too strange a question, but what is wrong with calling it 'Mental Illness?' or perhaps with even less baggage, something like 'Mind Afflictions' or 'Afflictions of the Mind?'
Because even completely valid disabilities or even non-disorders were dismissed with the phrase "Afflictions of the Mind" in the age of the insane asylum, including "hysteria" which has bonus baggage of sexism when used in this kind of context. So... that still has a lot of baggage.
Fear and stress are specific, non-stigmatic, and can range in varying degress from "oh, that's just wrong" to Fight-or-Flight responses and, with player and DM consent, can be used to implement mental disorders in a mechanical or roleplay fashion without needing to use terrible language, or affecting any table other than their own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
But it is just fear and stress, right? (Wizard's new choice of words, not mine).
I mean, it's never just fear and stress, is it? Fear and stress are terrible things to experience, which is why they're part of the horror book that is Ravenloft. I'd hope you appreciate that they're draining, taxing and overwhelming emotions.
However, what they're not are stereotypically exclusively internalised experiences that carry shame and judgement of several centuries of toxic portrayal of mental illness. That's what makes the movement to fear and stress based systems significant; they are non-judgemental externalised stressors from common experience. Not everyone may have experienced mental illness, but everyone has been stressed or afraid. It's empathetic language because while conveying the same intent gameplay wise, it doesn't carry the stereotyped othering that comes with words like 'madness' and 'insanity'.
But 'Its just fear and stress' has been used to dismiss mental illness for those same centuries. It is just a different stereotype.
I hope this is not too strange a question, but what is wrong with calling it 'Mental Illness?' or perhaps with even less baggage, something like 'Mind Afflictions' or 'Afflictions of the Mind?'
Mental illness, and the more dated synonyms of 'mind affliction' and 'afflictions of the mind', are really too specific to be applied to a game mechanic without doing gross disservice to the experience of mental illness. The goal is to move away from equating these mechanics to mental illness (because as many have pointed out, they're not really mental illness but reactions to external stressors). Not everyone who is afraid or stressed out has a mental illness, and not everyone who has mental illness experiences fear or stress. However, when it comes to horror mechanics, fear and stress are commonalities of experience across the vast majority of people. That's what makes the language better, it's not dragging in harmful assumptions and preconceptions, and lumping them in adjacent to real experiences.
So no In the grand scheme of tabletop roleplay systems WOTC is not treading an insensitive line, it is fully accepted that the fantasy version of Madness is different to the real life version, are people complaining about the king in game of thrones being referred to as the mad king instead of the, bipolar king, or the paranoid king and he almost burnt down a whole city.
Fully accepted by who? Given that more than one person has posted of real world issues with this, I doubt that they would agree with you.
And even if it was universally agreed that the word meant something completely different in the game to what it means in the real world, that doesn't stop the use of the word in game from being associated with its real world counterpart. If I made up a brand new vehicle in game and called it an aeroplane, even if it was completely different to the real world aeroplane, are you really saying that it would be unreasonable for people to think of a Boeing 747 when aeroplane was mentioned in the game?
Yes, essentially this is the problem of feeding the mob instead of getting a little iron in your spine and telling them to grow up, because they will never be satisfied. Soon enough it won't be enough for Orks to EVER be Evil cause, you know, that's racist, even though its literally based on the Orcneas mentioned in Beowulf and in D&D they're pig-faced monsters.
So the answer is for those who are caused pain by the subjects involved to ignore their pain and get "a little iron in their spine"? Or, in other words, toughen up and shut up?
As has been pointed out several times in this thread and others, that's what people have been doing for a very long time. They have been in pain, but they have kept quiet about it, mostly because the conditions in society at the time many that this would only have made things worse. Society has now moved on to the point where they can finally talk about what is causing them pain in society, and society is reacting by attempting to reduce the pain caused.
Now you want to shove them back in their boxes? You want them to go back to screaming on the inside but putting on a fake smile, because that makes you feel better? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work...
Orcs are not inherently evil, not in my world, and more and more in modern fantasy fiction that view is changing. Even warhammer, a system that leans into grim dark has seen orks as just being what they are, creatures that want to have a good time.
I have never understood why DMs insist that some races can cover all the alignment spectrums while other intelligent races must be bad guys always. Orcs, goblins and hobgoblins are no less intelligent then humans, Dragonborn, tieflings, and yet we accept that a tiefling can be evil or good but orcs have to be evil,
by all means stick to what you think is the accepted but maybe, maybe try writing out a story that is full of shades of grey, is that orc tribe evil, or, do they really not appreciate a bunch of weapon born strangers trudging through there land killing stuff at random? Remember native Americans, aboriginals, the aztecs and so many other tribes where considered savages who needed to be tamed or eradicated by white europeans, the peoples of Africa had culture, kings and queens, wealth, and yet where assumed to be less then others because of how they looked and so where treated as less then cattle. In a setting where being different is about more then just skin tone isn’t it strange that the moment a green skinned creature walks through it is looked at universally as being lesser then the many many strange and wonderful people that live together in relative harmony and instantly considered a threat to be put down. After generations of this treatment is it no wonder that orcs, goblins, hobgoblins etc react aggressively as a natural instinct.
But it is just fear and stress, right? (Wizard's new choice of words, not mine).
I mean, it's never just fear and stress, is it? Fear and stress are terrible things to experience, which is why they're part of the horror book that is Ravenloft. I'd hope you appreciate that they're draining, taxing and overwhelming emotions.
However, what they're not are stereotypically exclusively internalised experiences that carry shame and judgement of several centuries of toxic portrayal of mental illness. That's what makes the movement to fear and stress based systems significant; they are non-judgemental externalised stressors from common experience. Not everyone may have experienced mental illness, but everyone has been stressed or afraid. It's empathetic language because while conveying the same intent gameplay wise, it doesn't carry the stereotyped othering that comes with words like 'madness' and 'insanity'.
But 'Its just fear and stress' has been used to dismiss mental illness for those same centuries. It is just a different stereotype.
I hope this is not too strange a question, but what is wrong with calling it 'Mental Illness?' or perhaps with even less baggage, something like 'Mind Afflictions' or 'Afflictions of the Mind?'
Personally, I believe that your addition of the word "just" is causing the massive disparity. However, you have pointed out that people do dismiss these issues with such language fairly often.
I am with Davyd in his reply to you. However, I also recognise that this could be used to encourage a dismissal of mental illness.
Personally, I think that the addition of the word "extreme" in front of them would satisfy this, or something similar. It would be very difficult for anyone to dismiss "extreme fear and stress" as "just fear and stress". However, this is only my opinion: there are much more informed people than me working on issues like this, and I will trust their judgement for now.
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
God that was good! Seriously, you write some of my favourite smack downs and I never get tired of them.
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
Thank you for all the links. As well, thank you for all the emotional labor of opening up and being vulnerable. You didn't have to do that, but I think it helps people see that these kinds of efforts DO help.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
God that was good! Seriously, you write some of my favourite smack downs and I never get tired of them.
Keep up the good work.
I'm not actually going for 'smack downs', I'm going for genuinely and sincerely answering peoples questions and queries because this isn't about winning or losing, being right or wrong. It's about helping people understand my perspective, because perspective taking, as vital as it is, is really hard. If my tone seems 'smack down' esque, I probably should apologise as it's not my intent, tone is hard to master in text.
Yes, essentially this is the problem of feeding the mob instead of getting a little iron in your spine and telling them to grow up, because they will never be satisfied. Soon enough it won't be enough for Orks to EVER be Evil cause, you know, that's racist, even though its literally based on the Orcneas mentioned in Beowulf and in D&D they're pig-faced monsters.
Imagine how awkward and embarrassing it would be to invite some new black players to the table, and you read the description of orcs right in front of their face as you introduce the various races. If you cannot see how that would push anyone's button, then imagine Wizards making a new race called Alpine Drow, and they are described as a cultish race of religious fanatics obsessed with genetic purity and incest; they believe all healing potion are toxic, and they only accept healing word and healing touch as long as the name of their god is invoked; they keep a huge slave population to work their plantations; and despite being elves, they are all fat because all they eat are donuts. I hope it should not take long for anyone to connect this deplorable fictional race with a group of real life people, and I hope you realize how problematic this would be if Wizards published it. Wizards can certainly publish this race for my amusement and enjoyment, but this is going to push a lot of buttons and cause a lot of unnecessary controversy given the current state of America, not to mention that it may lose Wizards customers.
In a way what you described is a lot like the elves from the old warlord TCG, brutal slave owning elves that where feverishly cultish and practiced necromancy because they had exceptionally short lives. Granted they weren't fat, but xenophobic and I don't recall there being another skin color besides white. I liked them a lot thought it was a really interesting take on elves.
As for Orcs I don't know, I don't see why ppl draw a connection, they are described as savage which is exactly what Orcs are, fierce violent brutal and vicious. They live in tribes.. which is exactly what they do a social group of families linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader. Uhm.. yep thats exactly how orcs live, groups of orc families linked by their devotion to Gruumsh and Luthic and often described with a blood tie and they always have a leader orc.
It can be changed but its exactly how orcs function, if someone needs to draw a connection to real people.. I just don't know than, they aren't described as living in African like locations, or being cannibals, or speaking with a stereotypical African language, or living in mud huts or practicing voodoo or.. a lot of things, its a two phrase descriptor in the MM
It's like how people say they have this 'need' to see themselves on screen in movies.. I can't possibly tell you a movie I've seen in all my years where I felt like a character on screen was me or represented me.. and that's fine
As for Orcs I don't know, I don't see why ppl draw a connection, they are described as savage which is exactly what Orcs are, fierce violent brutal and vicious. They live in tribes.. which is exactly what they do a social group of families linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader. Uhm.. yep thats exactly how orcs live, groups of orc families linked by their devotion to Gruumsh and Luthic and often described with a blood tie and they always have a leader orc.
It can be changed but its exactly how orcs function, if someone needs to draw a connection to real people.. I just don't know than, it's like how people say they have this 'need' to see themselves on screen in movies.. I can't possibly tell you a movie I've seen in all my years where I felt like a character on screen was me or represented me.. and that's fine
This is way off topic, but I can understand people continuously bringing it up because it does have a link (in terms of WotC changing D&D in trying to make it less insensitive).
The simple answer is that "brutal", "violent" and "savage" are all words which have been used (and still are) to denigrate peoples in the real world. Much of the language describing Orcs has been used to justify horrific behaviour against other peoples, cultures and races in the real world. The similarity in language used, especially linked to the concept that they are all inherently and irredeemably evil (another common thing in propaganda, often used to justify genocide etc) will naturally evoke memories or history of such in real people.
Racial tensions have already had a hundred thousand threads devoted to them on this board, all locked by moderation. In very brief short, and with my apologies to the mods in advance...if you can't see how a group of people who can be accurately described as "Dark-skinned, heavy-featured brutes, ugly in every respect, who cannot comprehend civilization and reject it in favor of their primitive, violent ways" might maaaybe set off some problematic red flags for some folks? Well. I'd have to wonder if you're actively trying not to see it.
Similarly, if one is given the exact thought processes and logic train behind why someone might see the common definitions/usage of the term "Madness" as harmful and disrespectful, I have to wonder why they might insist so strongly "but no one actually thinks that way, you're inventing shadows!" Intellectually I can understand the fear motivation behind it - the fear of being held to/judged by new and unfamiliar standards one never agreed to, the fear of being left behind by a changing world, anger at being told something they've never thought anything of is bad/harmful and they should stop. But I can't agree with the pseudo-rational response of continually justifying knowingly inflicting pain on others by stubbornly refusing to admit to obvious connections between an in-game Thing and a real-world Thing, however stark and well-explained that connection is made to them.
I simply cannot.
I assume you would not be so awful to players at your own table? That if someone came up to you and said "this feature/language/system in the game is pretty hurtful, it makes me uncomfortable trying to deal with it. Can we maybe talk about ways to fix it?", you'd be only too happy to try and help? At least, I would assume that is the case for anyone with any business running a game. So, if you're willing to do it at your own table for your own players, why are you so powerfully, invincibly against doing it for anybody else?
Doctor B doesn't just promote gaming as therapy, he's the clinical director of a suicide prevention charity (Take This) whose sphere of expertise is the intersection of mental health and gaming. So his opinion pretty much comes from a uniquely relevant position. As an aside, my fiancee is a doctor of psychology, and trained therapist and counsellor, who has many peers who are likewise equally qualified. I've spoken to her at length on this, as well as discussed it with several of her peers and they all echo the same sentiment, so this isn't "just another voice among the many often dissenting opinions in the medical community", this is someone who knows what they're talking about lauding positive change. I'd honestly hope we aren't going to walk the path of anti-expertise when it disagrees with personal opinion.
It does not take a top chef to make a burger proofed against a specific allergy of which they have been specifically warned. However that does not mean their substitution would not trigger someone else's allergy. Chefs do not make menus assuming allergies. They make menus that are informative as to the food contents to the allergic can reasonably anticipate what might be safe for them. And even then, if the allergy is dangerous enough, the onus is normally on the person with the allergy to ask rather than expecting the chef to guess.
Bad analogy.
No analogy is exhaustive or perfect, the one I was providing simply attempted to highlight the fallacy of assuming you need the highest authority on something in order to make effective change. If you take any analogy down too literal a path of deconstruction, it will fall apart eventually. That does not disprove my argument; WotC does not need 'top psychologists' to make these changes.
And, to highlight something in your deconstruction of my analogy, this:
However that does not mean their substitution would not trigger someone else's allergy
As has been said a lot in this thread; this is not about removing all possible harm from D&D; it's about harm reduction. After all, perfect is the enemy of good, and progress isn't a destination, it's a journey.
Mental illness, and the more dated synonyms of 'mind affliction' and 'afflictions of the mind', are really too specific to be applied to a game mechanic without doing gross disservice to the experience of mental illness. The goal is to move away from equating these mechanics to mental illness (because as many have pointed out, they're not really mental illness but reactions to external stressors). Not everyone who is afraid or stressed out has a mental illness, and not everyone who has mental illness experiences fear or stress. However, when it comes to horror mechanics, fear and stress are commonalities of experience across the vast majority of people. That's what makes the language better, it's not dragging in harmful assumptions and preconceptions, and lumping them in adjacent to real experiences.
Please re-read through the list of symptoms, particularly those of indefinite duration. Many of these mirror real conditions. Should the entire section of rules be taken out?
First of all, I want to thank everyone for this conversation. I learned a lot from your perspectives and experiences and it will help me run games better. I don't think I even used the term madness while running a campaign but I did make use of the Sanity ability score. I believe WotC being more mindful of language and tropes with future publications is a good thing. The revisions of past books were very small, but they make sense to me as a whole and it doesn't ruin any of the descriptions. In fact, no one would even notice the changes unless they were actively looking for them.
I read the Fear and Stress rules in the new book and already started working out how I want to use them in combination with Madness so I did re-read through the list of symptoms on the tables. I didn't use them back when I ran OotA, opting to describe what was happening like a bad trip instead, so I hadn't looked at them closely before. I personally am going to replace a number of the examples for my own tables because there are several I don't feel comfortable with.
While I do not see the need to take out the rules entirely, if Wizards did something similar in a future 5.5 50th anniversary edition I'd welcome the change. Using better terms and having more fun tables isn't going to take away from the mechanic, and it's not like the DMG I already have will be obsolete.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you describe something as 'exotic', you are making an assumption about who you are talking to -- you are assuming that the people you are talking to will agree that it is exotic. This means people who don't find it exotic will feel excluded. Normal does in fact have the same problem, and thus, when speaking to an unknown audience (such as writing a book) both terms should be avoided. With a known audience it may not be a problem.
Firstly, let's keep things on topic. The discussion has begun to drift, let's pull it back
Secondly, let's be civil to each other. You can disagree, criticise arguments, point out errors and fallacies, all as long as you are respectful and civil to each other
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
So the answer is for those who are caused pain by the subjects involved to ignore their pain and get "a little iron in their spine"? Or, in other words, toughen up and shut up?
As has been pointed out several times in this thread and others, that's what people have been doing for a very long time. They have been in pain, but they have kept quiet about it, mostly because the conditions in society at the time many that this would only have made things worse. Society has now moved on to the point where they can finally talk about what is causing them pain in society, and society is reacting by attempting to reduce the pain caused.
Now you want to shove them back in their boxes? You want them to go back to screaming on the inside but putting on a fake smile, because that makes you feel better? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work...
In my opinion, telling people to grow a spine and face prejudice and racism head on is no different from telling people to grow up because the real world and Wizards are leaving them behind. It is not really helpful. The simplest way I can put it is that Wizards wants to push the least amount of buttons as possible, and as far as I can tell, it is not only working, it is also very, very profitable. I do not think I need to explain the profit part, but I will try to explain the pushing buttons part since you do not seem to comprehend the gravity of it.
Imagine how awkward and embarrassing it would be to invite some new black players to the table, and you read the description of orcs right in front of their face as you introduce the various races. If you cannot see how that would push anyone's button, then imagine Wizards making a new race called Alpine Drow, and they are described as a cultish race of religious fanatics obsessed with genetic purity and incest; they believe all healing potion are toxic, and they only accept healing word and healing touch as long as the name of their god is invoked; they keep a huge slave population to work their plantations; and despite being elves, they are all fat because all they eat are donuts. I hope it should not take long for anyone to connect this deplorable fictional race with a group of real life people, and I hope you realize how problematic this would be if Wizards published it. Wizards can certainly publish this race for my amusement and enjoyment, but this is going to push a lot of buttons and cause a lot of unnecessary controversy given the current state of America, not to mention that it may lose Wizards customers.
While "Madness" does not push your button or my button, it can push someone else's button, and those buttons can be pretty painful. Slavery, apartheid, racism, etc. might not mean much to you, but it is a big deal for other people, and these things often evoke anguish and trauma. Madness is much the same way, although probably affects less people, but that does not mean Wizards should not try to avoid pushing that button. In your eyes, madness can hardly compare to something like the Holocaust, but for people going through mental problems and challenges, madness can represent years of bullying, misunderstanding, and ostracization, and it can also remind them of even worse things like violence, ****, and death depending on what they have been through. From what I understand, madness as a word by itself does not seem to be the main issue, but it is the way it is used and the mechanical reflections in the game that can potentially cause issues, and renaming it from madness to something else helps mitigate those potential issues.
Or put it another way, ask yourself what are your buttons besides D&D and TTRPG related things. Think about what makes you insecure and vulnerable. Would it really be helpful if society, businesses, and other people tell you to just man up and deal with it? Some are dealing with weight. Some have employment and money problems. Some got marriage issues. I have my own insecurities and shit to work out. I do not think anybody needs to be reminded of what is bothering them in real life when they are indulging in a hobby. Your button might not be weight, money, marriage, race, sex, religion, or mental illness, but would you still play D&D if Wizards keeps pushing whatever your buttons are?
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I mean, it's never just fear and stress, is it? Fear and stress are terrible things to experience, which is why they're part of the horror book that is Ravenloft. I'd hope you appreciate that they're draining, taxing and overwhelming emotions.
However, what they're not are stereotypically exclusively internalised experiences that carry shame and judgement of several centuries of toxic portrayal of mental illness. That's what makes the movement to fear and stress based systems significant; they are non-judgemental externalised stressors from common experience. Not everyone may have experienced mental illness, but everyone has been stressed or afraid. It's empathetic language because while conveying the same intent gameplay wise, it doesn't carry the stereotyped othering that comes with words like 'madness' and 'insanity'.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Ok getting back to the question as anyone who has played a variety of tabletop systems will tell you the Madness mechanic in DnD is actually fairly average. It needs to be called something, and in a fantasy setting where there is no Medical definition and where people hearing voices might be imagining it, or might be a god that gives them power, or it might be both.
My question to those who think it needs to change is, what do you call it instead? You need to have something that represents that mental impact of adventuring or of conditions if the DM chooses to implement it.
DnD is just one of many many game systems, most have some form of mechanic to simulate the mental stresses on the characters. Cthulhu calls it Insanity and leans into it making it a key mechanic of the game. Cyberpunk it is the essence of a human become machine, the more cybernetics you get the less connected to humanity you become, Legend of the 5 rings had shadow points the side effects where a table of clear psychological issues, in addition at character creation you could take traits like delusional, alcoholic, drug dependant, psychotic as disadvantages to give extra points to spend on your stats.
warhammer roleplay systems have tables and tables of physical and mental conditions that can affect a character, some can be taken at creation, others are side effects of fighting demons and other alien creatures.
So no In the grand scheme of tabletop roleplay systems WOTC is not treading an insensitive line, it is fully accepted that the fantasy version of Madness is different to the real life version, are people complaining about the king in game of thrones being referred to as the mad king instead of the, bipolar king, or the paranoid king and he almost burnt down a whole city.
I like role playing flawed characters, characters who are drug dependant, or have anxiety or depression, characters who don’t “overcome” there quirks but learn to process and deal with them and sometimes slip. I have roleplayed out a full intervention in one game, a group of characters forcing another to see the impact there behavior was having and help them get help, we didn’t magic away the issue, the player roleplayed through the characters process of gaining help.
But if we expect a system to properly address these things then we have to accept it would take multiple sourcebooks and many many rule variants, it is better to have a table or a small section that DMs and players can then ignore, or expand on as necessary for that campaign/one shot and if we have to call it something madness seems as good a word as any.
Because even completely valid disabilities or even non-disorders were dismissed with the phrase "Afflictions of the Mind" in the age of the insane asylum, including "hysteria" which has bonus baggage of sexism when used in this kind of context. So... that still has a lot of baggage.
Fear and stress are specific, non-stigmatic, and can range in varying degress from "oh, that's just wrong" to Fight-or-Flight responses and, with player and DM consent, can be used to implement mental disorders in a mechanical or roleplay fashion without needing to use terrible language, or affecting any table other than their own.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Mental illness, and the more dated synonyms of 'mind affliction' and 'afflictions of the mind', are really too specific to be applied to a game mechanic without doing gross disservice to the experience of mental illness. The goal is to move away from equating these mechanics to mental illness (because as many have pointed out, they're not really mental illness but reactions to external stressors). Not everyone who is afraid or stressed out has a mental illness, and not everyone who has mental illness experiences fear or stress. However, when it comes to horror mechanics, fear and stress are commonalities of experience across the vast majority of people. That's what makes the language better, it's not dragging in harmful assumptions and preconceptions, and lumping them in adjacent to real experiences.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Fully accepted by who? Given that more than one person has posted of real world issues with this, I doubt that they would agree with you.
And even if it was universally agreed that the word meant something completely different in the game to what it means in the real world, that doesn't stop the use of the word in game from being associated with its real world counterpart. If I made up a brand new vehicle in game and called it an aeroplane, even if it was completely different to the real world aeroplane, are you really saying that it would be unreasonable for people to think of a Boeing 747 when aeroplane was mentioned in the game?
Orcs are not inherently evil, not in my world, and more and more in modern fantasy fiction that view is changing. Even warhammer, a system that leans into grim dark has seen orks as just being what they are, creatures that want to have a good time.
I have never understood why DMs insist that some races can cover all the alignment spectrums while other intelligent races must be bad guys always. Orcs, goblins and hobgoblins are no less intelligent then humans, Dragonborn, tieflings, and yet we accept that a tiefling can be evil or good but orcs have to be evil,
by all means stick to what you think is the accepted but maybe, maybe try writing out a story that is full of shades of grey, is that orc tribe evil, or, do they really not appreciate a bunch of weapon born strangers trudging through there land killing stuff at random? Remember native Americans, aboriginals, the aztecs and so many other tribes where considered savages who needed to be tamed or eradicated by white europeans, the peoples of Africa had culture, kings and queens, wealth, and yet where assumed to be less then others because of how they looked and so where treated as less then cattle. In a setting where being different is about more then just skin tone isn’t it strange that the moment a green skinned creature walks through it is looked at universally as being lesser then the many many strange and wonderful people that live together in relative harmony and instantly considered a threat to be put down. After generations of this treatment is it no wonder that orcs, goblins, hobgoblins etc react aggressively as a natural instinct.
Personally, I believe that your addition of the word "just" is causing the massive disparity. However, you have pointed out that people do dismiss these issues with such language fairly often.
I am with Davyd in his reply to you. However, I also recognise that this could be used to encourage a dismissal of mental illness.
Personally, I think that the addition of the word "extreme" in front of them would satisfy this, or something similar. It would be very difficult for anyone to dismiss "extreme fear and stress" as "just fear and stress". However, this is only my opinion: there are much more informed people than me working on issues like this, and I will trust their judgement for now.
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
However, actual psychologists have weighed in on WotCs approach and lauded it as positive improvement. WotC has sensitivity readers employed in the development of their products (at least moreso now); in fact one such reader contributed to one of the domains of dread (Ajit George has consulted on on racial depictions within his cultural sphere. Also he's posted some interesting threads on the metacommentary around being a sensitivity reader/consultant)
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
God that was good! Seriously, you write some of my favourite smack downs and I never get tired of them.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for all the links. As well, thank you for all the emotional labor of opening up and being vulnerable. You didn't have to do that, but I think it helps people see that these kinds of efforts DO help.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm not actually going for 'smack downs', I'm going for genuinely and sincerely answering peoples questions and queries because this isn't about winning or losing, being right or wrong. It's about helping people understand my perspective, because perspective taking, as vital as it is, is really hard. If my tone seems 'smack down' esque, I probably should apologise as it's not my intent, tone is hard to master in text.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
In a way what you described is a lot like the elves from the old warlord TCG, brutal slave owning elves that where feverishly cultish and practiced necromancy because they had exceptionally short lives. Granted they weren't fat, but xenophobic and I don't recall there being another skin color besides white. I liked them a lot thought it was a really interesting take on elves.
As for Orcs I don't know, I don't see why ppl draw a connection, they are described as savage which is exactly what Orcs are, fierce violent brutal and vicious. They live in tribes.. which is exactly what they do a social group of families linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader. Uhm.. yep thats exactly how orcs live, groups of orc families linked by their devotion to Gruumsh and Luthic and often described with a blood tie and they always have a leader orc.
It can be changed but its exactly how orcs function, if someone needs to draw a connection to real people.. I just don't know than, they aren't described as living in African like locations, or being cannibals, or speaking with a stereotypical African language, or living in mud huts or practicing voodoo or.. a lot of things, its a two phrase descriptor in the MM
It's like how people say they have this 'need' to see themselves on screen in movies.. I can't possibly tell you a movie I've seen in all my years where I felt like a character on screen was me or represented me.. and that's fine
This is way off topic, but I can understand people continuously bringing it up because it does have a link (in terms of WotC changing D&D in trying to make it less insensitive).
The simple answer is that "brutal", "violent" and "savage" are all words which have been used (and still are) to denigrate peoples in the real world. Much of the language describing Orcs has been used to justify horrific behaviour against other peoples, cultures and races in the real world. The similarity in language used, especially linked to the concept that they are all inherently and irredeemably evil (another common thing in propaganda, often used to justify genocide etc) will naturally evoke memories or history of such in real people.
Racial tensions have already had a hundred thousand threads devoted to them on this board, all locked by moderation. In very brief short, and with my apologies to the mods in advance...if you can't see how a group of people who can be accurately described as "Dark-skinned, heavy-featured brutes, ugly in every respect, who cannot comprehend civilization and reject it in favor of their primitive, violent ways" might maaaybe set off some problematic red flags for some folks? Well. I'd have to wonder if you're actively trying not to see it.
Similarly, if one is given the exact thought processes and logic train behind why someone might see the common definitions/usage of the term "Madness" as harmful and disrespectful, I have to wonder why they might insist so strongly "but no one actually thinks that way, you're inventing shadows!" Intellectually I can understand the fear motivation behind it - the fear of being held to/judged by new and unfamiliar standards one never agreed to, the fear of being left behind by a changing world, anger at being told something they've never thought anything of is bad/harmful and they should stop. But I can't agree with the pseudo-rational response of continually justifying knowingly inflicting pain on others by stubbornly refusing to admit to obvious connections between an in-game Thing and a real-world Thing, however stark and well-explained that connection is made to them.
I simply cannot.
I assume you would not be so awful to players at your own table? That if someone came up to you and said "this feature/language/system in the game is pretty hurtful, it makes me uncomfortable trying to deal with it. Can we maybe talk about ways to fix it?", you'd be only too happy to try and help? At least, I would assume that is the case for anyone with any business running a game. So, if you're willing to do it at your own table for your own players, why are you so powerfully, invincibly against doing it for anybody else?
Please do not contact or message me.
Doctor B doesn't just promote gaming as therapy, he's the clinical director of a suicide prevention charity (Take This) whose sphere of expertise is the intersection of mental health and gaming. So his opinion pretty much comes from a uniquely relevant position. As an aside, my fiancee is a doctor of psychology, and trained therapist and counsellor, who has many peers who are likewise equally qualified. I've spoken to her at length on this, as well as discussed it with several of her peers and they all echo the same sentiment, so this isn't "just another voice among the many often dissenting opinions in the medical community", this is someone who knows what they're talking about lauding positive change. I'd honestly hope we aren't going to walk the path of anti-expertise when it disagrees with personal opinion.
No analogy is exhaustive or perfect, the one I was providing simply attempted to highlight the fallacy of assuming you need the highest authority on something in order to make effective change. If you take any analogy down too literal a path of deconstruction, it will fall apart eventually. That does not disprove my argument; WotC does not need 'top psychologists' to make these changes.
And, to highlight something in your deconstruction of my analogy, this:
As has been said a lot in this thread; this is not about removing all possible harm from D&D; it's about harm reduction. After all, perfect is the enemy of good, and progress isn't a destination, it's a journey.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
First of all, I want to thank everyone for this conversation. I learned a lot from your perspectives and experiences and it will help me run games better. I don't think I even used the term madness while running a campaign but I did make use of the Sanity ability score. I believe WotC being more mindful of language and tropes with future publications is a good thing. The revisions of past books were very small, but they make sense to me as a whole and it doesn't ruin any of the descriptions. In fact, no one would even notice the changes unless they were actively looking for them.
I read the Fear and Stress rules in the new book and already started working out how I want to use them in combination with Madness so I did re-read through the list of symptoms on the tables. I didn't use them back when I ran OotA, opting to describe what was happening like a bad trip instead, so I hadn't looked at them closely before. I personally am going to replace a number of the examples for my own tables because there are several I don't feel comfortable with.
While I do not see the need to take out the rules entirely, if Wizards did something similar in a future 5.5 50th anniversary edition I'd welcome the change. Using better terms and having more fun tables isn't going to take away from the mechanic, and it's not like the DMG I already have will be obsolete.