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.
I think this part needs to be highlighted more....the changes that occur do not affect your final product as you as a DM decide what that final product is.
The burger analogy is needs to be more like:
Its like a restaurant offering gluten free bread for their burgers while still offering gluten buns for those who want them. You can depict races in your games any way you see fit and the only judges of that will be you and your table.
They are NOT saying its like a restaurant ONLY proving gluten free buns with no offer of gluten ones. That would be impossible in DnD as they cannot dictate how you run your own table.
It isn't a smack down of any sort. It is one Psychologist who promotes gaming as a therapy method making a claim about something he may well have been consulted on. Maybe he is brilliant and completely correct or maybe he is just another voice among the many often dissenting opinions in the medical community.
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.
Kotath, what are you trying to accomplish exactly? You bring up concerns about the terminology shift out of concern that it can do more harm than good, but we have statements from the affected audience members (neurodiverse people who have demonstrably been affected by the prior language) as well as people who have some expertise in the relevant field (not just psychology but the intersection of psychology and gaming) who have stated that this change is a positive one.
Where is your harm? Is it just hypothetical? Or do you have anything to back up your concerns? Please bring them to the table if you have them.
If they are just hypothetical then may I ask why you keep bringing them up when the affected, the relevant, and the learned have already countered those concerns? Is there some other reason that you dislike the shift in tone and terminology?
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!
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.
Going back to your analogy, this is not a change of a menu item just for one patron but rather for all. Therefore, one should be careful about other common allergies in deciding upon any given substitution being made. From the perspective of the person with the allergy, their needs are served and they are happy, but it is not necessarily the best change overall.
And I think one of the issues here is that, with such conditions, there is a difference between how they are best thought of by society and how best by the patient. Society should take them seriously whereas the patient in many cases should perhaps think of them with less concern and worry. Thus from a 'dealing with patients' perspective, 'fear and stress' might be downplaying the conditions constructively, making them seem less scary and thus easier to overcome. From a Societal perspective, looking on them more generally, they need to be taken more seriously, to ensure there is proper help available for those who need it. Even on a societal level, individuals with various conditions should be treated as the individuals they are, rather than lumped together as all 'Mad,' all 'Mentally Ill' or all 'Afraid and/or Stressed.'
The rub here is that DnD allows you to call things whatever you want in the game. If you do not like the new "Fear and Stress" names you can simply still call it madness in your own games if you want.
They cannot restrict you from doing so as the nature of the game is only dictated by you and your table.
They are not forcing you to eat gluten-free buns...they are just making people aware that they exist and they support people who have an allergy.
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).
If they outlast the source of stress they're a mental disorder. They're just a specific mental disorder and most of the flaws listed for indefinite madness in the DMG are not appropriate manifestations.
As for Orcs I don't know, I don't see why ppl draw a connection
If it helps you to see, HERE is a personal account from another forumite about encountering the description of orcs and half orcs and being turned right off of D&D because it was a direct parallel to their own experiences as a multiracial person.
Edit: Oh and HERE is my own account of how a portrayal of a fictional people affected me.
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
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!
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
What Ophidimancer is actually saying is that one person cannot nullify another person's pain - even if the first person has experienced their own form of a similar pain.
Animefreak is complaining that people have no basis for being upset about words so long as those words aren't spoken with malice. That stance is objectively incorrect and has been proven such by a multitude of psychologists and mental health experts.
Whether these specific words have hurt enough people badly enough to require Wizards to intervene, or if there's a better method to resolving that pain is a topic worth discussing. That these words have hurt people, at all? That is not open to discussion. Obviously Wizards is not going to redo the entire DMG to get rid of the word 'Madness', but these are the sorts of discussions that could make for a better, more informed and empathetic DMG whenever 6e comes out, as well as improving people's ability to run safe games at their own tables.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
I just read and reread my post because that's not my intention, but I can't see how this is an implication of what I wrote. Where is it that you see that I put a value judgment like that?
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!
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
Read the bold part again. Ophi never says Davyd's journey is "worth more", they simply bring attention that one person's journey does not invalidate anyone else's journey and cannot be used as an argument that a particular one is invalid. No one has been arguing that EVERYONE with experience with mental health issues are going to be helped by this change, just that some people are. Ophi is trying to highlight that just because animefreak does not take issue with the terminology, it does not mean that others feel the same way.
Of course the argument goes both ways. Not everyone is going to feel the same benefits as Davyd and others with similar stories, but it is important to help those that are harmed by it. Its great that some people are not, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt help make the game more appealing to those that are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
Nope. It's saying that certain people's journey with mental conditions are very specifically their journeys, not anyone else's, and one person's experience doesn't allow them to speak for the whole group of people in their huge community. It's saying "Great, you're not offended by this, but other people are, and you being a member of that community doesn't cancel that out".
There's a huge difference there. This is a false equivalency, and quite possibly a strawman argument if you intentionally misrepresented our side.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
You have highlighted a fallacious approach I've seen in this thread a lot; the assumption that there is an equivalent balance between [experience X] and [experience not-X].
What I mean is that there isn't some set of scales which remains balanced in equilibrium if for every account such as mine where someone with pertinent experience says they are negatively affected, there's an account of someone with likewise pertinent experience that says they aren't negatively affected.
This is not true, this isn't how this works.
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language. I am genuinely, honestly, profoundly glad that not everyone with mental health problems has the experiences myself and others have had. However, that does not negate/balance/equal out/justify/whatever my experience.
Here's an analogy; it doesn't matter if for every person that drives over the speed limit and causes an accident that there's one, or ten, or one hundred that drive over and don't cause accidents. Enforcing the speed limit will reduce the number of accidents full stop. There is no balance or equivalency here, it is a matter of saying 'Do X, reduce Y'
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
You have highlighted a fallacious approach I've seen in this thread a lot; the assumption that there is an equivalent balance between [experience X] and [experience not-X].
What I mean is that there isn't some set of scales which remains balanced in equilibrium if for every account such as mine where someone with pertinent experience says they are negatively affected, there's an account of someone with likewise pertinent experience that says they aren't negatively affected.
This is not true, this isn't how this works.
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language. I am genuinely, honestly, profoundly glad that not everyone with mental health problems has the experiences myself and others have had. However, that does not negate/balance/equal out/justify/whatever my experience.
Here's an analogy; it doesn't matter if for every person that drives over the speed limit and causes an accident that there's one, or ten, or one hundred that drive over and don't cause accidents. Enforcing the speed limit will reduce the number of accidents full stop. There is no balance or equivalency here, it is a matter of saying 'Do X, reduce Y'
Now thats a great analogy for the changes....except in this case DnD still allows you speed in your own private track!
I've been following this and have chimed in a time or 2 with my opinions and experiences, living with someone who has a wide selection of mental health issues. I have been trying, in MANY cases, to understand how and why sole folks are so sorely wounded by words that, to me, are either simple descriptive words (primitive, exotic as 2 major examples) or simply discarded terms from society (madness) that are used to describe something in game. Discarded, by society, because we learned that THIS word isn't a proper description of said condition, for example.
I think a post a few back, where it was said: 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. that "turned the light on" for me.
I can't relate and I can't understand a lot of this because my brain doesn't work that way. The description quoted above, to me, describes several "monster" type races from sci-fi and fantasy, but has no accurate RL ties, unless we jump in a TARDIS and find us some Neanderthal groups. It is a description a bigot, bully or racist might use, but nothing a civilized, intelligent, thinking person might use. Those who still feel such bias toward any of the cultures around our world, from the techno-rich highly developed countries to the serene, more primitive ways of life where folks still live in huts and villages will always have some way to dehumanize those they hate.
I was also baffled when someone mentioned that they felt alienated when someone noted a food choice, I believe and described it as exotic. I was baffled because I have encountered this exact thing and I was the one who used the term exotic. Some kind of pita-wrapped lamb mix with chopped peppers and some kind of sauce. He said that to his family, this was like a PB&J was here. I told him I thought that was awesome and we talked a bit more about what was everyday to his folks, but considered exotic or special here. Apparently a peanut butter cookie is a delicacy where his folks immigrated from, which to them now, is a funny irony. What is normal in one spot is exotic in another, and I, at least, find that incredibly interesting.
What I am getting at is that my mind works in a way that different is interesting and something I want to see and know more about. I always want to know more about a different culture or way of life I haven't heard of before and as such, I simply can't get my head around people who just have a hate on for any "type" of people, as a people. Or who stigmatize anyone who lives with any kind of illness or disability (I know there's a PC term for it, but you get the gist) TO me, everyone is different, and the more stark the difference, the more curious I am. I also make it a point to be open and accepting enough to easily accept "None of your business" when I ask about something different I notice. Because of the way I choose to look (wear my hair long and a full beard) I get treated different to the majority with the Ken doll haircuts and stuff, but I expect that and it's self-inflicted, so different BIG time to any cultural bias. Maybe my minor exposure to some negative bias and treatment has made me more tolerant of others differences or more sympathetic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I have to be honest here reading this thread brings to mind the phrase an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure which is true in this instance there are to ways of viewing it the first and the one a majority of you believe should be the things work is to prevent anyone who might have an issue with the term madness from experiencing it at all rather then help them work through what ever issues they may have with it in a healthy and safe manner. Then you have the second way which apparently only a minority of believe and is almost the exact opposite in that we believe that we should prevent the use of an antiquated word having an effect on someone by having them deal with in some manner to the point they relies that just because a word used to have a specific meaning and connotations years ago does not mean it still has those meanings meanwhile the cure in this case being never having to experience this word again. Now is one view on the phase in this instance objectively better than the other no, however it is my belief that it is better to help someone through their issues rather that let said issues fester especially in this instance because while WOTC may be willing to remove a word from their product many others wont for many reasons. And I just want to say that I personally have no issue with WOTC changing a word in their product and for those of you who saw my earlier post about censorship before it was taken down because I said rude things in it I stand by what I said in that Removing anything from anything that spreads a specific ideal or thought which many of you appear to agree that the term madness does is in fact the definition of censorship do I think that was WOTC intent when they made this choice no, but while intent matters result matter more and at least to me the results are clear.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
You have highlighted a fallacious approach I've seen in this thread a lot; the assumption that there is an equivalent balance between [experience X] and [experience not-X].
What I mean is that there isn't some set of scales which remains balanced in equilibrium if for every account such as mine where someone with pertinent experience says they are negatively affected, there's an account of someone with likewise pertinent experience that says they aren't negatively affected.
This is not true, this isn't how this works.
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language. I am genuinely, honestly, profoundly glad that not everyone with mental health problems has the experiences myself and others have had. However, that does not negate/balance/equal out/justify/whatever my experience.
Here's an analogy; it doesn't matter if for every person that drives over the speed limit and causes an accident that there's one, or ten, or one hundred that drive over and don't cause accidents. Enforcing the speed limit will reduce the number of accidents full stop. There is no balance or equivalency here, it is a matter of saying 'Do X, reduce Y'
Beautifully written, and many a point I wholeheartedly agree with. But here's the thing:
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language.
If we go by that, we should IMMEDIATELY revert the changes in Van Richtens back to their DMG roots, because people HAVE SAID THAT THEY FEEL AFFECTED. Just like people have pointed out, EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone. Should we cut out all spiders because some people are afraid of spiders? No? Then should we RENAME all spiders, and change their descriptions, so we don't hurt/offend people? D&D already practiced self-censoring in 2nd edition, when devils became known as "baatezu" due to pressure from groups that thought that D&D was tied to satanism and the occult. They didn't even call Asmodeus by name until the very end day of 2nd edition. That's why devils and demons have weird names in D&D, and why angels are titled Planetars and Solars instead of Seraphim, Cherubim or Virtues.
How is this situation any different? A small group has raised social awareness that a small part of D&D is not socially acceptable anymore. WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE! We have been through this whole song and dance once already - or at least SOME of you have. As a non-american I never had this problem. So maybe I have no voice in this because I've never been affected by it?
People did not like it when EA wanted to manipulate public perception to change "Lootboxes" and "Gambling Mechanics" into the more consumer friendly "Surprise Mechanics", but here its OK? Just change some words and everything is alright. Don't fix the cracks in the wall, just throw some paint over them.
How did they even determine that this was something worth changing? Did they send out a survey? Collect data? How many accounts of affected individuals did they listen to? WHERE WAS THE DISCOURSE? Or was this something the company decided to "just do"? In that case, why now? Because its "hip" and "in" to be seen doing stuff like that? So it was not worth it years ago? So they condemned people to suffer for years and years. Yeah, that makes us trust corporations much more.
No matter how I look at it, this reeks too much of political showmanship and of smoke-and-mirrors to me.
It's not that I don't have compassion it that I believe people should strive to live a healthy and happy life which can not happen when they allow wounds(both physical and mental) from the past shape their actions in the future and in order to deal with said wounds as far as the mental ones go that means seeking therapy in order to help them work past said issues which I said in my post but you either read in a tone I did not intend or just ignored entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language.
If we go by that, we should IMMEDIATELY revert the changes in Van Richtens back to their DMG roots, because people HAVE SAID THAT THEY FEEL AFFECTED. Just like people have pointed out, EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone.
Which is why we weigh the relative harm and relative benefits. Nobody's claiming there's a perfect solution where everyone's desires are completely met. Your mileage may vary, but I think WotC leaned in the right direction with this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language.
If we go by that, we should IMMEDIATELY revert the changes in Van Richtens back to their DMG roots, because people HAVE SAID THAT THEY FEEL AFFECTED. Just like people have pointed out, EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone...
...Just change some words and everything is alright. Don't fix the cracks in the wall, just throw some paint over them...
...How did they even determine that this was something worth changing?... WHERE WAS THE DISCOURSE? Or was this something the company decided to "just do"? In that case, why now? Because its "hip" and "in" to be seen doing stuff like that?
This is not about making sure everybody is not offended, as doing so would be impossible.
As the person your replying to has said, perfect is the enemy of good. What we can do is make sure the least amount of people is effected, by contacting professional and effected people to see what changes would best allow for the most amount of people to be accounted for.
There are also other changes too, it's not just the title change of course. One of the links Davyd sent a while back was a professional in mental illness and how it relates to media, and he praised many other changes, characterizing stressors as driven due to circumstance rather than because someone was more mentally weak, tips on running psychological horror games while avoiding harmful tropes, and settings boundaries & consent as well as checking in to ensure those boundaries are kept (Yes I just copy-pasted Doctor B's entire tweet thread and shortened it down to a single paragraph).
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)
Edit: Shortened the quote because I don't want to take up too much forum space, don't worry I did read all of it.
I think this part needs to be highlighted more....the changes that occur do not affect your final product as you as a DM decide what that final product is.
The burger analogy is needs to be more like:
Its like a restaurant offering gluten free bread for their burgers while still offering gluten buns for those who want them. You can depict races in your games any way you see fit and the only judges of that will be you and your table.
They are NOT saying its like a restaurant ONLY proving gluten free buns with no offer of gluten ones. That would be impossible in DnD as they cannot dictate how you run your own table.
Kotath, what are you trying to accomplish exactly? You bring up concerns about the terminology shift out of concern that it can do more harm than good, but we have statements from the affected audience members (neurodiverse people who have demonstrably been affected by the prior language) as well as people who have some expertise in the relevant field (not just psychology but the intersection of psychology and gaming) who have stated that this change is a positive one.
Where is your harm? Is it just hypothetical? Or do you have anything to back up your concerns? Please bring them to the table if you have them.
If they are just hypothetical then may I ask why you keep bringing them up when the affected, the relevant, and the learned have already countered those concerns? Is there some other reason that you dislike the shift in tone and terminology?
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 rub here is that DnD allows you to call things whatever you want in the game. If you do not like the new "Fear and Stress" names you can simply still call it madness in your own games if you want.
They cannot restrict you from doing so as the nature of the game is only dictated by you and your table.
They are not forcing you to eat gluten-free buns...they are just making people aware that they exist and they support people who have an allergy.
If they outlast the source of stress they're a mental disorder. They're just a specific mental disorder and most of the flaws listed for indefinite madness in the DMG are not appropriate manifestations.
If it helps you to see, HERE is a personal account from another forumite about encountering the description of orcs and half orcs and being turned right off of D&D because it was a direct parallel to their own experiences as a multiracial person.
Edit: Oh and HERE is my own account of how a portrayal of a fictional people affected me.
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!
As someone who has been both diagnosed with ADHD as a child and ODD as a teen only to later be undignosed (not sure it this is the correct terminology) I can safely say I was never called mad even though in elementary school I was called to the nurse's office daily to make sure I took my meds. Because I refused to take them because the made me feel like shit(turns out I was experiencing a few of the side effects) it was so bad my dad literally had to force them down my throat. And I went through this until about the age of 14ish when after moving and getting a new doctor I was undignosed ADHD. So while I may or may not have any mental illnesses(still up for debate) I can confidently say that I have had some bad experiences when it comes to mental health, and yet even with that the thought of a word with a different meaning in today's language than the one it had years ago hurting someone's feelings just by hearing it is ridiculous because, and I can not stress this enough context matters. And for those of you who truly for what ever reason are actually hurt by a word being said when not used in a mean spirited or mocking manner I recommend therapy because that is not healthy in any way. And for those curious I took 2 different medications I can't remember what the first one I took was but apparently it was so bad I could barely function while on it so they switched me to strattera which was the second one I was on.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him. I suggest you read it and maybe have a bit more compassion? Just because your journey with mental illness has gone a certain way doesn't mean that is everybody's journey.
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!
Careful there - that sounds like you are saying certain peoples journey with mental illnesses are worth more than others.
#OpenDnD
What Ophidimancer is actually saying is that one person cannot nullify another person's pain - even if the first person has experienced their own form of a similar pain.
Animefreak is complaining that people have no basis for being upset about words so long as those words aren't spoken with malice. That stance is objectively incorrect and has been proven such by a multitude of psychologists and mental health experts.
Whether these specific words have hurt enough people badly enough to require Wizards to intervene, or if there's a better method to resolving that pain is a topic worth discussing. That these words have hurt people, at all? That is not open to discussion. Obviously Wizards is not going to redo the entire DMG to get rid of the word 'Madness', but these are the sorts of discussions that could make for a better, more informed and empathetic DMG whenever 6e comes out, as well as improving people's ability to run safe games at their own tables.
Please do not contact or message me.
I just read and reread my post because that's not my intention, but I can't see how this is an implication of what I wrote. Where is it that you see that I put a value judgment like that?
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!
Read the bold part again. Ophi never says Davyd's journey is "worth more", they simply bring attention that one person's journey does not invalidate anyone else's journey and cannot be used as an argument that a particular one is invalid. No one has been arguing that EVERYONE with experience with mental health issues are going to be helped by this change, just that some people are. Ophi is trying to highlight that just because animefreak does not take issue with the terminology, it does not mean that others feel the same way.
Of course the argument goes both ways. Not everyone is going to feel the same benefits as Davyd and others with similar stories, but it is important to help those that are harmed by it. Its great that some people are not, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt help make the game more appealing to those that are.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Nope. It's saying that certain people's journey with mental conditions are very specifically their journeys, not anyone else's, and one person's experience doesn't allow them to speak for the whole group of people in their huge community. It's saying "Great, you're not offended by this, but other people are, and you being a member of that community doesn't cancel that out".
There's a huge difference there. This is a false equivalency, and quite possibly a strawman argument if you intentionally misrepresented our side.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You have highlighted a fallacious approach I've seen in this thread a lot; the assumption that there is an equivalent balance between [experience X] and [experience not-X].
What I mean is that there isn't some set of scales which remains balanced in equilibrium if for every account such as mine where someone with pertinent experience says they are negatively affected, there's an account of someone with likewise pertinent experience that says they aren't negatively affected.
This is not true, this isn't how this works.
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language. I am genuinely, honestly, profoundly glad that not everyone with mental health problems has the experiences myself and others have had. However, that does not negate/balance/equal out/justify/whatever my experience.
Here's an analogy; it doesn't matter if for every person that drives over the speed limit and causes an accident that there's one, or ten, or one hundred that drive over and don't cause accidents. Enforcing the speed limit will reduce the number of accidents full stop. There is no balance or equivalency here, it is a matter of saying 'Do X, reduce Y'
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Now thats a great analogy for the changes....except in this case DnD still allows you speed in your own private track!
I've been following this and have chimed in a time or 2 with my opinions and experiences, living with someone who has a wide selection of mental health issues. I have been trying, in MANY cases, to understand how and why sole folks are so sorely wounded by words that, to me, are either simple descriptive words (primitive, exotic as 2 major examples) or simply discarded terms from society (madness) that are used to describe something in game. Discarded, by society, because we learned that THIS word isn't a proper description of said condition, for example.
I think a post a few back, where it was said: 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. that "turned the light on" for me.
I can't relate and I can't understand a lot of this because my brain doesn't work that way. The description quoted above, to me, describes several "monster" type races from sci-fi and fantasy, but has no accurate RL ties, unless we jump in a TARDIS and find us some Neanderthal groups. It is a description a bigot, bully or racist might use, but nothing a civilized, intelligent, thinking person might use. Those who still feel such bias toward any of the cultures around our world, from the techno-rich highly developed countries to the serene, more primitive ways of life where folks still live in huts and villages will always have some way to dehumanize those they hate.
I was also baffled when someone mentioned that they felt alienated when someone noted a food choice, I believe and described it as exotic. I was baffled because I have encountered this exact thing and I was the one who used the term exotic. Some kind of pita-wrapped lamb mix with chopped peppers and some kind of sauce. He said that to his family, this was like a PB&J was here. I told him I thought that was awesome and we talked a bit more about what was everyday to his folks, but considered exotic or special here. Apparently a peanut butter cookie is a delicacy where his folks immigrated from, which to them now, is a funny irony. What is normal in one spot is exotic in another, and I, at least, find that incredibly interesting.
What I am getting at is that my mind works in a way that different is interesting and something I want to see and know more about. I always want to know more about a different culture or way of life I haven't heard of before and as such, I simply can't get my head around people who just have a hate on for any "type" of people, as a people. Or who stigmatize anyone who lives with any kind of illness or disability (I know there's a PC term for it, but you get the gist) TO me, everyone is different, and the more stark the difference, the more curious I am. I also make it a point to be open and accepting enough to easily accept "None of your business" when I ask about something different I notice. Because of the way I choose to look (wear my hair long and a full beard) I get treated different to the majority with the Ken doll haircuts and stuff, but I expect that and it's self-inflicted, so different BIG time to any cultural bias. Maybe my minor exposure to some negative bias and treatment has made me more tolerant of others differences or more sympathetic?
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I have to be honest here reading this thread brings to mind the phrase an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure which is true in this instance there are to ways of viewing it the first and the one a majority of you believe should be the things work is to prevent anyone who might have an issue with the term madness from experiencing it at all rather then help them work through what ever issues they may have with it in a healthy and safe manner. Then you have the second way which apparently only a minority of believe and is almost the exact opposite in that we believe that we should prevent the use of an antiquated word having an effect on someone by having them deal with in some manner to the point they relies that just because a word used to have a specific meaning and connotations years ago does not mean it still has those meanings meanwhile the cure in this case being never having to experience this word again. Now is one view on the phase in this instance objectively better than the other no, however it is my belief that it is better to help someone through their issues rather that let said issues fester especially in this instance because while WOTC may be willing to remove a word from their product many others wont for many reasons. And I just want to say that I personally have no issue with WOTC changing a word in their product and for those of you who saw my earlier post about censorship before it was taken down because I said rude things in it I stand by what I said in that Removing anything from anything that spreads a specific ideal or thought which many of you appear to agree that the term madness does is in fact the definition of censorship do I think that was WOTC intent when they made this choice no, but while intent matters result matter more and at least to me the results are clear.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Beautifully written, and many a point I wholeheartedly agree with. But here's the thing:
It doesn't matter if ten, or a hundred, or a thousand people with mental health problems say they don't have negative experiences with the language used, that doesn't negate a single experience of someone saying they do have negative experiences with the language.
If we go by that, we should IMMEDIATELY revert the changes in Van Richtens back to their DMG roots, because people HAVE SAID THAT THEY FEEL AFFECTED. Just like people have pointed out, EVERYTHING can be offensive to someone. Should we cut out all spiders because some people are afraid of spiders? No? Then should we RENAME all spiders, and change their descriptions, so we don't hurt/offend people? D&D already practiced self-censoring in 2nd edition, when devils became known as "baatezu" due to pressure from groups that thought that D&D was tied to satanism and the occult. They didn't even call Asmodeus by name until the very end day of 2nd edition. That's why devils and demons have weird names in D&D, and why angels are titled Planetars and Solars instead of Seraphim, Cherubim or Virtues.
How is this situation any different? A small group has raised social awareness that a small part of D&D is not socially acceptable anymore. WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE! We have been through this whole song and dance once already - or at least SOME of you have. As a non-american I never had this problem. So maybe I have no voice in this because I've never been affected by it?
People did not like it when EA wanted to manipulate public perception to change "Lootboxes" and "Gambling Mechanics" into the more consumer friendly "Surprise Mechanics", but here its OK? Just change some words and everything is alright. Don't fix the cracks in the wall, just throw some paint over them.
How did they even determine that this was something worth changing? Did they send out a survey? Collect data? How many accounts of affected individuals did they listen to? WHERE WAS THE DISCOURSE? Or was this something the company decided to "just do"? In that case, why now? Because its "hip" and "in" to be seen doing stuff like that? So it was not worth it years ago? So they condemned people to suffer for years and years. Yeah, that makes us trust corporations much more.
No matter how I look at it, this reeks too much of political showmanship and of smoke-and-mirrors to me.
#OpenDnD
It's not that I don't have compassion it that I believe people should strive to live a healthy and happy life which can not happen when they allow wounds(both physical and mental) from the past shape their actions in the future and in order to deal with said wounds as far as the mental ones go that means seeking therapy in order to help them work past said issues which I said in my post but you either read in a tone I did not intend or just ignored entirely.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Which is why we weigh the relative harm and relative benefits. Nobody's claiming there's a perfect solution where everyone's desires are completely met. Your mileage may vary, but I think WotC leaned in the right direction with this one.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is not about making sure everybody is not offended, as doing so would be impossible.
As the person your replying to has said, perfect is the enemy of good. What we can do is make sure the least amount of people is effected, by contacting professional and effected people to see what changes would best allow for the most amount of people to be accounted for.
There are also other changes too, it's not just the title change of course. One of the links Davyd sent a while back was a professional in mental illness and how it relates to media, and he praised many other changes, characterizing stressors as driven due to circumstance rather than because someone was more mentally weak, tips on running psychological horror games while avoiding harmful tropes, and settings boundaries & consent as well as checking in to ensure those boundaries are kept
(Yes I just copy-pasted Doctor B's entire tweet thread and shortened it down to a single paragraph).Oh yeah the rest of Davyd's other post (same link as above but here's it again) answers your other questions,Edit: Shortened the quote because I don't want to take up too much forum space, don't worry I did read all of it.
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.