First of all I completely agree with your belief regarding the Jedi secondly however many people here are arguing with absolutes or at least close to it after all how many here have said it must/needs to/has to change/stay the same or some variant wether for or against and part of the reason many of us are upset with the change does call back to Tasha's ability scores after all it was claimed to be optional but all the UA since hasn't had the static abilities and neither has VRGtR so while it was stated to be optional that doesn't seem to be the case and that in my opinion is the issue many of us have with it. Personally I have no issue with either Tasha's changes (in fact I prefer them) or the name change in VRGtR what I have issue with is being told something only for it to be false.and as far as my opinion regarding Madness vs "stress and fear" has more to do with the fact that "stress and fear" just doesn't have the same impact Madness does, if I gain some Eldritch/other worldly knowledge and I'm told it's driving me mad that has more impact then your starting to feel really stressed/scared.
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.
has more to do with the fact that "stress and fear" just doesn't have the same impact Madness does
So your argument is based on how the language used affects you?
That's the exact same argument myself and others are making, but while your argument hinges on (presumably) positive effect if 'impact', ours hinges on the negative effect of harm. Surely when it comes to making a decision between losing some 'impact' in favour of reducing harm done, reducing harm would be the way to go? It may not reduce harm for you, personally, but I'd hope that you'd be willing to forgo so impact (just in the presentation of the rules, how you as DM delivers it can still be as impactful as you want) so that others reading the rules are spared being subjected to harmful language?
First of all I completely agree with your belief regarding the Jedi secondly however many people here are arguing with absolutes or at least close to it after all how many here have said it must/needs to/has to change/stay the same or some variant wether for or against
Having taken part in this conversation from the second page, I can honestly say I cannot remember anyone saying "It must be changed" or words to that effect. There has not even been an implication of this that I can recall. I've also just had a quick skim through a few pages and cannot see any. If you would like to point some out to me, I'd be happy to consider this.
and part of the reason many of us are upset with the change does call back to Tasha's ability scores after all it was claimed to be optional but all the UA since hasn't had the static abilities and neither has VRGtR so while it was stated to be optional that doesn't seem to be the case and that in my opinion is the issue many of us have with it.
I can understand this point of view, but as I have pointed out, I do not believe it is a valid argument to call an optional rule being used in new optional content anything but an option, when no existing content has been or is being planned to be changed. It only becomes non-optional if you choose to use the new, optional content, at which point you have chosen to accept that option.
Personally I have no issue with either Tasha's changes (in fact I prefer them) or the name change in VRGtR what I have issue with is being told something only for it to be false.and as far as my opinion regarding Madness vs "stress and fear" has more to do with the fact that "stress and fear" just doesn't have the same impact Madness does, if I gain some Eldritch/other worldly knowledge and I'm told it's driving me mad that has more impact then your starting to feel really stressed/scared.
Then you are free to continue calling it madness at your table. In your own game, you can make a judgement about each player and how they will react to things, to make adjustments if you wish. In fact you don't even need to homebrew anything, you can just continue using the wording and rules from the DMG if you wish.
WotC doesn't have that luxury, they cannot get to know every individual who may pick up their books or have personal conversations with each of them, and they cannot easily just change all their back catalogue of works. They can, however, make alterations and options in new material in an attempt not to put people off using their products based on research they do.
No what I'm saying is that if you are going to change the terminology because the current one is considered harmful to some people you need to change it to something that has a similar level of impact with out being harmful do I know what this new terminology should be no, do I think "stress and fear" is a good replacement also no both because of the reason in my previous post and also because of what someone else on here said regarding how it also had similar connotations as madness just instead of exaggerating the mental illness in question it marginalized it.
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.
Regarding the post it was in it might have been in a few of the post that got removed when feeling were getting a bit to strong for an online forum. and even it it wasn't you can't tell me that just going by the tone of 20 pages worth of people arguing/debating or what ever you want to call it that there are 2 sides one saying stay the same and one saying change it. And many one more side saying well yes but no.
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.
Regarding the post it was in it might have been in a few of the post that got removed when feeling were getting a bit to strong for an online forum. and even it it wasn't you can't tell me that just going by the tone of 20 pages worth of people arguing/debating or what ever you want to call it that there are 2 sides one saying stay the same and one saying change it. And many one more side saying well yes but no.
Of course there are (at least) 2 sides to a debate/argument, there wouldn't be a debate otherwise. However, at the very least from the "this change is welcome" side, I have seen nobody demanding that this change must be brought in or implying such. There have been strong arguments in favour, which mostly boil down to empathising with fellow human beings, accepting that their pain is valid, and attempting not to cause them further pain. However, there has always been a strong element of "you are free to keep this the same if you so wish".
There have been strong, passionate arguments from both sides, but presenting this as one side being "This must change" and the other as "This must not change" is, I believe, doing both sides a great disservice.
No what I'm saying is that if you are going to change the terminology because the current one is considered harmful to some people you need to change it to something that has a similar level of impact with out being harmful do I know what this new terminology should be no, do I think "stress and fear" is a good replacement also no both because of the reason in my previous post and also because of what someone else on here said regarding how it also had similar connotations as madness just instead of exaggerating the mental illness in question it marginalized it.
It is useful to consider and debate whether there is alternative terminology which could be used, I agree. I would welcome suggestions for alternatives.
Personally, as discussed earlier in this thread, I agree with this being described as something along the lines of "The effects of Extreme Fear and Stress". We could also replace the word fear with terror, or something more impactful...
Having gone back to look at the rules really in question, the Ravenloft 'Fear and Stress' section, I have realized it is not replacing the Madness rules in the DMG at all. There is a completely separate Fear and Horror section that Ravenloft references.
So they have not actually changed any terms regarding the title concern at all. The change is that they have changed 'Horror' to 'Stress.'
No one said they were changing what was presented in the Dungeon Master's Guide, nor terms used. What people were saying is that they were moving away from the systems provided in the DMG and towards different systems that use different language.
And they haven't changed 'horror' to 'stress', as evident by the fact that the book uses horror consistently throughout (the contents page has 16 instances of the word alone). What it doesn't use is the word 'madness' (or mad for that matter. There is one use of 'maddening' as in to infuriate). So to say they're changing horror to stress is incorrect
No matter what it is, you have to call it something, and no matter what you call it, someone will take offense.
Second post in this now 20 page thread.
Yiddish has a whole *bunch* of words for insanity. Not that this helps much. A "fedrayah" (I can't find the spelling. My mother called me this a lot) is someone who drives other people crazy. "Fedrayte" is what they made you. Mom also used a word that sounded like "Ibeekabottled", and being crazy is "meshuge". The words don't really have the same punch to me. I can't really get that concerned about plunging into the depths of "meshugena". Seeing a Great Old One doesn't sound as scary if it drives you "vaklempt".
Besides, all that would probably offend the people who speak Yiddish, if only for my horrible attempts at spelling.
Using words from other languages might be a solution. I doubt it. Even ancient Greek or Latin is easily recognized. I'm sure the Native Americans had good words to use. Are we still allowed to call them that? I haven't been keeping up to date. Maybe they are "People Of Native" or some-such now.
No matter what it is, you have to call it something, and no matter what you call it, someone will take offense.
Second post in this now 20 page thread.
Yiddish has a whole *bunch* of words for insanity. Not that this helps much. A "fedrayah" (I can't find the spelling. My mother called me this a lot) is someone who drives other people crazy. "Fedrayte" is what they made you. Mom also used a word that sounded like "Ibeekabottled", and being crazy is "meshuge". The words don't really have the same punch to me. I can't really get that concerned about plunging into the depths of "meshugena". Seeing a Great Old One doesn't sound as scary if it drives you "vaklempt".
Besides, all that would probably offend the people who speak Yiddish, if only for my horrible attempts at spelling.
Using words from other languages might be a solution. I doubt it. Even ancient Greek or Latin is easily recognized. I'm sure the Native Americans had good words to use. Are we still allowed to call them that? I haven't been keeping up to date. Maybe they are "People Of Native" or some-such now.
It is quite possible that no words can be found which do not "offend" (i.e. hurt) somebody, somewhere. However, that is not an argument against looking into the language used and attempting to choose terminology which causes the least possible harm to the fewest people.
Everybody now recognises that using the N-word to describe people of colour is offensive, hurtful and wrong. However, some will find other terminology hurtful, where other do not. It is unlikely that we will ever find a phrase which doesn't cause offence to somebody, but that is not an argument for going back to using the N-word, nor would it have been an argument against moving away from it initially.
As others have mentioned, perfect is the enemy of good.
So far, nobody has objected to the word "fear" so I guess we are ok on that. Stress, however... I fear is next up on the chopping block. In all jokingness, I'm getting Post Dramatic S-word Disorder here.
So far, nobody has objected to the word "fear" so I guess we are ok on that. Stress, however, I fear is next up on the chopping block. In all jokingness, I'm getting Post Dramatic S-word Disorder here.
If Stress became an unacceptable word to use in society, then would it be right for it to remain? Why is it wrong for the language in the game rules to adapt over time with what is deemed acceptable to society?
I have seen no signs that the word Stress is considered, or is moving towards being considered, offensive or hurtful. There has been no move that I am aware of in society to move away from the use of the word stress. However, there has been a lot of movement in society away from the term madness. It is deemed unacceptable to use the word madness to describe mental illness, and I cannot remember the last time I heard it used in the real world in any but a derogatory fashion or as deprecating humour. What we have here is WotC trying to follow the social values of the wider society well after wider society has already made this change, which does not apply to Stress.
This feels like a misdirect from the use of harmful language into the limitations of gamefication of complex effects. I am not commenting (nor do I see anyone else commenting) on the verisimilitude of these mechanics for representing stressful and fearful situations. What has been the repeated core of this discussion is the removal of language made harmful by the stereotypes it carries.
My personal opinion is that no mechanical system for a game could ever realistically do justice to the effects of stress and fear, if it attempts to include those mechanics, I would hope it does so without portraying harmful stereotypes or using harmful language. Do I think that witnessing the death of a loved one, a darkest fear made real, or the shattering of reality is equal to a 5% reduction in effectiveness? Do I think I think that a long or calming rest can completely alleviate the effects of these things? No, I don't; those are concessions made for the gamefication of these concepts. But the key thing is do I see or find anything harmful in these depictions? No, I do not. I don't personally see anything harmful in the depiction of these things. I'm open to the possibility there may be something harmful, and open to the discussion about reducing that. But as it stands what is presented is less harmful than what came before, at least from my own experience.
Let's try and avoid misdirects; this isn't about removing anything, this isn't about changing what has already been printed, this isn't about the impossible task of making D&D completely free of everything that could possibly cause any harm ever to anyone, and this isn't about the verisimilitude or accuracy of fear and stress mechanics. This is about one specific suite of language that has been shown to be harmful, and approaches to move away from that.
Again, this is a misdirect. The Fear and Stress section from VGR points not to the Ability Options >> New Ability Scores: Honor and Sanity, but to Adventuring Options >> Fear and Horror. And it explicitly frames the mechanics presented in VGR as an alternate system. So they're moving away from the use of problematic language and actually not referencing that section, instead referencing a different, similar, and alternate section.
So in other words; no removal, no censorship, no redaction. Just an alternate system with better language built within a book that stresses proper approaches to safety when running horror themes.
The point is that language originally referenced in the start of this thread doesn't appear in VGR, which appears to be an intentional direction.
Note: If these points aren't intended to be misdirects, I apologise. I would just like clarification on their relevance to the core topic being discussed. However, from my perspective it just feels like a debate tactic I have no real desire to participate in (for it's unpleasant resemblance to gaslighting, unintentionally or otherwise) where an attempt is made to constantly reframe the discussion (moving the goalposts springs to mind) away from the point being made in an attempt to invalidate the point. I'm not saying that's intentional, I'm just saying that's kinda how this feels in the moment.
While this is true, the Fear and Horror section in the DMG chapter 9 references the Madness rules in Chapter 8. Therefore, if you run with the VRGtR Fear and Stress rules as a replacement for DMG Fear and Horror, the Madness rules are replaced for these purposes with what is in VRGtR.
However, the point does stand that Fear and Stress is not a direct replacement for Madness, and that replacing Fear and Horror with Fear and Stress still leaves the Madness rules available for use. So they haven't actually replaced Madness with Fear and Stress, either in terms of terminology or rules, they have just supplied an alternate set of rules which can run alongside Madness.
While this is true, the Fear and Horror section in the DMG chapter 9 references the Madness rules in Chapter 8. Therefore, if you run with the VRGtR Fear and Stress rules as a replacement for DMG Fear and Horror, the Madness rules are replaced for these purposes with what is in VRGtR.
However, the point does stand that Fear and Stress is not a direct replacement for Madness, and that replacing Fear and Horror with Fear and Stress still leaves the Madness rules available for use. So they haven't actually replaced Madness with Fear and Stress, either in terms of terminology or rules, they have just supplied an alternate set of rules which can run alongside Madness.
Also they've moved away from that language throughout VGR as well as addressing the harmful nature of misrepresenting mental illness. From the section on Cosmic Horror:
The genre has a history of framing marginalized demographics as monstrous and stigmatizing mental illness. Be aware and avoid those tropes.
Stigmatizing mental illness is the exact kind of things that the language found in the DMG can do (and does). Note, I'm not saying the rules presented in the DMG actively do this, but the language used is oft a prominent vector for this kind of stigmatisation (one I have myself experienced first hand). As such, VGR moving away from that language and providing alternate rules that don't rely on it is a positive direction.
Also they've moved away from that language throughout VGR as well as addressing the harmful nature of misrepresenting mental illness. From the section on Cosmic Horror:
The genre has a history of framing marginalized demographics as monstrous and stigmatizing mental illness. Be aware and avoid those tropes.
Stigmatizing mental illness is the exact kind of things that the language found in the DMG can do (and does). Note, I'm not saying the rules presented in the DMG actively do this, but the language used is oft a prominent vector for this kind of stigmatisation (one I have myself experienced first hand). As such, VGR moving away from that language and providing alternate rules that don't rely on it is a positive direction.
That's good.
I will confess that I haven't purchased or read VRGtR (and don't plan to just yet), so I'm only going by what people are telling me about it.
It also makes a really good point in the body horror section about avoiding tropes that stigmatise disability, which often happens in body horror.
Overall it's a solidly written book that includes a lot of essential information for running good, dark, disturbing horror without harming your players. One of the little snippets I like is the phrase "scare don't scar"
So far, nobody has objected to the word "fear" so I guess we are ok on that. Stress, however... I fear is next up on the chopping block. In all jokingness, I'm getting Post Dramatic S-word Disorder here.
I did actually "protest" against the word "fear". Not that I have a problem with it being used, but I used to suffer from fear and thus fear being described can trigger a response in me. Doesn't mean I want it out of the game text though.
It saying that is guidance. Honestly, I will ask again, what are you trying to accomplish here? You haven't been making any sort of point for pages now. Are you complaining that Van Richten's isn't a treatise or manual on how to portray mental illness in gaming? That wasn't the point of the book. Like I've been saying, it made some language choices that people have noticed and have been applauding because they feel it is a positive direction and less harmful to them, that's all. Why are you arguing against people literally saying, "This is a change that is positive for me."?
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First of all I completely agree with your belief regarding the Jedi secondly however many people here are arguing with absolutes or at least close to it after all how many here have said it must/needs to/has to change/stay the same or some variant wether for or against and part of the reason many of us are upset with the change does call back to Tasha's ability scores after all it was claimed to be optional but all the UA since hasn't had the static abilities and neither has VRGtR so while it was stated to be optional that doesn't seem to be the case and that in my opinion is the issue many of us have with it. Personally I have no issue with either Tasha's changes (in fact I prefer them) or the name change in VRGtR what I have issue with is being told something only for it to be false.and as far as my opinion regarding Madness vs "stress and fear" has more to do with the fact that "stress and fear" just doesn't have the same impact Madness does, if I gain some Eldritch/other worldly knowledge and I'm told it's driving me mad that has more impact then your starting to feel really stressed/scared.
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.
So your argument is based on how the language used affects you?
That's the exact same argument myself and others are making, but while your argument hinges on (presumably) positive effect if 'impact', ours hinges on the negative effect of harm. Surely when it comes to making a decision between losing some 'impact' in favour of reducing harm done, reducing harm would be the way to go? It may not reduce harm for you, personally, but I'd hope that you'd be willing to forgo so impact (just in the presentation of the rules, how you as DM delivers it can still be as impactful as you want) so that others reading the rules are spared being subjected to harmful language?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Having taken part in this conversation from the second page, I can honestly say I cannot remember anyone saying "It must be changed" or words to that effect. There has not even been an implication of this that I can recall. I've also just had a quick skim through a few pages and cannot see any. If you would like to point some out to me, I'd be happy to consider this.
I can understand this point of view, but as I have pointed out, I do not believe it is a valid argument to call an optional rule being used in new optional content anything but an option, when no existing content has been or is being planned to be changed. It only becomes non-optional if you choose to use the new, optional content, at which point you have chosen to accept that option.
Then you are free to continue calling it madness at your table. In your own game, you can make a judgement about each player and how they will react to things, to make adjustments if you wish. In fact you don't even need to homebrew anything, you can just continue using the wording and rules from the DMG if you wish.
WotC doesn't have that luxury, they cannot get to know every individual who may pick up their books or have personal conversations with each of them, and they cannot easily just change all their back catalogue of works. They can, however, make alterations and options in new material in an attempt not to put people off using their products based on research they do.
No what I'm saying is that if you are going to change the terminology because the current one is considered harmful to some people you need to change it to something that has a similar level of impact with out being harmful do I know what this new terminology should be no, do I think "stress and fear" is a good replacement also no both because of the reason in my previous post and also because of what someone else on here said regarding how it also had similar connotations as madness just instead of exaggerating the mental illness in question it marginalized it.
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.
Regarding the post it was in it might have been in a few of the post that got removed when feeling were getting a bit to strong for an online forum. and even it it wasn't you can't tell me that just going by the tone of 20 pages worth of people arguing/debating or what ever you want to call it that there are 2 sides one saying stay the same and one saying change it. And many one more side saying well yes but no.
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.
Of course there are (at least) 2 sides to a debate/argument, there wouldn't be a debate otherwise. However, at the very least from the "this change is welcome" side, I have seen nobody demanding that this change must be brought in or implying such. There have been strong arguments in favour, which mostly boil down to empathising with fellow human beings, accepting that their pain is valid, and attempting not to cause them further pain. However, there has always been a strong element of "you are free to keep this the same if you so wish".
There have been strong, passionate arguments from both sides, but presenting this as one side being "This must change" and the other as "This must not change" is, I believe, doing both sides a great disservice.
It is useful to consider and debate whether there is alternative terminology which could be used, I agree. I would welcome suggestions for alternatives.
Personally, as discussed earlier in this thread, I agree with this being described as something along the lines of "The effects of Extreme Fear and Stress". We could also replace the word fear with terror, or something more impactful...
No one said they were changing what was presented in the Dungeon Master's Guide, nor terms used. What people were saying is that they were moving away from the systems provided in the DMG and towards different systems that use different language.
And they haven't changed 'horror' to 'stress', as evident by the fact that the book uses horror consistently throughout (the contents page has 16 instances of the word alone). What it doesn't use is the word 'madness' (or mad for that matter. There is one use of 'maddening' as in to infuriate). So to say they're changing horror to stress is incorrect
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Second post in this now 20 page thread.
Yiddish has a whole *bunch* of words for insanity. Not that this helps much. A "fedrayah" (I can't find the spelling. My mother called me this a lot) is someone who drives other people crazy. "Fedrayte" is what they made you. Mom also used a word that sounded like "Ibeekabottled", and being crazy is "meshuge". The words don't really have the same punch to me. I can't really get that concerned about plunging into the depths of "meshugena". Seeing a Great Old One doesn't sound as scary if it drives you "vaklempt".
Besides, all that would probably offend the people who speak Yiddish, if only for my horrible attempts at spelling.
Using words from other languages might be a solution. I doubt it. Even ancient Greek or Latin is easily recognized. I'm sure the Native Americans had good words to use. Are we still allowed to call them that? I haven't been keeping up to date. Maybe they are "People Of Native" or some-such now.
<Insert clever signature here>
It is quite possible that no words can be found which do not "offend" (i.e. hurt) somebody, somewhere. However, that is not an argument against looking into the language used and attempting to choose terminology which causes the least possible harm to the fewest people.
Everybody now recognises that using the N-word to describe people of colour is offensive, hurtful and wrong. However, some will find other terminology hurtful, where other do not. It is unlikely that we will ever find a phrase which doesn't cause offence to somebody, but that is not an argument for going back to using the N-word, nor would it have been an argument against moving away from it initially.
As others have mentioned, perfect is the enemy of good.
So far, nobody has objected to the word "fear" so I guess we are ok on that. Stress, however... I fear is next up on the chopping block. In all jokingness, I'm getting Post Dramatic S-word Disorder here.
<Insert clever signature here>
If Stress became an unacceptable word to use in society, then would it be right for it to remain? Why is it wrong for the language in the game rules to adapt over time with what is deemed acceptable to society?
I have seen no signs that the word Stress is considered, or is moving towards being considered, offensive or hurtful. There has been no move that I am aware of in society to move away from the use of the word stress. However, there has been a lot of movement in society away from the term madness. It is deemed unacceptable to use the word madness to describe mental illness, and I cannot remember the last time I heard it used in the real world in any but a derogatory fashion or as deprecating humour. What we have here is WotC trying to follow the social values of the wider society well after wider society has already made this change, which does not apply to Stress.
This feels like a misdirect from the use of harmful language into the limitations of gamefication of complex effects. I am not commenting (nor do I see anyone else commenting) on the verisimilitude of these mechanics for representing stressful and fearful situations. What has been the repeated core of this discussion is the removal of language made harmful by the stereotypes it carries.
My personal opinion is that no mechanical system for a game could ever realistically do justice to the effects of stress and fear, if it attempts to include those mechanics, I would hope it does so without portraying harmful stereotypes or using harmful language. Do I think that witnessing the death of a loved one, a darkest fear made real, or the shattering of reality is equal to a 5% reduction in effectiveness? Do I think I think that a long or calming rest can completely alleviate the effects of these things? No, I don't; those are concessions made for the gamefication of these concepts. But the key thing is do I see or find anything harmful in these depictions? No, I do not. I don't personally see anything harmful in the depiction of these things. I'm open to the possibility there may be something harmful, and open to the discussion about reducing that. But as it stands what is presented is less harmful than what came before, at least from my own experience.
Let's try and avoid misdirects; this isn't about removing anything, this isn't about changing what has already been printed, this isn't about the impossible task of making D&D completely free of everything that could possibly cause any harm ever to anyone, and this isn't about the verisimilitude or accuracy of fear and stress mechanics. This is about one specific suite of language that has been shown to be harmful, and approaches to move away from that.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Again, this is a misdirect. The Fear and Stress section from VGR points not to the Ability Options >> New Ability Scores: Honor and Sanity, but to Adventuring Options >> Fear and Horror. And it explicitly frames the mechanics presented in VGR as an alternate system. So they're moving away from the use of problematic language and actually not referencing that section, instead referencing a different, similar, and alternate section.
So in other words; no removal, no censorship, no redaction. Just an alternate system with better language built within a book that stresses proper approaches to safety when running horror themes.
The point is that language originally referenced in the start of this thread doesn't appear in VGR, which appears to be an intentional direction.
Note: If these points aren't intended to be misdirects, I apologise. I would just like clarification on their relevance to the core topic being discussed. However, from my perspective it just feels like a debate tactic I have no real desire to participate in (for it's unpleasant resemblance to gaslighting, unintentionally or otherwise) where an attempt is made to constantly reframe the discussion (moving the goalposts springs to mind) away from the point being made in an attempt to invalidate the point. I'm not saying that's intentional, I'm just saying that's kinda how this feels in the moment.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
While this is true, the Fear and Horror section in the DMG chapter 9 references the Madness rules in Chapter 8. Therefore, if you run with the VRGtR Fear and Stress rules as a replacement for DMG Fear and Horror, the Madness rules are replaced for these purposes with what is in VRGtR.
However, the point does stand that Fear and Stress is not a direct replacement for Madness, and that replacing Fear and Horror with Fear and Stress still leaves the Madness rules available for use. So they haven't actually replaced Madness with Fear and Stress, either in terms of terminology or rules, they have just supplied an alternate set of rules which can run alongside Madness.
Also they've moved away from that language throughout VGR as well as addressing the harmful nature of misrepresenting mental illness. From the section on Cosmic Horror:
Stigmatizing mental illness is the exact kind of things that the language found in the DMG can do (and does). Note, I'm not saying the rules presented in the DMG actively do this, but the language used is oft a prominent vector for this kind of stigmatisation (one I have myself experienced first hand). As such, VGR moving away from that language and providing alternate rules that don't rely on it is a positive direction.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
That's good.
I will confess that I haven't purchased or read VRGtR (and don't plan to just yet), so I'm only going by what people are telling me about it.
It also makes a really good point in the body horror section about avoiding tropes that stigmatise disability, which often happens in body horror.
Overall it's a solidly written book that includes a lot of essential information for running good, dark, disturbing horror without harming your players. One of the little snippets I like is the phrase "scare don't scar"
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I did actually "protest" against the word "fear". Not that I have a problem with it being used, but I used to suffer from fear and thus fear being described can trigger a response in me. Doesn't mean I want it out of the game text though.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It saying that is guidance. Honestly, I will ask again, what are you trying to accomplish here? You haven't been making any sort of point for pages now. Are you complaining that Van Richten's isn't a treatise or manual on how to portray mental illness in gaming? That wasn't the point of the book. Like I've been saying, it made some language choices that people have noticed and have been applauding because they feel it is a positive direction and less harmful to them, that's all. Why are you arguing against people literally saying, "This is a change that is positive for 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!