An in-depth, multiple-page discussion of the nature of bad-faith, debunked, or superstitious story tropes and how to avoid them is out of scope for a D&D game book, really. Especially since this thread proves that people can't even agree that hurting your players is bad. Which is beyond ridiculous, but eh.
The warnings in the book are simple and basic, but they're there. They may prompt someone to ask "wait, what? What do they mean by this?" and do a little external research, which is all to the good. They will not stop everyone from avoiding Bad Juju tropes and story decisions, but no amount of warning ever could. They could've spent half the book detailing how to not do this stuff, and a certain segment of the playerbase's answer would've been "FUKK YEW I DEW WAT I WANT" and then proceeded to scar their players some more.
VRG is far from a perfect book, but it's better than Tasha's and seems to be a good step in a good direction. The perfect direction, the perfect step? Nah. But perfect is, as it ever has been, the enemy of good.
An in-depth, multiple-page discussion of the nature of bad-faith, debunked, or superstitious story tropes and how to avoid them is out of scope for a D&D game book, really. Especially since this thread proves that people can't even agree that hurting your players is bad. Which is beyond ridiculous, but eh.
The warnings in the book are simple and basic, but they're there. They may prompt someone to ask "wait, what? What do they mean by this?" and do a little external research, which is all to the good. They will not stop everyone from avoiding Bad Juju tropes and story decisions, but no amount of warning ever could. They could've spent half the book detailing how to not do this stuff, and a certain segment of the playerbase's answer would've been "FUKK YEW I DEW WAT I WANT" and then proceeded to scar their players some more.
VRG is far from a perfect book, but it's better than Tasha's and seems to be a good step in a good direction. The perfect direction, the perfect step? Nah. But perfect is, as it ever has been, the enemy of good.
Because I do not see what they have done as a net positive, even though it has helped some people.
And because I do see how it could be considered a step backwards rather than forwards, even though it has helped some people.
Ok, so let's take it out of the realm of hypothetical. What kind of backward step are we talking about, in concrete terms? What kind of harms does this actively do to people? Not what it COULD do, but what has it DONE that could negate the help that it has actively DONE?
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!
That still sounds hypothetical and conjecture on your part, as opposed to the actual people in this thread who have said that the new language is of actual help to them.
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!
Wait, I misinterpreted what you wrote, but my point still stands, if you're not arguing with concrete examples of the harms done by this slight shift in tone, then I will posit that what you're doing amounts you "it could have been done better" which we can agree on.
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!
Is it worth considering and researching whether this newer wording could be doing more harm than good? Yes.
Should that lead to newer wording, which more people have said they find less harmful than have said they find more harmful to themselves, be reverted to older terminology while that research is carried out? I would argue not. If further research determines that a mistake has been made and the new language is, overall, more harmful than the old, we can find a solution then. But right now, the balance of evidence points to the newer wording being less harmful than the old and a net positive step, so worth keeping even while forget research is carried out.
That still sounds hypothetical and conjecture on your part, as opposed to the actual people in this thread who have said that the new language is of actual help to them.
Getting PTSD does not mean a person is weak or cowardly.
PTSD can result from a wide range of experiences.
The observance of multiple types of symptoms is used to diagnose PTSD.
Young children may demonstrate different symptoms of PTSD.
PTSD can contribute to high levels of substance abuse.
Stigma often prevents people with PTSD from getting help.
I would argue that tying stress in a publication like this to serious effects is likely to lead fewer people to consider PTSD and other mental health conditions "just stress". I would consider it more likely to highlight exactly how serious and terrible stress can be.
The only thing I'm absolute about is the entertainment of options ;)
I don't have the book yet, picking it up this afternoon, but looking forward to it based on some of the enthusiasm stated for it in the most recent pages.
On stress, I think the tension between the worry of "just stress" being a dismissive term and "stress" as a useful term in sensitively and accurately representing what I think we're calling mental health trauma in game is whether folk psychology or clinical psychology has greater control over the term. I believe the clinical community has made impressive inroads in advocating for an understanding of the tolls of "serious, clinical" stressors and how to cope with them. Those inroads are far from a complete handle on the term, at least in the U.S. where in large swaths of geographies and demographics stress is a "just" factor to life one is supposed to shrug off or broad shoulder etc. We're only a few years after "grit" was a buzzword for the "new resiliency" and as those discussions petered out I don't think many pundits had a common definition of grit even as they praised the value. (Some say this is always an issue with mental health innovations because, quality mental health provisions still aren't as accessible as physical health care -not that at least in the U.S. the physical health care system is anything to brag about - so however well intended the mental health communities outreach is when trying to spread understanding, it often winds up disseminating through a spectrum of lay understandings from accurate to unsound). For me, mental health is a practice, there are exceptionally good practices, dangerously bad practices and a whole lot of muddle between them where most things like TTRPG (broadly, not singling out D&D) probably ultimately lay. I don't know yet what VRGtR says when it presumably has language somewhere along the lines of "In game, we mean by stress x," but I'm curious to see what's on the page.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That still sounds hypothetical and conjecture on your part, as opposed to the actual people in this thread who have said that the new language is of actual help to them.
Getting PTSD does not mean a person is weak or cowardly.
PTSD can result from a wide range of experiences.
The observance of multiple types of symptoms is used to diagnose PTSD.
Young children may demonstrate different symptoms of PTSD.
PTSD can contribute to high levels of substance abuse.
Stigma often prevents people with PTSD from getting help.
Thank you for posting that, it was very informative. I'm really trying, but I'm struggling to see how this supports the point you were making about the negative impacts of the "stress" terminology. This material doesn't say anything about "stress" being used to dismiss symptoms of PTSD, in fact the only place I found the word was in regards to "stress inoculation" as a treatment method for sufferers of PTSD.
So I'm afraid we still have personal testimony and the opinion of one expert on the one hand and hypothetical conjecture on the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The stigma is regarding being labeled weak or labeled a coward. Being told you just can't handle stress and are 'not a real man' because of it. Or being dismissed as a coward.
Seriously, do a bit of reading. You are quick enough to defend those harmed by the M word but just as quick, it seems to play down those harmed by anything else, even those dealing with PTSD, which is there is a lot of literature on.
Isn't the whole point of the stress & fears system to emphasis that these things happen not because of any sort of weakness of cowardness, but instead happen due to situations or outside circumstances that force these stresses upon them? Focusing on outside stressors rather than the like internal weakness that madness implies?
Although I don't own VGtR or whatever the shorthand for the book is, so I don't know if it does a good job of that or not.
Edit: Going purely off of Kotath's posts (which are probably biased though so take this edit with a grain of salt) it seems it didn't do quite a good enough job at portraying that, but if it didn't it would still be a good step forward towards doing so.
The stigma is regarding being labeled weak or labeled a coward. Being told you just can't handle stress and are 'not a real man' because of it. Or being dismissed as a coward.
Ok so this is a very valid criticism of toxic masculinity, which is fair because screw toxic masculinity. What it is not is a criticism of the use of the word "stress" in regards to mental illness. I mean I could see it being a criticism of the phrase "just stress" sure, but that's not how Van Richten's seems to be referring to "stress." Again, I don't have access to the book yet, so you might have more information than me, but it seems to me that the book is giving stress all of it's dark and impactful due. So sure, level this criticism against the toxic patriarchy that rigidly straitjackets people assigned male at birth into certain roles and behaviors in an unhealthy way, but I think you're off the mark if you think this criticism is relevant to the conversation here.
You are quick enough to defend those harmed by the M word but just as quick, it seems to play down those harmed by anything else, even those dealing with PTSD, which is there is a lot of literature on.
The difference being that there are actual people in this thread who have said "I have been harmed by the portrayal of mental illness as 'madness" and comments from an expert in the field about how he shift in language is a positive one but meanwhile you, and basically only you. have been saying, "The use of the word 'stress' is actually more harmful because that word has been used to dismiss valid claims of PTSD." You're not bringing expert testimony that makes any sort of clear connection between what you're criticizing (the use of the word stress) and the effect you're saying it has (dismissal of PTSD symptoms as cowardice). You're also not bringing personal testimony of this even happening. So again what we're left with is personal testimony and expert commentary on the one hand and nothing but hypothetical conjecture on the other.
I just don't see the connection. Yes, I agree with you that sufferers of PTSD should be validated and those who dismiss them because of toxic masculinity should be stopped, but I am really not seeing that the word "stress" itself is dismissive of mental illness, especially how they are using it in Van Richten's which seems, to me, to be a valid attempt to give it it's due as a very real and valid harm.
I recognize your point that it might fail in it's attempt to give stress it's due as a harm, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt and I really don't see how it's a step backward.
I hope what I'm saying is not invalidating you if you're relating a personal experience with being dismissed. I would never want to compound that kind of traumatic experience.
The stigma is regarding being labeled weak or labeled a coward. Being told you just can't handle stress and are 'not a real man' because of it. Or being dismissed as a coward.
How does that relate to stress as described in VRGTR? There's nothing in there that links stress to weakness or cowardice; there isn't even a resistance roll (there's a resistance roll against fear, but stress just happens). Having all types of stress recover equally (and rather quickly) isn't particularly realistic, but neither is recovering from being stabbed in a single night's rest.
Kotath, what you're doing is conflating two different, but both equally serious, problems as the same issue and trying to use this incorrect equivalency to dismiss the initial argument.
Mental illness, including stress, trauma and phobias, is something that a lot of people don't take seriously and are dismissive of. In fact, a lot of people in this thread have been very dismissive of mental illness and trauma. That is a serious problem and one that society as a whole needs to address.
However, that's not the problem that is occuring in the context of this discussion; that problem is the use of problematic language that is packaged in with toxic assumptions and depictions of mental illness. It's not that people are dismissing 'madness' and 'insanity' by using that language, it's that those words are used to make harmful, non-dismissive assumptions and depictions of people with mental illness.
I would also like to point out that I don't personally don't consider the language used in VGR dismissive of fear and stress, because it fear and stress are broad terms even in the real world. Stress can validly be used to describe a bad day at work, or the result of a negative situation. Neither invalidates the other. Fear can be used to describe a small concern such as being afraid you won't make a good impression, or a phobia that holds you back from leaving the house. Again, the breadth of language does not mean either extreme is invalidated by the other. VGR uses these terms to label mechanical affects that sit somewhere on these spectrums of experience, which validates all experiences on this spectrum. It doesn't say it's "just stress" nor does it say that 'all stress is PTSD'. It doesn't say a fear makes you a coward, nor that all fears are phobias. The rules (and this is the important part) do not make value judgements.
Does society need better compassion and understanding regarding mental illness? 100%, just take a look at this thread.
But that's not the issue being discussed here, and it's not something that's reflected in this newer rules.
So if someone is afraid no one would ever call them a coward? Particularly if the fear manifests as a fear of something only mildly scary to most?
If someone breaks down on the job due to stress, they would not ever be called weak or weak willed, even by co-workers who handle the stresses of that job just fine?
Are you saying that PCs should never suffer fear or stress? If so, horror is simply not the genre for you. If not, what is it about the presentation of fear and stress in vrgtr that you object to? Because there's nothing in there saying that suffering from fear is cowardice, nor implying stress is any way related to will.
So if someone is afraid no one would ever call them a coward? Particularly if the fear manifests as a fear of something only mildly scary to most?
If someone breaks down on the job due to stress, they would not ever be called weak or weak willed, even by co-workers who handle the stresses of that job just fine?
Are you saying that PCs should never suffer fear or stress? If so, horror is simply not the genre for you. If not, what is it about the presentation of fear and stress in vrgtr that you object to? Because there's nothing in there saying that suffering from fear is cowardice, nor implying stress is any way related to will.
Yeah, this is the key thing I keep stressing about the language used in VGR; it doesn't make judgement calls. The language throughout is non-judgmental and actually is angled from a perspective of "these things can happen to literally anyone given terrifying or stressful situations". Saying 'anyone can be afraid' or 'anyone can be put under stress' is a message that more people need to hear.
So to argue that the language in VGR is somehow worse (because that must be what is being argued, I would hope we've moved past the whole 'it must be perfect' angle) when it actually advocates a more understanding grasp of these things, seems to miss the mark.
So if someone is afraid no one would ever call them a coward? Particularly if the fear manifests as a fear of something only mildly scary to most?
If someone breaks down on the job due to stress, they would not ever be called weak or weak willed, even by co-workers who handle the stresses of that job just fine?
The M section refers to triggers well above and beyond those in the stress rules, but that is being called out as being harmful to those who suffer symptoms such as those listed. simply because of misuse of the M word in colloquial use. When there really is a non-Euclidean entity from beyond beyond trying to corrupt minds and rule over all (even if only incidentally by converting 'normal' reality to non-Euclidean space), it is not making light of those who suffer such symptoms due to real world, non-magical causes. And yet because the M word has been misused enough, there is a strong argument that it causes damage, despite the rules not being linked to the IRL misuse.
The fear and stress rules go the other direction, playing down fear and stress, particularly playing down stress, which is at least as bad a thing since it is the same kind of logic that causes people to conclude 'They are just a coward' or 'They are weak willed.'
Honestly, I can see where you are coming from. I have had mental issues dismissed with "it's just stress", "just cheer up" etc.
The following is purely my opinion, I am speaking for nobody else and am open to hearing from anyone who can relate their own experience on this.
This is pretty much looking at 2 extremes in attitudes to mental health.
The first is encouraged by the use of the word Madness. It evokes the "Dangerous Madman" stereotype and encourages fear of those suffering from mental health conditions. "Oh no, they may snap and kill us all". This stereotype is seen all over the media, especially in the horror genre, as well as having been very common throughout history. While this stereotype is being removed from the medical community, it is impossible to remove it from existing media (or even new media, which is still being released containing this trope) and, given the popularity of the horror genre, very difficult to remove from the public consciousness. Even with educated, informed people, it is still often brought up, even as a joke: "Oh no, he's suffering from *INSERT MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION*, be careful or he'll snap and kill us all! Hahahah..."
The second is typified by the word "just": "It's just a bit of stress", "Just cheer up", "Just calm down"... This dismisses the seriousness and severity of mental illness, and suggests that the person can control it with sheer force of will. This is also a common opinion: I have lost count of the number of times, while suffering from depression, I was told to "Cheer up".
Both of these are serious problems. One makes people scared of the mentally ill (or makes them an object of ridicule), while the other dismisses their problems entirely. They are opposite extremes in the treatment of those suffering from a wide range of mental health conditions.
In my own, personal opinion and experience, while both can be equally serious and damaging, it is far easier to handle the second than the first. Fewer and fewer people are dismissing mental health problems, due to wide ranging changes in societal opinion and massive public information campaigns. This is because the dismissal doesn't come from an external source, but from the minds of those who don't understand mental illness. It is not pervasive in the media, literature, etc, so educating people works very quickly and easily in the vast majority of cases.
The image of the dangerous madman, on the other hand, is constantly reinforced by the media. Nearly every time you watch a horror film or read a horror story, it will be there in some form. It is much more difficult to disconnect an idea which is constantly shoved in your face from a real world condition than to change the minds of people about an idea which exists only in people's heads.
Now, here I have spoken about the attitudes and thoughts of the general public, not the effect the words can have on those suffering. However, I do believe there is a reasonably strong link. Problems with the word Madness stem from its link to the Dangerous Madman stereotype, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Problems with the words Stress and Fear come from their link to dismissive attitudes, which are much easier to fix.
Now this is not to say that we should dismiss the harm that the use of the words Fear and Stress could do. Of course we should consider this, and do some research to see if there is better terminology to use. Nothing should remain stationary, the world is constantly moving and society is constantly learning.
The DMG rules used language steeped in value judgements, that was the fundamental problem, the value judgements are inescapable.
This new language is not embroiled in the same value judgements, what you're confusing with value judgement is a systematic lack of empathy and consideration for the general issue. These are two different problems with two different approaches to resolving them. The systematic problem with how society treats mental illness is not something WotC can address. The use of problematic language is something they can address; by not using set language.
You have yet to show how the rules are going backwards, other than to say they now refer to things that people experience for real that society doesn't take seriously enough. That's not a cogent argument; the rules refer to these things using non-judgemental language (something that wasn't true before) and they frame them as experiential by everyone and avoid framing it as a weakness or failing of a specific individual. It seems you're framing this as a step backwards because they've made changes to be considerate and you see making changes and being considerate as regressive in of itself, rather than for a specific reason.
Again, this is becoming cyclical with no real arguments being made, just misdirects and false equivalencies. You haven't really rebutted anything, nor acknowledged what is being said in response to your untenable positions. As such, I'm going to duck out again for my own well being; as I mentioned previously (a point you seemed suspiciously reticent to acknowledge) this feels all to much like gaslighting. Whether that is your intent or not is not my place to say, but it is not an experience I am inclined to voluntarily participate in.
So if someone is afraid no one would ever call them a coward? Particularly if the fear manifests as a fear of something only mildly scary to most?
If someone breaks down on the job due to stress, they would not ever be called weak or weak willed, even by co-workers who handle the stresses of that job just fine?
The M section refers to triggers well above and beyond those in the stress rules, but that is being called out as being harmful to those who suffer symptoms such as those listed. simply because of misuse of the M word in colloquial use. When there really is a non-Euclidean entity from beyond beyond trying to corrupt minds and rule over all (even if only incidentally by converting 'normal' reality to non-Euclidean space), it is not making light of those who suffer such symptoms due to real world, non-magical causes. And yet because the M word has been misused enough, there is a strong argument that it causes damage, despite the rules not being linked to the IRL misuse.
The fear and stress rules go the other direction, playing down fear and stress, particularly playing down stress, which is at least as bad a thing since it is the same kind of logic that causes people to conclude 'They are just a coward' or 'They are weak willed.'
Honestly, I can see where you are coming from. I have had mental issues dismissed with "it's just stress", "just cheer up" etc.
The following is purely my opinion, I am speaking for nobody else and am open to hearing from anyone who can relate their own experience on this.
This is pretty much looking at 2 extremes in attitudes to mental health.
The first is encouraged by the use of the word Madness. It evokes the "Dangerous Madman" stereotype and encourages fear of those suffering from mental health conditions. "Oh no, they may snap and kill us all". This stereotype is seen all over the media, especially in the horror genre, as well as having been very common throughout history. While this stereotype is being removed from the medical community, it is impossible to remove it from existing media (or even new media, which is still being released containing this trope) and, given the popularity of the horror genre, very difficult to remove from the public consciousness. Even with educated, informed people, it is still often brought up, even as a joke: "Oh no, he's suffering from *INSERT MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION*, be careful or he'll snap and kill us all! Hahahah..."
The second is typified by the word "just": "It's just a bit of stress", "Just cheer up", "Just calm down"... This dismisses the seriousness and severity of mental illness, and suggests that the person can control it with sheer force of will. This is also a common opinion: I have lost count of the number of times, while suffering from depression, I was told to "Cheer up".
Both of these are serious problems. One makes people scared of the mentally ill (or makes them an object of ridicule), while the other dismisses their problems entirely. They are opposite extremes in the treatment of those suffering from a wide range of mental health conditions.
In my own, personal opinion and experience, while both can be equally serious and damaging, it is far easier to handle the second than the first. Fewer and fewer people are dismissing mental health problems, due to wide ranging changes in societal opinion and massive public information campaigns. This is because the dismissal doesn't come from an external source, but from the minds of those who don't understand mental illness. It is not pervasive in the media, literature, etc, so educating people works very quickly and easily in the vast majority of cases.
The image of the dangerous madman, on the other hand, is constantly reinforced by the media. Nearly every time you watch a horror film or read a horror story, it will be there in some form. It is much more difficult to disconnect an idea which is constantly shoved in your face from a real world condition than to change the minds of people about an idea which exists only in people's heads.
Now, here I have spoken about the attitudes and thoughts of the general public, not the effect the words can have on those suffering. However, I do believe there is a reasonably strong link. Problems with the word Madness stem from its link to the Dangerous Madman stereotype, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Problems with the words Stress and Fear come from their link to dismissive attitudes, which are much easier to fix.
Now this is not to say that we should dismiss the harm that the use of the words Fear and Stress could do. Of course we should consider this, and do some research to see if there is better terminology to use. Nothing should remain stationary, the world is constantly moving and society is constantly learning.
I agree with you pretty much entirely.
However, I would point out that the original rules provided lists of potential conditions all under the heading of the M word, most of which are self debilitating rather than representing any harm to others. Arguably that plays against the fallacy that those with mental illness are all dangers to society rather than playing into said false belief.
Note that said original rules are actually still in the DMG and are not actually changed. The only actual change here is with respect to the triggering them.
The term 'Madman' is not actually used anywhere in DMG.
I would argue that the best counter to the Dangerous Madman stereotype is better awareness of actual mental health conditions and showing that the vast majority of cases do not fit that narrow category arguably goes the right direction. Playing the whole subject down and/or burying it, which seems to be the direction that Ravenloft has gone, arguably just encourages worse misunderstands. It does not really help much as far as educating anyone.
Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it, and have stated my reasoning throughout this thread, but you are still entitle to your own view on the matter.
However, as this has become very circular and is not really leading anywhere, I am also going to drop out now. I don't see the value in continuing this debate in a circular manner without something to push it forward. If you can come back with some real world experiences and/or some expert opinion to counterbalance the sources shown in here, or provide a reasonable alternative which can be discussed, I may join back in.
TTFN
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
An in-depth, multiple-page discussion of the nature of bad-faith, debunked, or superstitious story tropes and how to avoid them is out of scope for a D&D game book, really. Especially since this thread proves that people can't even agree that hurting your players is bad. Which is beyond ridiculous, but eh.
The warnings in the book are simple and basic, but they're there. They may prompt someone to ask "wait, what? What do they mean by this?" and do a little external research, which is all to the good. They will not stop everyone from avoiding Bad Juju tropes and story decisions, but no amount of warning ever could. They could've spent half the book detailing how to not do this stuff, and a certain segment of the playerbase's answer would've been "FUKK YEW I DEW WAT I WANT" and then proceeded to scar their players some more.
VRG is far from a perfect book, but it's better than Tasha's and seems to be a good step in a good direction. The perfect direction, the perfect step? Nah. But perfect is, as it ever has been, the enemy of good.
Please do not contact or message me.
Big YEP on that one!
Ok, so let's take it out of the realm of hypothetical. What kind of backward step are we talking about, in concrete terms? What kind of harms does this actively do to people? Not what it COULD do, but what has it DONE that could negate the help that it has actively DONE?
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!
Ok so has anyone said that those things are actually having a non-hypothetical negative impact on them?
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!
That still sounds hypothetical and conjecture on your part, as opposed to the actual people in this thread who have said that the new language is of actual help to them.
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!
Wait, I misinterpreted what you wrote, but my point still stands, if you're not arguing with concrete examples of the harms done by this slight shift in tone, then I will posit that what you're doing amounts you "it could have been done better" which we can agree on.
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!
Also, there is no 'just' about stress. Stress is deadly.
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!
Is it worth considering and researching whether this newer wording could be doing more harm than good? Yes.
Should that lead to newer wording, which more people have said they find less harmful than have said they find more harmful to themselves, be reverted to older terminology while that research is carried out? I would argue not. If further research determines that a mistake has been made and the new language is, overall, more harmful than the old, we can find a solution then. But right now, the balance of evidence points to the newer wording being less harmful than the old and a net positive step, so worth keeping even while forget research is carried out.
I would argue that tying stress in a publication like this to serious effects is likely to lead fewer people to consider PTSD and other mental health conditions "just stress". I would consider it more likely to highlight exactly how serious and terrible stress can be.
The only thing I'm absolute about is the entertainment of options ;)
I don't have the book yet, picking it up this afternoon, but looking forward to it based on some of the enthusiasm stated for it in the most recent pages.
On stress, I think the tension between the worry of "just stress" being a dismissive term and "stress" as a useful term in sensitively and accurately representing what I think we're calling mental health trauma in game is whether folk psychology or clinical psychology has greater control over the term. I believe the clinical community has made impressive inroads in advocating for an understanding of the tolls of "serious, clinical" stressors and how to cope with them. Those inroads are far from a complete handle on the term, at least in the U.S. where in large swaths of geographies and demographics stress is a "just" factor to life one is supposed to shrug off or broad shoulder etc. We're only a few years after "grit" was a buzzword for the "new resiliency" and as those discussions petered out I don't think many pundits had a common definition of grit even as they praised the value. (Some say this is always an issue with mental health innovations because, quality mental health provisions still aren't as accessible as physical health care -not that at least in the U.S. the physical health care system is anything to brag about - so however well intended the mental health communities outreach is when trying to spread understanding, it often winds up disseminating through a spectrum of lay understandings from accurate to unsound). For me, mental health is a practice, there are exceptionally good practices, dangerously bad practices and a whole lot of muddle between them where most things like TTRPG (broadly, not singling out D&D) probably ultimately lay. I don't know yet what VRGtR says when it presumably has language somewhere along the lines of "In game, we mean by stress x," but I'm curious to see what's on the page.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Thank you for posting that, it was very informative. I'm really trying, but I'm struggling to see how this supports the point you were making about the negative impacts of the "stress" terminology. This material doesn't say anything about "stress" being used to dismiss symptoms of PTSD, in fact the only place I found the word was in regards to "stress inoculation" as a treatment method for sufferers of PTSD.
So I'm afraid we still have personal testimony and the opinion of one expert on the one hand and hypothetical conjecture on the other.
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!
Isn't the whole point of the stress & fears system to emphasis that these things happen not because of any sort of weakness of cowardness, but instead happen due to situations or outside circumstances that force these stresses upon them? Focusing on outside stressors rather than the like internal weakness that madness implies?
Although I don't own VGtR or whatever the shorthand for the book is, so I don't know if it does a good job of that or not.
Edit: Going purely off of Kotath's posts (which are probably biased though so take this edit with a grain of salt) it seems it didn't do quite a good enough job at portraying that, but if it didn't it would still be a good step forward towards doing so.
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.
Ok so this is a very valid criticism of toxic masculinity, which is fair because screw toxic masculinity. What it is not is a criticism of the use of the word "stress" in regards to mental illness. I mean I could see it being a criticism of the phrase "just stress" sure, but that's not how Van Richten's seems to be referring to "stress." Again, I don't have access to the book yet, so you might have more information than me, but it seems to me that the book is giving stress all of it's dark and impactful due. So sure, level this criticism against the toxic patriarchy that rigidly straitjackets people assigned male at birth into certain roles and behaviors in an unhealthy way, but I think you're off the mark if you think this criticism is relevant to the conversation here.
I've made an effort to read all the links provided in this discussion.
The difference being that there are actual people in this thread who have said "I have been harmed by the portrayal of mental illness as 'madness" and comments from an expert in the field about how he shift in language is a positive one but meanwhile you, and basically only you. have been saying, "The use of the word 'stress' is actually more harmful because that word has been used to dismiss valid claims of PTSD." You're not bringing expert testimony that makes any sort of clear connection between what you're criticizing (the use of the word stress) and the effect you're saying it has (dismissal of PTSD symptoms as cowardice). You're also not bringing personal testimony of this even happening. So again what we're left with is personal testimony and expert commentary on the one hand and nothing but hypothetical conjecture on the other.
I just don't see the connection. Yes, I agree with you that sufferers of PTSD should be validated and those who dismiss them because of toxic masculinity should be stopped, but I am really not seeing that the word "stress" itself is dismissive of mental illness, especially how they are using it in Van Richten's which seems, to me, to be a valid attempt to give it it's due as a very real and valid harm.
I recognize your point that it might fail in it's attempt to give stress it's due as a harm, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt and I really don't see how it's a step backward.
I hope what I'm saying is not invalidating you if you're relating a personal experience with being dismissed. I would never want to compound that kind of traumatic experience.
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!
How does that relate to stress as described in VRGTR? There's nothing in there that links stress to weakness or cowardice; there isn't even a resistance roll (there's a resistance roll against fear, but stress just happens). Having all types of stress recover equally (and rather quickly) isn't particularly realistic, but neither is recovering from being stabbed in a single night's rest.
Kotath, what you're doing is conflating two different, but both equally serious, problems as the same issue and trying to use this incorrect equivalency to dismiss the initial argument.
Mental illness, including stress, trauma and phobias, is something that a lot of people don't take seriously and are dismissive of. In fact, a lot of people in this thread have been very dismissive of mental illness and trauma. That is a serious problem and one that society as a whole needs to address.
However, that's not the problem that is occuring in the context of this discussion; that problem is the use of problematic language that is packaged in with toxic assumptions and depictions of mental illness. It's not that people are dismissing 'madness' and 'insanity' by using that language, it's that those words are used to make harmful, non-dismissive assumptions and depictions of people with mental illness.
I would also like to point out that I don't personally don't consider the language used in VGR dismissive of fear and stress, because it fear and stress are broad terms even in the real world. Stress can validly be used to describe a bad day at work, or the result of a negative situation. Neither invalidates the other. Fear can be used to describe a small concern such as being afraid you won't make a good impression, or a phobia that holds you back from leaving the house. Again, the breadth of language does not mean either extreme is invalidated by the other. VGR uses these terms to label mechanical affects that sit somewhere on these spectrums of experience, which validates all experiences on this spectrum. It doesn't say it's "just stress" nor does it say that 'all stress is PTSD'. It doesn't say a fear makes you a coward, nor that all fears are phobias. The rules (and this is the important part) do not make value judgements.
Does society need better compassion and understanding regarding mental illness? 100%, just take a look at this thread.
But that's not the issue being discussed here, and it's not something that's reflected in this newer rules.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Are you saying that PCs should never suffer fear or stress? If so, horror is simply not the genre for you. If not, what is it about the presentation of fear and stress in vrgtr that you object to? Because there's nothing in there saying that suffering from fear is cowardice, nor implying stress is any way related to will.
Yeah, this is the key thing I keep stressing about the language used in VGR; it doesn't make judgement calls. The language throughout is non-judgmental and actually is angled from a perspective of "these things can happen to literally anyone given terrifying or stressful situations". Saying 'anyone can be afraid' or 'anyone can be put under stress' is a message that more people need to hear.
So to argue that the language in VGR is somehow worse (because that must be what is being argued, I would hope we've moved past the whole 'it must be perfect' angle) when it actually advocates a more understanding grasp of these things, seems to miss the mark.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Honestly, I can see where you are coming from. I have had mental issues dismissed with "it's just stress", "just cheer up" etc.
The following is purely my opinion, I am speaking for nobody else and am open to hearing from anyone who can relate their own experience on this.
This is pretty much looking at 2 extremes in attitudes to mental health.
Both of these are serious problems. One makes people scared of the mentally ill (or makes them an object of ridicule), while the other dismisses their problems entirely. They are opposite extremes in the treatment of those suffering from a wide range of mental health conditions.
In my own, personal opinion and experience, while both can be equally serious and damaging, it is far easier to handle the second than the first. Fewer and fewer people are dismissing mental health problems, due to wide ranging changes in societal opinion and massive public information campaigns. This is because the dismissal doesn't come from an external source, but from the minds of those who don't understand mental illness. It is not pervasive in the media, literature, etc, so educating people works very quickly and easily in the vast majority of cases.
The image of the dangerous madman, on the other hand, is constantly reinforced by the media. Nearly every time you watch a horror film or read a horror story, it will be there in some form. It is much more difficult to disconnect an idea which is constantly shoved in your face from a real world condition than to change the minds of people about an idea which exists only in people's heads.
Now, here I have spoken about the attitudes and thoughts of the general public, not the effect the words can have on those suffering. However, I do believe there is a reasonably strong link. Problems with the word Madness stem from its link to the Dangerous Madman stereotype, which is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove. Problems with the words Stress and Fear come from their link to dismissive attitudes, which are much easier to fix.
Now this is not to say that we should dismiss the harm that the use of the words Fear and Stress could do. Of course we should consider this, and do some research to see if there is better terminology to use. Nothing should remain stationary, the world is constantly moving and society is constantly learning.
The DMG rules used language steeped in value judgements, that was the fundamental problem, the value judgements are inescapable.
This new language is not embroiled in the same value judgements, what you're confusing with value judgement is a systematic lack of empathy and consideration for the general issue. These are two different problems with two different approaches to resolving them. The systematic problem with how society treats mental illness is not something WotC can address. The use of problematic language is something they can address; by not using set language.
You have yet to show how the rules are going backwards, other than to say they now refer to things that people experience for real that society doesn't take seriously enough. That's not a cogent argument; the rules refer to these things using non-judgemental language (something that wasn't true before) and they frame them as experiential by everyone and avoid framing it as a weakness or failing of a specific individual. It seems you're framing this as a step backwards because they've made changes to be considerate and you see making changes and being considerate as regressive in of itself, rather than for a specific reason.
Again, this is becoming cyclical with no real arguments being made, just misdirects and false equivalencies. You haven't really rebutted anything, nor acknowledged what is being said in response to your untenable positions. As such, I'm going to duck out again for my own well being; as I mentioned previously (a point you seemed suspiciously reticent to acknowledge) this feels all to much like gaslighting. Whether that is your intent or not is not my place to say, but it is not an experience I am inclined to voluntarily participate in.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with it, and have stated my reasoning throughout this thread, but you are still entitle to your own view on the matter.
However, as this has become very circular and is not really leading anywhere, I am also going to drop out now. I don't see the value in continuing this debate in a circular manner without something to push it forward. If you can come back with some real world experiences and/or some expert opinion to counterbalance the sources shown in here, or provide a reasonable alternative which can be discussed, I may join back in.
TTFN