If "Madness" is objectionable to a group, they can replace the concept with "psychic disorder", "rage hallucination", "fear hallucination", "mind gentling", or any other non-real world term for the mental magic effects in D&D. As a DM all I care about is the effect and the mechanics, being able to understand the effects well enough that I can describe them so the players can roleplay them. If avoiding stigmatizing real mental illness by creating a different way to reference the effects is important, then let's change it. I'm not so beholden to fictional elements that I will ever choose those fictional elements over the well-being of real people.
The element of this I would want to suss out first is if people with mental illness feel D&D's language is damaging to them. So start with your table and see if it is triggering to anyone there. And then as a community, it can rise to the surface. But making it an issue out of speculation that it might be an issue, in my opinion, is sophistry.
HERE is an account graciously shared by Davyd about how language and portrayals of mental illness have seriously impacted him.
And here are some links from people in the field talking about how one of the latest books released, Van Richten's guide to Ravenloft, handles things better:
The thing is, you don't need to be a top psychologist to work this out, because this isn't some high concept philosophy of the mind. The principles of conscientious language and psychologically informed environments are actually not that recent or novel, it's just that there's a lot of systematic pushback on them. Changing how you do things requires admitting that there was something wrong with how you were doing them before, and people rarely like admitting they're wrong (just look at any heated forum thread here for example).
Ultimately it doesn't take a lot of expertise to make these changes, and it certainly does not take a 'top psychologist'. That's like saying you need Gordon Ramsay to make your burger allergy friendly.
Thank you for all the links. As well, thank you for all the emotional labor of opening up and being vulnerable. You didn't have to do that, but I think it helps people see that these kinds of efforts DO help.
If "Madness" is objectionable to a group, they can replace the concept with "psychic disorder", "rage hallucination", "fear hallucination", "mind gentling", or any other non-real world term for the mental magic effects in D&D. As a DM all I care about is the effect and the mechanics, being able to understand the effects well enough that I can describe them so the players can roleplay them. If avoiding stigmatizing real mental illness by creating a different way to reference the effects is important, then let's change it. I'm not so beholden to fictional elements that I will ever choose those fictional elements over the well-being of real people.
The element of this I would want to suss out first is if people with mental illness feel D&D's language is damaging to them. So start with your table and see if it is triggering to anyone there. And then as a community, it can rise to the surface. But making it an issue out of speculation that it might be an issue, in my opinion, is sophistry.
Since you have linked it again, did you read the comments? No indication that Dr. B (the expert being touted) had read the prior rules. He refers to things like 'insanity meters' which is a mechanic used in Call of Cthulhu but NOT in DnD 5e.
Yes? And? The comment is still relevant to the issue of mental illness as portrayed in games and media.
Towards the end there is an Expert citing a dissenting opinion too.
You know, I hadn't really read all the comments, so I hadn't seen that, but it's also not quite relevant since it's the common portrayal of mental illness that affect the regular person, not the technical clinical terms.
Did you catch my last comments to you?
You know, it occurs to me that you haven't really provided any support for your point ("stress" is a term used to dismiss valid sufferers of PTSD) either through personal or expert testimony, but it might be that you are struggling with it as a personal trigger and don't feel comfortable sharing that fact. If that is so, please accept my apologies for continually pushing that button. I really don't mean to invalidate anyone's personal trauma. Also please don't take this as pressure to disclose anything. If you don't address this point at all I will not take it as a sign of anything and will never bring it up again.
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!
I linked specifics regarding PTSD, which is more than you have regarding the M word.
What you linked was general information about PTSD and I read it. I still don't think any of what you've provided actually makes the point you're trying to make. One doesn't lead to the other. The personal testimony we've had draws that line, your support does not make that connection clear to me.
In fact, you have linked an expert who has shown evidence that he almost certainly has not read the rules he is condemning.
He never condemned anything, he was praising something. One doesn't need to specify a particular example to praise that Van Richten's did a bit better in its portrayal than games in general have done before.
Treating this as something you can simply sleep off perpetuates that myth.
So this is like the only relevant part I could glean from all that. Yes, you're right. This is unrealistic. I think we've covered this. No one in this discussion was trying to say that this new system is super realistic. This is a separate issue from whether or not the word "stress" as used in Van Richten's is a better choice of language than "madness."
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!
Please re-read the OP and for that matter David's issue with the older rules (which are actually still there unchanged). If you get to dismiss the criticism of the new rule as merely being unrealistic, why does the same not apply with the DMG rule?
Did anyone give the impression that we thought the DMG rules were realistic? Because I'm sure no one, or at least no one in this discussion, has ever made that claim? So again I don't understand what you're trying to say because you're countering points that were never made.
The perception issues around mental illness are all false images, many of which have been perpetuated and magnified by unrealistic portrayals in media of all sorts (including games). That lack of realism is the problem in this case. That it is something minor that should be easily shrugged off is just as dangerous a myth as the myth that the mentally ill are all violent or otherwise dangerous.
Ok so you're talking about specifically the portrayal of mental illness as represented by the specific mechanics of D&D. This is not what this conversation has been about. This discussion has already acknowledged that the mechanics as represented by the game system aren't perfect and I don't think anyone has claimed they were.
I think everyone can agree that the mechanics of mental strain in D&D are not a good representation of true mental illness. You're right, Kotath.
The conversation about the shift in tone is about just that, a shift in tone. A shift in language. Is that a be all end all in terms of making people feel included and seen in gaming? No, but it's demonstrably a good step. Especially since it doesn't treat stress as "just" anything. It treats it as a valid form of trauma. Yes, heroes in D&D recover from all sorts of trauma much more quickly than in real life. There may be problematic things about that, but within the scope of this conversation we have concrete support that this is a better thing.
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!
I linked specifics regarding PTSD, which is more than you have regarding the M word.
What you linked was general information about PTSD and I read it. I still don't think any of what you've provided actually makes the point you're trying to make. One doesn't lead to the other. The personal testimony we've had draws that line, your support does not make that connection clear to me.
In fact, you have linked an expert who has shown evidence that he almost certainly has not read the rules he is condemning.
He never condemned anything, he was praising something. One doesn't need to specify a particular example to praise that Van Richten's did a bit better in its portrayal than games in general have done before.
Treating this as something you can simply sleep off perpetuates that myth.
So this is like the only relevant part I could glean from all that. Yes, you're right. This is unrealistic. I think we've covered this. No one in this discussion was trying to say that this new system is super realistic. This is a separate issue from whether or not the word "stress" as used in Van Richten's is a better choice of language than "madness."
Please re-read the OP and for that matter David's issue with the older rules (which are actually still there unchanged). If you get to dismiss the criticism of the new rule as merely being unrealistic, why does the same not apply with the DMG rule?
The perception issues around mental illness are all false images, many of which have been perpetuated and magnified by unrealistic portrayals in media of all sorts (including games). That lack of realism is the problem in this case. That it is something minor that should be easily shrugged off is just as dangerous a myth as the myth that the mentally ill are all violent or otherwise dangerous.
I think there is a big difference here.
Madness is a word which, for centuries, was used to describe most of what we now call mental illness (as well as other things which weren't actually disorders at all but which were thought to be mental illness). It is also a word regularly used in and strongly associated with the horror trope of dangerous mad people. If you asked someone to act out madness, most would go back to these tropes, and run around screaming, flailing their hands in the air, or maybe try a Hannibal Lector.
Stress, however, is one word which is used in the full name of the condition PTSD. I doubt that most people would think of PTSD first if stress mentioned, and I doubt it would even rank in the top 3. It has not been a part of the history of the condition, which is related to conditions which were known as "battle fatigue" and similar in the past.
So we have two related, but also very dissimilar arguements. Also, we have actually heard from people who have said that madness is damaging to them, whereas I've heard nobody say that's they have PTSD and the word stress is damaging to them. This is still a valid subject to research, but I don't think that further debate without some evidence is worthwhile.
1. It has been repeatedly stressed that the existing rules weren't being removed or errata'd. It's about WotC moving away from the language used.
2. This isn't about accurate depictions of mental illness. That's not something I think D&D can do or should attempt to do. This is about not using harmful language in how they bring in mechanics for representing heroes being subjected to intense, fearful and stressful situations. You can have "inaccurate" rules with non-harmful language and "accurate" rules with harmful language. It is the language that is the problem, not the accuracy. In fact, attempting to be quote unquote accurate would likely be more harmful than less; mental illness is a personal experience, whereas VGR provides abstracted mechanics that stay away from the personal effects of mental illness and instead focuses on general, common experiences; things we all share common understanding of.
3. It's Davyd, with a Y, not David with an I. Even if you're not going to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, you could at least do me the most basic courtesy of spelling my name correctly.
Did anyone give the impression that we thought the DMG rules were realistic? Because I'm sure no one, or at least no one in this discussion, has ever made that claim? So again I don't understand what you're trying to say because you're countering points that were never made.
Ok so you're talking about specifically the portrayal of mental illness as represented by the specific mechanics of D&D. This is not what this conversation has been about. This discussion has already acknowledged that the mechanics as represented by the game system aren't perfect and I don't think anyone has claimed they were.
I think everyone can agree that the mechanics of mental strain in D&D are not a good representation of true mental illness. You're right, Kotath.
The conversation about the shift in tone is about just that, a shift in tone. A shift in language. Is that a be all end all in terms of making people feel included and seen in gaming? No, but it's demonstrably a good step. Especially since it doesn't treat stress as "just" anything. It treats it as a valid form of trauma. Yes, heroes in D&D recover from all sorts of trauma much more quickly than in real life. There may be problematic things about that, but within the scope of this conversation we have concrete support that this is a better thing.
Madness is a word which, for centuries, was used to describe most of what we now call mental illness (as well as other things which weren't actually disorders at all but which were thought to be mental illness). It is also a word regularly used in and strongly associated with the horror trope of dangerous mad people. If you asked someone to act out madness, most would go back to these tropes, and run around screaming, flailing their hands in the air, or maybe try a Hannibal Lector.
Stress, however, is one word which is used in the full name of the condition PTSD. I doubt that most people would think of PTSD first if stress mentioned, and I doubt it would even rank in the top 3. It has not been a part of the history of the condition, which is related to conditions which were known as "battle fatigue" and similar in the past.
So we have two related, but also very dissimilar arguements. Also, we have actually heard from people who have said that madness is damaging to them, whereas I've heard nobody say that's they have PTSD and the word stress is damaging to them. This is still a valid subject to research, but I don't think that further debate without some evidence is worthwhile.
1. It has been repeatedly stressed that the existing rules weren't being removed or errata'd. It's about WotC moving away from the language used.
2. This isn't about accurate depictions of mental illness. That's not something I think D&D can do or should attempt to do. This is about not using harmful language in how they bring in mechanics for representing heroes being subjected to intense, fearful and stressful situations. You can have "inaccurate" rules with non-harmful language and "accurate" rules with harmful language. It is the language that is the problem, not the accuracy. In fact, attempting to be quote unquote accurate would likely be more harmful than less; mental illness is a personal experience, whereas VGR provides abstracted mechanics that stay away from the personal effects of mental illness and instead focuses on general, common experiences; things we all share common understanding of.
3. It's Davyd, with a Y, not David with an I. Even if you're not going to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, you could at least do me the most basic courtesy of spelling my name correctly.
To all three of you: The M word is a problem because of bad depictions of mental illness in the past. The word 'Stress' in and of itself does not have that baggage.
HOWEVER, the new stress rules play completely into the bad depiction of PTSD being something 'just in your head' that you should be able to simply shake off.
It is a bad depiction.
It is a bad depiction in a different way in that it is directly a bad depiction rather than the M word, which carries the baggage of past bad depictions. Arguably, other than the M word, the old rules are a better depiction in that they show different levels of conditions, that those afflicted are individual cases rather than all the same, with individual triggers of differing magnitudes. Those suffering such conditions are not portrayed in any way as monsters or as anything other than individuals having faced horrific situations and being negatively affected in their own individual ways.
I am objecting to the expert in that he is comparing the new alternative presented with completely different games to which it is not an alternative, thus a straw man comparison.
And Davyd, I fully apologize for mistyping your name. It was not deliberate. Acknowledging what someone is saying does not obligate one to agree with that someone's logic. And I feel that the counter keeps coming back to 'But I feel better' and 'But your counter arguments do not count because they are not 'my' issues.
Finally, note that the OP was complaining about the DMG section, have not been rewritten and which the Ravenloft rules do not actually replace.
Again, and this has been asked by all three of us: can you provide any experience or any testimony of somebody who finds use of the word "stress" harmful in the context of PTSD? Or even cite any research or expert opinion which concludes that the word "stress" links strongly to PTSD in a negative way?
If not, you currently have conjecture to weigh against both personal experience and expert opinion. I would still agree that it is worth researching, but it is not worth debating further without some form of evidence. We are all asking for the same thing from you, and you are continually avoiding it.
HOWEVER, the new stress rules play completely into the bad depiction of PTSD being something 'just in your head' that you should be able to simply shake off.
It is a bad depiction.
Anything can be misinterpreted, but the stress rules aren't even about PTSD, to the degree they're about anything real they're about acute stress. Which really is something people mostly recover from with passage of time.
Again, and this has been asked by all three of us: can you provide any experience or any testimony of somebody who finds use of the word "stress" harmful in the context of PTSD? Or even cite any research or expert opinion which concludes that the word "stress" links strongly to PTSD in a negative way?
If not, you currently have conjecture to weigh against both personal experience and expert opinion. I would still agree that it is worth researching, but it is not worth debating further without some form of evidence. We are all asking for the same thing from you, and you are continually avoiding it.
Again, since this does not seem to be clear, it is not the word 'Stress' that I object to!
The M word problem is a problem with a problematic word. The Stress problem is a problem with a problematic portrayal of Stress, one that is playing down a serious issue, minimalizing it.
Fair enough. So, we have personal experience and expert opinion saying that the word madness is harmful.
We have conjecture that the portrayal of stress in the new roles plays down the seriousness of PTSD, without evidence.
If you can present evidence of similar weight, the topic is worth further discussion. If not, it should be left until you can get some. We have talked about it around in circles for days, but without some evidence we are not going to make any progress.
Fair enough. So, we have personal experience and expert opinion saying that the word madness is harmful.
We have conjecture that the portrayal of stress in the new roles plays down the seriousness of PTSD, without evidence.
If you can present evidence of similar weight, the topic is worth further discussion. If not, it should be left until you can get some. We have talked about it around in circles for days, but without some evidence we are not going to make any progress.
Let me get this straight, you are not asking for proof that it is bad to play down the seriousness of PTSD or Stress (since I have provided evidence that both are serious issues to be taken seriously) but rather you are expecting me to produce an expert to testify that these specific rules are bad in that regard?
Pardon?
Are you also going to pay the expert their normal consultation fees?
And you also seem to be completely ignoring my acknowledgement that the M word, which I notice YOU KEEP USING, causes harm to Davyd and that I can see how it could cause harm to others. And you further fail to acknowledge that which Davyd has acknowledged, namely that that word is not even actually being removed from existing rules. It is still there, doing the harm it is doing.
I'm asking you to offer something of equal weight.
We have had more than one person relating personal experience that using the word madness is harmful to them. There have also been experts praising the alternative wording.
Then we have you saying that the word stress could be linked to the serious condition PTSD, and the effects in there may be used to minimise such a serious condition. As far as I know, you are neither an expert nor a sufferer of PTSD*. No expert has offered am opinion that I'm aware of, and nobody who suffered from the condition has related any personal experience to suggest that they find this damaging.
So, unless I'm mistaken, we have your conjecture that somebody may find the concepts in the new rules damaging, and we have personal experiences and expert opinion saying that they are less so. Which is why I'm asking you to offer something of similar weight: expert testimony, a research article, or even better for these purposes, personal experience from a sufferer of PTSD who actually finds the new rules hurtful.
Also, Davyd can let me know if I'm wrong, but using the word madness in an argument about whether the word madness is harmful in the context of a game is, at least, less harmful than the harm or is attempting to relieve. If using it in my arguements is causing him harm, I will apologise profusely, but his previous communication with me on this issue has indicated otherwise. This feels like a compete misdirect to me (with sincere apologies if I am mistaken here)
* if you are a sufferer of this terrible condition and you are offering personal testimony, please accept my apologies. I'm aware that such conditions can be intensely personal things and you may not wish to discuss them. However, without somebody saying this is based on personal experience, it's difficult to give it equal weight to other arguments we've heard.
I'm asking you to offer something of equal weight.
We have had more than one person relating personal experience that using the word madness is harmful to them. There have also been experts praising the alternative wording.
Then we have you saying that the word stress could be linked to the serious condition PTSD, and the effects in there may be used to minimise such a serious condition. As far as I know, you are neither an expert nor a sufferer of PTSD*. No expert has offered am opinion that I'm aware of, and nobody who suffered from the condition has related any personal experience to suggest that they find this damaging.
So, unless I'm mistaken, we have your conjecture that somebody may find the concepts in the new rules damaging, and we have personal experiences and expert opinion saying that they are less so. Which is why I'm asking you to offer something of similar weight: expert testimony, a research article, or even better for these purposes, personal experience from a sufferer of PTSD who actually finds the new rules hurtful.
Also, Davyd can let me know if I'm wrong, but using the word madness in an argument about whether the word madness is harmful in the context of a game is, at least, less harmful than the harm or is attempting to relieve. If using it in my arguements is causing him harm, I will apologise profusely, but his previous communication with me on this issue has indicated otherwise. This feels like a compete misdirect to me (with sincere apologies if I am mistaken here)
No, there has been an expert praising it. Not 'experts.'
And said expert has not actually read the rules it is offering an alternative to, which begs the question how closely they have looked and in exactly what context. To the extent their organization has articles on PTSD are a few years old and penned by a game developer who seems to no longer be on staff, with the exception of the most recent, which is dated 2019 and is a joint press release rather than anything actually touching on PTSD itself.
You go on to claim I have proven no link between Stress and Post Traumatic STRESS Disorder. Seriously?
I am showing that this section, in both original and Ravenloft forms, is about character reactions to extreme stress events such as witnessing the death of a loved one. Are you really incapable of understanding the linkage there?
NO, I am NOT going to go out and interview people who have been through such events to ask them if these rules bother them.
Again, in what world is that a reasonable expectation?
As for experts, I pointed out that an expert was skeptical (at best) of your expert's claims. That was dismissed as being irrelevant because he wasn't the 'right' expert and you, as a lay person, could not see how his expertise applied.
I do not understand why, but you are not arguing in good faith here. You simply are not.
You seriously say that your own conjecture that the new roles may be more harmful than the old without evidence is more valid, or even equally valid, than personal experience stating the new rules are less harmful to them, and you accuse me of arguing in bad faith?!?!
Also, please could you quote or link the response to the new rules from an expert which was skeptical.
In addition to this, if there is one expert who supports and one who is against, were can reasonably say they cancel each other out. However, we still have at least one person who has given personal testimony that the old rules were damaging to them and the new are an improvement, some saying that they weren't, but none saying that the new rules are more damaging to them than the old ones. How do you not understand that there is a vast imbalance (and that's being generous) in evidence here?!?
You seriously say that your own conjecture that the new roles may be more harmful than the old without evidence is more valid, or even equally valid, than personal experience stating the new rules are less harmful to them, and you accuse me of arguing in bad faith?!?!
Really?!?!
I have no words...
The new rules have not actually replaced the rules that are harmful to that person, so how can these be less harmful? At best they can be not additionally harmful to that person.
There can be a less harmful and a note harmful option available. If a person is allergic to peanuts and there is a peanut butter sandwich or a cheese sandwich available, the cheese sandwich will be less harmful to them than the peanut butter one. This is a very simple concept which I struggle to believe you don't understand.
That person is not the only person in existence, nor does their specific issue seem to be the type at risk of being affected by the new alternative to part of the old rules.
You are playing up the one point of evidence that you have and dismissing any and all other evidence. That is bad faith.
I'm not dismissing any evidence. I've seen evidence which suggests that some are hurt by the old wording bit not the new. I've seen evidence that some are not hurt by the old wording, though not that they are hurt by the new. I've seen evidence of an expert praising the new roles, and of one who was skeptical that there was an improvement.
I've seen no evidence that anyone finds the new rules more harmful than the old, and none that am expert thinks so. I've seen your own theoretical arguments that they may be. These do not carry equal weight. Giving your position the most favourable light possible, were have your theoretical arguments against Davyd's personal, real world experiences.
If I have missed something, and there is real evidence of a problem with the new wording, please let me know. If not, there is a massive imbalance in evidence.
I am acknowledging your evidence and agreeing that perhaps they should find a better title for the DMG section. You keep ignoring that and instead keep attacking me as if I am doing the opposite.
Edit: Edited in a substitution for a potentially problematic word.
I have acknowledged several times that there may be better wording to be found. It is very much worthy of research. Just because something is better, doesn't mean there isn't something even better to find.
However, you have neither provided reasonable alternatives to discuss, nor presented solid evidence that it is necessary. Our debates have become circular because you will not accept the massive imbalance in evidence.
I'm happy to discuss this further when we have more information (note: further, we have discussed this to death based on the information currently available).
So the whole PTSD/Stress mechanic equivalency has been bothering me, but I've never experienced PTSD, so I did the next best thing. I went to an expert; my fiancee who is a doctor of psychology, a trained and certified counsellor and therapist, and someone who has first had experience helping people with chronic and acute PTSD. I showed her the rules in VGR, I showed her the Madness and Insanity section in the DMG, and I asked her take. So here's the skinny:
The content in VGR does not reflect PTSD, obviously not in name and certainly not in mechanics. To say it does is to do a gross disservice to those who suffer PTSD and shows a fundamental misunderstanding that seems based on the abysmal connection that PTSD contains the word 'stress'. PTSD is a very specific thing which is all there in the name; it's a disruptive response to stressors that occur after a trauma, Hence Post (after) Trauma Stress(or) Disorder (disorders or disrupts normal life). It is when an innocuous trigger (this is where the term trigger originates from) can prompt an immersive and painful regression or re-experiencing of a traumatic event. A popping balloon takes you back to exploding IED. The sound of a song takes you back to what was playing on the radio when you were t-boned at an intersection. The smell of a certain cologne takes you back to back to suffering at the hands of your abuser. It is reliving a trauma after the fact brought on by a trigger.
This is not what is described, either in language or mechanics, in VGR. What VGR describes is a reasonable, albeit simplified and gameified, version of general stress response, a non-mental illness and common behaviour when exposed to stressors (oh look, it's what I mentioned half a dozen times before; non-judgemental language that refers to an experience everyone has). When people undergo general stress response from a trauma, it does negative affect their ability to perform tasks and process information (in this case gameified in a cumulative -5% to effectiveness) until that person has a change to self-case and process, usually during a restful period (ie a long rest). The rules are depicting a reasonable representation of how any person might experience a stressful event.
tl;dr - VGR does not depict PTSD. To say so shows an insulting misunderstanding of PTSD. It depicts an abstracted version of a general stress response in a way that is reasonable and non-judgemental. This is coming from an expert (PhD psychology, and counsellor and therapist with experience in PTSD)
As for the DMG rules, those use judgemental, problematic language, language excised from the DSM decades ago for that very reason. However, those rules are still there and not going anyway. It's just that WotC isn't leaning into them anymore which is the bit that matters. Myself and others have said we don't need or want them to errata it out of the DMG. You can't unring that bell, you can't unprint those words. But don't lean into it going forwards. Do better. Which is what they are doing, not just in the Fear and Stress mechanics, but throughout VGR. As I mentioned before, there is not a single use of the word mad, madness or madman in that book. Insane and insanity don't come up once, not in the cosmic horror section, not in the section on Bluetspur, nowhere. The point is they are improving the language used and that is a good thing.
Davyd, did you ask them how they feel about the worst that can happen from a traumatic experience is normal stress?
Yeah, actually. And their sentiment was that anything beyond generalised stress (not ""normal"" stress, that implies something like PTSD is 'abnormal' stress. Again, more problematic language and coding) shouldn't be something that is codified in mechanics and instead handled between the player and DM. What the mechanics describe is a fair and reasonable representation of a generalised stress response insofar as it is suitable for a game.
Did you also discuss the context here? That this new rule is in the context of a horror setting where major traumatic events can be expected to happen, again, that this is not just about relatively normal day to day stresses?
Of course I did, I actually emphasises it was a horror book and the pertinence of stress and fear mechanics. My fiancee is actually a horror movie fan and appreciates the genre that the book is aiming for. She also acknowledged the inherent risk of that genre when it comes to exposing players to it without consent and safety tools. She highlighted that what VGR has is a safer approach to the effects of horror.
You and the discussion you just had with the expert you consulted seems to be a question of whether the rule reflects how someone who already has PTSD would be affected by any given thing, not about how PTSD happens in the first place.
No, it wasn't. It was about how your intention of bringing PTSD into the discussion simply because PTSD contains the word 'stress' is a disegengeous argument and conflating generalise stress responses with PTSD is a harmful misrepresentation of the latter that shows a fundamental misunderstanding. My fiancee actually commented that someone with PTSD looking at these rules likely would not see a conflation with their own experience due to the wording used (again, the importance of wording and langauge).
The word 'Madman' does not actually appear anywhere in the DMG. The words 'mad' and 'madness' appear in the DMG (And Avernus) but those are not being changed by this. Keep in mind that I have acknowledged said words should likely be changed. And the Dungeon of the Mad Mage should arguably be taken of the market entirely.
I never said the word madman appears in the DMG, I was simply emphasising how thorough VGR has been with their language conduct. And again, for what feels like the one thousandth time I am aware that nothing is being changed in the DMG. Myself nor anyone else is asking that it be changed. The observation and position of praise comes from moving away from that language. I honestly do not know why you persist in bringing up that nothing has changed in the DMG, that point is irrelevant.
But to me, this is a lot more than merely a word change. It goes way too far in the other direction.
You've yet to explain what the 'other direction' is? Is it WotC being too considerate in their design? Caring too much about how the product they make and the language they use in it affects people? If so, that raises some very concerning questions on your party about empathy because to argue that you can be too considerate of others smacks of some very troubling world views I personally want no part of.
If it's to argue that they've gone too far and come out back into offensive language, well you've provided no foundation for that. You do not appear to be arguing from experience or expertise, nor even an actual understanding of PTSD, an example you seem to have doggedly latched on to without at least doing the courtesy of understanding it.
Honestly, I've reached the limit where I can, try as I honestly might, believe you are arguing in good faith. I've provided experiential and expert support for my position in multiple forms. I've clarified, and reclarified, positions that you have persistently misrepresented and dispelled assertions that statements and allusions were made when they factually weren't. I've explained categorically how you misunderstand concepts you attempt to leverage, doing a disservice to those affected by them. At this point I am left to only believe that your sole preoccupation is with 'winning' this discussion for presumably some reason relating to a tribalistic notion of 'us vs them' when it comes to issues of this ilk. And that is not, nor ever will be, a discussion I wish to participate in.
I won't be participating in this discussion any further. If you have any qualms or queries with what I have said, I suggest rather than asking disingenuous questions or making egregiously incorrect misrepresentations of what has been said, you read back through the thread. I'm sure there's more than enough repetition of the salient points to answer any genuine questions you may hold.
Keep in mind that I have acknowledged said words should likely be changed. And the Dungeon of the Mad Mage should arguably be taken of the market entirely.
I don't know that that's necessary. The books that exist, exist. It's good that WotC tries to do better going forward, but erasing past mistakes altogether doesn't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Keep in mind that I have acknowledged said words should likely be changed. And the Dungeon of the Mad Mage should arguably be taken of the market entirely.
I don't know that that's necessary. The books that exist, exist. It's good that WotC tries to do better going forward, but erasing past mistakes altogether doesn't work.
And yet errata continues to be published.
Edit: There are movies that simply no longer get shown outside of perhaps classes on the history of racism. Ceasing the spreading of harmful depictions is a thing that is done.
There are others that are explicitly not hidden away as well, they just get framed in their historical context with a preface or note. There are multiple approaches possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Keep in mind that I have acknowledged said words should likely be changed. And the Dungeon of the Mad Mage should arguably be taken of the market entirely.
I don't know that that's necessary. The books that exist, exist. It's good that WotC tries to do better going forward, but erasing past mistakes altogether doesn't work.
And yet errata continues to be published.
Edit: There are movies that simply no longer get shown outside of perhaps classes on the history of racism. Ceasing the spreading of harmful depictions is a thing that is done.
There are others that are explicitly not hidden away as well, they just get framed in their historical context with a preface or note. There are multiple approaches possible.
Right, but this is a currently active set of rules, not some historical document or fictional period piece.
Indeed, and one that's been in active use for years. Non-errata'ed books have been sold and are in circulation. Better to acknowledge this than to sweep it under the rug.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If "Madness" is objectionable to a group, they can replace the concept with "psychic disorder", "rage hallucination", "fear hallucination", "mind gentling", or any other non-real world term for the mental magic effects in D&D. As a DM all I care about is the effect and the mechanics, being able to understand the effects well enough that I can describe them so the players can roleplay them. If avoiding stigmatizing real mental illness by creating a different way to reference the effects is important, then let's change it. I'm not so beholden to fictional elements that I will ever choose those fictional elements over the well-being of real people.
The element of this I would want to suss out first is if people with mental illness feel D&D's language is damaging to them. So start with your table and see if it is triggering to anyone there. And then as a community, it can rise to the surface. But making it an issue out of speculation that it might be an issue, in my opinion, is sophistry.
And here are some links from people in the field talking about how one of the latest books released, Van Richten's guide to Ravenloft, handles things better:
Which is in response to the above.
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!
Yes? And? The comment is still relevant to the issue of mental illness as portrayed in games and media.
You know, I hadn't really read all the comments, so I hadn't seen that, but it's also not quite relevant since it's the common portrayal of mental illness that affect the regular person, not the technical clinical terms.
Did you catch my last comments to you?
You know, it occurs to me that you haven't really provided any support for your point ("stress" is a term used to dismiss valid sufferers of PTSD) either through personal or expert testimony, but it might be that you are struggling with it as a personal trigger and don't feel comfortable sharing that fact. If that is so, please accept my apologies for continually pushing that button. I really don't mean to invalidate anyone's personal trauma. Also please don't take this as pressure to disclose anything. If you don't address this point at all I will not take it as a sign of anything and will never bring it up again.
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!
What you linked was general information about PTSD and I read it. I still don't think any of what you've provided actually makes the point you're trying to make. One doesn't lead to the other. The personal testimony we've had draws that line, your support does not make that connection clear to me.
He never condemned anything, he was praising something. One doesn't need to specify a particular example to praise that Van Richten's did a bit better in its portrayal than games in general have done before.
So this is like the only relevant part I could glean from all that. Yes, you're right. This is unrealistic. I think we've covered this. No one in this discussion was trying to say that this new system is super realistic. This is a separate issue from whether or not the word "stress" as used in Van Richten's is a better choice of language than "madness."
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!
Did anyone give the impression that we thought the DMG rules were realistic? Because I'm sure no one, or at least no one in this discussion, has ever made that claim? So again I don't understand what you're trying to say because you're countering points that were never made.
Ok so you're talking about specifically the portrayal of mental illness as represented by the specific mechanics of D&D. This is not what this conversation has been about. This discussion has already acknowledged that the mechanics as represented by the game system aren't perfect and I don't think anyone has claimed they were.
I think everyone can agree that the mechanics of mental strain in D&D are not a good representation of true mental illness. You're right, Kotath.
The conversation about the shift in tone is about just that, a shift in tone. A shift in language. Is that a be all end all in terms of making people feel included and seen in gaming? No, but it's demonstrably a good step. Especially since it doesn't treat stress as "just" anything. It treats it as a valid form of trauma. Yes, heroes in D&D recover from all sorts of trauma much more quickly than in real life. There may be problematic things about that, but within the scope of this conversation we have concrete support that this is a better thing.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think there is a big difference here.
Madness is a word which, for centuries, was used to describe most of what we now call mental illness (as well as other things which weren't actually disorders at all but which were thought to be mental illness). It is also a word regularly used in and strongly associated with the horror trope of dangerous mad people. If you asked someone to act out madness, most would go back to these tropes, and run around screaming, flailing their hands in the air, or maybe try a Hannibal Lector.
Stress, however, is one word which is used in the full name of the condition PTSD. I doubt that most people would think of PTSD first if stress mentioned, and I doubt it would even rank in the top 3. It has not been a part of the history of the condition, which is related to conditions which were known as "battle fatigue" and similar in the past.
So we have two related, but also very dissimilar arguements. Also, we have actually heard from people who have said that madness is damaging to them, whereas I've heard nobody say that's they have PTSD and the word stress is damaging to them. This is still a valid subject to research, but I don't think that further debate without some evidence is worthwhile.
I just want to point some things out;
1. It has been repeatedly stressed that the existing rules weren't being removed or errata'd. It's about WotC moving away from the language used.
2. This isn't about accurate depictions of mental illness. That's not something I think D&D can do or should attempt to do. This is about not using harmful language in how they bring in mechanics for representing heroes being subjected to intense, fearful and stressful situations. You can have "inaccurate" rules with non-harmful language and "accurate" rules with harmful language. It is the language that is the problem, not the accuracy. In fact, attempting to be quote unquote accurate would likely be more harmful than less; mental illness is a personal experience, whereas VGR provides abstracted mechanics that stay away from the personal effects of mental illness and instead focuses on general, common experiences; things we all share common understanding of.
3. It's Davyd, with a Y, not David with an I. Even if you're not going to acknowledge what I'm actually saying, you could at least do me the most basic courtesy of spelling my name correctly.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Again, and this has been asked by all three of us: can you provide any experience or any testimony of somebody who finds use of the word "stress" harmful in the context of PTSD? Or even cite any research or expert opinion which concludes that the word "stress" links strongly to PTSD in a negative way?
If not, you currently have conjecture to weigh against both personal experience and expert opinion. I would still agree that it is worth researching, but it is not worth debating further without some form of evidence. We are all asking for the same thing from you, and you are continually avoiding it.
Anything can be misinterpreted, but the stress rules aren't even about PTSD, to the degree they're about anything real they're about acute stress. Which really is something people mostly recover from with passage of time.
Fair enough. So, we have personal experience and expert opinion saying that the word madness is harmful.
We have conjecture that the portrayal of stress in the new roles plays down the seriousness of PTSD, without evidence.
If you can present evidence of similar weight, the topic is worth further discussion. If not, it should be left until you can get some. We have talked about it around in circles for days, but without some evidence we are not going to make any progress.
I'm asking you to offer something of equal weight.
We have had more than one person relating personal experience that using the word madness is harmful to them. There have also been experts praising the alternative wording.
Then we have you saying that the word stress could be linked to the serious condition PTSD, and the effects in there may be used to minimise such a serious condition. As far as I know, you are neither an expert nor a sufferer of PTSD*. No expert has offered am opinion that I'm aware of, and nobody who suffered from the condition has related any personal experience to suggest that they find this damaging.
So, unless I'm mistaken, we have your conjecture that somebody may find the concepts in the new rules damaging, and we have personal experiences and expert opinion saying that they are less so. Which is why I'm asking you to offer something of similar weight: expert testimony, a research article, or even better for these purposes, personal experience from a sufferer of PTSD who actually finds the new rules hurtful.
Also, Davyd can let me know if I'm wrong, but using the word madness in an argument about whether the word madness is harmful in the context of a game is, at least, less harmful than the harm or is attempting to relieve. If using it in my arguements is causing him harm, I will apologise profusely, but his previous communication with me on this issue has indicated otherwise. This feels like a compete misdirect to me (with sincere apologies if I am mistaken here)
* if you are a sufferer of this terrible condition and you are offering personal testimony, please accept my apologies. I'm aware that such conditions can be intensely personal things and you may not wish to discuss them. However, without somebody saying this is based on personal experience, it's difficult to give it equal weight to other arguments we've heard.
You seriously say that your own conjecture that the new roles may be more harmful than the old without evidence is more valid, or even equally valid, than personal experience stating the new rules are less harmful to them, and you accuse me of arguing in bad faith?!?!
Really?!?!
I have no words...
Also, please could you quote or link the response to the new rules from an expert which was skeptical.
In addition to this, if there is one expert who supports and one who is against, were can reasonably say they cancel each other out. However, we still have at least one person who has given personal testimony that the old rules were damaging to them and the new are an improvement, some saying that they weren't, but none saying that the new rules are more damaging to them than the old ones. How do you not understand that there is a vast imbalance (and that's being generous) in evidence here?!?
There can be a less harmful and a note harmful option available. If a person is allergic to peanuts and there is a peanut butter sandwich or a cheese sandwich available, the cheese sandwich will be less harmful to them than the peanut butter one. This is a very simple concept which I struggle to believe you don't understand.
I'm not dismissing any evidence. I've seen evidence which suggests that some are hurt by the old wording bit not the new. I've seen evidence that some are not hurt by the old wording, though not that they are hurt by the new. I've seen evidence of an expert praising the new roles, and of one who was skeptical that there was an improvement.
I've seen no evidence that anyone finds the new rules more harmful than the old, and none that am expert thinks so. I've seen your own theoretical arguments that they may be. These do not carry equal weight. Giving your position the most favourable light possible, were have your theoretical arguments against Davyd's personal, real world experiences.
If I have missed something, and there is real evidence of a problem with the new wording, please let me know. If not, there is a massive imbalance in evidence.
As a final point, without new information:
I have acknowledged several times that there may be better wording to be found. It is very much worthy of research. Just because something is better, doesn't mean there isn't something even better to find.
However, you have neither provided reasonable alternatives to discuss, nor presented solid evidence that it is necessary. Our debates have become circular because you will not accept the massive imbalance in evidence.
I'm happy to discuss this further when we have more information (note: further, we have discussed this to death based on the information currently available).
So the whole PTSD/Stress mechanic equivalency has been bothering me, but I've never experienced PTSD, so I did the next best thing. I went to an expert; my fiancee who is a doctor of psychology, a trained and certified counsellor and therapist, and someone who has first had experience helping people with chronic and acute PTSD. I showed her the rules in VGR, I showed her the Madness and Insanity section in the DMG, and I asked her take. So here's the skinny:
The content in VGR does not reflect PTSD, obviously not in name and certainly not in mechanics. To say it does is to do a gross disservice to those who suffer PTSD and shows a fundamental misunderstanding that seems based on the abysmal connection that PTSD contains the word 'stress'. PTSD is a very specific thing which is all there in the name; it's a disruptive response to stressors that occur after a trauma, Hence Post (after) Trauma Stress(or) Disorder (disorders or disrupts normal life). It is when an innocuous trigger (this is where the term trigger originates from) can prompt an immersive and painful regression or re-experiencing of a traumatic event. A popping balloon takes you back to exploding IED. The sound of a song takes you back to what was playing on the radio when you were t-boned at an intersection. The smell of a certain cologne takes you back to back to suffering at the hands of your abuser. It is reliving a trauma after the fact brought on by a trigger.
This is not what is described, either in language or mechanics, in VGR. What VGR describes is a reasonable, albeit simplified and gameified, version of general stress response, a non-mental illness and common behaviour when exposed to stressors (oh look, it's what I mentioned half a dozen times before; non-judgemental language that refers to an experience everyone has). When people undergo general stress response from a trauma, it does negative affect their ability to perform tasks and process information (in this case gameified in a cumulative -5% to effectiveness) until that person has a change to self-case and process, usually during a restful period (ie a long rest). The rules are depicting a reasonable representation of how any person might experience a stressful event.
tl;dr - VGR does not depict PTSD. To say so shows an insulting misunderstanding of PTSD. It depicts an abstracted version of a general stress response in a way that is reasonable and non-judgemental. This is coming from an expert (PhD psychology, and counsellor and therapist with experience in PTSD)
As for the DMG rules, those use judgemental, problematic language, language excised from the DSM decades ago for that very reason. However, those rules are still there and not going anyway. It's just that WotC isn't leaning into them anymore which is the bit that matters. Myself and others have said we don't need or want them to errata it out of the DMG. You can't unring that bell, you can't unprint those words. But don't lean into it going forwards. Do better. Which is what they are doing, not just in the Fear and Stress mechanics, but throughout VGR. As I mentioned before, there is not a single use of the word mad, madness or madman in that book. Insane and insanity don't come up once, not in the cosmic horror section, not in the section on Bluetspur, nowhere. The point is they are improving the language used and that is a good thing.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Yeah, actually. And their sentiment was that anything beyond generalised stress (not ""normal"" stress, that implies something like PTSD is 'abnormal' stress. Again, more problematic language and coding) shouldn't be something that is codified in mechanics and instead handled between the player and DM. What the mechanics describe is a fair and reasonable representation of a generalised stress response insofar as it is suitable for a game.
Of course I did, I actually emphasises it was a horror book and the pertinence of stress and fear mechanics. My fiancee is actually a horror movie fan and appreciates the genre that the book is aiming for. She also acknowledged the inherent risk of that genre when it comes to exposing players to it without consent and safety tools. She highlighted that what VGR has is a safer approach to the effects of horror.
No, it wasn't. It was about how your intention of bringing PTSD into the discussion simply because PTSD contains the word 'stress' is a disegengeous argument and conflating generalise stress responses with PTSD is a harmful misrepresentation of the latter that shows a fundamental misunderstanding. My fiancee actually commented that someone with PTSD looking at these rules likely would not see a conflation with their own experience due to the wording used (again, the importance of wording and langauge).
I never said the word madman appears in the DMG, I was simply emphasising how thorough VGR has been with their language conduct. And again, for what feels like the one thousandth time I am aware that nothing is being changed in the DMG. Myself nor anyone else is asking that it be changed. The observation and position of praise comes from moving away from that language. I honestly do not know why you persist in bringing up that nothing has changed in the DMG, that point is irrelevant.
You've yet to explain what the 'other direction' is? Is it WotC being too considerate in their design? Caring too much about how the product they make and the language they use in it affects people? If so, that raises some very concerning questions on your party about empathy because to argue that you can be too considerate of others smacks of some very troubling world views I personally want no part of.
If it's to argue that they've gone too far and come out back into offensive language, well you've provided no foundation for that. You do not appear to be arguing from experience or expertise, nor even an actual understanding of PTSD, an example you seem to have doggedly latched on to without at least doing the courtesy of understanding it.
Honestly, I've reached the limit where I can, try as I honestly might, believe you are arguing in good faith. I've provided experiential and expert support for my position in multiple forms. I've clarified, and reclarified, positions that you have persistently misrepresented and dispelled assertions that statements and allusions were made when they factually weren't. I've explained categorically how you misunderstand concepts you attempt to leverage, doing a disservice to those affected by them. At this point I am left to only believe that your sole preoccupation is with 'winning' this discussion for presumably some reason relating to a tribalistic notion of 'us vs them' when it comes to issues of this ilk. And that is not, nor ever will be, a discussion I wish to participate in.
I won't be participating in this discussion any further. If you have any qualms or queries with what I have said, I suggest rather than asking disingenuous questions or making egregiously incorrect misrepresentations of what has been said, you read back through the thread. I'm sure there's more than enough repetition of the salient points to answer any genuine questions you may hold.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don't know that that's necessary. The books that exist, exist. It's good that WotC tries to do better going forward, but erasing past mistakes altogether doesn't work.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There are others that are explicitly not hidden away as well, they just get framed in their historical context with a preface or note. There are multiple approaches possible.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Indeed, and one that's been in active use for years. Non-errata'ed books have been sold and are in circulation. Better to acknowledge this than to sweep it under the rug.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].