. . . The idea that people with mental health conditions being crazy and dangerous is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that indigenous people are inferior to white people is a dangerous idea that does real harm. The idea that some people are naturally lesser than any other person is a dangerous idea that does real harm.
Need I go on? Ideas can be dangerous. Some are legitimately dangerous, while others are the type that dictators dislike (that people are equal, lives matter, etc).
The "committee of public safety" in the real world is the whole of society. Society decides what ideas are harmful and what ones aren't. That's why the vast majority society agrees that the *** is bad, people with mental health issues deserve to be treated like people, and that systems that give the people the power are better than those that give specific individuals/families the power.
Anyway, this is getting out of the realm of discussion appropriate to this thread. Basically, society as a whole determines all of this, not individuals. Not me, not you, not Vince, not Heartofjuyomk2, and not any other individual person.
Actually, the real dangers are in generalizing and dismissing.
Some people with mental illness are a danger to others or at least to themselves. Some people with physical illnesses are dangers to others too. This is because the category 'illnesses' contains a wide variety of conditions that are simply not equal. Similarly, some people can be inferior in certain aspects due to certain medical conditions.
While it is important (and vitally important) to continue to recognize everyone, regardless of any conditions they may face, as fellow humans, those dangerous and/or inferior aspects do need to be recognized too. Respecting those with any given affliction means acknowledging them but also ensuring that whatever provisions are practical to help them deal with their symptoms. They need to be treated as people, rather than simply discarded, or worse, destroyed, but they do still need to be treated as people with serious conditions and those conditions addressed.
This is also different from race, in that no one is dangerous or inferior in any way simply because of race.
There are some similarities, but it is still not the same. There should be no stigmas regardless of what branch of medicine is doing the treatment, but that does not mean that the need for treatment where possible and the need for a practical environment for as many as possible should be ignored.
I think everybody is well aware that some people with severe mental disorders can be a danger to themselves and others... In fact, this is kind of the point. Everybody is aware of this because, until recently, this was the stigma attached to all people who admitted mental health problems.
It's also part of the reason, I think, that the terms madness and insanity have fallen out of favour in the modern vernacular to describe real mental health issues. It evokes images of those who are dangerous to themselves or others, of the old stereotypical asylums full of "dangerous lunatics" and the "criminally insane". However, that doesn't mean that it no longer has relevance to those with mental health issues, it means that people have recognised that it does have relevance and, because of the highly negative connotations, should not be used anymore.
Nope. Frankly, if It is my table, the offendees can choose to stay or walk. I will try to replace them, and if not possible, I end the game. If it is someone else's table, then it is up to that DM to decide what they allow at their table. But I have yet to run into a DM that has brought up this particular issue before. Is such a DM out there? Probably. But they must be few and far between.
So, let me throw you a hypothetical:
You are running a game, and you introduce an effect which induces "madness" in one of the party members. It's not really important to the story, but you thought it would be fun for the group. However, one of your players is made uncomfortable, and afterwards comes to you and explains that it brought back painful, traumatic memories of a serious mental issue they or someone they were close to had a few years ago.
If you stick to the rules that you have specified, you are saying that you would tell them (I would hope, at least, in more sympathetic language) that they can either accept the game as is or leave. You would not adjust the game to help one of your players, even though what is making them uncomfortable is not important to the game. They would have the choice of continuing, and being reminded constantly of a traumatic experience in their life, or leave a game they were otherwise enjoying.
Taking this one step further, they raise the issue with the group. The majority of the group, possibly even all of them, say that they would prefer to drop this part of the story and continue with the affected player. If we go by the rules you've said you would follow, you would shut down the game and walk away. You would quit as a DM rather than remove an unimportant plot point which the table had asked you to remove for the sake of a player.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
In a word, based on your hypothetical, yes. But, as I said, I am very confident that won't be happening.
I play with a number of people, at a number of tables (or did, pre-Covid). I DM one, well, technically two, of those tables. NO ONE at my table has ever come up to me with said scenario, possibly since I can't remember a time when I overtly had a player go insane under anything other than a temporary spell. No...that is not quite correct. The one table about 5 weeks ago was dealing with an NPC Paladin that had been Charmed by a Banshee and a slavish love for said Banshee was ongoing for a couple weeks now. That is clearly a form of madness. Not a soul said a word about it.
I have a buddy who runs a table. We talk all the time about what each of us is doing at their table, bouncing ideas off one another. He is just finishing up a segment where he sent his party into the Shadowfell. He then BUILT tables defining the chances the Shadowfell would have of causing severe depression and other forms of madness in the players, and what would be the role-play implications of said madness. Oh, did I mention that he and at least one player at that table have stated openly that they have had ongoing issues with depression? (Quite frankly, given the impact of Covid on the social fabric the past 18 months, some level of depression is the only rational outcome for EVERYONE.)
And I guarantee you no one at his table was consulted before he started this quest.
And to throw back a hypothetical at you: What happens if said player in your scenario states that any spell or condition, found in any source book, that causes emotional and mental issues with a player or NPC, "harms" that player, and the player wants me to excise all said spells and effects from my game?
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
You are running a game, and you introduce an effect which induces "madness" in one of the party members. It's not really important to the story, but you thought it would be fun for the group. However, one of your players is made uncomfortable, and afterwards comes to you and explains that it brought back painful, traumatic memories of a serious mental issue they or someone they were close to had a few years ago.
If you stick to the rules that you have specified, you are saying that you would tell them (I would hope, at least, in more sympathetic language) that they can either accept the game as is or leave. You would not adjust the game to help one of your players, even though what is making them uncomfortable is not important to the game. They would have the choice of continuing, and being reminded constantly of a traumatic experience in their life, or leave a game they were otherwise enjoying.
Taking this one step further, they raise the issue with the group. The majority of the group, possibly even all of them, say that they would prefer to drop this part of the story and continue with the affected player. If we go by the rules you've said you would follow, you would shut down the game and walk away. You would quit as a DM rather than remove an unimportant plot point which the table had asked you to remove for the sake of a player.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood.
In a word, based on your hypothetical, yes. But, as I said, I am very confident that won't be happening.
I play with a number of people, at a number of tables (or did, pre-Covid). I DM one, well, technically two, of those tables. NO ONE at my table has ever come up to me with said scenario, possibly since I can't remember a time when I overtly had a player go insane under anything other than a temporary spell. No...that is not quite correct. The one table about 5 weeks ago was dealing with an NPC Paladin that had been Charmed by a Banshee and a slavish love for said Banshee was ongoing for a couple weeks now. That is clearly a form of madness. Not a soul said a word about it.
I have a buddy who runs a table. We talk all the time about what each of us is doing at their table, bouncing ideas off one another. He is just finishing up a segment where he sent his party into the Shadowfell. He then BUILT tables defining the chances the Shadowfell would have of causing severe depression and other forms of madness in the players, and what would be the role-play implications of said madness. Oh, did I mention that he and at least one player at that table have stated openly that they have had ongoing issues with depression? (Quite frankly, given the impact of Covid on the social fabric the past 18 months, some level of depression is the only rational outcome for EVERYONE.)
And I guarantee you no one at his table was consulted before he started this quest.
And to throw back a hypothetical at you: What happens if said player in your scenario states that any spell or condition, found in any source book, that causes emotional and mental issues with a player or NPC, "harms" that player, and the player wants me to excise all said spells and effects from my game?
Referring to my own hypothetical, I would find your response very callous and insensitive, as well as absolutely ridiculous and childish. You would rather, effectively, boot a player who was suffering out of your game, or even take your bat and ball home, just because someone didn't want to do things exactly your way.
As to you having one player who happened to have one mental condition and was OK with that being in the game, that's great for them. That does not mean that everyone will be the same. Not all people with mental conditions, not even those with the same condition, think and feel the same way. You cannot project the reaction of one, single player in one specific circumstance onto everyone in that category and all circumstances. You have already heard from several players in this thread who find these issues problematic. If you never have to deal with this or anything similar, great, but I really hope that you can behave more sympathetically than you sound on here if you ever do have to deal with it.
As to the hypothetical you propose, I would take it on a case by case basis. If the changes they requested had no impact on the campaign I had planned then, especially if the rest of the table were happy with it, I see no reason I would have a problem with it. If it interfered with a story I had planned or impinged on what other players at the table wanted, I would try to find a compromise.
This is like a person coming for dinner at my house who is a vegetarian/vegan or has food allergies. I would tailor the menu to what that guest can eat, I wouldn't say "Well it's Friday night and that's Steak night for me, so you can have what I'm cooking or nothing". If they hadn't told me about an allergy, but then informed me at the table after I'd cooked, I would go out of my way to provide them with something they could eat if at all possible.
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
I will quote the moderator himself:
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
true you are correct nobody has advocated for removal of 'madness' but a change of names though ASI's did get removed so we're at roughly 50/50 in the past couple of months on what you said actually being true.
so if removal is not the suggestion what do we rename such things to not offend? Knights to.. feudal warriors? cults to.. peoples of fanatism? might not work.. dragon to "winged lizard" and dwarves to.... folk of short stature? zombies to "undead humanoids' will work well I believe and D&D to.. '5th edition TTRPG"
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
true you are correct nobody has advocated for removal of 'madness' but a change of names though ASI's did get removed so we're at roughly 50/50 in the past couple of months on what you said actually being true.
so if removal is not the suggestion what do we rename such things to not offend? Knights to.. feudal warriors? cults to.. peoples of fanatism? might not work.. dragon to "winged lizard" and dwarves to.... folk of short stature? zombies to "undead humanoids' will work well I believe and D&D to.. '5th edition TTRPG"
ASIs have not been removed. An optional rule has been added to allow you to move racial ASIs for existing races if you choose to use that rule at your table, and future races and lineages will not have fixed abilities to assign them to, but nothing has been removed in that at all. In fact, things have specifically been added.
However, that's completely off topic for this thread.
For the rest, you are just using reductio ad absurdum. This can be a useful technique at times, but nobody is suggesting going anywhere near that. Again, what is being suggested is having a little empathy towards your fellow human beings.
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
You have quoted him and then ignored a very important aspect of what he said ("If D&D is so full of harmful ideas"), as well as cut off the quote before the point where he says this isn't even the case. You have taken a quote completely out of context and even then it doesn't say what you are claiming.
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
true you are correct nobody has advocated for removal of 'madness' but a change of names though ASI's did get removed so we're at roughly 50/50 in the past couple of months on what you said actually being true.
so if removal is not the suggestion what do we rename such things to not offend? Knights to.. feudal warriors? cults to.. peoples of fanatism? might not work.. dragon to "winged lizard" and dwarves to.... folk of short stature? zombies to "undead humanoids' will work well I believe and D&D to.. '5th edition TTRPG"
ASIs have not been removed. An optional rule has been added to allow you to move racial ASIs for existing races if you choose to use that rule at your table, and future races and lineages will not have fixed abilities to assign them to, but nothing has been removed in that at all. In fact, things have specifically been added.
However, that's completely off topic for this thread.
For the rest, you are just using reductio ad absurdum. This can be a useful technique at times, but nobody is suggesting going anywhere near that. Again, what is being suggested is having a little empathy towards your fellow human beings.
Incorrect as new races coming out do not have racial ASIs but work off the Tashas basis, and how is it reductio ad absurdum? Could Islamic peoples not find the concept of knights in shining armor as harmful due to their experiences with knights in history? Would not a opiate addict find the term dragon offensive if they use the term chasing the dragon? might not a little person find the racial name of dwarf offensive? Zombies are a direct call back to slave fears and zombifying is still practiced in some Haitian settlements how could someone of that decent not find offense at using the term? Cults and so on? I'm not reaching into terms like binary he and she for a grasping at straws arguement these are things that COULD truly offend people if you lived in their shoes and I see you just marginalizing those experiences. If we say 'madness' is a non-issue but you say its not because of.. those reasons than how are these other things not exactly the same?
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
You have quoted him and then ignored a very important aspect of what he said ("If D&D is so full of harmful ideas"), as well as cut off the quote before the point where he says this isn't even the case. You have taken a quote completely out of context and even then it doesn't say what you are claiming.
You mean this section?
"But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D."
Who gives this guy, or you, the right to decide what stays and what goes? His meaning is explicit. Anything "bad" should be removed from the game. And by "bad" , anything he and a small cadre of like-minded, but very loud, people can convince WOTC is "bad".
Instead of moving on to another game that causes him less angst, as this poster states "there are other TTPRG's out there", he, you, and others consider it your holy mission to "fix" D&D in the image that you want. You will lead the heathens to the promised land and redemption. Sorry, but no thanks.
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
1) he's recused from being a mod for this thread, at least in terms of shutting down the conversation. You're being melodramatic and jumping to conclusions based on feelings, Vince.
2) he's presenting a hypothetical, in which D&D is somehow so terrible that it deserves to go away. To demonstrate that that scenario would not be the end of the world, nor the end of roleplaying, nor the end of tabletopping.
3) no-one has advocated removing anything that might be offensive. They are advocating that some things should be changed because they are harmful. Cut out the slippery slope nonsense.
If your players aren't complaining, then you don't need to change anything (though, to be a good DM and a good person, you should check in with them, to make sure they're not hiding their complaints for fear of being bullied by their peers or you).
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
It appears your clipboard might not be working fully because it appears to have truncated my quote by about half.
If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play. If the "it's just a game" crowd are correct, then it doesn't matter as after all, it's just a game, right? But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D.
If you look to where the text was accidentally lost, you see the next thing I say is
But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype.
By my own words I don't believe D&D would fall apart if you removed all the harmful elements. I don't even believe the elements need to be removed, just fixed. I love D&D and I want it to be the best game it can be, a game I'm proud to teach to my daughter. A game that has values I would want to instil in her; heroism, empathy, consideration, respect, equality, fairness, good vs evil, problem solving, overcoming adversity. There are so many wonderful things I could extole about D&D.
So no, that's not precisely what I'm saying, quite the opposite.
I hope you figure out whatever bug cause your copy and paste to fail at such an inopportune time, because a technical fault causing you to appear like you were trying to misrepresent what someone was saying is really unfortunate.
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
It appears your clipboard might not be working fully because it appears to have truncated my quote by about half.
If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play. If the "it's just a game" crowd are correct, then it doesn't matter as after all, it's just a game, right? But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D.
If you look to where the text was accidentally lost, you see the next thing I say is
But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype.
By my own words I don't believe D&D would fall apart if you removed all the harmful elements. I don't even believe the elements need to be removed, just fixed. I love D&D and I want it to be the best game it can be, a game I'm proud to teach to my daughter. A game that has values I would want to instil in her; heroism, empathy, consideration, respect, equality, fairness, good vs evil, problem solving, overcoming adversity. There are so many wonderful things I could extole about D&D.
So no, that's not precisely what I'm saying, quite the opposite.
I hope you figure out whatever bug cause your copy and paste to fail at such an inopportune time, because a technical fault causing you to appear like you were trying to misrepresent what someone was saying is really unfortunate.
It is a simple question (one that I am sure I will pay for later, again and again):
What gives you the right to decide what is good in D&D and what is bad, and then campaign to remove said "bad" concepts? Who on this entire fan site has that right? I rail against people changing fundamental rules on a daily basis (when I am not banned) , and have created House rules like Falling, Grappling, Jumping, to make them harder in my game. But I have NEVER stated "this entire facet of the game must be removed." You and others are stating just that.
If you are a WOTC game designer, I would have to say, "yeah, it is your job to hack D&D to pieces and put it back together again." That is what is done with every new edition. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is NOT your occupation.
But I am merely shouting into a hurricane. I read and watch what Crawford says. He is in lockstep with your outlook on life and the game. You will get what you want.
Given how the Madness condition is removed in 5e, it still seems to me that we, out here IRL, are the ones who are equating madness to mental illness and not 5e. Most of what I'm reading here is saying, "Madness is mental illness," but that's not what I'm reading in 5e.
Stop equating me and those like me to madness so you can take a holier-than-thou stance in my stead. People like me don't want your help if it means you will define us as madness. This is all happening IRL and not in 5e. This is being placed upon 5e as a unwilling and improper scapegoat. It's you all insisting that the mere mention of word, madness, means mental illness is the problem.
Instead of saying, "Any reference to madness is obviously a reference to mental illness," try saying, "Madness is not mental illness, not even in 5e." Stop promoting a stereotype in the same breath as denouncing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I think you misunderstand, I am not deciding or dictating what is good or bad. What I am doing is saying what I have positive and negative experiences with and then participating in the feedback process between us, the D&D community, and Wizards of the Coast. How they choose to action that feedback is their decision alone and I will either continue to support the game based on the choices they make, or exercise my freedom to walk away.
So far, I am in support of the changes they as games designers have chosen to make. They have made the game more accessible, both for people I personally know and countless those that I don't. They have made changes that have made people feel more comfortable approaching the game, allowing it to grow and expand and improve, which is all I want for the game.
As mentioned before, the last thing I want is for the game to stagnate, wither and die, meaning there isn't something for me to share with those I love in the future. I am not dictating anything, for I am but one person who does not know it all, nor claim to.
So no, it is not my occupation to change D&D, I leave that to the people whose job it is. But I will nonetheless voice my opinion as you will voice yours, and leave WotC to decide which ones to listen to.
Hm...throwing out my own experience and bias.....I suffer from depression, moderate anxiety (which is flaring up strongly right now for even wanting to post in this thread but I want to share my thoughts despite this) , and have visceral and stress inducting reactions to visual horror medias like movies or games. I like horror themes and lore though, and enjoy reading or watching theory and breakdown videos on various horror creatures, settings, and history. However, actually immersing myself in a horror environment is not something I consider fun, and do not enjoy being forced to do so and be belittled for not enjoying them.
So, speaking for myself and myself only, I personally don't take issue with Van Richten's and it's content if I go by the current coverage videos from those with early access to the books. In fact I'm happy in particular at how the book speaks in different instances on being mindful of harmful stereotypes involves both mental illness and even physical disabilities (in the Body Horror section in the book) and how a DM should try to avoid such tropes when creating their campaign and stories. Not to mention there is a section in the book it seems that speaks on talking to your players, being upfront on the themes you wish to bring to your campaign and making sure everyone is enjoying the game and nothing gets too uncomfortable in regards to their sensitivities. It's a simple but much needed thing to add to a book that talks about a genre that's as....volatile and visceral as Horror can be.
Having said that, having a dialogue or debate about this isn't an issue, so long as it's done respectfully on all fronts. This is really all I feel comfortable in posting at the moment though considering the current direction of this thread, but I wanted to at least give my two cents.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Incorrect as new races coming out do not have racial ASIs but work off the Tashas basis, and how is it reductio ad absurdum? Could Islamic peoples not find the concept of knights in shining armor as harmful due to their experiences with knights in history? Would not a opiate addict find the term dragon offensive if they use the term chasing the dragon? might not a little person find the racial name of dwarf offensive? Zombies are a direct call back to slave fears and zombifying is still practiced in some Haitian settlements how could someone of that decent not find offense at using the term? Cults and so on? I'm not reaching into terms like binary he and she for a grasping at straws arguement these are things that COULD truly offend people if you lived in their shoes and I see you just marginalizing those experiences. If we say 'madness' is a non-issue but you say its not because of.. those reasons than how are these other things not exactly the same?
1) If newly added races do not have fixed racial ASIs, how is that removing something? It is adding something new. That new thing does not have something which previous similar things had, but it is removing nothing at all. If I give you a roast dinner but without gravy, I haven't taken your gravy away. You cannot remove something which never existed in the first place.
2) You have taken the discussions we have been having to an absurd extreme. That is the very definition of reductio ad absurdum. However, even if it wasn't: If those parts of the game do offend someone at my table, why would it be wrong of me to change names of things, or even remove them? If society at large found them to be offensive and it was hurting the reputation of WotC (and, therefore, sales) to keep them in the game, would it not make sense for them to be changed? Would you prefer that D&D stayed exactly as it is, slowly fading into irrelevance as language and attitudes change over the years and, eventually, disappearing off the face of the earth?
3) I have marginalised nothing. If a player came to me with an issue with one of these things, I would look at ways to make the experience more comfortable for them. The reason I have called this rediuctio ad absurdum is that you are specifically reaching for the extreme examples in an attempt to show absurdity in the outcome.
4) Has anyone from one of those groups told you that they find any of these a problem? If not, then this is a very different situation, seeing as more than one person has told you they do.
5) I don't believe I have ever actually said I think madness is an issue. I have said that some people on this thread have shared experiences and feelings which indicate it is an issue for them, and I have strongly argued against the dismissive attitudes certain members have shown towards the (often painful) feelings and experiences of others. I have asked everybody to try to think of the effect what they are saying will have on those around them. I don't see how any of these things are bad... In fact, I don't understand how any human being with the smallest amount of empathy towards others could find any of these things bad.
Incorrect as new races coming out do not have racial ASIs but work off the Tashas basis, and how is it reductio ad absurdum? Could Islamic peoples not find the concept of knights in shining armor as harmful due to their experiences with knights in history? Would not a opiate addict find the term dragon offensive if they use the term chasing the dragon? might not a little person find the racial name of dwarf offensive? Zombies are a direct call back to slave fears and zombifying is still practiced in some Haitian settlements how could someone of that decent not find offense at using the term? Cults and so on? I'm not reaching into terms like binary he and she for a grasping at straws arguement these are things that COULD truly offend people if you lived in their shoes and I see you just marginalizing those experiences. If we say 'madness' is a non-issue but you say its not because of.. those reasons than how are these other things not exactly the same?
1) If newly added races do not have fixed racial ASIs, how is that removing something? It is adding something new. That new thing does not have something which previous similar things had, but it is removing nothing at all. If I give you a roast dinner but without gravy, I haven't taken your gravy away. You cannot remove something which never existed in the first place.
2) You have taken the discussions we have been having to an absurd extreme. That is the very definition of reductio ad absurdum. However, even if it wasn't: If those parts of the game do offend someone at my table, why would it be wrong of me to change names of things, or even remove them? If society at large found them to be offensive and it was hurting the reputation of WotC (and, therefore, sales) to keep them in the game, would it not make sense for them to be changed? Would you prefer that D&D stayed exactly as it is, slowly fading into irrelevance as language and attitudes change over the years and, eventually, disappearing off the face of the earth?
3) I have marginalised nothing. If a player came to me with an issue with one of these things, I would look at ways to make the experience more comfortable for them. The reason I have called this rediuctio ad absurdum is that you are specifically reaching for the extreme examples in an attempt to show absurdity in the outcome.
4) Has anyone from one of those groups told you that they find any of these a problem? If not, then this is a very different situation, seeing as more than one person has told you they do.
5) I don't believe I have ever actually said I think madness is an issue. I have said that some people on this thread have shared experiences and feelings which indicate it is an issue for them, and I have strongly argued against the dismissive attitudes certain members have shown towards the (often painful) feelings and experiences of others. I have asked everybody to try to think of the effect what they are saying will have on those around them. I don't see how any of these things are bad... In fact, I don't understand how any human being with the smallest amount of empathy towards others could find any of these things bad.
because it's something that existed in the game prior, the arguement in pro was always "its an optional rule if you like fixed ASIs at your table keep using those" well now that's not a thing because it was deemed harmful and has been removed from the game. Don't pretend new races wouldn't have fixed ASIs if the hub bub wasn't brought up, the point is that people complained and a standing aspect of the game was removed to not offend.
I dont think what i have pointed out is anymore absurd than madness being a harmful term in D&D, maybe your just think those examples are absurd like I think this threads topic has been absurd? Though i am glad to see you would change things to accommodate your players
I do have empathy for people, but just like the terms "smallest amount" my levels of empathy are limited as I assume you've figured out by now. I have empathy for people called racial slurs by people of another race (and sometimes their own race) because there is never a circumstance where that's not filled with hate. I have empathy for people attacked simply for their skin color/religion/gender/status in life, but I have no empathy or find it incredibly hard to have empathy for people upset by seeing the term 'madness' in a book used as a catch all instead of defining each condition and becoming upset or those that took offense at stats in a book saying Orcs are naturally stronger than Gnomes. I find that reaching to try and find things to be upset about and victimized by.
because it's something that existed in the game prior
The new races and lineages which are to be added have never existed in the game, and fixed racial ASIs don't even exist for every race published in the PHB. Variant human can put their ASIs anywhere. WotC can chose to publish the rules for new content as they wish, but it is not removing anything which already existed to not publish static ASIs for brand new content.
the arguement in pro was always "its an optional rule if you like fixed ASIs at your table keep using those" well now that's not a thing because it was deemed harmful and has been removed from the game. Don't pretend new races wouldn't have fixed ASIs if the hub bub wasn't brought up, the point is that people complained and a standing aspect of the game was removed to not offend.
It doesn't matter whether they would have or not, they never existed so nothing has been removed.
Remember, if this offends you, you are under no obligation to allow the use of the new content at your own table. You can even house rule them to have static ASIs if you wish. But if they were not there to begin with, nothing has been removed.
Remember, you can keep using fixed ASIs. There are lots of races in the PHB and other books which still use them, and any new content published is optional so the movable ASIs is still optional.
However, this has gone way off topic.
Back to the point I was making: you have exemplified it again.
I have no empathy or find it incredibly hard to have empathy for people upset by seeing the term 'madness' in a book used as a catch all instead of defining each condition and becoming upset or those that took offense at stats in a book saying Orcs are naturally stronger than Gnomes. I find that reaching to try and find things to be upset about and victimized by.
This is just as dismissive as the "It's just a game" defence. You are minimising and trivialising traumatic experiences people have had and their feelings. It is close to saying "I don't believe you when you tell me that this reminds you of a horrible experience you went through". It is a horrific attitude to have towards another human being.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In a word, based on your hypothetical, yes. But, as I said, I am very confident that won't be happening.
I play with a number of people, at a number of tables (or did, pre-Covid). I DM one, well, technically two, of those tables. NO ONE at my table has ever come up to me with said scenario, possibly since I can't remember a time when I overtly had a player go insane under anything other than a temporary spell. No...that is not quite correct. The one table about 5 weeks ago was dealing with an NPC Paladin that had been Charmed by a Banshee and a slavish love for said Banshee was ongoing for a couple weeks now. That is clearly a form of madness. Not a soul said a word about it.
I have a buddy who runs a table. We talk all the time about what each of us is doing at their table, bouncing ideas off one another. He is just finishing up a segment where he sent his party into the Shadowfell. He then BUILT tables defining the chances the Shadowfell would have of causing severe depression and other forms of madness in the players, and what would be the role-play implications of said madness. Oh, did I mention that he and at least one player at that table have stated openly that they have had ongoing issues with depression? (Quite frankly, given the impact of Covid on the social fabric the past 18 months, some level of depression is the only rational outcome for EVERYONE.)
And I guarantee you no one at his table was consulted before he started this quest.
And to throw back a hypothetical at you: What happens if said player in your scenario states that any spell or condition, found in any source book, that causes emotional and mental issues with a player or NPC, "harms" that player, and the player wants me to excise all said spells and effects from my game?
So let's go down the list of all the "bad spells and effects" in D&D that could cause "harm" to real people, and must be banished from all books and our minds.
Well, we can start with any Enchantment spell. That should only be about 10% of them.
Better tack on any Illusion based spell, as that is too close to a human hallucinating something, so between that and Enchantment, we are at about 25% of all Wizard spells.
Pretty sure one of the effects of Bestow Curse, where it forces the player to do nothing for a turn, qualifies as affecting the mental state of the player.
Sorry Dragons, Liches, and I have no idea how many other monsters, your ability to traumatize a char, and by extension, a human being, with any feature that causes Fear, that has to go.
And oh, Enchantment Wizards, Arch-Fey and GOO Warlocks, sorry, your emotion-altering abilities might be potentially harmful, so you no longer exist. And Bard's, well, let's not go there.
Lastly, I have a friend that was burned in a fire as child. They are still affected by that. It hurts me too when I see a creature burned in the game, so all Fire-Based spells should be removed as well.
Need I go on?
I mean there really is a lot of things in D&D we need to pull if we're going to worry about everything that could be deemed offensive by someone a few more:
Anything dealing with Knights as it can conjure up imagery of the crusades and their wars against Islam and paganism
Dragons - Chasing the 'dragon' is now a term for opiate addicted people, having dragons in your campaign can be offensive to them
Dwarves - offensive term for little people
Anything with Cults - Really do we need to say more? Seriously damaging to people that have dealt with cults, leave out anything in D&D dealing with them
Zombies - DO NOT put zombies in your games, zombies are from Haitian slaves who imagined being trapped in their bodies forever.
D&D in general - I mean it was tied to satanism back in the day so people find that offensive so we really should probably not play D&D, if our aim is to not cause any harm than you need to realize your offending THOSE people.... but than that's being discriminatory to satanists.. oh man..
Referring to my own hypothetical, I would find your response very callous and insensitive, as well as absolutely ridiculous and childish. You would rather, effectively, boot a player who was suffering out of your game, or even take your bat and ball home, just because someone didn't want to do things exactly your way.
As to you having one player who happened to have one mental condition and was OK with that being in the game, that's great for them. That does not mean that everyone will be the same. Not all people with mental conditions, not even those with the same condition, think and feel the same way. You cannot project the reaction of one, single player in one specific circumstance onto everyone in that category and all circumstances. You have already heard from several players in this thread who find these issues problematic. If you never have to deal with this or anything similar, great, but I really hope that you can behave more sympathetically than you sound on here if you ever do have to deal with it.
As to the hypothetical you propose, I would take it on a case by case basis. If the changes they requested had no impact on the campaign I had planned then, especially if the rest of the table were happy with it, I see no reason I would have a problem with it. If it interfered with a story I had planned or impinged on what other players at the table wanted, I would try to find a compromise.
This is like a person coming for dinner at my house who is a vegetarian/vegan or has food allergies. I would tailor the menu to what that guest can eat, I wouldn't say "Well it's Friday night and that's Steak night for me, so you can have what I'm cooking or nothing". If they hadn't told me about an allergy, but then informed me at the table after I'd cooked, I would go out of my way to provide them with something they could eat if at all possible.
To both of you: Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone". They are saying you should treat people with kindness and compassion, and not dismiss them or their life experiences just because you want everything your way.
I will quote the moderator himself:
"If you take everything problematic out of D&D there'll be nothing left
Let's start with the obvious response; if that's true, so what? If D&D is so full of harmful ideas and tropes and assumptions that the moment you start looking at it with a critical, seflless, empathic eye, it all falls apart and the bits scurry under the sofa like Oogie Boogie in Nightmare Before Christmas, so what? Why would a game so built on toxic idea and harmful notions deserve not to be torn down? There are other TTRPGs out there, life will go on, people will find something else to play"
So that is PRECISELY what he is saying. So your point about "Nobody is saying WoTC should "pull anything which might be offensive to someone", is utterly wrong. A moderator, with the power to censor anything posted here, just stated exactly that.
true you are correct nobody has advocated for removal of 'madness' but a change of names though ASI's did get removed so we're at roughly 50/50 in the past couple of months on what you said actually being true.
so if removal is not the suggestion what do we rename such things to not offend? Knights to.. feudal warriors? cults to.. peoples of fanatism? might not work.. dragon to "winged lizard" and dwarves to.... folk of short stature? zombies to "undead humanoids' will work well I believe and D&D to.. '5th edition TTRPG"
ASIs have not been removed. An optional rule has been added to allow you to move racial ASIs for existing races if you choose to use that rule at your table, and future races and lineages will not have fixed abilities to assign them to, but nothing has been removed in that at all. In fact, things have specifically been added.
However, that's completely off topic for this thread.
For the rest, you are just using reductio ad absurdum. This can be a useful technique at times, but nobody is suggesting going anywhere near that. Again, what is being suggested is having a little empathy towards your fellow human beings.
You have quoted him and then ignored a very important aspect of what he said ("If D&D is so full of harmful ideas"), as well as cut off the quote before the point where he says this isn't even the case. You have taken a quote completely out of context and even then it doesn't say what you are claiming.
Incorrect as new races coming out do not have racial ASIs but work off the Tashas basis, and how is it reductio ad absurdum? Could Islamic peoples not find the concept of knights in shining armor as harmful due to their experiences with knights in history? Would not a opiate addict find the term dragon offensive if they use the term chasing the dragon? might not a little person find the racial name of dwarf offensive? Zombies are a direct call back to slave fears and zombifying is still practiced in some Haitian settlements how could someone of that decent not find offense at using the term? Cults and so on? I'm not reaching into terms like binary he and she for a grasping at straws arguement these are things that COULD truly offend people if you lived in their shoes and I see you just marginalizing those experiences. If we say 'madness' is a non-issue but you say its not because of.. those reasons than how are these other things not exactly the same?
You mean this section?
"But that's not the case. People aren't talking about pulling out everything harmful in D&D and even if they were, it wouldn't lead to the destruction of the game. What people are talking about is fixing D&D, making it better, making it the best TTRPG it can be so it can live up to its own hype. I've commented (twice) with how WotC is moving towards more psychologically informed language in the Ravenloft book. They're not removing madness and insanity, they're just removing the parts of it that are crass, vulgar and insensitive and replacing that with language that is considered, informed and empathetic. And you know what? That makes the game better. So no, people aren't talking about tearing down D&D until there's nothing left. Instead, it's a ship of Thesus situation; pulling out each rotten plank and replacing it with a fresh one, free of the rot of years gone by. Different planks, same D&D."
Who gives this guy, or you, the right to decide what stays and what goes? His meaning is explicit. Anything "bad" should be removed from the game. And by "bad" , anything he and a small cadre of like-minded, but very loud, people can convince WOTC is "bad".
Instead of moving on to another game that causes him less angst, as this poster states "there are other TTPRG's out there", he, you, and others consider it your holy mission to "fix" D&D in the image that you want. You will lead the heathens to the promised land and redemption. Sorry, but no thanks.
1) he's recused from being a mod for this thread, at least in terms of shutting down the conversation. You're being melodramatic and jumping to conclusions based on feelings, Vince.
2) he's presenting a hypothetical, in which D&D is somehow so terrible that it deserves to go away. To demonstrate that that scenario would not be the end of the world, nor the end of roleplaying, nor the end of tabletopping.
3) no-one has advocated removing anything that might be offensive. They are advocating that some things should be changed because they are harmful. Cut out the slippery slope nonsense.
If your players aren't complaining, then you don't need to change anything (though, to be a good DM and a good person, you should check in with them, to make sure they're not hiding their complaints for fear of being bullied by their peers or you).
It appears your clipboard might not be working fully because it appears to have truncated my quote by about half.
What I actually said here was:
If you look to where the text was accidentally lost, you see the next thing I say is
By my own words I don't believe D&D would fall apart if you removed all the harmful elements. I don't even believe the elements need to be removed, just fixed. I love D&D and I want it to be the best game it can be, a game I'm proud to teach to my daughter. A game that has values I would want to instil in her; heroism, empathy, consideration, respect, equality, fairness, good vs evil, problem solving, overcoming adversity. There are so many wonderful things I could extole about D&D.
So no, that's not precisely what I'm saying, quite the opposite.
I hope you figure out whatever bug cause your copy and paste to fail at such an inopportune time, because a technical fault causing you to appear like you were trying to misrepresent what someone was saying is really unfortunate.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It is a simple question (one that I am sure I will pay for later, again and again):
What gives you the right to decide what is good in D&D and what is bad, and then campaign to remove said "bad" concepts? Who on this entire fan site has that right? I rail against people changing fundamental rules on a daily basis (when I am not banned) , and have created House rules like Falling, Grappling, Jumping, to make them harder in my game. But I have NEVER stated "this entire facet of the game must be removed." You and others are stating just that.
If you are a WOTC game designer, I would have to say, "yeah, it is your job to hack D&D to pieces and put it back together again." That is what is done with every new edition. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is NOT your occupation.
But I am merely shouting into a hurricane. I read and watch what Crawford says. He is in lockstep with your outlook on life and the game. You will get what you want.
Given how the Madness condition is removed in 5e, it still seems to me that we, out here IRL, are the ones who are equating madness to mental illness and not 5e. Most of what I'm reading here is saying, "Madness is mental illness," but that's not what I'm reading in 5e.
Stop equating me and those like me to madness so you can take a holier-than-thou stance in my stead. People like me don't want your help if it means you will define us as madness. This is all happening IRL and not in 5e. This is being placed upon 5e as a unwilling and improper scapegoat. It's you all insisting that the mere mention of word, madness, means mental illness is the problem.
Instead of saying, "Any reference to madness is obviously a reference to mental illness," try saying, "Madness is not mental illness, not even in 5e." Stop promoting a stereotype in the same breath as denouncing it.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I think you misunderstand, I am not deciding or dictating what is good or bad. What I am doing is saying what I have positive and negative experiences with and then participating in the feedback process between us, the D&D community, and Wizards of the Coast. How they choose to action that feedback is their decision alone and I will either continue to support the game based on the choices they make, or exercise my freedom to walk away.
So far, I am in support of the changes they as games designers have chosen to make. They have made the game more accessible, both for people I personally know and countless those that I don't. They have made changes that have made people feel more comfortable approaching the game, allowing it to grow and expand and improve, which is all I want for the game.
As mentioned before, the last thing I want is for the game to stagnate, wither and die, meaning there isn't something for me to share with those I love in the future. I am not dictating anything, for I am but one person who does not know it all, nor claim to.
So no, it is not my occupation to change D&D, I leave that to the people whose job it is. But I will nonetheless voice my opinion as you will voice yours, and leave WotC to decide which ones to listen to.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Hm...throwing out my own experience and bias.....I suffer from depression, moderate anxiety (which is flaring up strongly right now for even wanting to post in this thread but I want to share my thoughts despite this) , and have visceral and stress inducting reactions to visual horror medias like movies or games. I like horror themes and lore though, and enjoy reading or watching theory and breakdown videos on various horror creatures, settings, and history. However, actually immersing myself in a horror environment is not something I consider fun, and do not enjoy being forced to do so and be belittled for not enjoying them.
So, speaking for myself and myself only, I personally don't take issue with Van Richten's and it's content if I go by the current coverage videos from those with early access to the books. In fact I'm happy in particular at how the book speaks in different instances on being mindful of harmful stereotypes involves both mental illness and even physical disabilities (in the Body Horror section in the book) and how a DM should try to avoid such tropes when creating their campaign and stories. Not to mention there is a section in the book it seems that speaks on talking to your players, being upfront on the themes you wish to bring to your campaign and making sure everyone is enjoying the game and nothing gets too uncomfortable in regards to their sensitivities. It's a simple but much needed thing to add to a book that talks about a genre that's as....volatile and visceral as Horror can be.
Having said that, having a dialogue or debate about this isn't an issue, so long as it's done respectfully on all fronts. This is really all I feel comfortable in posting at the moment though considering the current direction of this thread, but I wanted to at least give my two cents.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
1) If newly added races do not have fixed racial ASIs, how is that removing something? It is adding something new. That new thing does not have something which previous similar things had, but it is removing nothing at all. If I give you a roast dinner but without gravy, I haven't taken your gravy away. You cannot remove something which never existed in the first place.
2) You have taken the discussions we have been having to an absurd extreme. That is the very definition of reductio ad absurdum. However, even if it wasn't: If those parts of the game do offend someone at my table, why would it be wrong of me to change names of things, or even remove them? If society at large found them to be offensive and it was hurting the reputation of WotC (and, therefore, sales) to keep them in the game, would it not make sense for them to be changed? Would you prefer that D&D stayed exactly as it is, slowly fading into irrelevance as language and attitudes change over the years and, eventually, disappearing off the face of the earth?
3) I have marginalised nothing. If a player came to me with an issue with one of these things, I would look at ways to make the experience more comfortable for them. The reason I have called this rediuctio ad absurdum is that you are specifically reaching for the extreme examples in an attempt to show absurdity in the outcome.
4) Has anyone from one of those groups told you that they find any of these a problem? If not, then this is a very different situation, seeing as more than one person has told you they do.
5) I don't believe I have ever actually said I think madness is an issue. I have said that some people on this thread have shared experiences and feelings which indicate it is an issue for them, and I have strongly argued against the dismissive attitudes certain members have shown towards the (often painful) feelings and experiences of others. I have asked everybody to try to think of the effect what they are saying will have on those around them. I don't see how any of these things are bad... In fact, I don't understand how any human being with the smallest amount of empathy towards others could find any of these things bad.
because it's something that existed in the game prior, the arguement in pro was always "its an optional rule if you like fixed ASIs at your table keep using those" well now that's not a thing because it was deemed harmful and has been removed from the game. Don't pretend new races wouldn't have fixed ASIs if the hub bub wasn't brought up, the point is that people complained and a standing aspect of the game was removed to not offend.
I dont think what i have pointed out is anymore absurd than madness being a harmful term in D&D, maybe your just think those examples are absurd like I think this threads topic has been absurd? Though i am glad to see you would change things to accommodate your players
I do have empathy for people, but just like the terms "smallest amount" my levels of empathy are limited as I assume you've figured out by now. I have empathy for people called racial slurs by people of another race (and sometimes their own race) because there is never a circumstance where that's not filled with hate. I have empathy for people attacked simply for their skin color/religion/gender/status in life, but I have no empathy or find it incredibly hard to have empathy for people upset by seeing the term 'madness' in a book used as a catch all instead of defining each condition and becoming upset or those that took offense at stats in a book saying Orcs are naturally stronger than Gnomes. I find that reaching to try and find things to be upset about and victimized by.
The new races and lineages which are to be added have never existed in the game, and fixed racial ASIs don't even exist for every race published in the PHB. Variant human can put their ASIs anywhere. WotC can chose to publish the rules for new content as they wish, but it is not removing anything which already existed to not publish static ASIs for brand new content.
It doesn't matter whether they would have or not, they never existed so nothing has been removed.
Remember, if this offends you, you are under no obligation to allow the use of the new content at your own table. You can even house rule them to have static ASIs if you wish. But if they were not there to begin with, nothing has been removed.
Remember, you can keep using fixed ASIs. There are lots of races in the PHB and other books which still use them, and any new content published is optional so the movable ASIs is still optional.
However, this has gone way off topic.
Back to the point I was making: you have exemplified it again.
This is just as dismissive as the "It's just a game" defence. You are minimising and trivialising traumatic experiences people have had and their feelings. It is close to saying "I don't believe you when you tell me that this reminds you of a horrible experience you went through". It is a horrific attitude to have towards another human being.