RPGs and Mental Illness


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Please stop debating people who are trying to turn this into a "are gamer's evil debate". It's a straw man and has nothing to do with the topic, regardless of how much they try to force it that way.

I agree that it's a strawman, since nobody except you is trying to paint the debate in that light.

Quote:
It's about making the hobby a safe place where people can play the way they want to play, which includes having these kinds of rules in their game. It's about being aware of how and why we are including these rules and what purpose they serve. It's about being aware of how this can impact certain people.

You're half-right here. The conversation is about the underlying premise for why we should do this, and how compelling those reason(s) are.

Quote:
Trying to force it into a discussion about morality is missing the point and an attempt to derail the discussion.

On the contrary, the moral discussion goes right to the heart of what this debate is about. Suggesting otherwise is an attempt to derail it.

Quote:
I've played some games that deal very directly with concepts of mental illness, not just as a 2 paragraph blurb in the book, but as central concepts. I don't think the concept should be banned from RPG's, rather that awareness should be increased about what is a good representation and what is a poor representation. What enhances a game, and what adds very little.
Why should RPG books need to work to raise awareness? Moreover, if they elect not to do that, is there an impetus that they be changed to do so? These are moral questions, and they are what this entire discussion is framed around.

Did I say it's the RPG books job was to raise awareness? I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say that.

Were you quoting me and directing the comment to someone else? That seems to happen a lot.


If this was in homebrew, I would suggest when a schizophrenic becomes confused, there is a 50% chance that they attack or run from, an empty space. Normally, I don't like realism, but this might make it more believable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Realistically, people with schizophrenia are rarely violent. Roughly 1% of the population has the disorder, but their rates of violence correspond much more closely to their economic, employment and education status* than it does to their disease. There is an increased likelihood of violence amongst people with schizophrenia who also exhibit anti-social behavior (and other conduct disorders), but then again, anti-social behavior is a strong contributor to violent behavior alone.

*It happens that people with schizophrenia tend to be unemployed, poor and uneducated, largely because their disorder can make it hard to finish school and/or keep a job.

People with mental illness are predominately more disposed to harming themselves than they are others. Realistically speaking.

Edit: Adding a video.

Anderson Cooper demonstrating a schizophrenia simulator. Of course, the voices are what's called a positive symptom (adding something that isn't normally there). The negative symptoms, lack of social skills, depression, reduced motor control, inability to follow moving objects with your eyes, inability to sit still or organize your thoughts in a way that resembles a paragraph, those aren't really possible to simulate, but they're also very impactful.

A wizard wouldn't be able to study their spells for the day, most likely ever again.

Liberty's Edge

Yes IT, but, in general, we're discussing adventurers here, so that pretty much covets the violent part.


Krensky wrote:
Yes IT, but, in general, we're discussing adventurers here, so that pretty much covets the violent part.

I can't enforce it, but I'd really like to leave the snarky comments for other threads. It's hard enough actually having a conversation about this.

Liberty's Edge

What snark?


In that case, the argument for calling is "schizophrenia" is that it enhances realism. But what's being modeled is not schizophrenia. If we aren't going to model the affliction based on the real thing, why use the real name?

It's "realism", not realism.


Yeah, schizophrenia is one of the most poorly understood mental illnesses among the general public. The common pop culture image of them is "They'll stab you because the voices said to if they ever stop taking their meds."

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:

In that case, the argument for calling is "schizophrenia" is that it enhances realism. But what's being modeled is not schizophrenia. If we aren't going to model the affliction based on the real thing, why use the real name?

It's "realism", not realism.

An actual paranoid schizophrenic said to use something like confusion where the schizophrenic character would attack or flee from an empty space

You said schizophrenic people aren't more prone to violence them then the average person of their social cohort.

I pointed out that, a schitozprenic adventurerer could very well respond violently to their hallucinations because, as a cohort, adventurers are prone to violence and antisocial behavior.

Then you accused me of snark and, apparently, arguing for stereotypes or realism.

It's a game that tries to somewhat si.u late reality. Acute schizophrenia is a thing, so having as the outcome a traumatic experience isn't unrealistic. It is possibly bad game design since its inflicting a major permanent disability like loosing a leg or both eyes based on a random table since unlike most neurosis or psychosis, it's not something that time and talking can really make better. As I understand it, it's a permanent disability that needs pharmacology or, in the case of a fantasy rpg, magic to meaningfully treat or cure.

In the meantime, in a game, Goth Guru's confusion rule suggestion is good enough with a proper short description of what the disease actually is and does if you're writing a rulebook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Schizophrenia is, as stated, a poorly understood disorder. It was originally described by Kraepelin, who called it dementia praecox (early dementia). A while later, it was called schizophrenia by Bleuler. The word means "split soul", which gave rise to the idea that it's several people in one head, but actually, the schizo part of the word means split like in "split off, other, different".

The disorder consists of a chronic condition of psychotic symptoms: Positive, negative, and cognitive. Positive symptoms are positive in that they add something to the patient's experience, and include hallucinations (typically voices), delusions (typically paranoia, megalomania, or various religious forms). The negative remove something, making the patient less communicative, less social, and they tend to isolate themselves. Cognitive symptoms are signs of accumulating, albeit minor, brain damage, found by cognitive testing before and after episodes of acute worsening. Psychosis refers to the inability to separate what is real and what is not, and is a matter of degrees.

There is no such thing as acute schizophrenia. There are various forms of acute psychosis, such as amphetamin-induced paranoia, however, but these are not considered to be schizophrenia. Nor does schizophrenia (or usually, psychosis) come from traumatic experiences. It is a slowly-developing disorder, which begins at perhaps ten to twelves years of age with prodromal symptoms, but these are symptoms that are far more common, and so these give little hint of who will develop schizophrenia. Typically, the disorder begins with a sharp psychotic state at around 20 for men, and 30 for women. From that point, only neuroleptics (aka antipsychotics) have been shown to help. What they do is they get the patient to function, even if it is rarely full functioning. If the patient stops taking their medicine, they grow psychotic again, usually within a month. Since understanding that they are ill is rarely the case, much of psychosis care has to be done against the patient's wishes. With medication again, recovery from acute symptoms comes within two weeks or so, but cognitive symptoms get worse with every such episode.

Regarding violence, it can and does happen. However, a person in an acute psychotic state is usually far from unpredictable. First, each episode looks the same and doesn't vary much, usually even across decades. Second, this is a very, very scared person. They are not out to hurt anyone, their priority is to protect themselves. Violence happens when someone gets too close, doesn't listen to the patient, and keeps trying to communicate/touch/hold/whatever. Acute psychosis expands your personal sphere. Don't stare. Don't show your teeth. Don't make sudden movements. Don't get too close. Don't use big words. Focus on giving them an environment they can relate to, keep a decent distance, keep a roughly neutral face, see if they want/need something to eat or drink. If they tell you to go, go. It's not rocket science. Sum total, schizophrenic patients are very slightly overrepresented in violent behaviour compared to the general population - but there is overlap with autism spectrum disorder and other disorders that also have the same overrepresentation.

Contrary to popular belief, visual hallucinations are rare, and belong more to conditions like alcohol delirium.

It is harsh, unending, and breaks you down. 0.7% get it, slightly more in urban areas, slightly less rural. The causes are unknown, but some genetic predisposition exists.

All told, yes, confusion as a result is pretty decent. What you see of acute psychosis is typically that the patient is distracted, not much else.

Liberty's Edge

I remeber my psychology texts use the term acute for sudden onset and describe that trauma and stress can trigger episodes, but they're also a decade and a half old, so things may well have moved on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Did I say it's the RPG books job was to raise awareness? I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say that.

Did I say that you said that? Because I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say you said that.

I'm the one saying that it's not the job of an RPG book to raise awareness of a particular issue, because it's not. I said that because it's a salient point, not as some sort of direct rebuttal.

Quote:
Were you quoting me and directing the comment to someone else? That seems to happen a lot.

Not nearly as often as your weird presumption that responses to you themselves attributable to you. That's just bizarre.


Krensky wrote:
I remeber my psychology texts use the term acute for sudden onset and describe that trauma and stress can trigger episodes, but they're also a decade and a half old, so things may well have moved on.

Acute psychosis is a thing. Drugs, various personality disorders, depression, mania, extreme anxiety disorders, etc can bring that on. Schizophrenia describes one form of chronic psychosis, and as far as we know today, that has a serious run-up phase. Of course, it is possible that that never gets observed well, which would be interpreted as a quick onset. Note also that we are still at the threshold of understanding psychosis better, which means things change regarding diagnoses still.


Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Did I say it's the RPG books job was to raise awareness? I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say that.

Did I say that you said that? Because I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say you said that.

I'm the one saying that it's not the job of an RPG book to raise awareness of a particular issue, because it's not. I said that because it's a salient point, not as some sort of direct rebuttal.

Quote:
Were you quoting me and directing the comment to someone else? That seems to happen a lot.
Not nearly as often as your weird presumption that responses to you themselves attributable to you. That's just bizarre.

My post had nothing to do with you, I was just making a separate and different point. Why would you assume my post was a response to you?


Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

In that case, the argument for calling is "schizophrenia" is that it enhances realism. But what's being modeled is not schizophrenia. If we aren't going to model the affliction based on the real thing, why use the real name?

It's "realism", not realism.

An actual paranoid schizophrenic said to use something like confusion where the schizophrenic character would attack or flee from an empty space

You said schizophrenic people aren't more prone to violence them then the average person of their social cohort.

I pointed out that, a schitozprenic adventurerer could very well respond violently to their hallucinations because, as a cohort, adventurers are prone to violence and antisocial behavior.

Then you accused me of snark and, apparently, arguing for stereotypes or realism.

It's a game that tries to somewhat si.u late reality. Acute schizophrenia is a thing, so having as the outcome a traumatic experience isn't unrealistic. It is possibly bad game design since its inflicting a major permanent disability like loosing a leg or both eyes based on a random table since unlike most neurosis or psychosis, it's not something that time and talking can really make better. As I understand it, it's a permanent disability that needs pharmacology or, in the case of a fantasy rpg, magic to meaningfully treat or cure.

In the meantime, in a game, Goth Guru's confusion rule suggestion is good enough with a proper short description of what the disease actually is and does if you're writing a rulebook.

My point is that in the interest of realism, modeling one symptom out of dozens of symptoms is not realistic. The argument that to maintain realism, the name of the affliction must be used, is bunk, because what is being modeled is not realistic. Therefore, removing the name schizophrenia, and putting a fantastical mental affliction in it's place would do zero harm to the realism of the game.


Pathfinder usually keeps it simple. Insanity is permanent confusion. Bestow Curse simply causes minuses to everything for the duration.

Without medication, I would react to things I neither saw, heard, or felt. It was afterward I tried to guess what it felt like having some kind of spirits crawling in and out of my skin. I learned to not trust my gut because everything I just know is a symptom. I still pray, but if God ever talks to me, I'll be afraid to believe it.

I was part of a study, brain scans, blood tests, the works. My whole family has a tendency of chemical imbalance. It was bullying and forced sports that caused my specific problems. I really don't want to go off my meds.

In game, you can roll play a character as needing to buy potions of cure insanity, to control the problem for a day. They would be looking for a wish to permanently cure them. IRL I would sign up for gene therapy that turn me into someone without this burden.

You could have a character stalked by a phantasm that is causing the symptoms. Only the victim can see or even feel the monster. They won't know this is the case till someone uses invisibility purge, but in 3.5, phantasms were tough.


Irontruth wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Did I say it's the RPG books job was to raise awareness? I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say that.

Did I say that you said that? Because I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say you said that.

I'm the one saying that it's not the job of an RPG book to raise awareness of a particular issue, because it's not. I said that because it's a salient point, not as some sort of direct rebuttal.

Quote:
Were you quoting me and directing the comment to someone else? That seems to happen a lot.
Not nearly as often as your weird presumption that responses to you themselves attributable to you. That's just bizarre.
My post had nothing to do with you, I was just making a separate and different point. Why would you assume my post was a response to you?

He didn't say it was a response to him.

He took that separate and different point, and commented on it.

That is how forums work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:

Pathfinder usually keeps it simple. Insanity is permanent confusion. Bestow Curse simply causes minuses to everything for the duration.

Without medication, I would react to things I neither saw, heard, or felt. It was afterward I tried to guess what it felt like having some kind of spirits crawling in and out of my skin. I learned to not trust my gut because everything I just know is a symptom. I still pray, but if God ever talks to me, I'll be afraid to believe it.

I was part of a study, brain scans, blood tests, the works. My whole family has a tendency of chemical imbalance. It was bullying and forced sports that caused my specific problems. I really don't want to go off my meds.

In game, you can roll play a character as needing to buy potions of cure insanity, to control the problem for a day. They would be looking for a wish to permanently cure them. IRL I would sign up for gene therapy that turn me into someone without this burden.

You could have a character stalked by a phantasm that is causing the symptoms. Only the victim can see or even feel the monster. They won't know this is the case till someone uses invisibility purge, but in 3.5, phantasms were tough.

Thank you for sharing that.

Game-wise, I think your last paragraph is interesting. The concept of altering it to a sort of haunting by a force only the character can see. It definitely takes it's inspiration from the real world, it also provides greater context for what is affecting the character and how to roleplay it.

Just like RPG's routinely take things like religion or magic and makes them "real", it could take the same approach to mental disorders. What if the delusions weren't delusions, but rather the removal of filters our minds have to make it possible to cope with the world.

What if witnessing "Elder Beings" removed those filters, causing other beings who can only interact with you once you've been afflicted to be able to contact your mind? Yes, it isn't hard to trace this concept back to schizophrenia, but the point isn't to have schizophrenia, the point is to have madness be a thing in the game.

Madness from the Void

Type insanity; Save Will DC 16 Onset 1d6 days Effect –4 penalty on all Wisdom and Charisma-based skill checks; cannot take 10 or take 20; chance of becoming confused (see below)

Having witnessed horrors most can't imagine the character's perception of reality has changed. They can now see and hear beings from other dimensions who can only influence this world by communicating with the character. This is difficult for the character to rationalize and it makes every day interactions harder. In addition, during stressful situations the character sometimes can't distinguish one reality from the other. Make a Will save or be confused for 1d6 rounds.

And this gets to the crux of my argument in this: Does anyone think that the Pathfinder description for schizophrenia is better or more interesting than that?

Liberty's Edge

Other than it's not a mental illness at all?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
My post had nothing to do with you, I was just making a separate and different point. Why would you assume my post was a response to you?

Wait, is this directed at me? ;D

In all seriousness though, Rynjin had the right of it.


Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
My post had nothing to do with you, I was just making a separate and different point. Why would you assume my post was a response to you?

Wait, is this directed at me? ;D

In all seriousness though, Rynjin had the right of it.

Did I ever claim that RPG books have an obligation to raise awareness on anything?

It's a simple question, and is directed towards you, Alzrius. I'd appreciate a simple answer.


Rynjin wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Did I say it's the RPG books job was to raise awareness? I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say that.

Did I say that you said that? Because I don't think I did. Let me check. Nope, I didn't say you said that.

I'm the one saying that it's not the job of an RPG book to raise awareness of a particular issue, because it's not. I said that because it's a salient point, not as some sort of direct rebuttal.

Quote:
Were you quoting me and directing the comment to someone else? That seems to happen a lot.
Not nearly as often as your weird presumption that responses to you themselves attributable to you. That's just bizarre.
My post had nothing to do with you, I was just making a separate and different point. Why would you assume my post was a response to you?

He didn't say it was a response to him.

He took that separate and different point, and commented on it.

That is how forums work.

Yes and I'm allowed to point out that it's a straw man. No one is claiming that RPG books have an obligation to raise awareness. I have no interest in defending something I'm not saying. His quoting of me and saying that is an implication that I'm making that assertion, which I'm not.

I really don't want to debate the fiction that someone else imagines I'm saying. I'd rather defend MY ACTUAL POSITIONS and not something that someone invents for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are you even reading his posts?

I've seen little evidence of this "Strawmanning" and more every time he quotes you you say "I wasn't talking to you! Why reply to me?" or some other whine.

By all means state and defend your ACTUAL POSITIONS and explain them instead of going "Nope, that's not what I said" every time someone says something to disagree with you.

OF COURSE that's not what you said. He's DISAGREEING. His responses are NOT SUPPOSED TO be in agreement with yours when he disagrees.

Statements are statements. When someone makes a statement furthering the discussion, that doesn't mean they're saying you said that.

Watching you be so damn thick about this over the course of the last few days, willfully or not I can't be sure, has been frustrating.

Either ignore it, rebut it, or move the f~+$ on already.


Rynjin wrote:

Are you even reading his posts?

I've seen little evidence of this "Strawmanning" and more every time he quotes you you say "I wasn't talking to you! Why reply to me?" or some other whine.

By all means state and defend your ACTUAL POSITIONS and explain them instead of going "Nope, that's not what I said" every time someone says something to disagree with you.

OF COURSE that's not what you said. He's DISAGREEING. His responses are NOT SUPPOSED TO be in agreement with yours when he disagrees.

Statements are statements. When someone makes a statement furthering the discussion, that doesn't mean they're saying you said that.

Watching you be so damn thick about this over the course of the last few days, willfully or not I can't be sure, has been frustrating.

Either ignore it, rebut it, or move the f%++ on already.

I'm willing to discuss my actual positions. But when responses are responses to things that aren't my position, am I allowed to say that they aren't my position? Or do I have to defend them?

If something isn't my position, what should I do? Accept it as my position, or point out that I didn't say it, and it's not my position?

When someone attributes a position to you, but you don't hold that position, what verb would you use for that?


How about "you misunderstood me", or better still, 'I must have not explained clearly" and try again?

People are posting from all around the world, with different beliefs and assumptions. Mistakes will be made. And people sometimes either can't explain themselves clearly or grasp someone else's point of view. It doesn't mean it's malice, just different viewpoints.


I've worked at all levels of involvement in 'mental health' for over 20 years. As previously said it is a 'dynamic' field, diagnoses and treatments change, more slowly so do cultural attitudes and stigmas.

Does Pathfinder (or RPG's more generally) fairly represent Mental Ill-Health?

Overtly the answer is best expressed I think in the equalities statements of Paizo, however despite this equalities tolerant approach there are always some more subtle issues.

More subtly if you take an NPC like say, Nualia Tobyn from Rise of the Runelords (SPOILER?)

Is she evil? Is she chaotic? Is her desire for vengeance a form of mental illness? Is her religious affiliation a form of mental illness? Are all of these thing a sign of trying to cope with a series of deep traumas or the larger, darker influences at play?

In most games the reflection of mental illness will come through the actions of the pcs and the npcs. The game is a framework, yes you can guide people to have some degree of insight and tolerance but you cannot entirely legislate against stigma and intolerance (let's also remember that the attitudes of the vast majority of player characters would probably be viewed as dangerous and posing a threat to society in our world and so they may be viewed as criminally insane).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I completely understand the high tensions in this thread, as mental health is a topic that greatly affects me. With that said, can we all agree that as the rules stand, it should be a player's choice to speak up if they feel uncomfortable with the situation? If a person is part of a healthy gaming group, their group should accept that insanity is an uncomfortable topic for some people, and move on with the rest of the game. I only read through the first two pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure where everyone stands right now, but I just wanted to throw my two cp's worth out there.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Did I ever claim that RPG books have an obligation to raise awareness on anything?

No, and I never said that you did. I asked why it was that RPG books "should need to work" to raise awareness. You seem to be under the impression that I was reiterating an implication in your post, rather than directly asking the question, and I'm telling you again that you're mistaken in that regard.

As such, I'll rephrase the question. If we presume that there's virtue to be found in an RPG book trying to raise awareness of something (which I think is a pretty safe assumption to make), then do you think that there's a duty to fulfill this virtue (e.g. not doing so is "bad," in terms of being a moral failing), or is it supererogatory (e.g. not doing so does not commit any moral failing)?

Quote:
It's a simple question, and is directed towards you, Alzrius. I'd appreciate a simple answer.

Done and done.


Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Did I ever claim that RPG books have an obligation to raise awareness on anything?

No, and I never said that you did. I asked why it was that "should need to work" to raise awareness. You seem to be under the impression that I asked that because I was reiterating an implication in your post, rather than directly asking the question, and I'm telling you again that you're mistaken in that regard.

As such, I'll rephrase the question. If we presume that there's virtue to be found in an RPG book raising awareness (which I think is a pretty safe assumption to make), then do you think that there's a duty to fulfill this virtue (e.g. not doing so is "bad," in terms of being a moral failing), or is it supererogatory (e.g. not doing so does not commit any moral failing)?

Quote:
It's a simple question, and is directed towards you, Alzrius. I'd appreciate a simple answer.
Done and done.

I would appreciate if you could rephrase the question without such a heavy handed premise. It's a leading question that's attempting to paint me into a corner. If that isn't your intention, try removing the premise and asking me what my position is.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I don't think that RPG books have an obligation to raise awareness on mental health issues.

Okay, that's your answer to the question that I was asking.

Quote:
I do not hold that position, nor have I attempted to imply it.

Nor has anyone suggested otherwise.

Quote:
I have no interest in debating whether RPG books have a duty to raise awareness on mental health issues.

Except that you answered the question about what you think in this regard, so you have at least that much interest.

Quote:
I reject the premise of your question, because it pertains to a stance I do not hold.

The premise of the question was that raising awareness was virtuous in nature, and nothing you said has been in rejection of that. You have rejected the idea that RPG books have a moral duty to do so, but that wasn't the premise of the question; rather, it was the question itself, to which you answered "no."


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I would appreciate if you could rephrase the question without such a heavy handed premise.

The only premise is that raising awareness is virtuous; the rest of it is the question itself. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, unless you're disagreeing with the virtue of raising awareness in the first place.

Quote:
It's a leading question that's attempting to paint me into a corner.

Self-evidently, it is not. Nor do you have any standing to presume what my motivations are.

Quote:
If that isn't your intention, try removing the premise and asking me what my position is.

I already asked you what your position is, and you already answered (even if you've edited it away).


Alzrius, when you ask someone "Why should X do Y?", there is very definitely an implication that you think they believe that X should do Y.
There is literally no way to directly answer that question if you don't think X should do Y. All you can do is what Irontruth tried to do and reject it. It's logically the same as asking someone why they beat their wife. (Though admittedly far less offensive.)
You don't directly state they do, but the implication is very strong.

Rephrasing it, as you ultimately did to first ask "Do you think X should do Y? If so, why?" would be a far better place to start and we could eliminate a lot of unneeded back and forth.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Alzrius, when you ask someone "Why should X do Y?", there is very definitely an implication that you think they believe that X should do Y.

No, there isn't. You might choose to look at it that way, but that does not mean that the implication is necessarily present. A question that contains a premise is not the same as accusing someone else of holding that premise.

Quote:
There is literally no way to directly answer that question if you don't think X should do Y.

Self-evidently untrue. Of course there's a way to directly answer the question if you don't think that X should do why, which is to say that "X should not do Y."

What's more germane is that this has nothing to do with implying that someone else holds the underlying premise. That's entirely personal supposition.

Quote:
All you can do is what Irontruth tried to do and reject it. It's logically the same as asking someone why they beat their wife. (Though admittedly far less offensive.)

You seem to be operating under the idea that this is not "directly answering the question." This is false.

Quote:
You don't directly state they do, but the implication is very strong.

It's not only not strong, it's not even present.

Quote:
Rephrasing it, as you ultimately did to first ask "Do you think X should do Y? If so, why?" would be a far better place to start and we could eliminate a lot of unneeded back and forth.

Hence why I rephrased the question, but presuming that someone reading personal implications that were never there would have been the better place to start, and would have eliminated the unneeded back and forth.


Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I would appreciate if you could rephrase the question without such a heavy handed premise.

The only premise is that raising awareness is virtuous; the rest of it is the question itself. So I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, unless you're disagreeing with the virtue of raising awareness in the first place.

Quote:
It's a leading question that's attempting to paint me into a corner.

Self-evidently, it is not. Nor do you have any standing to presume what my motivations are.

Quote:
If that isn't your intention, try removing the premise and asking me what my position is.
I already asked you what your position is, and you already answered (even if you've edited it away).

You're right. I edit a lot. A lot. I recommend waiting a little bit until replying to me. There's no way of knowing that ahead of time, it's just a habit of mine. Not your fault.

So, now that we have that answer out of the way, do you want to discuss what I actually said? Or do you want to ask more questions about things I didn't say?

Edit: don't worry, I found an alternate solution. For everyone else, I'd love to continue talking about mental illness and RPG's, particularly in the vein of game design.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
You're right. I edit a lot. A lot. I recommend waiting a little bit until replying to me. There's no way of knowing that ahead of time, it's just a habit of mine. Not your fault.

I edit a lot too. No biggie there. That said, I'm just willing to reply to what's there when I reply, however fast that is.

Quote:
So, now that we have that answer out of the way, do you want to discuss what I actually said? Or do you want to ask more questions about things I didn't say?

There were never any questions about things you didn't say, save for your implications that there were. That said, what specifically are you looking to discuss, since you did answer the rephrased question I posed.

Quote:
Edit: don't worry, I found an alternate solution. For everyone else, I'd love to continue talking about mental illness and RPG's, particularly in the vein of game design.

You might want to mention what that solution is, presuming that it's related to the topic at hand. That said, you don't seem to want to talk about this topic, since you seem very resistant to acknowledging the questions posed to you, though I appreciate that you did eventually provide an answer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I clearly don't want to talk about this subject at all.

I've made efforts to talk about this issue as it relates to game design. You haven't asked me anything related to that. Instead, you asked questions about things I never mentioned. I think you are the one who isn't interested in the topic. I think you want to talk about a different topic.

Do you have anything to say concerning RPG game design and mental illness? Or do you only want to talk about imaginary moral crusades you think other people are on?

If you are interested in RPG game design and mental illness, you could prove it by making a post that doesn't reference anyone's real world moral obligations, but instead actually talk about game design.

From a game design perspective, which do you think is better, my "Madness of the Void" or Paizo's "Schizophrenia"? Specifically, which do you think is more evocative of a fantasy world and provides more interesting opportunities for roleplaying?

Roleplaying is that thing we do that we talk about on these forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:

Pathfinder usually keeps it simple. Insanity is permanent confusion. Bestow Curse simply causes minuses to everything for the duration.

Without medication, I would react to things I neither saw, heard, or felt. It was afterward I tried to guess what it felt like having some kind of spirits crawling in and out of my skin. I learned to not trust my gut because everything I just know is a symptom. I still pray, but if God ever talks to me, I'll be afraid to believe it.

I was part of a study, brain scans, blood tests, the works. My whole family has a tendency of chemical imbalance. It was bullying and forced sports that caused my specific problems. I really don't want to go off my meds.

In game, you can roll play a character as needing to buy potions of cure insanity, to control the problem for a day. They would be looking for a wish to permanently cure them. IRL I would sign up for gene therapy that turn me into someone without this burden.

You could have a character stalked by a phantasm that is causing the symptoms. Only the victim can see or even feel the monster. They won't know this is the case till someone uses invisibility purge, but in 3.5, phantasms were tough.

I just wanted to say thank you for sharing your experience with this. I know at times, particularly with such a stigmatized illness, that can be difficult.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Yes, I clearly don't want to talk about this subject at all.

You've made that rather plain.

Quote:
I've made efforts to talk about this issue as it relates to game design. You haven't asked me anything related to that. Instead, you asked questions about things I never mentioned. I think you are the one who isn't interested in the topic. I think you want to talk about a different topic.

Your initial statement was not so much about game design as it was about "people can feel more comfortable to speak up" if they've been "hurt by the inclusion of those rules." (Citation.)

Given that, it's fair to characterize you as also having made efforts to talk about this issue in areas other than game design. Likewise, that means that I very much want to talk about a topic that you touched on.

Quote:
Do you have anything to say concerning RPG game design and mental illness? Or do you only want to talk about imaginary moral crusades you think other people are on?

You're the one who said that "It's about making the hobby a safe place where people can play the way they want to play". Are you denying that there's a moral aspect to that particular goal? Because while I wouldn't characterize that as a crusade (making it very strange that you would), it's definitely not imaginary.

Quote:
If you are interested in RPG game design and mental illness, you could prove it by making a post that doesn't reference anyone's real world moral obligations, but instead actually talk about game design.

I have no particular need to prove it, since I'm self-evidently not talking about the game design aspect of mental illness. That's your stated goal - even though you've made many posts that don't deal with that topic in this thread - so I'm not sure why you'd presume that it was mine.

Quote:
From a game design perspective, which do you think is better, my "Madness of the Void" or Paizo's "Schizophrenia"? Specifically, which do you think is more evocative of a fantasy world and provides more interesting opportunities for roleplaying?

I think that I'm not particularly interested in the game design aspect of mental illness, and find the issue lackluster compared to the discussion around whether or not changes should be made for the sake of the disposition of real people, and why.

Quote:
Roleplaying is that thing we do that we talk about on these forums.

And yet we're in "Gamer Talk."


What is your end goal with the moral angle?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
What is your end goal with the moral angle?

To discuss it.


To what end? What's the purpose of the discussion?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
To what end? What's the purpose of the discussion?

To have an interesting exchange of ideas and viewpoints, what else?


Let's say you and I had a long talk and you completely convinced me of all your viewpoints about the morality of the issue. What would a summation of those viewpoints be?


Irontruth wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Are you even reading his posts?

I've seen little evidence of this "Strawmanning" and more every time he quotes you you say "I wasn't talking to you! Why reply to me?" or some other whine.

By all means state and defend your ACTUAL POSITIONS and explain them instead of going "Nope, that's not what I said" every time someone says something to disagree with you.

OF COURSE that's not what you said. He's DISAGREEING. His responses are NOT SUPPOSED TO be in agreement with yours when he disagrees.

Statements are statements. When someone makes a statement furthering the discussion, that doesn't mean they're saying you said that.

Watching you be so damn thick about this over the course of the last few days, willfully or not I can't be sure, has been frustrating.

Either ignore it, rebut it, or move the f%++ on already.

I'm willing to discuss my actual positions. But when responses are responses to things that aren't my position, am I allowed to say that they aren't my position? Or do I have to defend them?

If something isn't my position, what should I do? Accept it as my position, or point out that I didn't say it, and it's not my position?

When someone attributes a position to you, but you don't hold that position, what verb would you use for that?

Can DontUBelieveIt be a verb?

Go to DontUBelieveIt..

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tomcat+%22don%27t+you+believe+it%22& ;FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=7B35FD103130C1FE57CA7B35FD103130C1FE57CA


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Let's say you and I had a long talk and you completely convinced me of all your viewpoints about the morality of the issue. What would a summation of those viewpoints be?

You know you could just ask me what I think without the hypothetical, right? ;)

But to make it clear, my viewpoint on the issue can be summarized as follows: the virtue to be found in working to remove elements from fiction that some find to be unpleasant, uncomfortable, or otherwise upsetting is entirely supererogatory in nature. As such, there should be no particular condemnation leveled, whether explicitly or implicitly, against those who have no problem with said elements and wish to retain them.


Alzrius wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Let's say you and I had a long talk and you completely convinced me of all your viewpoints about the morality of the issue. What would a summation of those viewpoints be?

You know you could just ask me what I think without the hypothetical, right? ;)

But to make it clear, my viewpoint on the issue can be summarized as follows: the virtue to be found in working to remove elements from fiction that some find to be unpleasant, uncomfortable, or otherwise upsetting is entirely supererogatory in nature. As such, there should be no particular condemnation leveled, whether explicitly or implicitly, against those who have no problem with said elements and wish to retain them.

I was asking the same question all 3 times, and it wasn't until I added the hypothetical that you actually answered it. So evidently it was necessary.

I have no interest in condemning people for their preferences on this topic.

If you continue to ask me questions or make statements about my opinion on the morality of this topic, or attempt to re-engage me on the morality issue, I'm going to point you back to this statement.

I understand you like to interpret these responses as a desire to engage. I just want to make it really clear, that's my stance and that's the only stance I'm going to have, regardless of how you want to try and interpret other things I've said.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
I was asking the same question all 3 times, and it wasn't until I added the hypothetical that you actually answered it. So evidently it was necessary.

Self-evidently untrue, since each of your questions was different. Looking back over each of them.

1) Asking what my "end goal" with the "moral angle was" was a question about what I wanted out of that topic, not what my thoughts on it were.

2) Your next question asked "to what end?" and "what's the purpose" of having that discussion, which was a question about the general (rather than my specific) goals for having the discussion.

3) It was only your last question that asked what my personal thoughts on the topic itself were, rather than the purpose in talking about it to begin with.

Quote:
I have no interest in condemning people for their preferences on this topic.

And I don't recall accusing you of doing so.

Quote:
If you continue to ask me questions or make statements about my opinion on the morality of this topic, or attempt to re-engage me on the morality issue, I'm going to point you back to this statement.

And if you continue to ask me questions or make statements about my supposedly having made statements about your opinion on the morality of this topic, or attempt to re-engage with me on that issue, I'm going to point you back to this statement.

Quote:
I understand you like to interpret these responses as a desire to engage.

Your understanding is flawed. I suggest reading what I'm actually writing, and not what you seem to think I'm writing.

Quote:
I just want to make it really clear, that's my stance and that's the only stance I'm going to have, regardless of how you want to try and interpret other things I've said.

I likewise want to make it really clear that I've never said, either explicitly or implicitly, what I think your stance is, regardless of how you want to try and interpret other things that I've said.


I'll just say, one more time, when people keep misunderstanding what you're saying, it might not always be them. Possibly something with your communication style.


thejeff wrote:
I'll just say, one more time, when people keep misunderstanding what you're saying, it might not always be them. Possibly something with your communication style.

More or less why I left the conversation.

I'm just not an eloquent wordsmith.
Ssalarn more or less said everything I had to say but in a better way.

151 to 200 of 208 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / RPGs and Mental Illness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.