Book of Insanity

[Dozen]

(WARNING: This thread may feel extremely serious. That is, if nobody ruined the mood I tried to set.)

Before I start, I have to make some facts clear. The few days I spent here on EN World(Damn good time, I had), those more perceptive fellows who have read my posts(or rather, what's under them) may have noticed that something may be wrong with me. If so, I can confirm, because there is. As such, I was pleasantly suprised to find D&D rules on Sanity and mental disorders a great deal of time ago. And how dissapointed I was later!
First I've read the variant rules from UA. After a lot of thinking, by now I have concluded that, for whatever reason( limited time, disinterest, bad sources, etc.), the writers did an overally half-assed job. I can't talk for other people, but I also found the description of my disorder somewhat offensive beside that. I shrugged off the -4 Charisma penalty(I guess personality disorders could have that as a very, very crudely defined drawback), but the "rule" on interaction is unforgivably steep. It reads as follows:

...In addition, the attitudes of NPCs the character encounters are shifted in a negative direction. When determining NPC attitudes, the player must make a Charisma check for the character. On a successful check, the attitude of the NPC in question shifts one step toward hostile; on a failed check, the attitude of the NPC in question shifts two steps toward hostile.

See what caught me off guard? Not yet? Then let me explain. Most creatures you encounter for the first time have an attitude of Indifferent towards you. Under these rules, when someone with a personality disorder interacts with other people, and fails a barely trainable check(impeded by aforementioned penalty), those people's attitude will change to Hostile. By RAW, this means they 'will take risks to hurt' the person with the disorder.

In other, harsher words, under this rule, people like me are so utterly clusterf?ck insane you'd want to kill them or who knows what else if they've made a bad enough first impression.

They even go ahead and tell you characters with these disorders are not fit for adventuring. What don't they say. Adventuring? They are unfit to exist. Without getting too much into how the world at large doesn't work like UA thinks, let me ask you: How likely will you stab madmen for no good reason instead of them doing the same? Nonsense like this is in our territory, guys. Not yours. This might give you a scare, but most crazies are out there and lead a relatively normal life. I can understand in my case to a minimal degree - I have angered a lot of people with my antics. But believe it or not, I'm yet to be hunted by my neighbourhood. Most of the time, people with PDs aren't even looked after like I am, much less given medical care or sent to an institution; if this was a risk they'd be locked up for their own good the day they're diagnosed. What if the person in question is, say, Avoidant? You hurt her because she's... shy? Because she lacks self-esteem? After a while you may grow weary of it, but when you talk for the first time? What's the point? And not only that, but interpreted in another way, this rule would require to make that check every time she met anyone. Imagine if your best friend, your significant other, your parents, all would end up hating your guts for the real-life equalient of two failed checks each. Compared to this, the actual insanity itself would be a cakewalk.

I won't even mention the variously sensible happenstances your character's supposed to go insane from, the disorders they didn't even bother to describe properly but just mentioned for the hell of it and other faliures you'd expect by now and go on to the only other source I found aside from another thread from this site, Alessandro Baldoni's Complete Guide to Sanity. Which, despite a lot of typos and mistakes is... better, all things considered. But it's not nearly good enough.

What's really bad about both of these set of rules is that they fail to fulfill their purpose. UA gives a dry, monotone description what might as could be based on a negligent wiki walk, and CGS still only looks at the outside. They barely touch topics such as how these people feel, how might they react to those feelings, and tell you nothing about why they act the way they do or how did they end up the way they are in the first place. Instead, they tell you everything you can tell by looking at them and assume the first thing that comes into mind, sometimes missing the whole point completely. They treat the mentally ill like distant weirdos. You can't roleplay anything remotely resembling reality when you're only given a bunch of numbers and tables. Any application I could think of are parodies of real people who are nothing like what these rules suggest. That may be fun, but I don't like it, and I'm sure it would be just as enjoyable if the rules made sense.

So today I decided to do something about that. And since I have no idea about any other disorders but mine to the degree necessary, if I want a rulebook worthy of typing it down, I'll need sources. If anyone can help me with rules, descriptions, tables or whatever else you can think of, please post here, or PM me.

And man, I managed to stay half serious until I wrote this down. Go me! *pats self*

 

[Greenfield]

Let's talk about what it takes to be an adventurer in most parties (because nobody's an adventurer on their own.)

As an Adventurer, I'm going to go to war, or into the wilderness, or into a vermin infested hole in the ground, or pirate hunting on the high seas.

Anyone who ends up as part of the regular troupe I travel with has to be someone I can trust with my life. Literally.

And they have to be able to trust me with theirs. Literally.

Why? Because that's exactly what you do every time you find yourself in a fight. You have to trust that I won't break and run. leaving you to buy my life with yours. You have to trust me to cover your back, and risk my life to dig you out of trouble, when you're cornered and getting overwhelmed.

Maybe we're evil as hell, or maybe we're saints in training. We might be rollicking outlaws or Temple Knights trying to bring order to a lawless world. We might be the most untrustworthy blackguards the world has ever known.

But not to each other. We can't be, or we're both dead. As soon as one of us betrays that trust, nobody else in the party will be able to trust them any more and they're back to trying to be a lone adventurer, a career choice that's typically terminal.

So the question is, can we trust someone who can't control their own actions? Someone truly who can't trust themselves?

If we can't, then they can't adventure with us. Simple as that. This is why the Tasselhoff clones out there never seem to do well in a group, no matter how much fun such characters look in the books. When I'm in the thick of it and I reach for my dagger or my spell pouch and it's not there, somebody's in deep. It might be me, it might be someone I was trying to help, but somebody's about to go skinny dipping in a Quisinart because "Hassletoff" couldn't control his Kleptomania.

And it won't just be my group they'll get rejected from. Any other group they try to hook up with is going to have pretty much the same problem, and will most likely employ the same solution: "Sorry, can't use you."

So yeah, characters with particular types of Insanity/"personality disorder" issues may well not be qualified to become adventurers.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the reality of this particular fantasy. We don't often think about it in those terms, but there it is.

 

[Dozen]

So the question is, can we trust someone who can't control their own actions? Someone truly who can't trust themselves?

Okay, this hurt a little bit. You're onto the hardest issue at hand. But the short answer is yes. More on it below.

If we can't, then they can't adventure with us. Simple as that. This is why the Tasselhoff clones out there never seem to do well in a group, no matter how much fun such characters look in the books. When I'm in the thick of it and I reach for my dagger or my spell pouch and it's not there, somebody's in deep. It might be me, it might be someone I was trying to help, but somebody's about to go skinny dipping in a Quisinart because "Hassletoff" couldn't control his Kleptomania.

Exactly what I meant by 'parodies of real people who are nothing like what these rules suggest'. Kender are hilarious, yes, and really are unplayable. Kender aren't just kleptomaniacs, they suffer from severe delusions along with that. Not only they frequently steal from people, they also don't realize it, not even when presented with cold facts. Their minds come up with a story to save their own self-image the instant somebody's onto them. They aren't lying: They're dead serious. And likely, dead. If it weren't for their versatility as a race(i.e. breeding like rabbits to balance out the mortality rate and having good stats), they'd have been wiped out from Krynn eons ago.

What most people don't think about is that taking up insanity is a serious issue in a game, not an inside joke. The original Dragonlance party put up with Tasselhoff because the poor soul was their friend and they couldn't leave him to die alone with a clear conscience. A professional group would never allow a kender to join. I'm able to function properly because I make sure my problems doesn't become someone else's. This is how all real insane people manage to live normally(if they manage). For a kender, that's impossible, and as such he forces the party members to take care of him while he merrily messes up everything. Cleaning up after someone else is not fun. The players are adventurers, not nurses. It's not what they signed up for.

I'm not saying there won't be any issues with the party's loon, but 'Hassletoff' was very inconsiderate and not thinking logically even within the limits of the disorder he took. If you value your party members to the smallest extent possible, making sure you won't cause trouble to the very beings you spend your daily life with should be your foremost concern. Toppling insanity with stupidity is the player's fault.

And you know what? This shall be our first rule.

All player characters with various mental disorders should be aware of their condition and willing to take precautions accordingly to function as a useful member of both their group and society.

I think this sums it up. What do you think?

 

[Greenfield]

Well, I think the rules of the game are exactly that: Rules for a game.

As in, they aren't real and shouldn't be construed as a commentary on reality.

IRL, the average Joe can't maintain a top speed sprint for a minute. Even Olympic grade athletes would have a hard time matching that feat. But in D&D, that's the rule.

I know of no mental illness that causes people to vary, on a six second cycle, between acting normally, wandering in some random direction, stand in place and do nothing, and attacking their nearest friend. Add or subtract from that list s you choose, it still ain't real.

And we shouldn't pretend that it is.

D&D is openly racist. You can look at someone, note their race, and make a solid, fairly reliable guess at whether they're a good person, a law abiding citizen, or a mass murderer waiting to strike.

How reliable is that sort of thing in real life? Hint: Police departments across the country are being sued for it on a regular basis.

So while you might find the description of Insanity offensive, consider it this way: When it describes a condition as provoking "uncontrollable" behavior, and you find that the condition is controllable in your experience, then they're clearly talking about a much more serious case than yours.

Either that, or it's a game. Take your pick.

 

[kingius]

You're right, it's a rules framework for a game that is pure fantasy. The idea is to drop the bits you don't like and have fun.

This said, the way I view insanity in D&D is not the way that 20th and 21st century Psychiatrists do. In our world, the drug companies realised that if they wanted to sell more drugs, they needed to get a bigger market. Not long after this, a whole host of very normal and natural mental conditions got reclassified as 'mental disorders' and so drugs got presecribed. You are not sad, you are /depressed/ and there is a drug for that. You are grieving for too long, you are /depressed/ and (see earlier). A couple of examples there.

Anyway, back into the game. These kind of 'mental disorders' are not the way that I see insanity in D&D at all. Insanity in D&D I see as full blown schizophrenia (or worse). A sort of berserk, alternating state, likely the worse kind of insanity that gets diagnosed in our world. A fantasy, exaggerated, very frightening version, like when a person is in infected with rabies, or the red mist has descended, or they are afflicated with psychopathy, or are possessed. That's my idea of D&D insanity.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

I'm confused, is this thread a critique of the game's approach to a real life issue?

If so, I'm not sure how well the two can be compared.

I an understand taking personal offense to a game not giving enough credibility or respect to a real life issue, but I don't think any particular rule is intended to be an accurate depiction of reality. Often enough, reality is ignored for the purposes of simplification and entertainment.

As an example, In real life, I take a much stricter stance on killing sentient creatures than I do in the game. The game simply allows way to much murder for seemingly mediocre reasons. Fun in game, not so fun in real life. Etc.

 

[Dozen]

The three of you missed the point of this thread. I'm not just badmouthing how silly Sanity rules are in 3rd edition. The rules we are currently presented with are not playable in D&D. Greenfield himself pointed out how silly and annoying the current rules for manias are, and the rest is no better. I want to fix them, to make them become enjoyable, and I have clear-cut concepts. I merely asked for help, though those who are not locos or have no experience with them will only be able to after I post some of those concepts here or in their own thread.

This said, the way I view insanity in D&D is not the way that 20th and 21st century Psychiatrists do. In our world, the drug companies realised that if they wanted to sell more drugs, they needed to get a bigger market. Not long after this, a whole host of very normal and natural mental conditions got reclassified as 'mental disorders' and so drugs got presecribed. You are not sad, you are /depressed/ and there is a drug for that. You are grieving for too long, you are /depressed/ and (see earlier). A couple of examples there.

Of course, cases when half-certified psychiatrists try to squeeze your money out of you pop up once in a while. You're reading too much into it, though. There are different kinds of disorders of varying severity.
Next to all kinds of insanity is a natural occurrence among humans. Schizophrenia is one of the few exceptions. The cause of this is ol' horrible Society who expects us to benefit it. If you can't, what you 'have' is called a 'disorder', and you are referred to as 'insane'. If your sadness impedes your daily life, you have Depression, and it's a real thing because we have made it one. It should be taken care of, because in this world, it sucks and likely will for a long time. If it takes meds, so be it, though Depression can rarely be cured with pills; if someone prescribed drugs for me for any mental disorder as the first solution I'd leave him on the spot myself.

IRL, the average Joe can't maintain a top speed sprint for a minute. Even Olympic grade athletes would have a hard time matching that feat. But in D&D, that's the rule.

I don't know where you got this from, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Since when is 20 kms per hour speed? That's not a sprint, that's almost the bare minimum. The world records for short-term races where sprinting is viable are far above 30 kmph. I walk at 8, for goodness' sake, 20 was a challenge when I was 10 years old! I can run(30 feetx4, if you prefer) unburdened for a minute without effort to speak of, and while I run as a sport, an athlete would beat me so hard it'd pass funny, turn around at pitiable and become funny again. A human can run at the equalient of Run(x4) movement speed for up to a mile after proper training. That's 3-5 minutes. What do we know, sometimes D&D is ridiculous the other way around.

I know of no mental illness that causes people to vary, on a six second cycle, between acting normally, wandering in some random direction, stand in place and do nothing, and attacking their nearest friend. Add or subtract from that list s you choose, it still ain't real.

And we shouldn't pretend that it is.

Actually, I can't see a problem with this. Adding new kinds of insanity to the list of real illnesses is perfectly fine. I'm only dissapointed by the rules and descriptions they came up for the real ones.

So while you might find the description of Insanity offensive, consider it this way: When it describes a condition as provoking "uncontrollable" behavior, and you find that the condition is controllable in your experience, then they're clearly talking about a much more serious case than yours.

Okay, there might be some unlucky people who can't manage that. I understand. But I don't understand why would you try to roleplay someone who can't(due to what you said, I'd bet you can't either), and I still can't even imagine what could you possibly say or do to make normal people, family included, hurt you when that wasn't your goal, even less so on a regular basis. This is yet to address your point, I know. So let me quote UA yet again:

These long-term disorders have almost constant effects on a character’s behavior, making it difficult for him to interact with others and often making him unpleasant to be around as well. This is an important point to keep in mind when roleplaying— few players want to spend time with another player character suffering from a personality disorder.
...
DMs should realize that, while these traits may work for an interesting NPC from whom the players must extract information or a favor, their antisocial nature makes them ill-suited for members of an adventuring party.

They phrase it like all of them were social rejects. Flavor. Part of the scenery. Not just some. All of them. They also say next to nobody in his right mind would willingly spend time with them. This is a horrible premise. And UA knows it, because the writers also realize these rules aren't fit for PCs. They said so right there. The rules for these disorders are intentionally for NPCs only. This means I literally can not roleplay my very real life-born self in a fantasy world set in the magical Middle Ages because and only because they said I'm not up to it.
At least let me have a try, Greenfield. We shall see if my homebrew works out.

D&D is openly racist. You can look at someone, note their race, and make a solid, fairly reliable guess at whether they're a good person, a law abiding citizen, or a mass murderer waiting to strike.

You'd be suprised how many times I had to explain this.

In short? You can play it the other way. Usually Evil is still just usually, and even if someone is evil or from a race that naturally is, you don't have to kill him, gods. An evil being can be nice, can be your friend, can be useful, just as a good one can be mean, annoying and a bother to those around him. Even a paladin can leave them be and still keep his powers. Nobody forces you to be racist. Or, if your DM did, your DM is bad at this. I never ran a serious campaign this way, never will, and I'm proud of it. You want to befriend that hobgoblin? You totally can. He could be Neutral for all you know, but even if he isn't, you still like him, and I'm giving you a fair chance at it. Hell, I had the opporturnity to observe a game where a Chaotic Evil Ancient White Dragon was honest to gods full time pals with a Lawful Good Dwarven Fighter. Alignment never really came into it, and the rulebooks never said so. It could be on your con list, but even then it's something you decide, not them, and especially not me.

And while I can't control players, I'm in control of everything else. If I want to run a realistic campaign, I can and will interpret the rules as it supports me. If the core is silly or doesn't make sense, I can change it with a flicker. The books are on my payroll, not the other way around. This is how it was supposed to be since Gygax and Arneson built the foundations. This is how it is supposed to be now.

I am, Sir, a Dungeon Master. My World, My Rules. If I want a game to become realistic and fun at the same time, I will make it so. Text hasn't ever and is not going to stop me!

 

[Greenfield]

Wow. Just wow.

Schizophrenia is somehow society's fault? Not the byproduct of a chemical imbalance in the brain, causing visual and/or auditory hallucinations of non-existent people? I'd make some joke about "I'll have to ask the voices about that", but in context that wouldn't be very funny.

Most 'disorders' are perfectly normal behaviors taken to abnormal extremes. Normal caution becomes paranoia, when taken to extreme.

Normal mood swings become bipolar, or "Manic/Depressive" when taken to extremes.

Many types of "Dementia", as viewed traditionally, we now know are the result of brain damage caused by certain diseases. I suppose we could call that "society's fault", in that the most common causes were generically labeled as "Social diseases", but that's more an accident of language than anything else, and borders on topics that are off limits on these boards.

I know a young man whose birth mother had a bad (sniff-sniff) habit. His adoptive parents did their best with him, but prenatal drug exposure left him with a lot of problems. The proper term is "moderate function Sociopath". Not the first straw, but the last was when he helped his friends rob the family home, then ran away with them to live under a bridge. When found, he was shocked that the police had been called. He honestly didn't understand why he shouldn't be allowed to go where he wanted, do whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted. Including acts of violence, which was what he was engaged in when the police picked him up.

His behavior, his total lack of comprehension that he had done anything wrong, and his utter lack of remorse, isn't something that "Society" invented or created. Would you want to "adventure" with someone like that?

For the record, it's very politically incorrect to refer to someone as being "insane", and in fact modern mental health professionals stopped using that term a while ago.

Regarding sprint speeds: I never mentioned what that speed was, so I don't know where you got the 20 KPS figure from.

All I said was that, according to D&D rules, a character can maintain a Run for one round per CON point, which means 10 rounds for the average Joe, which is a minute. If you want to run the numbers, we can. Competition grade sprinter, normal Human with the Run feat, moves 30 x 5 in a Run. That's 150 feet in six seconds, or 300 feet/100 yards in 12. Olympic grade sprinter has a Barbarian base move of 40, times 5 when Running, or 200 feet in six seconds, 100 yard dash times at about 9 seconds.

Sounds right to me. But that's another topic. My point was that there are a lot of game rules that are unrealistic, and the ability to maintain a full on sprint for a minute plus is far beyond what "normal people" can do.

Over all, consider that there are a lot of rules in D&D that aren't intended for PCs. The Commoner class, and its NPC cousins Adept, Warrior and Expert come to mind immediately. Entire classes designed to be second best, also rans, the background characters of the world. Consider that the Insanity rules may well fall into this category. The very fact that they say, right out, that people suffering from various Insanity conditions are unsuitable to be adventurers is probably a clue on this.

In D&D, PCs are better, hands down, than "normal folk". Better stats, better class options, better spell selections, better hit points, just plan better.

Why are you surprised that they're also better than the abnormal folk? (No offense intended.)

 

[Greenfield]

Duplicate post - Please Delete

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

The three of you missed the point of this thread. I'm not just badmouthing how silly Sanity rules are in 3rd edition. The rules we are currently presented with are not playable in D&D. Greenfield himself pointed out how silly and annoying the current rules for manias are, and the rest is no better. I want to fix them, to make them become enjoyable, and I have clear-cut concepts.

Oh. I did not get that from your original post.