Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dozen" data-source="post: 5990207" data-attributes="member: 6698275">(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: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 <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/320052-need-help-coming-up-some-3-5-insanity-rules.html" target="_blank">aside from another thread from this site</a>, 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*</blockquote>

Verification