RPGs and mental health issues

[Cor Azer]

It helps us to note what the scale of "mental illness" is.

Look at physical illness - it isn't all "I'm in the ICU on a breathing tube and need a liver transplant," right? Most physical illness or injury is more like a sprained ankle that makes you limp a bit, or the head cold that makes life more difficult, and less fun, but doesn't actually stop you.

Same goes for mental illness - it isn't like everyone with "mental illness" needs to be institutionalized or on heavy meds, or something. Most of it is smaller, manageable with help and support. But, we understand it less, so we are more afraid of it, and make a bigger deal of it than we need to.

Oh sure. Apply logic and reasoning.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] My apologies if the way I expressed myself was offensive.

My sister has an ongoing battle with depression. I have fought it myself on several occasions, but never gone so far as to seek a doctor etc.

That said I personally gravitate towards people who a) do not abuse drugs
b) do not show overt signs of having mental issues

So when I asked those I knew to play, perhaps that is why I don't notice these issues with my players.

I hope it doesn't offend you that each of us has the right to choose who we game with/spend time with.

I don't choose to hang out with addicts. The drama they bring is just to much to handle I grew up around alcoholics and have no patience for it as an adult.

Now addicts who have gone through treatment and are trying to stay clean is another matter.

My rule of thumb when I pick people to play with is I don't want to play with jerks.

Yes I have seen some people who have mental health issues behave like jerks but I have also seen people who don't have a mental illness behave like jerks.

So I guess I can say I try and cull out the jerks.

I will give someone with a mental illness leeway and understanding just as I would someone with a physical disability. But I do draw the line with certain mentally ill people who have embraced their illness and use it as a reason not to have conform to society and think it gives them permission to behave any way they like.

 

[Janx]

as umbran pointed out, there's a huge range of seriousness of mental illness that we're all mostly unqualified to diagnose.

two people can have Depression and one's on a suicide watch, the other just doesn't feel "up" most of the time. But if we hear somebody say "that guy has Depression" we may gravitate to imagining the more serious version of it.


Since I'm not trained to diagnose people's illnesses, despite my best guesses, I don't rely on it for anything other than entertainment value (being no more accurate than my palmistry). I certainly try to avoid people with behaviors that would bring more trouble than value to me (criminals, liars, thieves and
people who think the character on their corn flakes is watching them).

I could certainly feel free labeling a person as an "OCD" person, but the metric for whether I let them near me has to do with what impact their behavior has on me, not what label I identify them with. I have an OCD friend and a Depression friend. Those are useless labels, except for me to account for their sometimes odd behavior (as in "oh, that must be an OCD thing, it'll pass").

For myself, I don't have anybody in my circle who exhibits extreme mental illness or criminal behaviors.

On the other hand, my wife has a friend who is a freaking magnet for trouble-people. The friend has a slew of medical issues, a family of terrible people with criminal spouses, and she frequently befriends other people who find ways to hose her over. It's a combination of bad luck (can't choose your family) and bad decisions (can choose who you let in the door).

 

[Derfmancher]

In my group we have one diagnosed case of ADD (a dime a dozen, but he is a legitimate case) and a second that has something, but I do not know what. He told me he had a mental disorder, but not what one. We also have at least one case of serious narcissism, an ego maniac, a twisted pervert, and a band geek.

Somehow we manage to function as a group. The most stable of the players tend to be the most involved, and the narcissist and the ego maniac share leadership of the party. The ADD case is actually our host.

I would be very interested to see if a full on case of OCD could even handle playing an rpg with other people and the *twitch* messes.

 

[Janx]

I game with friends - some of my friends have issues, some don't. When I've played with non-friends (or people who are not yet friends) I've followed some rules that another (gamer) friend once gave me:

People you spend time with socially (incl. gaming) should have 2 of the following 3 things:
1) A job
2) A social life outside of the activity you're meeting them for
3) A significant other.

Less is a red flag although people can be between jobs, partners etc. None of those? Avoid.

The concept is similar to what I do for determining band-member membership, but the metric are different. I'll address [MENTION=83796]nedjer[/MENTION]'s disagreement in a minute, as my metrics reveal some of the reasoning.

• must have their own transport
• must have a job/self-support (could be a retired millionaire)
• must have their own place to live (not crashing in a van or couch-hopping)

the core objective of mine or Olive's metrics is that the candidate must have their Feces Coagulated. Somebody who is always needing a ride, needing money, always looking for a place to crash does not have their act together. It's the pyramid of needs thing. Lacking a proper stable structure on the fundamentals means that stuff is more likely to intrude on the group activity.

Furthermore, I think a case can be made that if you don't have a job, you should be spending more time fixing that than working on the group activity.

Anybody with metrics on who to let in to the group is doing a Risk Assessment. What is the risk of disruption this candidate poses to the group. A guy with a car and a job and a wife COULD listen to a country music song and lose all three in the next week and cause a disruption to the group. But the probability of the disruption happening is lower for a guy who has those things, than a guy who does not.

To address some of Nedjer's points, the metrics you employ should be chosen based on their suitability to the situation. If you are 18 years old in an area with low employment, than you AND your candidates are likely living at home with no job. So don't use "must have a job" as a metric. The core goal is to verify the person has a stable living situation. They have food, a place to sleep, a place to keep their stuff and that's not likely to change, nor drive them to steal from you because you have food and they do not, nore drive them to disappear on you, because they went on an opium binge because they had nothing better to do (I am being extreme with my example).

Nedjer asserts that it is fear based. I don't think so. It's risk based. If I bring in the drummer who has no job, and is bouncing from couch to couch, he may have all the enthusiasm in the world for the band, but statistically, he'll vanish in 3 weeks time and I'll be out looking for another drummer and have to ramp him up on the music.

People who don't have their crap together have not proven their ability to be stable and in fact have higher risk of real-life emergencies that will disrupt their ability to be part of the group because they lack the resources to work around the problem with minimal disruption.

Do people who's life isn't stable want to have fun and hobbies? Sure. Should it be their top priority? Probably not. But that's not my choice to make for them. It is my choice to make on whether I let their problems add risk for me.

 

[nedjer]

The concept is similar to what I do for determining band-member membership, but the metric are different. I'll address @nedjer 's disagreement in a minute, as my metrics reveal some of the reasoning.

• must have their own transport
• must have a job/self-support (could be a retired millionaire)
• must have their own place to live (not crashing in a van or couch-hopping)

the core objective of mine or Olive's metrics is that the candidate must have their Feces Coagulated. Somebody who is always needing a ride, needing money, always looking for a place to crash does not have their act together. It's the pyramid of needs thing. Lacking a proper stable structure on the fundamentals means that stuff is more likely to intrude on the group activity.

Furthermore, I think a case can be made that if you don't have a job, you should be spending more time fixing that than working on the group activity.

Anybody with metrics on who to let in to the group is doing a Risk Assessment. What is the risk of disruption this candidate poses to the group. A guy with a car and a job and a wife COULD listen to a country music song and lose all three in the next week and cause a disruption to the group. But the probability of the disruption happening is lower for a guy who has those things, than a guy who does not.

To address some of Nedjer's points, the metrics you employ should be chosen based on their suitability to the situation. If you are 18 years old in an area with low employment, than you AND your candidates are likely living at home with no job. So don't use "must have a job" as a metric. The core goal is to verify the person has a stable living situation. They have food, a place to sleep, a place to keep their stuff and that's not likely to change, nor drive them to steal from you because you have food and they do not, nore drive them to disappear on you, because they went on an opium binge because they had nothing better to do (I am being extreme with my example).

Nedjer asserts that it is fear based. I don't think so. It's risk based. If I bring in the drummer who has no job, and is bouncing from couch to couch, he may have all the enthusiasm in the world for the band, but statistically, he'll vanish in 3 weeks time and I'll be out looking for another drummer and have to ramp him up on the music.

People who don't have their crap together have not proven their ability to be stable and in fact have higher risk of real-life emergencies that will disrupt their ability to be part of the group because they lack the resources to work around the problem with minimal disruption.

Do people who's life isn't stable want to have fun and hobbies? Sure. Should it be their top priority? Probably not. But that's not my choice to make for them. It is my choice to make on whether I let their problems add risk for me.

Enough with the merits of constipation - we can all do with a bit of fibre in the diet

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I went to Mile-Hi Con (a writing convention) back in October and talked with a gentleman I hadn't met before for a few minutes about gaming. I think his name was Steven, but I don't remember for absolute certain. Anyway, he talked about how he was in the process of creating an RPG setting to try to help people with mental illnesses. His specific example was that one of his players had depression and during the course of an adventure, that player fell into a pit trap. The rest of the party had to work together and pass several high level checks to "pull him out of his hole." From what he said, it seemed to help.

The main point of his setting was that "everything stands for something else." Personally, I'm not sure I'd like that, but if it helps his players (and potentially others with mental illness), then I'm all for it.

 

[Lwaxy]

People you spend time with socially (incl. gaming) should have 2 of the following 3 things:
1) A job
2) A social life outside of the activity you're meeting them for
3) A significant other.

Less is a red flag although people can be between jobs, partners etc. None of those? Avoid.

What would any of that have to do with whether they are good role players or not?

That's the most discriminating thing I've read until now. It would exclude more than half of my players at any given point (not counting those who still go to school of course). For a lot of people that have a disability, mental or otherwise, it is already a huge step to keep up one social activity. You have no idea, or probably don't care, how devastating it would be for someone to try and find like minded people to get out of isolation just to be rejected because they don't have any other social activities. And if everyone would be so discriminating, those people would never get in anywhere.

I'm disabled and thus I don't work. I also don't have a driving permit thanks to my bad eyes. Due to me not driving, I'm already excluded from a lot of the things I'd like to do - in fact if I had to go some distance to play RPGs I probably could not do that either as my husband has a busy job and couldn't drive me around all the time. There are plenty of others like me, and from what I see on other forums, usually they don't have a partner. Not many people put up with having to be the prospective caregiver of someone else.

There are also a lot of people who are stressed enough in their daily life, working or not working (although I hope you count a stay at home parent as working) so they can't pick more than one social activity. Today's life is full of appointments to be kept, meetings to go to... would you exclude the busy banker who lives alone and has no time for any other social stuff? Or the single mom/dad who can only get a babysitter once per week or month? Or the guy in rehab who has doctor's appointments almost every day and neither the mind nor the desire to have a partner or more social activities, and, of course, no job?

We have/had all of these, and they have all been fine role players.

Your list excludes people based on their disabilities, or even their preferences. This makes no sense to me. It makes a lot more sense to look out for behaviors disrupting the group. The personal lives of my players aren't of interest to me unless they want to talk about it. After all, this is a hobby, and I would find it worrisome if potential players get screened almost like for a job interview. In fact, that would be a red flag for me not to want to have anything to do with the group as I consider it a privacy invasion to be asked about that.

 

[MortonStromgal]

IMHO its has to do with what acceptable behavior is in the area in which you live. In places with high % of nerds gaming is accepted by the people at large and they tend to have familys, high paying jobs and still get out for a night with the guys. Rather than going to the football game they are playing D&D. If you live in a town where the CEO runs a regular game its much different than a town where the guy who cant hold a job runs a game.

 

[El Mahdi]

What would any of that have to do with whether they are good role players or not?...

That's the most discriminating thing I've read until now...

You have no idea, or probably don't care, how devastating it would be...

After all, this is a hobby...

Getting together to play an RPG is about much more than just role playing or participating in a hobby...it's participating in a social event at (usually) someone's home.

Discriminating...probably so, but I'd also say quite justified. I am discriminating as to who I let in my home, as I imagine you are to. Everyone considers whether they want someone in their home or not. That is discriminating, and we all do it, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I'm guessing you were trying to say he was being unfairly discriminatory, as in discriminating based on aspects that our society says we shouldn't...? If that's so, then I think you're absolutely wrong. I don't see anything in Olive's post that indicates that at all.

I can tell you with absolute certainty though, a persons skill at role playing is the least of my concerns or priorities when it comes to allowing people I don't know into my home, and in most cases isn't a factor at all. All I care about is that they will fit with the group (chemistry), understand the rules of polite society, and not be a jerk. Olive's criteria may not be perfect in determining if someone will fit the above, but it's a pretty good start. Someone who has a job is most likely able to work with other people (and like many others have stated, I think an income of any sort counts - and I'm betting Olive would accept this also). Having a significant other means they are likely able to interact inoffensively with others (and I think this can also subsitute for one having their own job - and yes, I'd most certainly consider a stay at home parent [not just "Moms"] as having a job). And being a part of a social activity outside of the actual gaming session means they likely know how to interact socially without being a jerk.

Also, Olive was talking specifically about people he didn't already know. It sounds to me like a very good rule of thumb to follow. Not just for RPG's, but for inclusion of anyone in a social situation in one's own home.

As to what you've said about yourself, your own description shows that you would be accepted into his home. 1: you have support (financial). 2: you have a significant other. 3: you engage in a social outlet outside of gaming in someone's home (ENWorld) - it may be related to gaming, but it's still seperate.

He also didn't say that all had to be present. He listed a preference that guests should have two out of three, and I'm betting he'd view each situation on a case by case basis. I'm also sure that like most people, vouching by friends probably goes a long way also.

As I think about what Olive said, I realize most of us probably already do this. Just maybe not as conciously codified. Can I see exceptions to those guidelines? Absolutely! But I can also see that predominantly, if someone doesn't fulfill at least two of those three criteria, and has the ability to do so but chooses not to, I probably don't want them in my house either. They may be very general criteria, but used together I can see them being quite indicative, and likely an accurate predictor in most cases.

Also, saying that Olive probably doesn't care about people with disabilities because of that one post is seriously jumping to conclusions, ascribing motivations to him that you can't possibly know, and accusing in a derogatory manner simply because of him stating his preferences.

Not Cool.