Treating Crazies.

[Richardson]

In our casual game we have a Crazy. He is played a bit goofy in that the player chose to play him thinking he's the main character in a 1940's private detective novel, but the out of date vocabulary, political references, etc. have been very enjoyable and added a lot to the game. He's also the party's only Man-at-arms class and the combat encounters thusfar would have been literally impossible without him.

Well we hit level 3 and unfortunately got a terrible roll on the Affective Disorders insanity table and now he has the final entry; blindness. This is... so debilitating that honestly no one would blame him for scrapping the character entirely.

Because it's a psychosomatic blindness he can't just have a party member cure blindness or activate some bionic 3red eye or anything goofy like that. In fact the only way I can think of to keep this stress-based crippling penalty at bay is to be on so many drugs he effectively cant feel stress. Even those penalties are likely far better than the -10 to everything from being blind.

We are trying not to homebrew something like a magical D-Bee who can just poof it away because the player is trying to roll with it. I don't actually see anything in the Crazy entry saying that their non-Crazy specific insanity table can't be treated with the listed rules for overcoming inanities in the Ultimate book via therapy and time. But we aren't going to put things on hold for 3 months while he sees a shrink. Can you guys think of a way to mitigate the effects of Hysterical Blindness? Can you remember any serious beta blocker drugs listed and if so from what book? Maybe mystic herbalism from England has something? Some psychic power that keeps you calm and focused? What are we missing to help this player out?

[Curbludgeon]

Long time no post, Richardson. Welcome back.

It feels a little counterproductive trying to treat the insanity tables as being in any way reasonable, but conversion disorders such as blindness due to a psychological stressor don't really respond to chemical treatment, save perhaps in dealing with associated anxiety or depression.

There are a couple of psionic options found in other settings' books. In Beyond the Supernatural there's the healing psionic power Cure Insanity (Temporary), such that for 15 I.S.P. the condition can be repressed for 1d8x10 hours. The Palladium Fantasy main book has the in this case likely less useful super psionic power Cure Insanity, where for 30 or 40 I.S.P. the character can make a save vs. psionics (12 or better in this case). If they fail the condition goes into remission until the next triggering event, upon which there's a 10% chance the blindness would return. For 2d6 I.S.P. burn the cure can be made permanent.

[Killer Cyborg]

In Rifts Japan, they have Ninja Crazies who use meditation and other techniques to reduce their insanities, IIRC.

[Richardson]

It looks like one of his starting powers is Intuitive Combat. That creates a "Zen-like state" which might qualify as stress-free and keep the trigger from forcing the roll to see if he goes blind.

[Mack]

I'd be tempted to ask the GM for a "in-game" re-reroll. Spend a session hunting for a special shaman (could be a short adventure itself) who performs a bonkers ritual on the Crazy, with the result being the GM allowing him to reroll his level 3 insanity.

(I'm not a big a fan of the random tables for a Crazy--the player should have a bit more control.)

[ShadowLogan]

In Rifts Japan, they have Ninja Crazies who use meditation and other techniques to reduce their insanities, IIRC.

World Book 8 pg87 power #9 (complete OCC is on pg86-8), "meditation and therapy allows them to control their insanities for 3d4 days at a stretch", it requires saving throws (Ninja Crazy gets bonus to save) and details how much time is spent on meditation/therapy. This though seems to be a unique feature of the class variant, though it implies that the insanities can not be cured.

Well we hit level 3 and unfortunately got a terrible roll on the Affective Disorders insanity table and now he has the final entry; blindness. This is... so debilitating that honestly no one would blame him for scrapping the character entirely.

Given that it is being under pressure that triggers the blindness, it might be worth considering what battle situations the character would be considered "under pressure". If the character has a track record of handling X battle situation(s) previously they might not consider future encounters like X to be "pressure situations" unless some other variable is in play.

The duration is short, but that could still be to long as it is a random roll (the GM could "roll" for the duration, and give the player the minimum result). The Crazy though is not completely dependent on their vision, they do have other senses that are also heightened given they can also dodge attacks from behind, which IMHO means that the -10 dodge penalty would not apply (strike/parry I can see still applying).

The GM could allow certain existing powers (example See Aura) would allow the Crazy to see, just differently (in the case of See Aura they'd see the outline aura pattern of people/objects, but not the people/objects themself).

[Orin J.]

while everyone is acting on the assumption of total blindness, the table itself leaves the degree of blindness up to the discretion of the GM, so if he wants you to be completely blind that's one thing but if you discuss it with the GM you can probably hammer out a suitable level of blindness relating to their other issues (goes colorblind in a gunfight, but if they see THAT ONE DANG TREE their eyes black out entirely or something).

EDIT: left out the word "total" which was kind of what the whole sentence was hanging on.....

[drewkitty ~..~]

How to treat psychosomatic blindness...

Since it is all in his head normal means will not work. So abnormal means should work better. Like getting the character "magic eyeglasses" *wink wink, nudge nudge* that cure his specific form of blindness. In other words using a psychosomatic cure for the psychosomatic disability.

Of course the first step of setting up the cure is taking the character to an optometrist that is in on the skeam. So the char will believe that when he wears those eyeglasses, he will be able to see.

[Library Ogre]

It looks like one of his starting powers is Intuitive Combat. That creates a "Zen-like state" which might qualify as stress-free and keep the trigger from forcing the roll to see if he goes blind.

I really like this. He gets stressed outside of combat, and he can't see. He gets into combat (maybe when his sixth sense triggers, if he has that), and his stress disappears and he's able to see perfectly.

[glitterboy2098]

as mentioned, the result is up to the GM, so you could easily rule that he only goes blind in one eye (with some small targeting penalty or whatever). and as mentioned, since the trigger is stress, the fact he's a crazy means that it should only really be triggering in only the most extreme events, since his augmentations ought to give him self-confidence in most battle scenarios and such.

alternately, just have the char reroll. (if need be handwave a "diagnostic cycle" on his implants or something to explain what has been played so far)

[Mack]

(if need be handwave a "diagnostic cycle" on his implants or something to explain what has been played so far)

That leads to an interesting house rule... the character may choose to have a Cyberdoc conduct a 'tune-up,' and may re-roll his insanities. Could even tie in the Cyberdoc's skill roll into it, with tougher rolls required for different types of insanity. Something like:
-- Phobia 60%
-- Affective Disorder 50%
-- Random Crazy Insanity 40%
-- Obsession 70%
-- Psychosis 40%

"Doc, ya gotta help me with this fear of Bursters... I gotta good job lined up but I'm working with two of 'em! There's gotta be something you can tweak!!"
"Well, alright. I'll take a look. But I can't guarantee anything, and the fear-feedback-loop will probably manifest with something else..."
"Just do it Doc!"
"Oh, you've got some of those Bandito models from out west... I don't normally work with those but it should be pretty much the same..."

[Borast]

It looks like one of his starting powers is Intuitive Combat. That creates a "Zen-like state" which might qualify as stress-free and keep the trigger from forcing the roll to see if he goes blind.

I this is something like the superpower, I'd say the stress is set aside until the combat is over...THEN the blindness would begin for a duration, until the post combat stress/"high" went away.

Alternatively, he could become blind to everything BUT his chosen opponent. (And thereafter useless until after he calmed down.)

However, depending on the stress required to trigger the blindness, consider that many/most crazies and juicers look at combat as a way to RELIEVE stress.

[Richardson]

"96-00% Hysterical Blindness. When under pressure (battle, an important
opportunity, torture, interrogation, etc.), the character loses his
sight until the pressure is removed. Roll for each situation, 01-88%
likelihood of happening. -10 to strike, parry, dodge and all combat rolls
while blind; no initiative and skill performance is half. Blindness lasts
for ID6+I melee rounds."

--Rifts Ultimate Ed. pg. 333

There's definitely some wiggle room here for an interpretation of "under pressure" as defined by a normal person vs. a person who honestly thinks they are the main character in a PI Drama. Also never noticed that it's not 1d6+1 it's Id5+I. Invalidated due to editing? Or intentionally edited because i is math for an imaginary integer way back in Algebra I days? lol

[Borast]

"96-00% Hysterical Blindness. When under pressure (battle, an important
opportunity, torture, interrogation, etc.), the character loses his
sight until the pressure is removed. Roll for each situation, 01-88%
likelihood of happening. -10 to strike, parry, dodge and all combat rolls
while blind; no initiative and skill performance is half. Blindness lasts
for ID6+I melee rounds."

--Rifts Ultimate Ed. pg. 333

There's definitely some wiggle room here for an interpretation of "under pressure" as defined by a normal person vs. a person who honestly thinks they are the main character in a PI Drama. Also never noticed that it's not 1d6+1 it's Id5+I. Invalidated due to editing? Or intentionally edited because i is math for an imaginary integer way back in Algebra I days? lol

Maybe the original typist is used to the olden days when one had to use the ell key (lower case) to indicate a numeral "1"?

Algebra was fun...Calculus was annoying!

[glitterboy2098]

If you using a PDF copy, could just be text recognition error from the conversion. l, I, and 1 are all pretty similar and easy mistakes for the computer.

[Kraynic]

If you using a PDF copy, could just be text recognition error from the conversion. l, I, and 1 are all pretty similar and easy mistakes for the computer.

Yeah, and it can be even more fun with some of the older books. When I started entering some info on Roll20, it took me a bit to figure out that something like 10O7o was simply 10%....

[Hotrod]

Personally, I'd scrap the character and start over, but I've been burned by bad experiences with players using their Crazy character as an excuse to troll everyone, mess up games, and ruin others' fun. I've heard of Crazies being played in creative and good ways, but I've never seen the class be anything but a detriment to the experience of playing/GMing Rifts. It's an interesting concept in theory, but in practice it's an element I'd rather see altered or removed from the setting/game.

[Killer Cyborg]

Personally, I'd scrap the character and start over, but I've been burned by bad experiences with players using their Crazy character as an excuse to troll everyone, mess up games, and ruin others' fun. I've heard of Crazies being played in creative and good ways, but I've never seen the class be anything but a detriment to the experience of playing/GMing Rifts. It's an interesting concept in theory, but in practice it's an element I'd rather see altered or removed from the setting/game.

What percentage of the problems with Crazies that you've encountered basically boil down to "people want all crazies to be Fiskmalks?"

[Hotrod]

Personally, I'd scrap the character and start over, but I've been burned by bad experiences with players using their Crazy character as an excuse to troll everyone, mess up games, and ruin others' fun. I've heard of Crazies being played in creative and good ways, but I've never seen the class be anything but a detriment to the experience of playing/GMing Rifts. It's an interesting concept in theory, but in practice it's an element I'd rather see altered or removed from the setting/game.

What percentage of the problems with Crazies that you've encountered basically boil down to "people want all crazies to be Fiskmalks?"

My first experience with a crazy player featured that player deliberately sabotaging every single plan the party came up with in an adventure and defending it as playing in-character due to insanities. That dude was the least disruptive Crazy player I ever played with. My second experience, the Crazy player interrupted everyone, all the time, in real life, just to say random crap that the player found funny (but no-one else did), and he defended these interruptions as in-character thoughts and communications until we eventually kicked him out. The final experience I had with a Crazy in the party was a player who used his character's insanity as an excuse to murder other party members.

So in my three experiences, one was annoying and disruptive, one prevented us from playing the game, and one actively tried to ruin the game for specific other people. After that last time, I never played with a Crazy player again. Shoot, I won't even use them as N.P.C.'s. I can always whip up a crazy villain without making that villain a Crazy.

Crazies are the Kender of Rifts. They're tailor-made to grief other players and GMs. That's been my experience with the class.

(warning: foul language in the above link)

[Killer Cyborg]

Personally, I'd scrap the character and start over, but I've been burned by bad experiences with players using their Crazy character as an excuse to troll everyone, mess up games, and ruin others' fun. I've heard of Crazies being played in creative and good ways, but I've never seen the class be anything but a detriment to the experience of playing/GMing Rifts. It's an interesting concept in theory, but in practice it's an element I'd rather see altered or removed from the setting/game.

What percentage of the problems with Crazies that you've encountered basically boil down to "people want all crazies to be Fiskmalks?"

My first experience with a crazy player featured that player deliberately sabotaging every single plan the party came up with in an adventure and defending it as playing in-character due to insanities. That dude was the least disruptive Crazy player I ever played with. My second experience, the Crazy player interrupted everyone, all the time, in real life, just to say random crap that the player found funny (but no-one else did), and he defended these interruptions as in-character thoughts and communications until we eventually kicked him out. The final experience I had with a Crazy in the party was a player who used his character's insanity as an excuse to murder other party members.

So in my three experiences, one was annoying and disruptive, one prevented us from playing the game, and one actively tried to ruin the game for specific other people. After that last time, I never played with a Crazy player again. Shoot, I won't even use them as N.P.C.'s. I can always whip up a crazy villain without making that villain a Crazy.

Crazies are the Kender of Rifts, but even worse. That's been my experience with the class.

(warning: foul language in the above link)

"Kender of Rifts" is a good way of putting it, and yeah, it does sound like it's not so much a problem with the OCC as it is with the players who are drawn to that OCC, similar to the Malkavians.
I sometimes wonder how things would have worked out if KS hadn't described the OCC as being Daffy-Duck like zany characters, because I've found that Crazies are usually pretty cool if you treat them a bit more seriously.
I don't think I've ever had a problem with running Crazies that came from the mechanics of the class itself, but problems with the ways players PLAY them are pretty common.

[Mack]

Reminds of a NPC team I was toying around with... it was a small group of Crazies (4 to 6) but led by one who was obsessed with proving Crazies could be professional. He wouldn't tolerate wackiness, and part of being on the team was committing to helping each other cope/avoid outlandish behaviors. (If one has a fear of spiders, the others would always squish 'em before it could trigger the one.) The idea was through teamwork they could mitigate each other's insanities. Even had the thought that each would have a stun baton mounted inside their armor, with the team leader carrying a remote control (get too far out of line, take a nap).

I'm a fan of the class, but pretty much hate the Daffy Duck addition made in RUE and ignore it.

As written, the Crazy is a character where the GM needs to have a talk with the player before allowing it into the game. And the GM shouldn't be afraid to use a Cow-from-Space if needed.

[ShonicBurn]

I’m pretty sure that psychology is under the medical skills for situations like these. You can’t cure it but a good psychologist should be able to help mitigate the effects. Or help even cure the damage. Would take time though.

[Richardson]

Some of you might be interested to know this hasnt come up once in any session since he rolled it. We have managed to keep everything role-play or "suitably in character" enough for him that the blindness has yet to be triggered. Unexpectedly less of an issue than we thought.

[Arrow21570]

Some of you might be interested to know this hasnt come up once in any session since he rolled it. We have managed to keep everything role-play or "suitably in character" enough for him that the blindness has yet to be triggered. Unexpectedly less of an issue than we thought.

Maybe the Crazy could train with the Blind Mystic fighters from China 2 or even make a trip to Psyscape to learn to open the Third Eye in the same or similar manner to what the Blind Mystic does, think Zatoichi. https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/1012-zatoichi-the-blind-swordsman

[Blue_Lion]

I'd be tempted to ask the GM for a "in-game" re-reroll. Spend a session hunting for a special shaman (could be a short adventure itself) who performs a bonkers ritual on the Crazy, with the result being the GM allowing him to reroll his level 3 insanity.

(I'm not a big a fan of the random tables for a Crazy--the player should have a bit more control.)

There is a spell on the books that might help. From Nightbane. It is called Someone Makes them. PG 63 through the glass darkly. Level 15 and 920 PPE to cast but it should be what is needed.

"And with more care (a successful I.Q. roll is required), the caster can cure or create addictions, implant or remove psychopathic urges or other insanities, change the character' s alignment, manipulate the target' s sense of who s/he is, implant or remove obsessions and cravings, give the target memories of nonexistent places or people (new friends and enemies), or generally do anything else which s/he wants to the poor victim ' s psyche."

[Fenris2020]

Thought it might be a post about taking Crazies out to ice-cream or something.

[ITWastrel]

As a GM I never require a player character to make a random roll on a table that could fundamentally alter or ruin their toon.

Some GMs may feel differently, but for every time a player is okay with such a roll there seems to be a time where the player just loses interest after their favorite ass kicker is suddenly rewritten by random table.

I would recommend the player ask his GM for a MacGuffin of Fixing*.
Let your GM know that this change by random table has ruined the players love of the toon. A good GM will put the fun of the game above following a rule every time.



*A MacGuffin of Fixing is any object inserted into a game by the GM for the specific purpose of correcting a player mistake or bad roll.

[Curbludgeon]

I largely agree with this, and might only quibble on what constitutes a fundamental change. If, in a game of Paranoia, the members of a six pack have random mutations that's one thing. Simultaneously denying player agency and presenting an approach to modeling mental illness via a page filler random table approach to sanity itself both reprinted a laughable number of times and insultingly oblivious when first written in the 1980s is another.

[ITWastrel]

I largely agree with this, and might only quibble on what constitutes a fundamental change. If, in a game of Paranoia, the members of a six pack have random mutations that's one thing. Simultaneously denying player agency and presenting an approach to modeling mental illness via a page filler random table approach to sanity itself both reprinted a laughable number of times and insultingly oblivious when first written in the 1980s is another.

I think we can all agree that the insanity tables are at least insulting, and definitely offensive to modern sensibilities.

I would go so far as to say that these tables are an insult to, and a mockery of, the real struggles that those with mental illness suffer every day.

Just because they've always been there, doesn't mean they have to be in the future.

I would suggest that someone at palladium, maybe KS, take some time to think about what they want Palladium Books to truly represent. As of right now, it does not represent inclusivity.

We need a rewrite.

[Fenris2020]

I largely agree with this, and might only quibble on what constitutes a fundamental change. If, in a game of Paranoia, the members of a six pack have random mutations that's one thing. Simultaneously denying player agency and presenting an approach to modeling mental illness via a page filler random table approach to sanity itself both reprinted a laughable number of times and insultingly oblivious when first written in the 1980s is another.

I think we can all agree that the insanity tables are at least insulting, and definitely offensive to modern sensibilities.

I would go so far as to say that these tables are an insult to, and a mockery of, the real struggles that those with mental illness suffer every day.

Just because they've always been there, doesn't mean they have to be in the future.

I would suggest that someone at palladium, maybe KS, take some time to think about what they want Palladium Books to truly represent. As of right now, it does not represent inclusivity.

We need a rewrite.

Not really. It's a game, it does somewhat reflect in a way how one can go mad when exposed to traumatic experience. Research WWI, II, Korean War, and so on veterans sometime.
Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

[Fenris2020]

Personally, I'd scrap the character and start over, but I've been burned by bad experiences with players using their Crazy character as an excuse to troll everyone, mess up games, and ruin others' fun. I've heard of Crazies being played in creative and good ways, but I've never seen the class be anything but a detriment to the experience of playing/GMing Rifts. It's an interesting concept in theory, but in practice it's an element I'd rather see altered or removed from the setting/game.

What percentage of the problems with Crazies that you've encountered basically boil down to "people want all crazies to be Fiskmalks?"

My first experience with a crazy player featured that player deliberately sabotaging every single plan the party came up with in an adventure and defending it as playing in-character due to insanities. That dude was the least disruptive Crazy player I ever played with. My second experience, the Crazy player interrupted everyone, all the time, in real life, just to say random crap that the player found funny (but no-one else did), and he defended these interruptions as in-character thoughts and communications until we eventually kicked him out. The final experience I had with a Crazy in the party was a player who used his character's insanity as an excuse to murder other party members.

So in my three experiences, one was annoying and disruptive, one prevented us from playing the game, and one actively tried to ruin the game for specific other people. After that last time, I never played with a Crazy player again. Shoot, I won't even use them as N.P.C.'s. I can always whip up a crazy villain without making that villain a Crazy.

Crazies are the Kender of Rifts, but even worse. That's been my experience with the class.

(warning: foul language in the above link)

"Kender of Rifts" is a good way of putting it, and yeah, it does sound like it's not so much a problem with the OCC as it is with the players who are drawn to that OCC, similar to the Malkavians.
I sometimes wonder how things would have worked out if KS hadn't described the OCC as being Daffy-Duck like zany characters, because I've found that Crazies are usually pretty cool if you treat them a bit more seriously.
I don't think I've ever had a problem with running Crazies that came from the mechanics of the class itself, but problems with the ways players PLAY them are pretty common.

Personally, I've never seen Kender as being that bad; the last party I was in, the little kleptomaniac was also a sort of emotional anchor and comic relief for the rest of us (the player was really good at playing the role).
Malkavians, though... I have yet to see one work out well in any campaign, they always turn out to be a liability at best. I've seen some really good players try to play one, and I've seen it fail every time.
For Rifts, I haven't seen anyone want to play a Crazy, so my experience is admittedly limited; however, having looked over the OCC a few times, I can see how it COULD be a fun character... but I also see how it could turn out like the Malkavians I've seen...
I'm fine for the most part with the Insanity Tables; when exposed to trauma, some people do snap and lose it, at least temporarily. At one time, those people tended to be weeded out a lot more in basic training than they are now. That said, everyone has a breaking point; I've seen combat, and am fine with it, but I also wasn't stuck in a trench for a year like in WWI, so I may not have been fine under that circumstance (my great-grandfather told his stories, and he pulled through, but he saw a LOT of people fail mentally sooner or later). I also haven't had to fight some tentacled thing with a supernatural aura so I'm not entirely sure how I'd react. I doubt it would drive me mad, but again, some people have lesser mental fortitude than do others.

[The Beast]

I largely agree with this, and might only quibble on what constitutes a fundamental change. If, in a game of Paranoia, the members of a six pack have random mutations that's one thing. Simultaneously denying player agency and presenting an approach to modeling mental illness via a page filler random table approach to sanity itself both reprinted a laughable number of times and insultingly oblivious when first written in the 1980s is another.

I think we can all agree that the insanity tables are at least insulting, and definitely offensive to modern sensibilities.

I would go so far as to say that these tables are an insult to, and a mockery of, the real struggles that those with mental illness suffer every day.

Just because they've always been there, doesn't mean they have to be in the future.

I would suggest that someone at palladium, maybe KS, take some time to think about what they want Palladium Books to truly represent. As of right now, it does not represent inclusivity.

We need a rewrite.

[ITWastrel]

Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

I have found inclusivity to be a function of respect. I have also found that those offended by being "woke" most often lack a basic respect for others.

[Killer Cyborg]

I largely agree with this, and might only quibble on what constitutes a fundamental change. If, in a game of Paranoia, the members of a six pack have random mutations that's one thing. Simultaneously denying player agency and presenting an approach to modeling mental illness via a page filler random table approach to sanity itself both reprinted a laughable number of times and insultingly oblivious when first written in the 1980s is another.

I think we can all agree that the insanity tables are at least insulting, and definitely offensive to modern sensibilities.

I would go so far as to say that these tables are an insult to, and a mockery of, the real struggles that those with mental illness suffer every day.

Eh. Some of the older tables that aren't printed any more, where you could become homosexual from head trauma, fit that description.
That's definitely against modern sensibilities, not to mention science.

But in general, looking over RUE, I'd just say that the tables need to be cleaned up and made more accurate.
I see them as a poor simulation, not an insult.

I think it might be a bit disrespectful NOT to have some kind of mechanism to describe the effects of trauma on a person.

[Blue_Lion]

Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

I have found inclusivity to be a function of respect. I have also found that those offended by being "woke" most often lack a basic respect for others.

I have seen "woke" applied with blatant biggity. I think every human deserves to be treated with respect as a human.

Example when some one works to fight racism they should ignore or refuse to recognize 2 categories of racism like the CEO of the bank of America did in an attempt to be "woke", or a black person that does not thinks blacks can be racist while complaining about any thing he could make about his race being racist.

Three recognized categories of racism A institutional racism(historically the most damaging and well recognized) B Parallel racism (minority on minority) C Reverse racism (minority on majority)

[Curbludgeon]

Maybe a revised chart could have an entry for characters not realizing when they're saying the quiet part out loud.

A joking approach would be to just port over the DSM-V and reduce it to percentile rolls. The manual uses a similar symptom-based diagnostic perspective in examining mental health to that of randomized trauma tables. Given the longstanding criticisms with the DSM from within the psychiatric community I have to think there's a better schema for use in RPGs. Several games use stress tracks or incorporate fluctuating values to represent a character's current mental state. A system with multiple axes, like that of Unknown Armies, is more useful in this regard than something with a singular sanity score like Call of Cthulhu. An additional problem with the latter is that changes in SAN are correlated with multiple catalysts, where if the score was solely intended to represent the supernatural's inherently corrupting nature its narrative load would be less potentially problematic.

Not that I'm all that sold on either system, partially because I don't think a game which tastefully simulates mental illness does (or perhaps can) exist, but I'm thinking about running a session of When the Dark is Gone to establish the characters forced to return to a game of Die.

[ITWastrel]

Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

I have found inclusivity to be a function of respect. I have also found that those offended by being "woke" most often lack a basic respect for others.

I have seen "woke" applied with blatant biggity. I think every human deserves to be treated with respect as a human.

Example when some one works to fight racism they should ignore or refuse to recognize 2 categories of racism like the CEO of the bank of America did in an attempt to be "woke", or a black person that does not thinks blacks can be racist while complaining about any thing he could make about his race being racist.

Three recognized categories of racism A institutional racism(historically the most damaging and well recognized) B Parallel racism (minority on minority) C Reverse racism (minority on majority)

Dude.

You just defended anti-wokeness by going straight to race, and then declared, if I may paraphrase, that minorities are racist too.

You do see how that's a problem you might need to address?

[ITWastrel]

Maybe a revised chart could have an entry for characters not realizing when they're saying the quiet part out loud.

A joking approach would be to just port over the DSM-V and reduce it to percentile rolls. The manual uses a similar symptom-based diagnostic perspective in examining mental health to that of randomized trauma tables. Given the longstanding criticisms with the DSM from within the psychiatric community I have to think there's a better schema for use in RPGs. Several games use stress tracks or incorporate fluctuating values to represent a character's current mental state. A system with multiple axes, like that of Unknown Armies, is more useful in this regard than something with a singular sanity score like Call of Cthulhu. An additional problem with the latter is that changes in SAN are correlated with multiple catalysts, where if the score was solely intended to represent the supernatural's inherently corrupting nature its narrative load would be less potentially problematic.

Not that I'm all that sold on either system, partially because I don't think a game which tastefully simulates mental illness does (or perhaps can) exist, but I'm thinking about running a session of When the Dark is Gone to establish the characters forced to return to a game of Die.

For insanity, would it be better to have a "Mental Hit Points" level abstract to account for stress and general mental health?

When we sim combat we don't describe organ damage and track blood loss. That's morbid and doesn't add anything to the game.

Why should tracking mental injury be any different?

Allowing roleplaying if specific mental illnesses should be up to individual player groups, not a d% roll.


I do support fishmalks, the chaotic neutral dice goblins, and other oddities, as long as things stay nice and fictional.

[Curbludgeon]

Ideally a table agrees upon the granularity by which all sorts of game elements are reckoned, taking into account setting conceits, players' narrative tolerances, and implications of game mechanics. Many games, for example, don't give a hoot about hit locations, but in Rifts sometimes a robot's hand explodes. With the specifics of physical trauma and treatment largely abstracted, Palladium rules often emphasize how characters can resist or evade attacks over dealing with their consequences. In settings where changes in mental stability are a big factor that sort of active defense seems like the floor for preserving agency.

Next to agency in importance would be how well rules inform the players. For instance the game Die uses Robert Plutchik's Wheel of Emotions, as devised in the 1980s, for its takes on fighters and mind control so as to be suggestive of that era. If a player isn't aware of that influence something is lost. Potentially worse is the player thinking that model is reflective of more recent thought. While an arguably dated emotional palette doesn't matter much, RPGs have often spread problematic misconceptions like racial essentialism and context free lists of mental illnesses. It's like how some people forget that steampunk is as much about the Victorian era stinking as it is gears on top hats.

I'll bring up the Madness Meter from Unknown Armies and Nemesis again just as a setup which, while capable of constraining a character in the immediate term mainly assists in characterization. Even when a character is...triggered by something requiring a roll the player maintains some choice. And lest people think this is all stick up the butt talk, these are games full of silly stuff. A Crazy with Power by Association convinced they're the reincarnation of Twinkie the Kid would fit in just fine. It just helps in modeling, say, a medical examiner desensitized to gore who's struggling to quit drinking due to guilt from cheating on their spouse during a blackout. That's useful in a way that "haha, this roll says being kept in a dungeon means your character is now terrified of mushrooms, and there's nothing you can do about it" just isn't.

Fictional causes of odd behavior are a big part of speculative fiction, and are welcome in many games. If eating food given by a fairy curses a character such that they can emote only while saying the names of cheeses, that's cool. If people discuss beforehand a character getting sucked into a time-dilated shadow prison where they endure subjective centuries of torture, only to be released the next round having forgotten how to speak and addicted to soul juice, go nuts. Forcing some similarly nonsensical hindrance on someone's character as the result of trauma one can encounter in the real world is at best a dumb joke, is likely to affect player engagement, and could give some people bad ideas.

[Curbludgeon]

Maybe this is from recently learning Peter Watts' book Blindsight, freely available on rifters.com, (teehee) had a fan film, but treating "hysterical blindness" as Type 1 or 2 blindsight arguably would still let the character function in combat, especially with the Intuitive Combat psionic power.

[Blue_Lion]

Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

I have found inclusivity to be a function of respect. I have also found that those offended by being "woke" most often lack a basic respect for others.

I have seen "woke" applied with blatant biggity. I think every human deserves to be treated with respect as a human.

Example when some one works to fight racism they should ignore or refuse to recognize 2 categories of racism like the CEO of the bank of America did in an attempt to be "woke", or a black person that does not thinks blacks can be racist while complaining about any thing he could make about his race being racist.

Three recognized categories of racism A institutional racism(historically the most damaging and well recognized) B Parallel racism (minority on minority) C Reverse racism (minority on majority)

Dude.

You just defended anti-wokeness by going straight to race, and then declared, if I may paraphrase, that minorities are racist too.

You do see how that's a problem you might need to address?

No I was using real life examples of miss use of the term Woke while pushing racist ideals.

Minorities can be racist not that they are those two are not even close to the same thing.(you did not paraphrased but changed the whole statement from a true statement to a racist statement.) If you are saying they are or can not be something based you are assigning value based on race witch is racist.

So do you see the problem with that stance that they can not be? (could be a racist understanding of racism you know the very thing I was pointing out as a problem with the misuse of "woke".)

(there is a different from seeing they can be something and saying they are.)

There is a reason I listed the three recognized categories of racism. If a black beats up a Hispanic for being Mexican that is parallel racism. If a Hispanic says whites are what is wrong with the nation that is reverse racism. (I do not think you need an example of institutional racism.)

I will not claim the three categories of racism are equal, but they are all wrong and all need to be stopped.
All humans regardless of race should be treated with dignity and respect.

[ITWastrel]

Not everything needs to be woke or politically correct in this world.

I have found inclusivity to be a function of respect. I have also found that those offended by being "woke" most often lack a basic respect for others.

I have seen "woke" applied with blatant biggity. I think every human deserves to be treated with respect as a human.

Example when some one works to fight racism they should ignore or refuse to recognize 2 categories of racism like the CEO of the bank of America did in an attempt to be "woke", or a black person that does not thinks blacks can be racist while complaining about any thing he could make about his race being racist.

Three recognized categories of racism A institutional racism(historically the most damaging and well recognized) B Parallel racism (minority on minority) C Reverse racism (minority on majority)

Dude.

You just defended anti-wokeness by going straight to race, and then declared, if I may paraphrase, that minorities are racist too.

You do see how that's a problem you might need to address?

No I was using real life examples of miss use of the term Woke while pushing racist ideals.

Minorities can be racist not that they are those two are not even close to the same thing.(you did not paraphrased but changed the whole statement from a true statement to a racist statement.) If you are saying they are or can not be something based you are assigning value based on race witch is racist.

So do you see the problem with that stance that they can not be? (could be a racist understanding of racism you know the very thing I was pointing out as a problem with the misuse of "woke".)

(there is a different from seeing they can be something and saying they are.)

There is a reason I listed the three recognized categories of racism. If a black beats up a Hispanic for being Mexican that is parallel racism. If a Hispanic says whites are what is wrong with the nation that is reverse racism. (I do not think you need an example of institutional racism.)

I will not claim the three categories of racism are equal, but they are all wrong and all need to be stopped.
All humans regardless of race should be treated with dignity and respect.

I didn't make any such statements as to who can or cannot be racist.

I pointed out that YOU made brought racism into this, and YOUR statements were, and continue to be, absolutely dripping with racist ideas.

You seem so concerned that minorities can be racist that you failed to notice that your comments were, perhaps inadvertently, racist.

I deal with racist people every day, and the number one argument they ALL pull out is how minorities are also racist. Do you people believe that it's ok, because everyone is doing it?

You may not wear a robe, buddy, but you are still dressing in their uniforms.

[Blue_Lion]

@Itwastrel


To be clear this stated by me replying to your issue with people having issue with woke with my issue with people using "Woke" to push racist ideas..

To me it appears your replies to me are offended by the fact that minorities can be racist, to the point where your comments are close to a personal attack calling me racist.

Two wrongs do not make a right and racisms can not justify racism. (I was also clear that not all racism is equal I even pointed out that intuitional racism is historically the most damaging.)

I recognize and work to stop all three categories of racism and I am offended by people claiming to be fighting racism while being openly pushing racist ideas. (no one is free of racism until we all are) I do not have an issue with fighting racism I have an issue with pushing racism while claiming to be fighting it.

Perhaps their is a misunderstanding and to avoid derailing this thread further it may be best to move to PM I would like you to clearly explain to me how recognizing that some one can be racist is racist. (I would think the first step in stopping racism is identifying all forms of racism and work to end such practices.)


@every one else sorry for derailing the thread.

[Mack]

This is not a discussion for a Rifts forum.

Topic Locked.