Post-traumatic stress syndrome in D&D?

[Dr TPK]

How would you feel if quasi or semi-realistic rules concerning PTSD would be introduced in your games? Yay, nay or maybe?

[LoyalPaladin]

How would you feel if quasi or semi-realistic rules concerning PTSD would be introduced in your games? Yay, nay or maybe?
We had a Half-Ogre who roll played PTSD because of large amounts to dragons once. Sometimes I feel like that was leaking into character from the player though. There were a lot of dragons.

[BowStreetRunner]

While I would sometimes introduce NPCs suffering from something like that, I don't think applying rules for it to PCs would be very welcome. A player always has the option to role-play his character that way in my games of course. I just don't think that adding rules for it would increase the players' enjoyment of the game.

[Zeruel]

How would you feel if quasi or semi-realistic rules concerning PTSD would be introduced in your games? Yay, nay or maybe?

If you are referring to those included in the Unhearted Arcana, I studied them a few days ago and found them interesting, very interesting. They add flavor to the campaign, but rise the average difficulty of roleplaying too. I would suggest to add this feature, trying not to overwelm your players with gargantuan amounts of new rules :smallbiggrin:
Otherwise, if you want a game based on this stuff, play Call of Cthuhlu (which, besides, UA refers to when talking about this things)

[Geddy2112]

There are some rules for various systems dealing with mental afflictions that you could borrow. Pathfinder has a few, but the king of this stuff is Call of Cthulu. I would borrow some of those rules if you wanted mechanics.

Otherwise, my table usually just has it be part of your character's personality. Perhaps they had to leave home at a young age when a dragon burned down their village. Or maybe they watched their mother get murdered by pirates. How that plays out...up to the player.

[Flickerdart]

There's always Sanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm).

[Odin's Eyepatch]

There's always Sanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/sanity.htm).

We've had several players use those rules in some of our campaigns, though on each occasion it was the player who decided to use them, so the rules weren't forced onto anybody who didn't want to use them. They constituted a very interesting dynamic, but also caused some problems in our party, with the high levelled wizard going crazy when he saw fire, which unfortunately tended to pop up fairly often. It created situations where our wizard would become a gibbering wreck in the middle of the fight, through no actual intention of the enemy. It made some fights quite a bit harder as a result.

Personally, if ever I wanted to use PTSD, I would just roleplay it. Both in battle or out of battle. I feel like the sanity rules add an unnecessary amount of difficulty to the player and the party, with the threat of becoming helpless or permanently insane being just to big a penalty. Despite the severity of them, I do think that they are reasonably well construct.

Play your character like you want to play it. Rules are there to define your characters abilities, but they shouldn't define their behaviour.

Obviously, to each their own. This is just my view about it, anyway :smallsmile:

[Telonius]

If you're thinking of bringing mental illness into the game as a mechanical thing, remember - you never know if one of the players (or their family) has the illness in question. That doesn't mean don't do it, just talk to the players beforehand to make sure everybody's on board with it.

[Zeruel]

If you're thinking of bringing mental illness into the game as a mechanical thing, remember - you never know if one of the players (or their family) has the illness in question. That doesn't mean don't do it, just talk to the players beforehand to make sure everybody's on board with it.

Good point, and another reason to discuss PTSD introduction in your game

[legomaster00156]

Some of the more common spells burn people alive, some cause people have their skin peeled off or bones broken, and there are so many other horrible, traumatizing occurrences in the game that any adventurer higher than level 3 would have some sort of horrible PTSD.

[Âmesang]

I think there was a spell in Exodus: Ultima III that would cause orcs' heads to explode enmasse. Messy. :smalltongue: I'm actually reminded of wanting to play as a 1st-level character who would initially have a difficult time getting over the act of ending the life of a fellow sapient being before slowly coming to the realization that, in that world, such acts are necessary for the preservation of oneself and one's kin (not that said character ever has to be happy with it).

[Chronos]

Also remember that mental illness is context-dependent. PTSD might be a mental illness in civilian life, but a lot of it is a perfectly sane adaptation, when you're actually in the stressful situation. One hears, for instance, of a returning veteran panicking on noticing a piece of litter lying in the street, because he thinks it's an IED... but when you're actually in a war zone where IEDs are common, that's probably an appropriate response. The difficulty is just in making that transition back from war zone to civilian, and that's a part of the heroes' story that D&D games usually don't cover.

[Ashtagon]

If you are referring to those included in the Unhearted Arcana, ...

I know this is a typo, but it really ought to be a ting.

[Red Fel]

Some of the more common spells burn people alive, some cause people have their skin peeled off or bones broken, and there are so many other horrible, traumatizing occurrences in the game that any adventurer higher than level 3 would have some sort of horrible PTSD.

This. The fact is, if we were going by normal psychology as we understand it today, the vast majority of adventurers - perhaps all of them - would either be sociopaths/psychopaths or horrifically scarred individuals. Killing people is hard, emotionally. Some people are able to handle it better, but nobody is able to handle it fully, and that burden eventually weighs you down. Seeing people around you die is hard too.

Adventurers do this on a daily basis. Kill bandits. Kill orcs. Kill dragons, who are primordial beings of such raw magic and fury that their very presence shakes you to the core with the knowledge that you are completely insignificant before this near-divine being of awe and glory. Save people from horrible death. Fail to save people from horrible death. Watch in horror as horrible death happens. This is the life of every adventurer.

If they had anything resembling a normal psychology, they'd snap like twigs.

So let's not look at PTSD, then, as a source of "realism," because we pretty much threw that out the window when we decided that a Wizard could grab somebody with his bare hands, make them burn to death right in front of him, watch and smell them burn to death right in front of him, and not have to make either a Will save to avoid screaming, or a Fort save to avoid vomiting up everything he'd eaten for the past month.

Now, that's not to say PTSD has no place at all. Assuming it's applied with the understanding of the players, and with the delicacy mentioned by other posters, there is merit to it. In a particularly gritty campaign, for instance, you might use it in much the same way you might use Sanity mechanics. Or avoid mechanics altogether, and allow players to opt into the idea, discussing with them ways it may impact them.

But don't pretend you need to introduce it for realism's sake. Let's not go down that road.

[Quertus]

Some of the more common spells burn people alive, some cause people have their skin peeled off or bones broken, and there are so many other horrible, traumatizing occurrences in the game that any adventurer higher than level 3 would have some sort of horrible PTSD.

Ah, mind rape - what can't you fix?

[ShurikVch]

Post-traumatic stress syndrome in D&D?Book of Broken Dreams (Netherland Games) have it

[sleepyphoenixx]

No. If someone wants to play a character with PTSD, fine. But we don't need to have rules for every little thing, and i can't see how they'd add anything to the game beyond even more rolling of dice for will saves/sanity checks/whatever.

That's the big issue for me: Would adding PTSD (and other mental disorder) rules add anything to the game that you can't already get from just roleplaying a character that has it?
That's something that absolutely needs roleplaying to pull off. Throwing a few dicerolls and a sanity attribute on your character sheet won't improve it any if you have that RP, and it won't make up for it if you lack the ability to portray it.

[Zeruel]

I know this is a typo, but it really ought to be a ting.

I'm sorry, I'm not anglophone, what's wrong with that? /(^^;)

[Ashtagon]

I'm sorry, I'm not anglophone, what's wrong with that? /(^^;)

Unhearted Arcana...

Here is a young man being unhearted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk2E1CoGe98

[Flickerdart]

I'm sorry, I'm not anglophone, what's wrong with that? /(^^;)

It should be Unearthed (meaning: discovered, literally: dug up). You wrote Unhearted, which is not a word (but if it were a word, it would mean something like unfavouriting something by revoking a heart icon that you previously gave it).

[Red Fel]

You wrote Unhearted, which is not a word (but if it were a word, it would mean something like unfavouriting something by revoking a heart icon that you previously gave it).

And here I thought it was something FelCorp asks of its employees.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/ac/80/eaac8059450fc74e26a595fb734a25a9.jpg

[Flickerdart]

And here I thought it was something FelCorp asks of its employees.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/ac/80/eaac8059450fc74e26a595fb734a25a9.jpg
That would be dehearted, in the same way that you defriend someone in real life, but unfriend them on Felbook.

[Red Fel]

That would be dehearted, in the same way that you defriend someone in real life, but unfriend them on Felbook.

That is how I defriend people in real life.

[Zeruel]

Oh god, you're right! XD

Didn't even noticed I mispelled it, sorry :smalltongue:


And here I thought it was something FelCorp asks of its employees.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/ac/80/eaac8059450fc74e26a595fb734a25a9.jpg

Ahahah I die, literally... :smallbiggrin:

[Jeff the Green]

This. The fact is, if we were going by normal psychology as we understand it today, the vast majority of adventurers - perhaps all of them - would either be sociopaths/psychopaths or horrifically scarred individuals. Killing people is hard, emotionally. Some people are able to handle it better, but nobody is able to handle it fully, and that burden eventually weighs you down. Seeing people around you die is hard too.

Adventurers do this on a daily basis. Kill bandits. Kill orcs. Kill dragons, who are primordial beings of such raw magic and fury that their very presence shakes you to the core with the knowledge that you are completely insignificant before this near-divine being of awe and glory. Save people from horrible death. Fail to save people from horrible death. Watch in horror as horrible death happens. This is the life of every adventurer.

If they had anything resembling a normal psychology, they'd snap like twigs.

So let's not look at PTSD, then, as a source of "realism," because we pretty much threw that out the window when we decided that a Wizard could grab somebody with his bare hands, make them burn to death right in front of him, watch and smell them burn to death right in front of him, and not have to make either a Will save to avoid screaming, or a Fort save to avoid vomiting up everything he'd eaten for the past month.

Now, that's not to say PTSD has no place at all. Assuming it's applied with the understanding of the players, and with the delicacy mentioned by other posters, there is merit to it. In a particularly gritty campaign, for instance, you might use it in much the same way you might use Sanity mechanics. Or avoid mechanics altogether, and allow players to opt into the idea, discussing with them ways it may impact them.

But don't pretend you need to introduce it for realism's sake. Let's not go down that road.

I wish the forum had a 'like' button, or upvote, or something.

I'll also add that, to some extent, mental illness is culturally-bound. Depression, for example, doesn't exist in all societies, because the brain disorder that produces depression in the West and societies heavily influenced by us interacts with culture in different ways, producing different symptoms. PTSD has evolved too; an Athenian soldier apparently suffered from hysterical blindness when he saw a comrade killed, while shell shock had a number of symptoms (e.g. muscle weakness, amnesia, muteness) that aren't common symptoms of PTSD today.

Moreover, causes can be culturally-bound. One redditor's master's thesis (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j6ssm/are_there_any_indications_of_combat_ptsd_in/) argues that Roman soldiers developed PTSD not from the horrors of war (partially because horrors were part of everyday life, and partially because killing was not as taboo as in modern society), but from shameful acts or from killing comrades as in mutinies, decimation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army)), and civil wars.

To be entirely "realistic", you'd have to have each culture in the setting have its own set of mental illnesses and ways of viewing them. I don't think this is all that desirable.

[Slipperychicken]

How would you feel if quasi or semi-realistic rules concerning PTSD would be introduced in your games? Yay, nay or maybe?

I know someone who was diagnosed with PTSD. Having some notion of how utterly dreadful it is, that's not something I even want to think about, much less act out with my friends. I am 100% content to leave stress disorders out of my escapist fantasy games. Even if that means some characters cry and contemplate suicide less than they normally would.


That isn't to say nobody should be sad in games. I think that normal reactions to stress and tragedy (as opposed to developing stress disorders) are perfectly adequate for helping to convey the emotional weight of events. In some ways think the distinction (between normal stress responses and stress disorders) is analogous to the the difference in game terms between getting hacked at or bruised in a fight, and getting some chronic ailment like tetanus or a shattered spine. The former is quite sufficient for the purposes of a fantasy adventure-game, while the latter saddles the player with needless suffering.

[BWR]

It really depends on the game. In most D&D-ish games I don't see the need. Maybe for some poor NPC or PCs with some extreme reaction to something, but actual PTSD and realistic portrayals generally don't have a place in my heroic games.
Other games like some L5R games, CoC/Laundry, Kult, possibly Ravenloft or similarly unpleasant settings, something like PTSD may be appropriate.

Realistic rules... these days I tend to think that mental issues are best handled in RPGs in the manner of Lovecraftian sanity rather than portrayals attempting to be as realistic as possible. Whatever floats your boat, but probably not for me.

[Florian]

How would you feel if quasi or semi-realistic rules concerning PTSD would be introduced in your games? Yay, nay or maybe?

Absolutelly "Nay".

If I seriously wanted to focus on the consequences of a tilns and choices, I'd play a different game and I have no interest in that special topic, I wouldn't play it at all.

[SangoProduction]

While I would sometimes introduce NPCs suffering from something like that, I don't think applying rules for it to PCs would be very welcome. A player always has the option to role-play his character that way in my games of course. I just don't think that adding rules for it would increase the players' enjoyment of the game.

This. 1000%