Topic

Pyschological disorders: good idea?

For the game, I mean.

From what I remember from my psych textbooks it's important to distinguish between mood disorders, mental disorders, and personality disorders. If I recall correctly, mood disorders are the kind that require psychiatrists while personality disorders are behavioral in nature, but you can take some creative license here.

For example: if your behavior is consistently selfish/uncooperative, you can develop narcissistic personality disorder and must see a psychologist (branch of bureaucratic arts). If if you spend too much time in a small area, you can develop claustrophobia and/or depression and must see a psychiatrist for antidepressants. (psychology + a medicine skill, perhaps herbology + admixing).

Thoughts on this?

(edit) Since most of the opposed listed the "negative" aspect of psychological disorders as their reason for objecting, answer this: how would you feel about a psychological skill tree that only contributes and doesn't take away? For example, "focus pills" that increase your concentration? Or "mood pills" that act as a lighter version of No No Powder? Say the game doesn't add disorders proper, but adds a "Psychiatry" skill tree from the combination of Bureaucratic Arts, Meditation and Herbology. What are your thoughts on that?

Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • "You could do it in a more traditional way, where the player could acquire sociopathy if they relentlessly poison trees for an extremely short period of time without any "good" behavior in-between."

    Glitch already penalizes players for poisoning trees by imposing a harsh mood penalty and a buff called Poisoner's Guilt.

    If we must debate this further, perhaps The Crepeist should tell us what's so wonderful about mental illness, and why it would be a valuable addition to Glitch.
    Posted 16 months ago by glum pudding Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ The Crepeist - you asked a question - the answer is NO!
    Posted 16 months ago by Teena Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @The Crepeist

    So Farmville has been overrun by people who are going to force the game designers to include unpleasant activities?   Or does Farmville not count as a "game" in your definition?

    Perhaps, just perhaps, Glitch is not meant to attract people who want the kinds of things you're suggesting.  And even if they try the game, the designers will not feel forced to cater to their style of play. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Perhaps acquiring enough instances of Poisoner's Guilt could induce some kind of behavioral disorder.

    Mood disorders could be implemented pretty considering we already have a mood system. I'm not sure how to implement the acquisition of, say, an anxiety disorder -- maybe consistently low mood over a repeated period of time. That would provide some interesting depth to the mood system besides the binary good mood/bad mood system we have now.

    @WindBorn: FarmVille isn't an MMO.

    @Teena: You can repeat "no", but you'll be unjustified in doing so. No one has explained how this is  not cherrypicking mechanics that would be traumatic when imported to the real world and not ignoring those mechanics in Glitch that already exist. No one has explained how that wouldn't exclude many already real-worldy or "depressing" things already in the game we continue to enjoy.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 cupcake.
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Teena is totally justified in repeating "no".  No one has to explain anything.  This is not a debate that will be decided on the basis of logic or points scored with no "logical" rejoinder.  TS doesn't need to take into account anything except the feelings of its testers. 

    What we're all explaining is how unpleasant your suggestion would make the game.  As glum pudding suggested, perhaps you can tell us what's so wonderfully fun about mental illness. 

    If you haven't noticed, Glitch has no pvp violence.  Glitch does not have bad things happen to your character.  "Drama" and "trauma" are not currently elements that are essential to the game.   When they happen, they are a voluntary activity (participation in a Rook attack). 

    Much of the current player base has no idea what Slashdot and Reddit are and they really don't need to know in order to enjoy the game.  This is a light-hearted, pleasant game that does not rely on 'intensity' to be fun.  If that's what makes a game fun for you and the rest of the players who will flood the place when it opens, then it's likely that the flood will quickly recede, leaving behind only the folks who like the game the way it is. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • WindBorn, "no" without supporting reasoning is the definition of unjustified. To justify something is to provide supporting reasoning. You are blatantly wrong here. Someone can repeat a blanket "no", but it's unjustified.

    I didn't respond to glum's bit about "saying how mental illness is so wonderfully fun" because (1) it's vague -- are we talking about in-game disorders or real-world disorders? (2) It's still vague -- are we talking about their existence in the game or their function? (3) It's loaded -- I explained how sickness and debuffs can be fun gameplay mechanics, so it seems like a question that's already answered.

    Glitch does indeed have "bad things" happen to your character. Your character can die from a cocaine crash.

    I don't know why someone would need to know what slashdot is to enjoy Glitch, either. That's your wording, WindBorn, not mine. If you recall, I mentioned reddit/slashdot to describe the transformation reddit underwent when it became mainstreamed to the greater internet. Glitch is going to undergo a similar process after launch, and I will repost this then with a slightly different angle, and the yes/no ratio will be reversed.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We are not claiming to have logic for the way we feel about it! If some people didn't like it, but some did, that'd be a different matter. In this case, ONE person is in favor, and every single other person who has posted in this thread has been fervently against it. We don't have logic for being against it. However, it's untrue to say that we don't have justification: we do! We don't like the idea of it! It would make us feel squicky. When we consider having a mental disorder in Glitch, the first thing that jumps to mind is please no! We are the testers, and as the testers, we don't like the idea, whether we have firm logic for it or not. It's just something we would find disagreeable, period. 
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • It doesn't have to be justified.  How people feel is an adequate reason for making a decision. "No" is a pretty clear expression about how someone feels, and that's really all that matters.  They don't have to justify their feelings in order to express them. 

    Whether or not you agree, decisions get made all the time based on feelings instead of logic.  So far, your logic has persuaded zero other testers to support the idea.  You haven't even created a discussion topic.  Just a place for you to repetitively claim that other people haven't met your standards of logic, so their feelings aren't justified.  Sorry, that's not the way this website works. 

    Good luck with overwhelming the site's culture with an antithetical culture when the devs are trying to create a specific community of gamers.  Feelings count heavily in this community.  If you need a community where winning debate points is what counts, there are a myriad of other forums where that's supported.  But not this one. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +9 to WindBorn.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I 've read all the thread and I have to answer 'no' too. And without supporting reasoning.
    It's a gut feeling, a sense of 'wrongness', and personally I don't feel any need to justify that. 
    It simply doesn't fit in with my sense of the game. 
    Drugs and drinks are artifacts that I can use or ignore - in fact I don't like the no-no powder and won't use it and, the reason is a personal and very justified hatred for drugs, but it doesn't change my enjoyment. 
    Running out of energy is common to almost all games and creates economy with energy implementation; death is a natural consequence and in no way does it damage or have lasting effects on the player. 
    Illness would be imposing a certain kind of gameplay that would change the way people experience the game. I would seriously hate that. 
    Posted 16 months ago by Zira Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Zira: You said you're okay with death because it doesn't have lasting effects on the player. Disorders wouldn't have to be lasting. If the disorder doesn't have lasting effects on the player, would you still be against it? You said you're okay with drinks and drugs in the game because you can ignore them -- would you be okay with certain disorders (say, an anxiety disorder) then, if you could ignore it? Any change to gameplay will change the way people experience the game. Does adding death not change the way they experience the game?

    @Cupcake: It's perfectly fine to oppose something on the basis of dislike, but there's more to it than that. "We don't like it" isn't justified when there are other gameplay elements that should merit a similar dislike. You can dislike it, but then you should dislike a lot of other, similar features in Glitch by the same criteria.

    @WindBorn: If someone in this discussion says they don't want it in the game and they're unjustified in thinking that, there's not anything I can say further. I suggested an idea, it was opposed, but the opposition was unjustified and based in feelings, not logic. That's about it. Logic is impartial. One person doesn't have a "standard' of logic. That's not how reasoning works. 
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But who are you to tell us what we "should" and "shouldn't" like? We have a gut feeling about these things, and that gut feeling is what we're expressing in this thread: just, plain, no. You're basing this entirely too much on logic and not enough on what we, the testers, feel.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Oh, and...I suggested an idea, it was opposed, but the opposition was unjustified and based in feelings, not logic. That's about it. Yep. You pretty much hit the nail on the head. See, we aren't claiming logic. We're claiming our opinion.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Cupcake, let's try this. You're okay with cocaine crashes leading to death in Glitch, yeah? So why do you draw the line at, say, an anxiety disorder? Knowing people who have done both cocaine and antidepressants, I'm pretty sure anxiety disorders are worse.

    Or, would you be okay with the positive equivalent? Say you couldn't acquire disorders proper, but you could still take a "psychiatry" skill tree that let you dole out pills which, in the real world, would treat disorders. Your Glitch could take "focus pills" and have increased concentration, or something. Do you still object to that?

    I suppose if you're saying that your feelings about this are entirely illogical and unjustified, the above questions are superfluous, though.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ Crepeist,you asked us if we think it's a good idea to add Psychological Disorders to the game.
    I think it's perfectly clear that we do not.
    ~and we do not owe you an explanation,as to how or why we have come to our decision.
    Posted 16 months ago by ~Scilly~ Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm not saying they're entirely illogical and unjustified, because that's not how opinions work. Opinions don't need logic, or justification, for that matter. They're just how people perceive things. We have different opinions about this - yours has has logic, mine does not. I don't owe you logic. It's just my view on it. Oh, and various other people's view, as well.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I suggested an idea, it was opposed, but the opposition was unjustified and based in feelings, not logic. That's about it.

    Yep, that's about it.  No one has to justify their opposition.  Decisions are made based on feelings, not logic. 

    And so far, logic has not persuaded anyone that the idea is a good one.  Your logic isn't working. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Well, logic isn't meant to persuade people. It's meant to make your statements true, or at least truth-ready.

    Cupcake, would you be okay with the positive equivalent? Say you couldn't acquire disorders proper, but you could still take a "psychiatry" skill tree that let you dole out pills which, in the real world, would treat disorders. Your Glitch could take "focus pills" and have increased concentration, or something. Do you still object to that?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sure, that sounds fine, since it isn't negative, or unpleasant.
    Posted 16 months ago by Cupcake Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yep- If pill pushing becomes an in-game thing...

    It won't be the game for me.

    I might also add, having chronic anxiety attacks suck and are in no way fun or funny.
    Posted 16 months ago by Zeezee Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @ZeeZee: It's important to distinguish between how something affects someone IRL and how it does in-game. After all, death sucks too -- probably more than anything can suck -- and it's in Glitch. I have a diagnosed anxiety disorder, and I'm sure you could find a way to make the mechanic interesting in the game. 
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Death doesn't suck in Glitch.  You squish your way out and go on to live a new day. 
    No-no powder isn't cocaine - it's chocolate ;-)
    Posted 16 months ago by Stormy Weather Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There is nothing untruthful about feelings.  Stating your feelings is telling the truth. Logic can only tell you whether something is in alignment with the rules that have been set out for a situation.  It has nothing to do with whether a feeling is true or not.  And logic is not the only method for making decisions. 

    So your logic still isn't working because this situation includes feelings as part of the decision rules.  And you still haven't persuaded anyone that your idea is worth supporting.
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Stormy: That's what I'm saying. Death sucks in real life -- it doesn't suck in Glitch. Anxiety sucks in real life -- it probably wouldn't suck in Glitch.

    @Wind: It's really hard to tell you're responding to when you say something like "feelings aren't untruthful" because no one said anything about that one way or the other. Either way, you incorrectly characterized what it means to be logical. Logic doesn't persuade people. It can, but it's not meant to. Whether people are persuaded is irrelevant to whether logic is "working." If your statements contain no fallacies and are ready to lead you to the truth, that's as much as logic can "work."

    Answer this, though. How would you, WindBorn, feel about "focus pills" that increase your concentration? Or "mood pills" that act as a lighter version of No No Powder? Say the game doesn't add disorders proper, but adds a "Psychiatry" skill tree from the combination of Bureaucratic Arts, Meditation and Herbology. Would you be against that as well?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • theoatmeal.com/comics/onlin...
    Posted 16 months ago by flask Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In that comic, I'm supposed to be the people shouting gayfag, right?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Blocked.  Not Glitch.

    First block ever.
    Posted 16 months ago by Pirate Apples Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Still think the idea is creepy and not fun.  Psychiatric disorders aren't something I'd enjoy playing, even as the psychiatrist. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • But in the focus pill example, there are no disorders. Only buff-granting mind pills. Would you still oppose psychiatry as a skill tree, knowing there are no disorders?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Still think a psychiatry skill tree is creepy and not fun. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • OK. Is it Psychiatry in particular that creeps you out? Or pills?

    If I were to make a pharmacy skill tree to give you pill buffs also, but more general buffs not particular to your mind, would you be okay with that? Are you against the Herbology tree, for example?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • We already have items in game that give mood buffs and debuffs.  We already have skills in game that allow you to create those items. 

    The skills and items are not limited to some 'playing-doctor' skill tree.  They cross several skills and are available to anyone as part of another skill tree, not as the sole purpose of a skill. 

    The psychiatry and drug-maker skill trees are still creepy and not fun. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. If I were to make a pharmacy skill tree to give you pill buffs also, but more general buffs not particular to your mind, would you be okay with that? If no, are you also against no-no powder? If yes, why pharmacy and not psychiatry? If no to both, are you against the herbology tree?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • but that doesn't answer my question.

    Oh well.  Guess you just won't get an answer. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Since there seems to be an overwhelming desire for this -not- to be added, I suggest that anyone who wishes to see psychological problems added to the game simply play their glitch as though it has one. It could be fun, use your imagination!
    Posted 16 months ago by Ors Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Ors -- what do you think about Psychiatry? As in, no one gets disorders, only nootropics. The positive effects of pillmaking are retained, and nothing needs to be "cured".
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The Crepeist - I have liked some of your suggestions. I do not like this one. I don't care if you don't think "real world experience" is a good enough reason or not. I don't feel the need to justify my likes and dislikes. You asked in the title to your thread "good idea?" My answer is "no" it is not a good idea. Take it or leave. That is my opinion.
    Posted 16 months ago by Audaria Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Audaria, what do you think about Psychiatry? No one gets disorders, only nootropics. The positive aspects of pillmaking are there, while nothing needs to be "cured".
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Psychiatry is a skill that you would only use on other Glitches.  Playing doctor and pretending to control the mood of another player is still icky, whether it's positive or negative.

    Still creepy and still not fun.

    As Ors suggested, if you enjoy this kind of game-play, there is nothing stopping you from role-playing whatever disorders you are fascinated by. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • 'Psychiatry' is a name issue -- call it "Mind Medicine" if you want. Either way, you (WindBorn) said you weren't going to answer my question. If you're not going to continue dialogue with me, there's no point in your response.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • No matter what you call it, it's still a technique for one player to pretend to control another. 

    There is nothing else in Glitch where the game-play is about one player controlling another, especially another player's mind.  Mind is where the imagination works, and to have one player controlling another player's imagination is so not-Glitch. 

    Prosecutorial questions and answers are not a dialogue, btw. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • With psychiatry/pharmacy/mind medicine you'd have buffs but nothing would be "cured". You wouldn't be "controlling" anyone -- I don't know how you made that inference.

    This is why I asked if you would be okay with with not only a pharmacy skill tree to give you general pill buffs. Or if no, if you were against no-no powder. Or if yes, why pharmacy and not psychiatry. And if no to both, if you were against the herbology tree in general. Asking these questions are necessary for dialogue.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm against a psychiatry skill tree because it is icky and not fun.
    I'm against a pharmacy skill tree because it is icky and not fun. 
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Since you answered no to both, what makes herbology OK? Real-world pills are made from plants anyway -- is it the association with their institutions?
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Herbology is fun and not icky.
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Okay, but that... doesn't answer my question. Why is Herbology not icky? Pills are made from chemicals acquired from plants, so if you had the equivalent of Refining I and II for plants it's a pretty short step to pillmaking.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Once again, no one needs to explain to you  why they feel a certain way.

    All that happens is that you continue to try to prove that the feelings are not logical.  Hello!  Feelings are not logical.  Feelings do not have to be explained.  When people feel a certain way, that's how they feel. 

    Decisions are made based on feelings, whether or not anyone has satisfactorily shown why they feel a certain way.  Even if the explanation is unsatisfactory, or even if there is no explanation, feelings are still used to make decisions.  Logic is not the only decision-making criterion.

    Trying to pin people down to ever-more-detailed and logical 'yes/no' questions is not going to give you any more insight into why people feel the way they do.  Empathy (putting yourself in someone else's situation) is the way to understand feelings. 

    So, once again:  The idea of a psychiatry or pharmacy skill tree feels creepy.  It does not feel like something fun.  The Herbology skill tree is fun.  One thing is not fun, the other thing is fun.  I support changes that are fun.  I do not support changes that are not fun.   Creepy, icky things are not fun.  I do not support creepy or icky ideas.

    I do not need to explain to you why one thing is creepy and the other is not. It is sufficient to know that that's the way I feel.  Explaining my feelings is not necessary for someone who needs data to make a decision.  Feelings are data that decision makers take into account when considering whether something is a good idea or not.
    Posted 16 months ago by WindBorn Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Posting this from my phone, so sorry if i can't go into too much detail.

    I think your idea of having medicine is fine, but it might be best to just have it as an extension of herbology. Dressing it as conventional medicine could make it appear cold and impersonal to some people, and physical pills aren't that glitchy. Herbal medicine would be the easiest to fit into this world, and you could use it to do the same things as psychiatry.

    If you're talking about mood-altering buffs, we already get them from drinks. Grinding and mixing herbs would just be yet another way to play with the concept.
    Posted 16 months ago by Xacau Feera Blin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yes, WindBorn, you've said several times with respect to the idea pillmaking that you feel a certain way and that's that. I have taken note of your individual feelings. With that said, when I have asked other people such as Ors and Audaria how they would feel about a certain idea and why if possible, you are not entitled to speak for them or post as a representative of their feelings as you seem to be doing. Your feelings are indeed your feelings with no further need of justification -- since that is the case, you should let other people explain themselves. As it is now, your replies only serve to block further dialogue. You have contributed a large majority of the posts here, but if you continue to beat a dead horse and block dialogue I'm going to have to ignore your posts all together and only reply to those posters who advance dialogue in some way.
    Posted 16 months ago by The Crepeist Subscriber! | Permalink