Society Writ Large

Also, uh... really excited about all the disability representation in the art. Can we actually play a character who's wheelchair-bound, or missing a limb, or deaf or blind in Organized Play yet?

This isn't facetious or whatever, I'm actually asking.

Also, uh... really excited about all the disability representation in the art. Can we actually play a character who's wheelchair-bound, or missing a limb, or deaf or blind in Organized Play yet?

This isn't facetious or whatever, I'm actually asking.

Michael Sayer had this comment in another thread

CrystalSeas wrote:

BV210 wrote:

Those are pretty cool. How would you adjudicate movement in game? Or just ignore it as long as the character is on a relatively flat surface?

Off the top of my head:

A) It's Magic
No need to impose Earth-physics on a fantasy world.

B)Session 0 Agreement
If running a pre-written module, get everyone to agree to how our story will manage this.

C) Creative Writing
If I'm writing my own adventures, being certain that whatever story I tell does not leave one character disadvantaged compared to all the rest.

Very much this. YMMV, but IMO it's more important for people to have representation of themselves in game than to create hard-coded mechanics that penalize them for playing a character that's like them or open the door for others to try and game a thing people struggle with IRL for a mechanical advantage.

If I'm running the game and a player just wants it to be a non-mechanical fact that their PC is in a wheelchair? Go for it. If they want it to be represented in the mechanics then I'll make some suggestions about balanced ways to do it but I let them take the lead as long as it's respectful representation.

I think we've got room for more prosthetics and mobility aids in our game (and wouldn't be surprised if those show up in one of the books we have or will be announcing....) but I think that when it comes to things like that, representation and accessibility to the concept should always be prioritized over mechanics. I've worked with a lot of vets who have various prostheses or mobility aids and the main thing that's taught me is that the perception of standardly-abled people about what differently-abled people are capable of or how their struggles manifest is almost always off in a variety of ways.

A question and a thought:

Question about the Decemvirate masks on pp. 54-56 - Eliza Petulengro's "mask of whorled black mesh that wraps the head like a tangle of thorns" is the bottom left on p. 54, correct?

Thought - I'm not sure "faction" is the best term for the new PFS2 factions. To my mind, faction implies a certain amount of conflict and dissention inside an organization. Consider the phrase "faction-ridden" which is almost always used in a negative way. The new Society guide describes the new factions in a fairly positive light, certainly as compared to the previous ones. I don't have a great substitute in mind. "Affiliation" is one term that did occur to me.

That's good to know, Crystal, and a very good thought.

It's just... I'm used to Society players being very hostile about "players choosing to be worse for no benefit". And I don't really expect to be able to play such a character in Society without getting harassed over it, or being told to knock it off when it could make a difference. "Just get out of the chair and come heal me, your character's not really disabled."

Is that something I have official clearance to push back on?

That's good to know, Crystal, and a very good thought.

It's just... I'm used to Society players being very hostile about "players choosing to be worse for no benefit". And I don't really expect to be able to play such a character in Society without getting harassed over it, or being told to knock it off when it could make a difference. "Just get out of the chair and come heal me, your character's not really disabled."

Is that something I have official clearance to push back on?

I think what is to be taken out of Michael's post is that you can just "fluff" your character in a wheelchair and that they don't need to be "worse" than any other character. It would be that instead of jumping a ravine with legs, they do so activating a spring and still roll athletics or something, representing the "effort" the character put into rewinding it.

Overall, an official precision would be needed for society. I know some GMs that would let someone do it (me included), but there's always the "no official answer = no" people.

Hence, Kali’s query :3

Hence, Kali’s query :3

Yeah, I was not clear enough that I was replying specifically to the "players choosing to be worse for no benefit" part. Following Michael's post, it shouldn't be worse.

What if the player wants their character to be "worse", for example by not being able to climb or to reach an ally if terrain is unsuitable for a wheelchair?

Way I read Michael's post, being in a wheelchair or not should have zero impact on the character's abilities.

If they want to, they can, but the game shouldn't *force* them to be worse. That's a personal decision for them to make.

That's good to know, Crystal, and a very good thought.

It's just... I'm used to Society players being very hostile about "players choosing to be worse for no benefit". And I don't really expect to be able to play such a character in Society without getting harassed over it, or being told to knock it off when it could make a difference. "Just get out of the chair and come heal me, your character's not really disabled."

Is that something I have official clearance to push back on?

I'm somewhat speculating here, but it's possible the root of this hostility is the way that min-maxing players would take penalties in one or more areas, ability scores, etc in order to maximize other aspects of their characters. This could cause one to be suspicious of anyone taking a voluntary penalty, thinking this is being done to gain an advantage elsewhere.

It's clear this is not what Kalindlara is asking about, and I also think this will be less of an issue with PF2e.

In my experience, a lot of disabled people (myself included) tend to prefer representation wherein a disability has some meaningful effect, informing but emphatically not defining the character's abilities. That's going to be a bit of a spectrum from person to person, as people differ on the whole escapism-to-realism ratio, and there will be complete exceptions too, but I do think that's part of why disabled representation can be difficult to write. Not difficult enough to justify not doing it, mind you, but that's a conversation about a different kind of fiction altogether.

My point is, simply having no effect in-game beyond description might be unappealing to some people who want to represent something of their experience in constructive roleplaying. Not to the point of disruption, of course, but something meaningful, and not because they want to suck but because they want to show that this experience exists and can, despite everything, excel in heroic fantasy.

But how? Amongst the most realistic and resonant aspects of disabled life that can be depicted is problem-solving. It can be genuinely fun working out how to hack around a mechanical limitation, whether in the real world, in writing, or in a game, and that I think is part of what people might want out of in-game representation of disability. As a fictional example, both Avatar cartoon series' and the How To Train Your Dragon movies are golden for this, while media too focused on being InSpIrAtIoNaL tend to miss the problem-solving angle entirely.

Overall, while disability is pretty inevitably going to be a downgrade in some sense, it can also be a huge boon to clever roleplay and planning... But it's gotta be practical. We know that being totally unable to use a staircase is not going to work in a classic dungeon-crawler unless, say, there's a Strong Friend in the party willing to help with that on occasion (which can be pretty seamless). However, just because we're very happy with a little touch of escapism/handwaving/springchairs does not mean that we're comfortable being pushed into a situation wherein that's the only option for everything.

I'm not saying that's what's being suggested, but that's the fear; I do really like Michael Sayre's way of handling it. I think it's great for representation and also probably the only solution that will work uncontroversially for players who mean well but don't see the point. It just might leave room for a bit of jerk behaviour if people start getting annoyed at the decisions you make as-informed by your character's disability, as Kalindlara notes. That said, I'm already away-and-beyond impressed with Pathfinder's communicative approach to disability in contrast to certain other, larger tabletop companies that prefer to play it safe.

---

This is obviously a lot easier with an even slightly permissive GM willing to work with a character concept, but I'm continuing with the discussion prompted by Kalindlara about what is and is not considered appropriate for PFS. Outside of that realm, the Cursed background clearly shows that the game has room for a character with some mechanical disadvantage without everything needing to get all minmaxy. A similar background that replaced "you're cursed, so you got good at getting rid of curse magic" with "you're disabled, so you got good at improvising" could be interesting, and exactly as not-disruptive.

... Just to clarify, I'm not equating disability with an eldritch curse. Even if it feels like that sometimes. The concepts lend themselves to similar background structures.

---

(Sorry if this is a total mess; I'm not particularly well-rested but thought I should try to contribute nonetheless. I also love the look of the book!)

[snip (not that it isn't an awesome post, I just want to focus on one bit)]

That said, I'm already away-and-beyond impressed with Pathfinder's communicative approach to disability in contrast to certain other, larger tabletop companies that prefer to play it safe.

I agree with this a lot.

An issue for representation in general: it is wonderful to be able to play as ourselves and having that be a meaningful choice in both flavor and mechanics.

It is quite different when you see someone else playing as you, and projecting what they think you would want or do or feel onto a character.

I have zero idea how to reconcile these points.

There is one issue in todays pandemic world.

As a not complete a$@&**+! of a human being in real life I'm going to give a LOT of slack to somebody who visibly has a disability in their presentation of their character. Pretty much whatever they want to do is going to be fine with me if they are NOT getting an actual bonus (if they want to play Daredevil that is fine but no free "I'm immune to invisible characters", for example) or if they pay for that bonus in a reasonable fashion (the latter best left for non PFS games so that we have time to come to an agreement).

But in the online world in which I'm currently living the onus is going to be on the player to point out somehow that the player has a handicap or I'm likely (possibly subconsiously) to treat their request differently.

But I don't care what Paizo says officially. I'll let players at my tables flavour away any disabilities their character has that they want to. In all honesty, I suspect Paizo is quite happy with that position even if they never say so for whatever reason (it would be fairly hard to write rules about it that would not be abusable by somebody).