Venture-Agent, Online—VTT
|
I remember there being an extended thread mainly about someone's dissatisfaction about not being able to play a blind character in PFS. (Short version: The CRB itself suggests not using blinded/deafened conditions for this as laid out on the page 487 sidebar, but it's left up to the table to handle to details for each character, which us too table table variation for PFS and the poster was quite upset that they couldn't have rules to model different points along the spectrum if blindness when they could only consistently do Organized Play).
If my memory of that whole thing is correct, I don't think that is actually a legal option, for reasons similar to SFS not allowing voluntary stat drops below the standard attribute allocation, because of it being the sort if thing that gets real bad when it isn't portrayed well. I can't seem to find the thread now, though. I wonder if it was removed. I remember some people in it getting fairly unpleasant.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
Here is Thurston's decision on Deaf/disabled PCs. Further down is a post from Tonya agreeing with Thirsty's decision. It's an old Starfinder thread, but, I believe is still relevant to PFS today.
|
|
gets real bad when it isn't portrayed well
Yeah, I understand. I played with a deaf character at a PFS1 table. Honestly, it seemed like the player was trying to get out of social interactions so he just wanted a way to give one-word answers that he had pre-written on slips of paper. Not a positive experience.
I'd like to do it better, and PFS2 has the feat support (Read Lips, Sign Language) plus other boon-related support (hirelings that could take Sign Language, for instance, to translate) to make it feasible.
Who would be capable of giving an authoritative answer?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the Guide had language indicating that if your character did not clear a permanent condition that it becomes unplayable and therefore is essentially "dead?" Jared probably know exactly what the rule is and where to find it.
OTOH, from a more practical perspective, how do you intend to overcome the permanent -2 to Perception (and usually initiative) and the inherent flat check that affects all auditory attempts? Not to mention that being immune to auditory effects can be a great advantage vs many game features like Demoralize, Harpy's song, etc. Plus you will penalize an auditory-based bard who's "job" it is to buff the party. Its similar to how I dislike Dhampir being a playable race because it renders the party healer useless, at least with respect to that character. IMO, its an unnecessary confrontation creator that cause more issues than it resolves.
I'm all for inclusion and representation in the game, but a disability is a bit different, at least in game terms, than issues of gender, sexual preference, etc. It goes back to the argument about intentionally playing an unoptimized character that results in a lesser experience for the other players. We have to remember that PFS is not like a home campaign where we know each other, have a higher level of built trust, and can home-rule solutions outside of the standard CRB. Like it or not, characters with game-defined disabilities create a burden on the GM to adjudicate many circumstances that they were not prepared for when they sat down to run the game.
Experience has taught many of us to be cautious and even distrustful of players we don't know until they prove otherwise. Its unfortunate to be sure, but experience is what it is. You can only beat your head against the same brick wall so many times before you change your behavior. Many a player has quit PFS strictly because of other "BadWrongFun" players at their table. Some of us have become very particular about who the players and even the GM is for games we sign up for. Online play has facilitated this "cherry picking."
I think this is a different situation than with Starfinder were a disabled character can easily overcome their challenges with technology--technology not available in PFS. I think hover-chairs, Geordi La Forge visors and the like are fantastic additions that improve the game experience, but some things are not as easily incorporated in other campaigns.
Just having this conversation is going to make some people uncomfortable because any game-related objection is likely to be taken as an attack vs real people with real challenges, especially so in a medium like this where "tone" is misread A LOT more often than its read correctly. I'm sure there are some that are already pissed off at me and my comments, but that's inevitable. All I can say is, YMMV
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
The answers don't probably change from what they were in the linked thread.
Frankly - the problem probably isn't roleplaying a deaf character, the bigger issue is 'what penalties should a deaf character get, if any'. Since 'flaws' like this (aside from the PFS -2 to two scores, +2 to one) aren't a thing, I would recommend just building the character like you would if they were deaf (picking those feats, hiring a hireling or translator), and leaving the actual penalties (if any) for the table GM to adjudicate.
Personally? I would assume that if you're deaf and still adventurer, you've probably learned to cope with it enough to not significantly impact the groups performance, and would just assume that you can understand what others are saying (through lip reading, body language, mannerism) and that others can understand what you are saying. I'd leave the actual deafness to ROLEplay, and leave it's impact on the ROLLplay to minimum.
(I definitely would not slap the deafened condition on your character, for example - I believe the condition is there for when a PC gets deafened momentarily, not to represent people who are permanently deaf or hard of hearing. It might get weird when a deaf character gets deafened, tho - but maybe the spell/poison/effect affects your other senses too, resulting in the same penalties.)
|
|
The post linked above is a starfinder post. Starfinder operates in a different set of rules from Pathfinder, and SFS rulings do not apply to PFS.
SFS permits blind or deaf characters (though not characters that are both.)
PFS does not yet have that permission. (I think the PTB wanted to get a better feel for the game first.)
I can bring it up and see if I can get it pushed through either in this guide or the next.
|
I am extremely familiar with that post. I have been involved in those discussions since the first starfinder guide came out.
Tonya's comment was that the ruling for starfinder has the full backing of the OPF.
I (personally) am committed to getting a similar ruling for PFS2, but we do not (yet) have one.
I am happy to work with people on this. I am happy to talk about ways to solve this in the mean time. But if people are going to take out of context comments, and try to bend them into rules, I have better things to do and will leave the thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(This post is being copied to campaign leadership, and is an update on the current situation from the perspective of the Guide rules, not a point for debate.)
Here is where things stand (from a Guide and Rules perspective)
There is currently no Guide rulings on Characters With Disabilities* in PFS 2 in the guide.
OPF has a strong mandate to encourage and support Characters With Disabilities.
The Core Rulebook (Page 487) has rules for a variety of disabilities including visual impairment, difficulty of hearing, loss of limb, neurodiversity, and chronic illness.
Currently this leaves the matter up to GMs to negotiate on an individual basis with players. Several of the recommendations in the side bar (specifically the recommendations on granting additional feats) would seem to verge on GM overreach, and some GMs may not be comfortable making those adjustments.
I am also aware that an upcoming Paizo product has rules for Wheel chairs, and possibly other compensatory devices, and I know that we have in past been unwilling to risk having multiple sets of competing rules. Which may be a barrier to getting rules in place before that book is released.
*Disabilities is not a term I would use by preference, but it is the term the rulebook uses, so for the sake of clarity, I am going to use that term in this post.
|
|
The Core Rulebook (Page 487) has rules for a variety of disabilities...
I think this was a good add to the book on ways to allow such things in your game. However, they all require the adjudication of the GM which is not something (currently) PFS GMs have the ability to do. A table GM cannot simply give a character a free feat. That opens a can of worms that no one wants to deal with.
For reference, the Guide also says,
"The following conditions are not automatically removed and must be cleared from the character before the end of the adventure or the character ceases to be available for organized play:
Death
Permanent petrification, polymorph effects, or negative conditions*
Curses"
It would appear that deafness, as a defined "negative" condition would render the character unplayable. That may not be the intent, but that's what it says. I don't think there is a good way to separate a natural "negative" condition from one gained during gameplay so we need to decide either you can play with permanent effects or you can't. That could affect future scenarios and the options authors and the developers have for such things to prevent possible conflict.
I guess we could make a distinction between some conditions like curses and say they are a no-go, but I think that also creates more complexity that further deviates PFS from RAW/CORE. Sometimes we just have to say no to some things, even when it "feels" bad, because we don't have the willingness to give GMs the same level of power over their game as home campaigns. Some people won't like that position, but occasionally we have to make decisions that align with the "consistency of play experience" that is a hallmark of org play.
|
|
The Core Rulebook (Page 487) has rules for a variety of disabilities...I think this was a good add to the book on ways to allow such things in your game. However, they all require the adjudication of the GM which is not something (currently) PFS GMs have the ability to do. A table GM cannot simply give a character a free feat. That opens a can of worms that no one wants to deal with.
On the contrary. This is something GMs specifically have the ability to do. They cannot give free feats without sanction from the rules, but here the rules are giving them that option. The fact that option is presented as a way to create a more welcoming and inclusive table gives them more ability to take that action.
It would appear that deafness, as a defined "negative" condition would render the character unplayable.
The rulebook also says that characters with life long hearing or vision impairment should *not* be represented by the blinded or deafened condition. So that whole section does not apply.
Sometimes we just have to say no to some things, even when it "feels" bad, because we don't have the willingness to give GMs the same level of power over their game as home campaigns. Some people won't like that position, but occasionally we have to make decisions that align with the "consistency of play experience" that is a hallmark of org play.
Except that is the exact opposite of what the guide says. The guide gives GMs wide latitude to create a more welcoming and inclusive game, even at the expense of "consistent play experience"
"Welcoming inclusive games" is the hallmark the guide places the greatest premium on. Followed by "equitable play experience " (not consistent play experience. )
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is something GMs specifically have the ability to do. They cannot give free feats without sanction from the rules, but here the rules are giving them that option.
Just being very explicit here for clarity (and clarification): You’re saying that the Guide instructs/allows that if Player Z sits down at a PFS table and states that his character is deaf—regardless of his reasons for wanting to play such a character—we are to grant the character the Sign Language and Read Lips feats as well as all penalties and immunities such a condition would grant?
I don’t have a problem doing it. I’m just not certain I’m reading you correctly.
|
|
The most specific answer I can give you at this time is "work within the rule to find the a way to work with the player to create the most welcoming and inclusive and equitable play experience possible."
There is no instruction from campaign leadership stating GMs must (or should) grant free feats.
Current policy (as of now) is GMs should find other ways to permit the PC to effectively participate without giving feats.
|
|
(And now you know why I don't frame questions the way you just did.)
While it was "The GM and players should work together to create a welcoming and inclusive and equitable environment. "
The moment someone turned it into "So the player can sit down at the table, and unilaterally demand the GM resolve the issue in a specific way?" Leadership was forced to come in and limit options.
|
|
I'm gathering that you think I'm a troglodyte obtusely trolling this thread, but, regardless of my troglodyte status, I am sincerely not.
If I can read the following exchange:
On the contrary. This is something GMs specifically have the ability to do. They cannot give free feats without sanction from the rules, but here the rules are giving them that option. The fact that option is presented as a way to create a more welcoming and inclusive table gives them more ability to take that action.The Core Rulebook (Page 487) has rules for a variety of disabilities...I think this was a good add to the book on ways to allow such things in your game. However, they all require the adjudication of the GM which is not something (currently) PFS GMs have the ability to do. A table GM cannot simply give a character a free feat. That opens a can of worms that no one wants to deal with.
Where the referenced page 487 in the Core Rulebook states such things as "You might give this character the Blind-Fight feat for free" and "You might give them the Sign Language feat for free, and you might give them Read Lips as well. You might given one or more other characters in the group Sign Language for free as well" and come to the conclusion that I posed for clarification, then there are plenty of other people who would come to that same conclusion (and not ask for clarification, and sit down at someone's table, point to that post and say, "Do that.").
Perhaps by "them" you meant Organized Play--i.e., the rules give Organized Play the option to sanction giving free feats--but not having the advantage of being in your head, it read as though "them" meant table GMs.
Or I may still be misunderstanding you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you are trolling. But you are trying to lock in a set of rules to produce a fixed out come. Which is, in general good thing to have.
But the only way *get* a fixed outcome across all tables is a ruling from leadership. Aka, not me. I can pass on rulings, I can't originate them. And if I do origionate rulings, or if people make it appear they are taking my statements as rulings, then I could lose even the ability to pass on rulings. That is why I get upset when people try to extrapolate OPF rulings that go beyond what I say. Because if that keeps happening, I will have to stop posting to avoid clouding the chain of command.
The current status is: there is a cloud of allowed options, and you need to work with your GM to figure out what is right for the table. But there is no fixed outcome.
Leadership is currently discussing, and hopefully we should have an answer soon, I hope.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Moving to the issue of welcoming and inclusive games, I have a concern. It is completely fine if nobody else shares my concern.
I am not concerned that someone will try to gain an advantage by playing a character with blindness or deafness.
I am not concerned with someone intentionally trying to make the game harder for others by playing a character with blindness or deafness.
I have run tables for players with color blindness, players with dyslexia, players with blindness, players with autism, players with hearing impairment. I have done my best to provide them with a welcoming and inclusive playing environment.
My concern is that opening blindness and deafness as character options, in Organized Play, will lead to portrayals of persons with blindness or deafness by other players who are not (and who may lack understanding or be intentionally inappropriate) that are not welcoming and inclusive.
Following a discussion on a different topic and subsequently reinforced by negative experiences with other players, I made the decision to only play characters the same gender as myself. I do not have the life experiences to inform my depiction of a female character, whatever my opinion of my own ability to empathize.
Similarly, I do not think the majority of gamers have the life experiences to portray a character with deafness or blindness in a way that is welcoming and inclusive (and I'm sure the majority actually think they do). It only takes one bad experience--one person outrageously mumming sign language at the table or over Zoom, one person typing their idea of how a person with hearing impairment speaks in PbP, one person acting out their idea of what it is like to be autistic--to kill the experience for the player with a disability sitting in the other chair, even after I intervene as the GM. The hurt has been done.
Like I said at the beginning, nobody may share this concern, and that's fine. I expect there are plenty who specifically do not share the concern and feel that having the option to inclusively represent oneself as a hero in the game is a benefit that out weighs the risk. I can understand and accept that, but I wanted to share my concern (or at least write it down and set it adrift in the internet).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope, totally a valid concern. But the alternative is to get into policing people's identity and disability.
Some things *can't* be addressed by rules. Some things can only be addressed through community awareness, discussion, and education.
This is a concern that can be best addressed by educating and informing players who wish to play a marginalized or stereotyped group about the sort of things that are considered offensive. I don't know entirely what the best venue for that is, or who best to moderate such a conversation. (I would like us to reach the point where this forum is a safe place to have those conversations, but I am not sure we are there yet.) Certainly different things are going to be offensive to different members of the group.
I think the best advice I can give (and this is purely as personal advice, not as a VO or as the Guide Team Lead) is to talk to your table especially if the table has or may have people who may be members of the group, and explain that you are exploring the concept, and ask them for their advice, or even offer to shelf that issue for the session if they will find it to emotionally draining to deal with.
Remember that your character's gender is something that can be changed freely between games, so in that *specific* case, you can tell people "Hey, I visualize this character as female, but I also don't want to offend anyone and I know that I don't know enough to know when I am being offensive, so if you prefer, I will play them as male for this session, or I can play them as female, and just let me know if I am doing something that makes you uncomfortable and how I can fix it.
|
|
It goes back to the argument about intentionally playing an unoptimized character that results in a lesser experience for the other players.
I reject that argument.
If that argument had any weight, I should be kicked out of PFS. None of my characters are optimized, and at least one is so sub-optimal that I would classify the build as "downright bad." Like, bad enough that I spent a Rebuild on it and I'm still thinking about scrapping the character.
Unless we're going to assign a Build Police, people should be free to intentionally unoptimize their character as long as it's done in good faith. People intentionally driving down a character's CHA is not the problem, that it's done in bad faith is the problem. And PF2 has guardrails on that (e.g., CHA is floored at 8).
Leadership is currently discussing, and hopefully we should have an answer soon, I hope.
Thanks for asking. If it matters at all, here are my proposals.
1. Deaf/hard-of-hearing PCs would take a permanent penalty to Perception and have to make the flat check for auditory actions.
2. Deaf PCs may still be subject to auditory negative effects (GM discretion, but players should understand that they can't complain if the GM rules against them).
3. Characters must fulfill the basic requirement that all PCs in a party be able to understand one another, so they'd have to pick up feats necessary to do so on their own dime (i.e., no free feats), and by the time the PC is first played.
Option 3a. Trained in Society -> Read Lips skill feat
Option 3b. Trained in Society -> Sign Language skill feat, plus a non-deaf hireling with Sign Language as a translator.
Option 3c. Another way that I haven't thought about.
4. The GM has the right to ignore the player's character as written and treat the character as fully hearing if the player is being a jerk.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Following a discussion on a different topic and subsequently reinforced by negative experiences with other players, I made the decision to only play characters the same gender as myself. I do not have the life experiences to inform my depiction of a female character, whatever my opinion of my own ability to empathize.
Similarly, I do not think the majority of gamers have the life experiences to portray a character with deafness or blindness in a way that is welcoming and inclusive (and I'm sure the majority actually think they do). It only takes one bad experience--one person outrageously mumming sign language at the table or over Zoom, one person typing their idea of how a person with hearing impairment speaks in PbP, one person acting out their idea of what it is like to be autistic--to kill the experience for the player with a disability sitting in the other chair, even after I intervene as the GM.
I think it's a valid concern, but I don't see the connection between that and "therefore it shouldn't be allowed."
From a bird's eye view, roleplaying games are specifically here for people to try seeing things through different eyes, and while some are bound to fail, I don't think that should deter well-meaning people from trying.
On a meta level, if a predominantly cis, white, heterosexual, male human player pool only plays cis, white, heterosexual, male human characters, I think that would be a less welcoming environment overall.
Playing a character unlike yourself is an opportunity to learn something.
|
|
Following a discussion on a different topic and subsequently reinforced by negative experiences with other players, I made the decision to only play characters the same gender as myself. I do not have the life experiences to inform my depiction of a female character, whatever my opinion of my own ability to empathize.
Similarly, I do not think the majority of gamers have the life experiences to portray a character with deafness or blindness in a way that is welcoming and inclusive (and I'm sure the majority actually think they do). It only takes one bad experience--one person outrageously mumming sign language at the table or over Zoom, one person typing their idea of how a person with hearing impairment speaks in PbP, one person acting out their idea of what it is like to be autistic--to kill the experience for the player with a disability sitting in the other chair, even after I intervene as the GM.
I think it's a valid concern, but I don't see the connection between that and "therefore it shouldn't be allowed."
From a bird's eye view, roleplaying games are specifically here for people to try seeing things through different eyes, and while some are bound to fail, I don't think that should deter well-meaning people from trying.
On a meta level, if a predominantly cis, white, heterosexual, male human player pool only plays cis, white, heterosexual, male human characters, I think that would be a less welcoming environment overall.
Playing a character unlike yourself is an opportunity to learn something.
Don't lump all things different into one argument or this thread will spiral out of control, if experience has told me anything.
I'm not arguing to change anyone's mind, merely pointing out some of the assumptions that drive my opinion. RPGs are an opportunity to try looking through other eyes, but Organized Play is not a closed tribe of gamers with shared understanding. I assume that the opportunities for harm outweigh to persons with blindness or deafness outweigh the opportunities for benefit. Bjersig Torrsen is representation. Hearing player Z making his best guess at what a person with deafness acts like is not representation.
EDIT: Really more of an aside (and I fully expect even more people to disagree with this opinion), a more important first move would be for Organized Play to intentionally not use blindness or deafness as afflictions, punishments, something bad to be avoided, in their scenarios.
|
This character was meant to be deaf, and instead I chose to make her a non-vebal C.O.D.A. (child of Deaf adults) with a hireling who signed with her because I could not find rules for characters in Starfinder that are permanently Deaf rather than temporarily suffering from the deafened condition. Yes, there are rules for permanently Deaf vlaka. But those rules were never extended to other permanently Deaf characters. At some point, I will have to make Vlaka just to have a truly deaf Starfinder character that is viable.
This character, with her permanent 120 foot telepathy and blind sense thought, was meant to be my Deaf character. But I was wary of table variation and the lack of clear rules in Organized Play. I love Deaf culture and am studying ASL. I had a regular Deaf gaming night that I attended before the Pandemic, and a Deaf friend who wanted to teach me Pathfinder 2 so that he could run an entire Deaf party of Deaf PCs played by Deaf players.
I would love for there to be some kind of ruling for permanently Deaf PCs that was more in line with the Deaf Vlakas that would fully allow Deaf representation in Organized Play. I do understand Blake's wariness. But I will say that we have a Sign Language feat and we have a Deaf VC. Let's have decent rules to allow Deaf Pathfinders and Starfinders of all types.
EDIT: Really more of an aside (and I fully expect even more people to disagree with this opinion), a more important first move would be for Organized Play to intentionally not use blindness or deafness as afflictions, punishments, something bad to be avoided, in their scenarios.
I could not agree more.
Hmm
|
|
This character was meant to be deaf, and instead I chose to make her a non-vebal C.O.D.A. (child of Deaf adults) with a hireling who signed with her because I could not find rules for characters in Starfinder that are permanently Deaf rather than temporarily suffering from the deafened condition. Yes, there are rules for permanently Deaf vlaka. But those rules were never extended to other permanently Deaf characters. At some point, I will have to make Vlaka just to have a truly deaf Starfinder character that is viable.
From the character creation chapter in the guide.
"NATURAL DISABILITIES
The Starfinder Roleplaying Game allows for characters to be
naturally blind or deaf as part of character creation; these character
options are allowed as part of the Starfinder Society Roleplaying
Guild. The selection must be made at character creation and cannot
be reversed. A character can choose to be either naturally blind or
naturally deaf; he cannot choose to be both. A blind character gains
the tactile version of any language he knows, while a character
who begins play deaf automatically knows the signed versions."
This character, with her permanent 120 foot telepathy and blind sense thought, was meant to be my Deaf character. But I was wary of table variation and the lack of clear rules in Organized Play. I love Deaf culture and am studying ASL. I had a regular Deaf gaming night that I attended before the Pandemic, and a Deaf friend who wanted to teach me Pathfinder 2 so that he could run an entire Deaf party of Deaf PCs played by Deaf players.
I would love for there to be some kind of ruling for permanently Deaf PCs that was more in line with the Deaf Vlakas that would fully allow Deaf representation in Organized Play. I do understand Blake's wariness. But I will say that we have a Sign Language feat and we have a Deaf VC. Let's have decent rules to allow Deaf Pathfinders and Starfinders of all types.
Hmm
HMM, you have GMed my blind Shirren, how were you not aware that was legal?
|
|
I was referring more to this Vlaka adjustment:
However, this condition imposes no penalty to initiative rolls or opposed Perception checks that are not based on hearing. The vlaka is naturally without hearing, so the deafened condition can be removed only by effects that grant hearing to creatures with no natural ability to perceive sound.
I think that needs to be on all perma-deaf characters in Starfinder and Pathfinder. Without it, I was wary of table variation on how much my character could perceive.
|
|
EDIT: Really more of an aside (and I fully expect even more people to disagree with this opinion), a more important first move would be for Organized Play to intentionally not use blindness or deafness as afflictions, punishments, something bad to be avoided, in their scenarios.I could not agree more.
Hmm
I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I don't think people should be seeing afflictions *as* punishments. As someone with a number of chronic health conditions, the idea that they are punishments is fairly offensive to me.
on the other hand, if I could avoid them I (expletives removed) would.
That said, especially in a campaign where disabilities are allowed and normalized, the ability to change the meta into one that lets other characters experience, even briefly, the disability that other characters live with on a continuing basis, can be a strong tool for empathy.
Keep in mind that "eliminating blindness" from the campaign would necessitate things like imposed darkness, which would in turn alter the balance of a lot of races.
A path to allow a character who lost their sight or hearing in the course of an adventure to transition into a character with long term loss of vision or hearing instead of curing it or retiring would be amazing.
|
|
I was referring more to this Vlaka adjustment:
However, this condition imposes no penalty to initiative rolls or opposed Perception checks that are not based on hearing. The vlaka is naturally without hearing, so the deafened condition can be removed only by effects that grant hearing to creatures with no natural ability to perceive sound.I think that needs to be on all perma-deaf characters in Starfinder and Pathfinder. Without it, I was wary of table variation on how much my character could perceive.
There was a post somewhere that (apparently) didn't make it into the guide, (probably because I couldn't figure out how to get it wordsmithed to reduce or eliminate ambiguities.
I asked about the line in blindness / deafness:
Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
I was told that only the autofail on perception checks based on the sense, and the inability to use the sense to target creatures or receive communication are applied to long term blind / deaf characters.
(It wasn't worded as cleanly as that, if it were, I would have had no trouble adding it to the guide.)
|
|
Hearing player Z making his best guess at what a person with deafness acts like is not representation.
Why not?
We have plenty of people making Viking characters who aren't Norse, we not only allow but even expect homosexual players to play heterosexual characters, and plenty of atheist players play theist characters, all with some level of "best guess."
With respect to deafness, I'm sure some deaf players are upset about Sign Language being classified as a feat and not a language, or that a single sign language seems to span all ancestries and heritages. Is it so bad that Paizo tried to be inclusive and missed the mark?
I don't agree that blindness and deafness shouldn't be negative conditions. Rather, I think that we as a gaming community should readjust our sense of "normal." I dislike the attitude that a permanent -2 penalty to Perception makes a character terrible, or if I have 120 DPR instead of 130 that my character is somehow unplayable. There are tangible obstacles for deaf/HH and blind players, but the obstacles can be overcome; likewise, there should be tangible obstacles for deaf/HH/blind characters, but the obstacles can be overcome.
|
|
Leadership is currently discussing, and hopefully we should have an answer soon, I hope.Thanks for asking. If it matters at all, here are my proposals.
1. Deaf/hard-of-hearing PCs would take a permanent penalty to Perception and have to make the flat check for auditory actions.
2. Deaf PCs may still be subject to auditory negative effects (GM discretion, but players should understand that they can't complain if the GM rules against them).
3. Characters must fulfill the basic requirement that all PCs in a party be able to understand one another, so they'd have to pick up feats necessary to do so on their own dime (i.e., no free feats), and by the time the PC is first played.
Option 3a. Trained in Society -> Read Lips skill feat
Option 3b. Trained in Society -> Sign Language skill feat, plus a non-deaf hireling with Sign Language as a translator.
Option 3c. Another way that I haven't thought about.
4. The GM has the right to ignore the player's character as written and treat the character as fully hearing if the player is being a jerk.
1 & 2 would essentially make long term disability more punishing than short term.
3. would effectively impose a price on disability. Also remember that canonically, all pathfinders understand Pathfinder sign to the extent of being able to communicate with a vocabulary of ~1250 words. (Although that vocabulary is substantially reduced if they only have one hand free.)
|
|
4. The GM has the right to ignore the player's character as written and treat the character as fully hearing if the player is being a jerk.
(Switching to guide voice for this one because it is actually part of the guide rules)
In game "punishments" are *never* permitted for out of game behaviors. (Being a jerk is an action by the player, not the character.)
The appropriate sanction for being a jerk is a warning, followed by removal from the game, followed by removal from society play
*period*
No other sanction is permitted. Out of game actions are punished out of game. This is non-negotiable.
|
|
With respect to deafness, I'm sure some deaf players are upset about Sign Language being classified as a feat and not a language, or that a single sign language seems to span all ancestries and heritages. Is it so bad that Paizo tried to be inclusive and missed the mark?
That is incorrect.
There is a corresponding sign language for most (if not all) languages in PFS and Starfinder (starfinder it is explicitly all, pathfinder is implicitly all.)
In Starfinder, you take the signed / tactile form of each language as a single language (either using bonus feats, or points in culture)
In PF2, which has many fewer ways to get bonus languages, The sign language feat gives you the signed version of your spoken languages.
Trying to be inclusive, and "missing the mark" (aka perpetuating harmful stereotypes) is bad. Part of the delay in getting these rulings will be due to the fact that there are positive steps being taken to make sure that the solution is not one that perpetuating harmful stereotypes or otherwise harms the community it is trying to help. (Discussing those steps goes well beyond my task force duties and would definitely breach my NDA, so that is *all* I will say about it.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree that blindness and deafness shouldn't be negative conditions. Rather, I think that we as a gaming community should readjust our sense of "normal." I dislike the attitude that a permanent -2 penalty to Perception makes a character terrible, or if I have 120 DPR instead of 130 that my character is somehow unplayable. There are tangible obstacles for deaf/HH and blind players, but the obstacles can be overcome; likewise, there should be tangible obstacles for deaf/HH/blind characters, but the obstacles can be overcome.
This I agree with 100%. PFS/SFS is not written assuming optimized characters and a lot of harm is done to people with disabilities by the assertion that non optimized characters (and by extension non optimized people) are invalid.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
With respect to deafness, I'm sure some deaf players are upset about Sign Language being classified as a feat and not a language, or that a single sign language seems to span all ancestries and heritages. Is it so bad that Paizo tried to be inclusive and missed the mark?
My friend Daniel (Deaf and an ASL instructor) loved the Sign Language feat, though he found it hilarious:
"Wait. With this feat I would know ALL the sign languages associated with the spoken English language? Automatically? What a super power!"
It was a given in his game that all characters would receive that feat for free.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also realize that I have been letting a fear of table variation stop me too long from playing this character the way she was meant to be played. I think she just lost her hearing. I've already paid for the Sign Language. I'm just going to let her be DEAF, and deal with the perception penalties.
|
|
With respect to deafness, I'm sure some deaf players are upset about Sign Language being classified as a feat and not a language, or that a single sign language seems to span all ancestries and heritages. Is it so bad that Paizo tried to be inclusive and missed the mark?My friend Daniel (Deaf and an ASL instructor) loved the Sign Language feat, though he found it hilarious:
"Wait. With this feat I would know ALL the sign languages associated with the spoken English language? Automatically? What a super power!"
It was a given in his game that all characters would receive that feat for free.
I totally grant him that. But with the structure of the game system, the alternative would basically be that there is no sign language feat, and you just have to take multi lingual once for each sign language you want to learn and yeah...
(I am kind of pissed that they made Napsu Sign a "Secret language" rather than a simple signed language with no verbal counterpart. Especially since the feat they are using to emulate it is not available. But that is part of a larger discussion about the fact that I am pissed about how LO:PFSG treated disability in general, and a good example of how trying to be inclusive and failing can be harmful.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also realize that I have been letting a fear of table variation stop me too long from playing this character the way she was meant to be played. I think she just lost her hearing. I've already paid for the Sign Language. I'm just going to let her be DEAF, and deal with the perception penalties.
She can join my Blind Shirren. They can commiserate over their penalties together. (Eyes has only a +1 dex mod, so that flatfooted penalty *hurts*)
|
|
In PF2, which has many fewer ways to get bonus languages, The sign language feat gives you the signed version of your spoken languages.
Deaf players may not have a spoken language, and American Sign Language doesn't follow the grammatical rules of English.
My point is that despite the flaws, it's a workable and well-intentioned system.
Part of the delay in getting these rulings will be due to the fact that there are positive steps being taken to make sure that the solution is not one that perpetuating harmful stereotypes or otherwise harms the community it is trying to help. (Discussing those steps goes well beyond my task force duties and would definitely breach my NDA, so that is *all* I will say about it.)
If external input is a barrier, I'd volunteer to do legwork on getting contacts (probably from California School for the Deaf) and/or giving contacts a primer on the Pathfinder system so they understand the game framework so the discussion with Paizo doesn't take as much of Paizo's time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PF2, which has many fewer ways to get bonus languages, The sign language feat gives you the signed version of your spoken languages.Deaf players may not have a spoken language, and American Sign Language doesn't follow the grammatical rules of English.
My point is that despite the flaws, it's a workable and well-intentioned system.
Part of the delay in getting these rulings will be due to the fact that there are positive steps being taken to make sure that the solution is not one that perpetuating harmful stereotypes or otherwise harms the community it is trying to help. (Discussing those steps goes well beyond my task force duties and would definitely breach my NDA, so that is *all* I will say about it.)If external input is a barrier, I'd volunteer to do legwork on getting contacts (probably from California School for the Deaf) and/or giving contacts a primer on the Pathfinder system so they understand the game framework so the discussion with Paizo doesn't take as much of Paizo's time.
1. I cannot discuss the barriers.
2. US labor laws prevent Paizo from using volunteer labor for core business functions.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3. Asking marginalized communities to volunteer to improve paid products is generally considered offensive and exploitative. Companies seeking to make their products more inclusive should pay for the help the receive from the community. Otherwise it becomes a statement of "If you want to be included, you had better do the work for us."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hearing player Z making his best guess at what a person with deafness acts like is not representation.Why not?
I can't give you an example without being hurtful to others. But the short answer is because player Z is hearing. You may be imagining that player Z is HMM. I am imagining the 100 player Zs who are not.
You can't compare portraying a person with blindness poorly to playing an Ulfen in a way that is non-representative of someone from Norway. And it certainly isn't comparable to playing an iruxi.
It's not an all or nothing argument, either. If we allow X difference to be played then EVERY difference should be allowed. If we disallow X difference to be played then we must disallow EVERY difference. But certain people playing certain differences are offensive.
I'll give you another personal example*. I designed a Zenj Bloodrager ID Rager with the Anger phantom and 2 levels of Vigilante (agathiel) with a white ape alternative persona based on the Mists of Mwangi scenario. He was a freed slave following the Assault on Absalom MTS. I designed him without a malign intent in my heart. Nor was there any particularly noble intent in my heart. I just thought the concept was interesting. However, my intent really doesn't matter at the real life table.
To some people, I was putting on a costume of somebody else's cultural experiences. He didn't have to be Zenj. He could have been Ulfen. And ultimately, he didn't need to be a former slave of any ethnicity.
I have a Bekyar character currently, but he's not a former slave.
To me there's a difference. To someone else, there might not be, and I hope they speak up.
Everyone thinks to themselves, "I can portray X in a responsible way."
Does that mean you open X for portrayal by anyone and everyone? Some say, "Yes." My personal and not-in-any-way authoritative opinion is, "No."
But what I can control is me. If I do not feel comfortable portraying a given difference from myself in the correct light, then I will not.
* If you are not a black or African-American, you can't say that you don't see a problem with me, a white man, playing that concept.
|
|
Again, I'm just sharing my experiences.
I can rationally recognize [poor cross-gender portrayal] is not generally true and I've never had a remotely similar experience in Org Play. . .
I initially wondered if I was being irrational (or, worse, putting on airs) when I made the decision to not play female characters. However, recent experiences in Organized Play have shown me that those poor portrayals of women by men that make women feel unwelcome (and I would want my daughter to have to endure) are still alive in the Organized Play community. And those men may have very well thought they were doing nothing remotely harmful.
This too fuels my opinion about allowing deafness as an option: I see the same mentality that spawns the hurtful portrayal of women easily translating into hurtful portrayals of other stereotyped or marginalized people.
|
|
On the one hand, I don't think people should be seeing afflictions *as* punishments.
Perhaps to inform a completely different topic:
The following conditions are not automatically removed and must be cleared from the character before the end of the adventure or the character ceases to be available for organized play:
* Permanent petrification, polymorph effects, or negative conditions
Critical Failure The target is blinded permanently.
Permanent blindness = the character ceases to be available for organized play.
I think, probably not a shared opinion, that the above says something--unintentional to be sure, but still present--about the value of a permanently blinded character (or deafened, or muted, or infected, dismembered, or even cursed [because calling it a curse doesn't change the many curses with similarity to real world afflictions, particularly psychiatric diagnoses]).
No answers. Just something to ruminant upon.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have put in a request with leadership to create a path for characters who blindness / deafness / (possibly others) to return to play using the rules for "characters with disabilities" but I do not know if that will be addressed in this guide cycle. (We are getting really tight on deadlines.)
|
|
So just to be clear*, if a player presents a blind/deaf character at a public org play game, we are required to modify the gameplay to allow the character to participate, grant them the inherent bonuses (immunity to auditory/visual effects) and grant them whatever free game features we feel is necessary up to and including free feats such as Blind-Fight, Read Lips, Sign Language, etc.? Would that include giving them a set of Goggles of Night to counter their penalty to Perception? Or do we just not impose the "standard" penalties? Or is this merely a case of "you're the GM, do whatever you feel is right?"
I understand that based on above, the specifics may not be quantifiable at this point, but unless we say that those character cannot be played unless/until we get more guidance, we need to be clear on the current conditions and expectations.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So just to be clear*, if a player presents a blind/deaf character at a public org play game, we are required to...
I did not suggest, nor did anybody state that you are required to do those things. I will not further address this comment, nor will I address any further attempts to turn my statements in this thread into rulings. If they continue I will not be able to further participate in this thread.
I understand that based on above, the specifics may not be quantifiable at this point, but unless we say that those character cannot be played unless/until we get more guidance, we need to be clear on the current conditions and expectations.
The current conditions and expectations are what they have always been. Make the judgements you perceive are necessary, within the scope and spirit of the rules, to create a welcoming, inclusive, and where possible, equitable game.
As a result of the comments in this thread, Campaign leadership has said that for the time being, granting blind-fight, read lips, and sign language, as suggested in the rulebook, is not permitted.
Certainly going above and beyond the accommodations in the rule book, such as granting the PCs magical items, is not even up for discussion as a GM option.
|
|
To some people, I was putting on a costume of somebody else's cultural experiences.
I think the crux of the issue is that I agree with the description (you are, indeed, putting on a costume of somebody else's cultural experiences), but I don't agree that's necessarily a bad thing.
Roleplaying games are specifically about putting on costumes. It's a fictional world, and everyone is wearing a costume. And admittedly it's unnecessarily complex, in part, because Paizo's proprietary world is easily (too easily, IMO) paralleled with our real world. Of course people look at the black-skinned people from the jungle-themed southern continent and think Africa, that's on Paizo. But in the end, it's a costume, and it's a fictional world - created by real people in a real world. Maybe it's easier in Starfinder because there's no such parallel. But stories of freed slaves are important stories to tell, and by only telling stories you yourself have personal experience with, it limits the characters' stories to the players' personal experiences.
I don't want our theater to have only X actors playing X characters, because, frankly, the player pool isn't as diverse as we want the character pool to be. Does it come with dangers of people playing other cultures irresponsibly? Absolutely. But on the flip side, it come with the benefit of having culturally diverse stories told that wouldn't otherwise be told. I think the rules and the culture of PFS should lean towards permissivity.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is less putting on someone else's culture experience and more the trust that I have as a player of someone playing my culture experiences as something other than a joke or a quick way to take some ignorable penalties for some mechanical gain.
For example, I have ADHD. I have since I was a child, and I'm 43 now. I don't trust people to play characters with ADHD because inevitably, the player is, "LOL! My character's just so XD RANDO-SQUIRREL!" and what I have to deal with, on a day to day basis, is a joke to them. I certainly won't sit a table with them and suffer being mocked like that.
Now, someone's going to chime in how my experiences are not everyone's experiences and they have a friend with ADHD who is just fine with people playing LOL SO RANDOM! characters. And that's great! Good for you! Your cookie is in the mail! I don't care. I don't trust you to play that character. So now the calculus is on you. How many people are you willing to risk offending or hurting to play this character?
And don't announce it to the board. We don't care. It isn't any of our business. It's just a number that you have to think about and be comfortable with. How many am I willing to hurt to play a character in a game.
|
|
How many am I willing to hurt to play a character in a game.
What a pessimistic way to look at it.
You risk offending someone every time you play a character, even if the character is exactly yourself, or what you perceive yourself to be.
How many players have realized they don't fit gender norms because they play characters of different genders? How many have developed better senses of what their own cultural identities through playing characters of different cultures?
Offending people isn't the end of the world, nor is being offended.
You don't trust me to run an ADHD character? Who, then, do you trust? Just yourself? Anyone who has ADHD? How are you going to police this in any sort of public format? Or are ADHD characters just banned because you may be offended?
A public organization like PFS has three choices: either restrict membership to only people who are culturally identical to one another, enact a police state to make sure people don't offend each other, or develop a culture where people can resolve even deep-rooted conflict.
I choose the last one.