|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Now, before I get into the main post about what game designers are failing to see themselves doing, I’m going to point out that I, myself, qualify as disabled, and have for many years. Due to neurodivergence and other issues, I could be considered as operating under at least 4-5 oracle curses *every single day*, as well as a few other significant difficulties. And, to merely survive in our society, I’ve had to learn tactics to work around those limitations. But, by most game-system’s outlook, I would be considered an ‘invalid character’ due to those wildly varied abilities and weaknesses, many of which are ‘situational’.
I’m going to tell you, now, about an incident some 10 years ago or so, wherein, I, living in a subsidized apartment building, was awoken shortly after going to bed by a fire alarm. My building, and the one next to ours, as well as one car in the parking lot, had been victims of arson. Despite my own difficulties, including partial situational mutism, I went into the burning building on 3 separate times to make sure that everyone else got out, while we waited on the fire department, including aiding a mother who had clashed heavily on me for my attempts to keep the fire door closed (which may have saved her and her 3 children’s lives). I got them out, and, myself, physically lifted the stroller with her youngest to get them up the stairs. I coordinated with police and fire workers, and helped to communicate with our many Ethiopian and Somali refugee neighbors who spoke little English (and I don’t speak their language, but at least had some experience as an ESL tutor), in making sure no one was hurt and the facts we did know got relayed.
That’s not exactly saying I’m non-viable as a hero, but rather, that I’d had to learn to work around difficulties, disabilities, because that was necessary for survival. What I’m upset about is the game design tactic that seems to be attempting to utterly erase those of us who have had to overcome huge limitations and imbalance to not only survive, but thrive. And, honestly, to be heroes. The fact is, it’s not your abilities that make you a hero…there are far too many people out there who have all sorts of powerful abilities, but choose not to use them to aid others. Yet, there are an equal number of people, born with limitations of one form or another, who are taught that they *can’t* be a hero, because of those limitations. We need to show them that they can, and that they are just as worthy as the powerful ones. Honestly, we often, because of how we’ve had to adapt to a world that does not think we are viable, have already come up with a multitude of ways to overcome our society’s biases against our validity.
What we need is not a ‘level playing field’, but, rather, a situation where even the least, the weakest and most vulnerable, can contribute. We need acknowledgement that disabled heroes exist, and that we are valid. That means that we need game systems that recognize that even a character with absolutely wild numbers of weaknesses can still contribute to the whole. And, as a disabled writer and gamer, I try to craft those situations, recognizing that someone working from a position of innate weakness can see holes in an enemy’s defense that stronger characters/players won’t see. So, we aren’t a burden, nor something that people don’t want to see. Disabled people, especially disabled children, need to see examples of their disability truly shining, truly proving their worth. It may mean the difference between life and death for them, for us. So, don’t try to level the playing field blindly, but, instead, try to work in situations where a weakness becomes a strength, and where having to adapt is viewed as a useful skill.
Because we deserve a chance to shine, just like ‘normal or exceptional’ people do. We’re all exceptional, just some of us would be considered ‘non-viable characters’ with how game systems work at the moment.
I wholly agree, and I have recently been positively surprised by seeing more inclusion of disabled options in RPGs (The 5e-based Hellboy RPG includes some character options from the get-go, I also heard that one of the upcoming 2e books will be better in that regard, with a disabled writer being hired). But there are clearly ways to go still, particularly from bigger publishers. Disabled writers and sensitivity readers need more chances to be included from the beginning, not just as an afterthought. I hope to hear/read more from these voices in the future, particularly since sensitively written material also teaches non-disabled writers and GMs how things can be handled better.
This is a pretty strong post, I tend to support all the thoughts expressed in it.
How does this work in practice? What one change would you like me to make to my D&D 3.0 home game as a first step?
KJL wrote: How does this work in practice? What one change would you like me to make to my D&D 3.0 home game as a first step? There is a lot of information available on the internet that will help you learn to create games and game nights that are more friendly to people who are different from you. But the OP has included several explicit things that can change your game and change the gaming environment.
How about What we need is not a ‘level playing field’, but, rather, a situation where even the least, the weakest and most vulnerable, can contribute.
Or we need game systems that recognize that even a character with absolutely wild numbers of weaknesses can still contribute to the whole.
And recognizing that someone working from a position of innate weakness can see holes in an enemy’s defense that stronger characters/players won’t se
And need to see examples of their disability truly shining, truly proving their worth.
Or try to work in situations where a weakness becomes a strength,
And try to work in situations where having to adapt is viewed as a useful skill.
Which of those changes have you made in your home game? What happened when you tried?
PS, here's a style guide to help you talk about these things in a respectful way
Disability Language Style Guide
CrystalSeas wrote: KJL wrote: How does this work in practice? What one change would you like me to make to my D&D 3.0 home game as a first step? There is a lot of information available on the internet that will help you learn to create games and game nights that are more friendly to people who are different from you. But the OP has included several explicit things that can change your game and change the gaming environment.
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought that the suggestion was that game SYSTEMS should have elements DESIGNED INTO them to represent a wider range of people and make them more visible in the games and allow them to see themselves represented in the rules and backgrounds. However, all the suggestions seem to be about what the GM and other players should do welcome a player, with the rules systems being irrelevant. This rather chimes with my initial thoughts as I began reading the OP which were that what is a "non-viable" or "invalid" character does not generally depend on the rules of the game but on stories the GM and players are telling and how they approach them.
The suggestions do double duty:
They certainly can be applied to your home game immediately. Your NPCs can begin by making people more visible in the game, and allow people to see themselves represented in the setting.
If you have house rules, you can make sure that anything you change changes in a way that is a net benefit to disabled players, and makes it easier for them to create characters that are able to do those things.
If you are crafting a homebrew world, then your setting and your rules adjustments can also take this advice into account as well.
These aren't either/or suggestions. They speak to a pervasive change in how disabled characters are represented in ttRPGs, both in playing particular adventures and in building new frameworks.
If the game system you're devising allows a character with absolutely wild numbers of weaknesses [to] still contribute to the whole , then you've begun the necessary work.
CrystalSeas wrote: And need to see examples of their disability truly shining, truly proving their worth. On this topic, and just because it's something I've seen done again and again, try and avoid the disability-as-superpower trope if possible. It can be fun on occasion, but too often it shifts the focus away from the character as a person who must approach the world differently to someone with a compensatory power, with their disability relegated to the status of an easily ignorable quirk. I'm probably hyper-sensitive because I myself am blind, but I see it done with visually impaired characters all the time in media and it's frustrating. It doesn't feel like their different abilities are getting to shine so much as being forced to fit the able-normative mold.
CrystalSeas wrote: Or try to work in situations where a weakness becomes a strength,
And try to work in situations where having to adapt is viewed as a useful skill.
These are two amazing pieces of advice for not falling into the problem I mentioned above, especially if they can somehow be placed hand-in-hand.
Sorry was away from this for so long, but I had other things that took up time for a while. So, back to the problem at hand, and one of the reasons I've actually got a visceral annoyance with Pathfinder 2 specifically (and, in many ways, both of the most recent DND incarnations) is that they have taken a serious step backward on ability scores and their requirements. Back when I first started playing, there weren't really any options, so I'd had to put up with the fact that most classes had ability score requirements to *even play that class* (paladin charisma 17 anyone?)...3rd edition d&d was a real game-changer for me, because it made it clear that there shouldn't be such requirements. That, yes, if your abilities are 'non-standard', you might not handle things quite as well in some cases, but you could still play that class. But, with pathfinder 2 directly tying your ability scores to your class/race/background choices, you end up being unable to really access some of the variety that life has. And, honestly, it's enormously unrealistic to have stats work like that, in addition to annoyingly boring to play.
Fact: I am dyspraxic. What this means is something not well known here in the US (most doctors here really were never instructed on dyspraxia, despite it being more common, according to some studies in other countries than autism spectrum disorder, which it is sometimes co-morbid with). Dyspraxia is a motor learning disability. And it has very wildly different appearances, even within the same family (there are reasons to believe it's at least partially genetic). My particular case manifests in being absolutely hopeless with a console game system's controller, and handwriting that is only barely this side of illegible. On the other hand, I can compose (not merely type, but compose) text on a standard keyboard at speeds in excess of 40 wpm. I can assemble chain mail jewelry with 20 gauge wire and 1/8th inch link, mostly without really looking at it. And, while my crocheting won't ever be very neat, I can untangle a tiny necklace chain, even from tight knots, with nothing more than my fingers. In my case, I imagine that my vision is a large part of what I have difficulty with, because, even when it's mostly behaving (often I end up with doubled vision, vertical), it's almost like my mind is placing my own positioning wrong for the situation. If I orient or navigate with another sense, such as touch, I'm almost guaranteed to be more accurate. But it's an example of how someone with a distinct disability wouldn't make sense having a high dex, for example, but would still be able to function in perhaps a 'rogue-based class'. There are lots of other ways of looking at things, and learning how to do them 'differently'.
Another good observation is that, for all that I'm also aphantastic (can't visualize), I am often the player who, in a group of really good gamers, who sees potential tactical options that would otherwise escape notice. Each player, each character, brings in new ideas, new ways to deal with things, and forcing a player to not be 'sub-par' in society's eyes, is actually crippling our ability to learn how to adapt to difficult or dangerous situations.
And, if you need another amusing example...Concentration has, in some systems, at least, been considered based on con...I can attest to having been riding a 250 cc scooter at 45 miles an hour down a road where I couldn't safely pull off, and riding perhaps 8 miles after noticing a bee under the edge of my visor (which wasn't quite closed). There was no safe place to pull off, nor slow down, and I had to wait until I got to such a place and not wreck the bike or make things worse. I think that was probably wisdom as the governing stat in that case, but it's a good example of not all things fit the way they're initially imagined. But yes, I succeeded on that check, and the bee flew off when my bike slowed for a light, further down the road.
We do, however, need to get away from the idea that everyone has to have 'certain traits' to be valuable in something. Knowing as many autists as I do, I can tell you that an autist, even if not normally someone you would think would have ability scores for certain things, might have that as an 'obsession', and very easily could have relevant knowledge that no one else does. That's just how life works. Now we need to make games do the same.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
