Why do hearing aids exist in 2e?

[Ravingdork]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

I would allow the chair though. Increase the price to 30- 50 gp. An item that allows almost no penalty of movement on any type of terrain. Is too cheap of an item at 5 gp. Unless I read the entry incorrectly. It’s also subject to being destroyed by any attacks such as intense heat from a Red Dragon Breath for example.

I wouldn't up the price in my games, personally.

Also, it's not a "no penalty movement on any type of terrain" item. A person in a wheelchair still needs to contend with difficult terrain, hazardous terrain, and other impediments just like anyone else. It doesn't let them ignore such things, not unless--as others have stated--it's magical (at which point it would be priced more appropriately). It just allows them to (mechanically speaking) deal with them in the same manner as anyone else.

[Temperans]

Richard Lowe wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

In any case, many of the in-game assistive devices ARE equivalent to superpowers. Take the aquatic wheelchairs for example.

Okay, let’s run with that.

Assistive devices are to help you do something you can’t normally I think we all agree. A regular human does pretty weak, nonlethal unarmed attacks, but many races naturally have lethal unarmed attacks so something enabling a human to make lethal attacks would be… assisting them. Imagine if it even let them use extra traits, or do different types of damage!
So, now that we all agree weapons are assistive devices, how should we limit humans and similar races since they get these superpowers basically for free?

This is such a bad take since it has nothing to do with the conversation. Its quite literally a strawman.

Weak unarmed strikes due to having fleshy fists is not anywhere near the same as someone being physically unable to see, hear, hold items, or straight up move. The idea that weapons are somehow assitive device is ludicrous when they are force multipliers. Their jobs is not to assist, its to distribute force better.

That is not even considering that a person who is fully blind is immune to all visual effects. A person who is fully def is immune to all audible effects and some language based effects. A person who uses prosthetics can quite literally modify it to have actual super strength and better ability than a normal person. A person using a super wheelchair is straight up having a mount/vehicle that does more than actual companions. But you compare any of that to a mear weapon?

[Ravingdork]

breithauptclan wrote:

Let's see if I can break this out into a set of lists - hopefully I can finish it before this thread gets locked.

Things that are definitely not a problem
The existence of Hearing Aids
The existence of Sign Language
The existence of Prosthetics
The existence of wheelchairs
The existence of players who want their characters to need any of the above

Things that are probably not a problem unless there is something else combined with it
A player wanting to play a deaf character who uses Sign Language to communicate.
A player wanting to play a character who is missing a hand and wants the penalty of only having one hand to wield weapons and hold items with.
A player wanting to play a character who is missing a hand and uses a prosthetic in order to avoid the penalty of only having one hand to wield weapons and hold items with.

Things that probably are problems - but not with the rules
A player wanting to play a deaf character and insisting that the other characters spend a feat on Sign Language so that they can communicate with them.
A player wanting to play a character who is missing a hand and insists on getting a high level prosthetic item for free at character creation.
A player wanting to play a character who is missing a hand and the GM insists that they are not allowed to use a prosthetic to avoid the penalties of only having one hand to wield weapons or hold items with.

That looks like a fair analysis to me.

[aobst128]

Rysky wrote:

Absolutely not.

Moderation already went through and removed posts calling out the ableist posts but left the offending posts, they’ve made their statement so I see no reason to censor myself, I was going to get removed for daring to speak in the first place so why restrain myself when people like you are being awful but demanding decency?

I've done nothing wrong. I'm just criticizing you specifically for your conduct. If you hadn't noticed, we're in agreement. There are some silly arguments here but nothing worth getting this worked up.

[Temperans]

I get people want to play characters with disabilities. I know I toyed around playing a mute muscian bard or a blinded master monk (if I ever find a group where I am comfortable playing those). I have let my players replace their limbs with prosthetics and demon arms. I have used and let my players use extremely punishing stat arrays.

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing? That is not asking for accessibility or representation and its just gross in my opinion.

[The Inheritor]

Reason #2453 Why the Paizo forums are not a safe space.
---
This Thread.

[breithauptclan]

The Inheritor wrote:

Reason #2453 Why the Paizo forums are not a safe space.

---
This Thread.

Hmm... more like

Reason #8820934 that the public internet is not a safe space.

This reaction has nothing to do with Paizo itself - the staff and moderators are doing their best.

[aobst128]

Temperans wrote:

I get people want to play characters with disabilities. I know I toyed around playing a mute muscian bard or a blinded master monk (if I ever find a group where I am comfortable playing those). I have let my players replace their limbs with prosthetics and demon arms. I have used and let my players use extremely punishing stat arrays.

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing? That is not asking for accessibility or representation and its just gross in my opinion.

Depends on what you're enforcing. These items in question are pretty clear by raw, they aren't intended to impose penalties while in use. I mean, prosthetics are a common enough trope in fantasy that you typically don't think to penalize players for it. The chairs are perhaps a little silly but they make sense and it's nice to have stats for them. Hearing aids in particular should be as benign as glasses in my opinion

[Rysky]

Temperans wrote:

A person who uses prosthetics can quite literally modify it to have actual super strength and better ability than a normal person. A person using a super wheelchair is straight up having a mount/vehicle that does more than actual companions. But you compare any of that to a mear weapon?

Why are you comparing high level/magical assistive devices with a basic weapon and not a basic assistive device? It’s hard to believe but they do not in fact give superpowers.

Temperans wrote:

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing?

WHO IS DOING THAT?!

Where is it occurring other than the arm chair hypothetical white room theorycrafting circle jerk where y’all are creating a “solution” in search of a problem?

[The Thing From Another World]

Ravingdork wrote:

I wouldn't up the price in my games, personally.

Also, it's not a "no penalty movement on any type of terrain" item. A person in a wheelchair still needs to contend with difficult terrain, hazardous terrain, and other impediments just like anyone else. It doesn't let them ignore such things, not unless--as others have stated--it's magical (at which point it would be priced more appropriately). It just allows them to (mechanically speaking) deal with them in the same manner as anyone else.

Good point so I will leave it at the standard price, thoughit can and will be targeted by intelligent or in the case of non-intelligent monsters like a Rust monster. With the PC bring able to upgrade to the Mithral or Adanantine version if so desired.

[Temperans]

aobst128 wrote:

Temperans wrote:

I get people want to play characters with disabilities. I know I toyed around playing a mute muscian bard or a blinded master monk (if I ever find a group where I am comfortable playing those). I have let my players replace their limbs with prosthetics and demon arms. I have used and let my players use extremely punishing stat arrays.

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing? That is not asking for accessibility or representation and its just gross in my opinion.

Depends on what you're enforcing. These items in question are pretty clear by raw, they aren't intended to impose penalties while in use. I mean, prosthetics are a common enough trope in fantasy that you typically don't think to penalize players for it. The chairs are perhaps a little silly but they make sense and it's nice to have stats for them. Hearing aids in particular should be as benign as glasses in my opinion

I have no complaints about using items, magic, or feats to mitigate or eliminate the issue. But those things acknowledge that it is an issue, that the player had to take effort to fix the issue, and that by removing the fix the issue might very well return (depending on what the fix was).

I am nearsighted and without my glasses I straight up cannot even drive. I don't mind playing a character with glasses, but if I do and I lose those glasses you bet I expect to suffer penalties.

[The Thing From Another World]

I wear glasses too (since the age of 5) and as I’m getting older I dislike doing so. I can do many things without them yet it’s annoying to see blurry or need to squint to see clearly. If Laser Surgery was cheaper and 100% foolproof I would have done it years ago. The ever increasing costs of glasses, the change in prescription, need to wait one year or two to be covered by an insurance plan. Like Temperans I may need to wear them to play rpgs I sure as hell don’t want a character needing them.

[Ravingdork]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I wouldn't up the price in my games, personally.

Also, it's not a "no penalty movement on any type of terrain" item. A person in a wheelchair still needs to contend with difficult terrain, hazardous terrain, and other impediments just like anyone else. It doesn't let them ignore such things, not unless--as others have stated--it's magical (at which point it would be priced more appropriately). It just allows them to (mechanically speaking) deal with them in the same manner as anyone else.

Good point so I will leave it at the standard price, thoughit can and will be targeted by intelligent or in the case of non-intelligent monsters like a Rust monster. With the PC bring able to upgrade to the Mithral or Adanantine version if so desired.

There aren't many rules for targeting, attacking, or otherwise damaging and destroying items (especially attended items). That probably means more rulings on your part.

Best of luck to you in finding a good fit for your table.

[The Thing From Another World]

I won’t go out of my way to target anyone with a wheelchair or other similar device. It would only come up when say the group is attacked by something very powerful and damaging such as Dragon breath for example.

[Ravingdork]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

I won’t go out of my way to target anyone with a wheelchair or other similar device. It would only come up when say the group is attacked by something very powerful and damaging such as Dragon breath for example.

That might cause a bit of a stir if you surprise your players with it in the middle of a game, and is generally something I wouldn't recommend. Better to have a conversation with your players prior to introducing the assistive device in question, so as to better set expectations and to avoid worrisome surprises that, to the players, can come across as a feel-bad "gotcha" moment. It will go even worse for you if the rules don't back up your sudden ruling.

[Jim Butler]

I've gone through and removed posts that violated Paizo's Community Policy through baiting, personal attacks, and malicious speech. Now might be a good time to read through the Community Guidelines.

As others have noted, posts are removed if they quote other removed posts.

Posts that you simply disagree with should not be flagged unless they violate these policies. Flagging posts that have not violated the guidelines can lead to a suspension of your account. Please help the moderators quickly identify problem areas by not flagging unless its truly needed.

-Jim

[aobst128]

Thanks Jim

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Why should dragon breath destroy an assistive device but not a character's armour? The established convention is that no matter how likely items that are a part of your character are to get damaged in large AoEs, they simply don't unless an ability expressly targets them. Deciding an assisting device is inherently more vulnerable to damage than any other item on or about a character's person does not strike me as a fair or even ruling. On the other hand, simply having a character's equipment become suddenly vulnerable to AoE without consulting the players about this house rule would probably have me walking away from the table for reasons entirely separate from the attitude toward disability.

It doesn't seem hard to allow a player to have a disabled character without punishing them for it. If a person wants to play out the challenges of being a disabled adventurer, that'd between them and the GM, but I do not think it is the GM's place to enforce penalty on a player simply trying to feel represented or expand their wheelhouse, any more than it would be horror stories of GMs who deny characters their bonus feat because they have the ability to become pregnant.

[aobst128]

Rust monsters are probably the most relevant method of damaging equipment by raw. You could target someone's chair or prosthetic but that's in feels bad territory. The GM suggestions on mounted combat come to mind. You could absolutely kill the player's mounts first but that takes the fun out of it. And in the case of chairs or prosthetics, it's far more debilitating.

[Radam]

Ashbourne wrote:

We don't have a lot of conversations like this one in Starfinder. The settings, lore, and tech allow for almost everything to just fit in. The gap conveniently erases connections to human history and, old D&D tropes and their baggage. If you want to modify your self Starfinder has six categories of how to do that: Biotech | Cybernetics | Magitech | Necrografts | Personal Upgrades | Species Grafts. If you can't buy something off the self, every party likely has multiple members with the skills to build all most any accessibility device at level 1. If you're not sure why someone would choose not choose to address a perceived issue, any shirren is happy to explain the importance and joy of choice. They might even get sidetracked and tell you all the choices on how to talk about choices. Starfinder has naturally accruing species that are deaf, blind, or limbless. One of the few representations of accessibility missing in Starfinder is the three-action economy some PF2e players demand.

I would expect that exactly because of those reason this would come up more often in Starfinder.

Not do you have reliable magic to fix stuff, you also have very high technology and a society where access to both is relatively easy. Because of that many things would be solved so very different in Starfinder than in the real world so that what you get in the game would not be a recognizable representation for things from the real world.

[Totally Not Gorbacz]

Another reason I prefer the PF2 Reddit as my go-to place for discussing the game these days - half of the trash comments here would get removed, the other half downvoted into oblivion.

[Ashbourne]

Radam wrote:

Ashbourne wrote:

We don't have a lot of conversations like this one in Starfinder. The settings, lore, and tech allow for almost everything to just fit in. The gap conveniently erases connections to human history and, old D&D tropes and their baggage. If you want to modify your self Starfinder has six categories of how to do that: Biotech | Cybernetics | Magitech | Necrografts | Personal Upgrades | Species Grafts. If you can't buy something off the self, every party likely has multiple members with the skills to build all most any accessibility device at level 1. If you're not sure why someone would choose not choose to address a perceived issue, any shirren is happy to explain the importance and joy of choice. They might even get sidetracked and tell you all the choices on how to talk about choices. Starfinder has naturally accruing species that are deaf, blind, or limbless. One of the few representations of accessibility missing in Starfinder is the three-action economy some PF2e players demand.

I would expect that exactly because of those reason this would come up more often in Starfinder.

Not do you have reliable magic to fix stuff, you also have very high technology and a society where access to both is relatively easy. Because of that many things would be solved so very different in Starfinder than in the real world so that what you get in the game would not be a recognizable representation for things from the real world.

Not everything or every place in Starfider is high-tech. The year of the data scourge certainly put the fear or distrust of technology in many. It's why the Sratfidner society now has the Cognates. Royo, the leader of the Cognates, wears eyeglasses and uses a pocket watch. Cognates focus on a multi-disciplinary approach to innovation, operations, and problem-solving, including natural, magical, and low-tech analog methodologies.

We don't live in the renaissance, but we still have renaissance festivals. There are all kinds of reenactment groups covering different periods in history. There will always be some people who find the past more interesting, even in Starfinder. We still have swords in Starfidner.

[The Thing From Another World]

RD I plan to let my players at session zero if I implement any houserules to that effect.

I don’t see how allowing character with a flaw and enforcing the penalty of the flaw not allowing someone being represented at the table.

If the group is captured by Ogres or cipher similar evil monsters I don’t see the Ogres simply just going to allow the character to take the wheelchair along, if anything because of how evil they are they would smash it in front of the character. Same with the other characters equipment. Or they sell or trade the rest of the equipment amongst themselves. They can get a replacement once they escape or build a makeshift replacement.

No matter the situation any assisted devices are supposed to be protected by plot armor. I can’t guarantee that as a GM and the group will be told at session zero.

[Squiggit]

Temperans wrote:

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing?

Why this obsession with enforcing like a GM has some personal mandate to make someone's life miserable because there's some potentially exploitable drawback they have?

It just seems bizarre that we have prosthetics and wheelchairs come up and almost immediately someone starts jumping to making the character play without theirs or coming up with contrivances to have their equipment destroyed or otherwise deprived from them. Why is that where people are hyperfocusing?

Forget everything about disabilities or ableism for a moment. Stuff like this is dickish GMing in the same way it's considered kinda s++&ty to handwave stealing a wizard's spellbook so they can't prepare spells or creating contrived scenarios where a champion is forced to fall.

It just strikes me as such a toxic GMing style and thought process to hyperfocus on this notion of enforcement. Like a player pitches an idea to their GM and the first thing you do is start brainstorming ways to use this to ruin their character?

IDK the negative reactions to that don't seem very surprising really.

[TriOmegaZero]

Immediately jumping to 'the bad guys destroy your macguffin' is just lazy storytelling.

[aobst128]

It depends on how much you really like "the party gets captured and stripped of everything" stories. They can be fun and a chair might throw a wrench into it since it's in really feels bad territory to bully someone out of a wheelchair. I don't think those are terribly common though. Not the typical expectation and should be discussed if it's a definite possibility before anything. Might as well not do stories like that if a player doesn't want it is my take.

[breithauptclan]

I have found that it is difficult for someone who doesn't have a particular disability to fully understand what it is like to have that disability. Because people don't fully understand things that they have not experienced.

Sure we can put on a blindfold to try and experience being blind. But the biggest difference there - when an emergency happens, or something important comes up, or you just get bored, you can take off the blindfold and go back to doing normal things like driving to the grocery store and playing video games.

-----

Another thing to keep in mind - several of us are talking about assistive technologies from a place of trauma. I suspect that is why Rysky was getting so heated about it.

I am Autistic. So I can't actually play a character that isn't at least partially Autistic - even if it isn't actually written down on the character sheet anywhere or even supposed to be part of the character. I can try to hide it. I have found that I can do so somewhat reasonably well on text-based formats like Play-By-Post. But it is always there.

So with that in mind, do you understand why I might want to play a character that actually has 'Autistic' written down on their character sheet but also has assistive technology of some variety that removes the penalties from it? Not everyone's power fantasies are the same.

And the same goes for physical disabilities too. Or even people who have had to be close with people who have disabilities of some variety - even if they themselves don't have it. We might still want to play a fantasy game where we can have the disability without penalties - to be disabled and still be accepted.

Let me say that again.

The power fantasy is: To be disabled and still be accepted.

-----

So do you better understand why it stings a lot when people are saying things like:

"I don’t see how allowing character with a flaw and enforcing the penalty of the flaw is not allowing someone being represented at the table."

"I have no complaints about using items, magic, or feats to mitigate or eliminate the issue. But those things acknowledge that it is an issue, that the player had to take effort to fix the issue, and that by removing the fix the issue might very well return (depending on what the fix was)."

"But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing? That is not asking for accessibility or representation and its just gross in my opinion."

And those are the ones that weren't so egregious that they got deleted by moderators.

[Dancing Wind]

Thank you breithauptclan.

You've expressed my complicated feelings about those posts very clearly.

[aobst128]

Yeah. Well said.

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

Temperans wrote:

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing?

Why this obsession with enforcing like a GM has some personal mandate to make someone's life miserable because there's some potentially exploitable drawback they have?

It just seems bizarre that we have prosthetics and wheelchairs come up and almost immediately someone starts jumping to making the character play without theirs or coming up with contrivances to have their equipment destroyed or otherwise deprived from them. Why is that where people are hyperfocusing?

Forget everything about disabilities or ableism for a moment. Stuff like this is dickish GMing in the same way it's considered kinda s+!*ty to handwave stealing a wizard's spellbook so they can't prepare spells or creating contrived scenarios where a champion is forced to fall.

It just strikes me as such a toxic GMing style and thought process to hyperfocus on this notion of enforcement. Like a player pitches an idea to their GM and the first thing you do is start brainstorming ways to use this to ruin their character?

IDK the negative reactions to that don't seem very surprising really.

See you are saying it as if I am a GM actively doing going after players to be mean. But I am coming at it from the point of view of a player that enjoys that what is written on the sheet reflects what happens in game. If I say I have a blackboard to write messages because I am mute, I will use the blackboard, if I lose the blackboard I will have to deal with it. If I have to use a weapon and I lose that weapon I will have to deal with it.

If I need a spellbook and I lose that I will have to make do until I can get it back or get a new one.

Will it hurt? Yeah of course it will hurt, but losing an item > losing a character.

My first idea is not brainstorming ways to ruin the character. But if for some reason it comes up in game I don't want it to get ignored. Heck I had an encounter where I had a very expensive glaive and it got stuck to a creature that was later banished; Yeah I grumble about losing that glaive but I am more happy that my character managed to survived.

[Dancing Wind]

Do you truly not understand the difference between losing a weapon and losing a prosthesis?

A weapon is a piece of equipment. A prosthesis is a part of your self.

[aobst128]

Temperans wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Temperans wrote:

But going around asking to play with a disability, ignoring it and/or trivializing it, taking advantage of it, and then complaining that a GM or another player is bad because they enforced the disability as existing?

Why this obsession with enforcing like a GM has some personal mandate to make someone's life miserable because there's some potentially exploitable drawback they have?

It just seems bizarre that we have prosthetics and wheelchairs come up and almost immediately someone starts jumping to making the character play without theirs or coming up with contrivances to have their equipment destroyed or otherwise deprived from them. Why is that where people are hyperfocusing?

Forget everything about disabilities or ableism for a moment. Stuff like this is dickish GMing in the same way it's considered kinda s+!*ty to handwave stealing a wizard's spellbook so they can't prepare spells or creating contrived scenarios where a champion is forced to fall.

It just strikes me as such a toxic GMing style and thought process to hyperfocus on this notion of enforcement. Like a player pitches an idea to their GM and the first thing you do is start brainstorming ways to use this to ruin their character?

IDK the negative reactions to that don't seem very surprising really.

See you are saying it as if I am a GM actively doing going after players to be mean. But I am coming at it from the point of view of a player that enjoys that what is written on the sheet reflects what happens in game. If I say I have a blackboard to write messages because I am mute, I will use the blackboard, if I lose the blackboard I will have to deal with it. If I have to use a weapon and I lose that weapon I will have to deal with it.

If I need a spellbook and I lose that I will have to make do until I can get it back or get a new one.

Will it hurt? Yeah of course it will hurt, but losing an item > losing a character.

My first idea is not brainstorming...

I think the issue is that these items aren't just simple gear. It's not the point of them. They aught to be treated differently than weapons or armor because they can be treated as part of the identity of the character. Might not make sense 100 percent of the time but it's worth considering. Of course, if a player is ok with and understands potential realistic consequences, go for it, but that's not the intent of these items for someone who uses them for their identity.

[Temperans]

breithauptclan wrote:

I have found that it is difficult for someone who doesn't have a particular disability to fully understand what it is like to ...

I noticed those 3 quotes were from my posts and let me say. And let me say before that section you said "the power fantasy is disabled and accepted" and I agree.

I think we disagree on what that means. To me being "accepted" does not mean having something that makes you the same as a non-disabled person.

**********************

Aobst128 wrote:

I think the issue is that these items aren't just simple gear. It's not the point of them. They aught to be treated differently than weapons or armor because they can be treated as part of the identity of the character. Might not make sense 100 percent of the time but it's worth considering. Of course, if a player is ok with and understands potential realistic consequences, go for it, but that's not the intent of these items for someone who uses them for their identity.

Actually this is exactly what the issue might be, at least in my case (can't speak for other people). I don't see those gadgets as a character’s "identity", but an augmentation of it.

So to me reading the view that its bad to show any inconvenience seems like the character is defined by the tool they are using. As opposed to the the tool just being well an assistive device.

*****************

Dancing Wind wrote:

Do you truly not understand the difference between losing a weapon and losing a prosthesis?

A weapon is a piece of equipment. A prosthesis is a part of your self.

A prothesis is literally a piece of equipment. They are by definition and design in game and in real life a piece of equipment. But regardless that was an example showing that I am not advocating anything that I wouldn't apply to my own characters regardless of the item.

Also note I was not the one who started with the weapon comparison. Although I maybe should had tried to come up with a better example, hindsight is 20/20.

[Rysky]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

I don’t see how allowing character with a flaw and enforcing the penalty of the flaw not allowing someone being represented at the table.

Because there’s a difference between the limitations the actual rules provides and going out of your way to apply HOMEBREW penalties because you don’t think the official rules are severe enough on people who are not able-bodied.

You’re fixating on enforcing MADE UP penalties for the sake of applying penalties that don’t exist within the rules.

[breithauptclan]

Temperans wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I have found that it is difficult for someone who doesn't have a particular disability to fully understand what it is like to ...

I noticed those 3 quotes were from my posts and let me say. And let me say before that section you said "the power fantasy is disabled and accepted" and I agree.

Which I guess means that you are the only person arguing the opposing side that I am willing to acknowledge the existence of.

So... congratulations?

Temperans wrote:

I think we disagree on what that means. To me being "accepted" does not mean having something that makes you the same as a non-disabled person.

To me it means:

In game:

Not feeling like a pity pick for the party.
Not feeling like I am making encounters harder than they should be.
Feeling like I am having as much impact on the outcome as everyone else.
Not feeling like I am being carried. I can climb the mountain myself - even if it is in a wheelchair.

Metagame:

Not feeling like the GM is making additional adjustments. Either to specifically target me and make things harder, or to make things easier for me.
Not feeling like I have to pay additional in-game costs just for equality. Paying for additional benefits, of course, makes complete sense.

Edit: And of course, that is just my wants and desires. Other people will very likely want different things. A blanket set of rules probably won't be able to handle everyone.

[Ravingdork]

Dancing Wind wrote:

A prosthesis is a part of your self.

It literally isn't. It literally is a piece of equipment.

Temperans wrote:

Actually this is exactly what the issue might be, at least in my case (can't speak for other people). I don't see those gadgets as a character’s "identity", but an augmentation of it.

So to me reading the view that its bad to show any inconvenience seems like the character is defined by the tool they are using. As opposed to the the tool just being well an assistive device.

I am not my hearing aids.

Anyone who thinks otherwise can [censored].

[Rysky]

No one has made such a generalization or reduction. Other than the people speaking “against” it while also pushing for more penalties, again, a solution in search of a problem.