|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to drop my $0.02 because it seems to be the thing here.
If your response to someone playing a character that has a disability is "I don't like that they don't have enough negative consequences associated with this disability" then you're unlikely to be part of the target audience that Paizo hopes to cultivate within the community.
I would tell you to touch grass, but we all know that's not in the cards. However, I'm glad that you're in enough of a positive situation that you're able to fixate on how you might homebrew consequences onto other Players.
Love,
NightTrace
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A prosthesis is a part of your self.It literally isn't. It literally is a piece of equipment.
In a very literal sense, you are correct that it is equipment. And for you personally that might be all that it ever is.
But for a lot of people who rely on them to feel like they are still human, they are a lot more than just equipment.
And just because you feel a certain way about it doesn't mean that other ways of thinking of them are invalid or shouldn't be acknowledged. And it definitely doesn't mean that the rules of this game should enforce your way of thinking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of a TTRPG rule set is to provide a framework for telling stories. The purpose of a TTRPG setting is to provide a place in which the stories can happen. That these tools include things for stories the group's not interested in telling is relevant only if those things cannot be ignored for purposes of the story the group wants to tell.
Given that, hearing aids (and wheelchairs, and prostheses and magical weapons and strange and magical beasts and everything else) exist so that people who want to tell stories involving those things can easily do so.
Any given group, player or gm who's not interested in telling such stories should just ignore those things and concentrate on telling the stories they want to tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In best Jack Nicholson voice as Orc approaches “ you wouldn’t hit a person with glasses would you “.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say providing explicit options for representation is good. How you handle eg prosthetics, chairs, etc. would be for the GM to discuss with the players.
Some players may indeed not want these to be impacted at all by the game (as they have plenty of struggles irl) and others may consider having to contend with the (temporary) loss of an aid to be part of the story.
In the end it is for the player to indicate what they are comfortable with when it comes to that - not for others to assume.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It literally isn't. It literally is a piece of equipment.And you are 100% wrong.
No, because I lose my glasses after tripping or getting hit, I'm impaired. This should be reflected in the game as well, including that you cannot wear 2 pairs of glasses (mundane or magic). Just because it's often an oversight in some medias doesn't it always is in others.
If the player wants to play a level 1 character with poor hearing, then the Magical Hearing Aid should be at least accounted in the character's budget. It costs 5 gp, so that's 5 gp out of the starting wealth. Since it's also magical in nature, any anitmagic effect will render it ineffective.
Here's another example: the Griffon Cane is listed as an assisting item, BUT as a weapon, it's a MARTIAL weapon. If your character isn't trained with martial weapons, the can doesn't automatically grant it proficiency. The same applies to the Probing Cane. By comparison, all 3 wheelchair weapons (frame, wheels and spikes) are simple weapons, but again, if you're playing a wizard, you're not proficient with those either.
Oddly enough, the basic cane isn't listed as a weapon, not even as a club, when high-society characters can use canes as a status item.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just noticed all the new assistive items introduced in Treasure Vault and these are actually so cool and some of them are very clever. I am delighted by this revelation!
|
It literally isn't. It literally is a piece of equipment.And you are 100% wrong.No, because I lose my glasses after tripping or getting hit, I'm impaired. This should be reflected in the game as well, including that you cannot wear 2 pairs of glasses (mundane or magic). Just because it's often an oversight in some medias doesn't it always is in others.
If the player wants to play a level 1 character with poor hearing, then the Magical Hearing Aid should be at least accounted in the character's budget. It costs 5 gp, so that's 5 gp out of the starting wealth. Since it's also magical in nature, any anitmagic effect will render it ineffective.
Here's another example: the Griffon Cane is listed as an assisting item, BUT as a weapon, it's a MARTIAL weapon. If your character isn't trained with martial weapons, the can doesn't automatically grant it proficiency. The same applies to the Probing Cane. By comparison, all 3 wheelchair weapons (frame, wheels and spikes) are simple weapons, but again, if you're playing a wizard, you're not proficient with those either.
Oddly enough, the basic cane isn't listed as a weapon, not even as a club, when high-society characters can use canes as a status item.
… this entire rant of yours is in response to nothing I said.
No one is demanding magical items for free, that’s something you made up.
To a lot, if not most who use them, an assistive device or prosthetic is a part of them, both literally and of their being.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To a lot, if not most who use them, an assistive device or prosthetic is a part of them, both literally and of their being.
Yes, "a part of them", to the point of being unaffected by 100% of the world thanks to some OP plot armor...
THIS is what your rant is all about, and THIS is why you're wrong on all accounts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are non-able bodied people not people?
Why is this so damn important to you?
You can refuse to accept that reality all you want, but to someone using a prosthetic arm, that is INDEED THEIR ARM.
"Their arm", being artificial, is subject to any effect that would affect wood, clay, stone and/or iron, and I'm pretty sure it could be targeted by a Disable Device check, similar to how a Sterling Dynamo's limb can be affected.
It's called realism and fairness to the other players.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are non-able bodied people not people?
Why is this so damn important to you?
You can refuse to accept that reality all you want, but to someone using a prosthetic arm, that is INDEED THEIR ARM.
"Their arm", being artificial, is subject to any effect that would affect wood, clay, stone and/or iron, and I'm pretty sure it could be targeted by a Disable Device check, similar to how a Sterling Dynamo's limb can be affected.
It's called realism and fairness to the other players.
… who are you talking to? You’re having an argument that isn’t there, get off your soapbox.
“Well I can do this and this and that to the pc!”
Yeah, you could. And?
Miss me with that realism and fairness argument, that’s bunk. You’re flailing and trying to justify your rage. Who are you being fair to?
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player wants to play a level 1 character with poor hearing, then the Magical Hearing Aid should be at least accounted in the character's budget. It costs 5 gp, so that's 5 gp out of the starting wealth. Since it's also magical in nature, any anitmagic effect will render it ineffective.
If your playing Pathfinder Society, basic assistive items are provided by the Society for free.
"The Society provides these items to PCs who need them for free, either at character creation or at whatever point in the character’s adventuring career they come to need them, and replaces them at no cost should they be lost or destroyed. These assistive items have an effective price of 0 gp for the purposes of resale."
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't about realism.
It's about wanting to represent a character with an issue that you might have, and your want to spend a little of your characters resources to deal with, but don't want to be penalized for making what is completely an RP choice and not required of you.
I'm terms of making a character, deciding your character has some sort of disability is not so different from deciding height, weight, skin hue, accent, mannerisms, etc. None of those things have a mechanical affect on the character (by default, though some feats or abilities my create such). All people who are disabled are asking for (and not even all, some might be okay with) is to not be penalized for making an RP choice to play their character in the same way you wouldn't want to penalized for making what are normally non-mechanical linked decisions about your character.
The only difference is Paizo has added in some items to help role play with these specific issues.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"replaces them at no cost should they be lost or destroyed" suggest that they can be lost or stolen, which all so suggests they are items or equipment. I've certainly lost or destroyed my glasses in skateboarding accidents.
Organized Play Foundation, Characters With Disabilities.
Should they be lost or stolen is another question. I'd say about as often as a fireball burns off all of a character's clothing and leaves them naked, which has never happened to any of my characters yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't about realism.
It's about wanting to represent a character with an issue that you might have, and your want to spend a little of your characters resources to deal with, but don't want to be penalized for making what is completely an RP choice and not required of you.
I would certainly agree with that. But I would also try to add to that without contradicting it.
Another option is for people who want to try and experience a disability that they don't actually have themselves. In that case it likely would be appropriate to have mechanical consequences for it. And having to deal with penalties and detriments when assistive devices are lost/stolen/confiscated/destroyed.
It is an option. But one that should be done with the permission and consent of everyone in the game. Not something that the GM imposes on someone or their character.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely no one said that those with disabilities are not welcome at any table.
Though depending on the GM and their style of running the game some may want more realism. Some will just give them the item at that’s it. Some may want to impose penalties. Some may not there no wrong style of play.
And Asbourne has pointed out CWD will replace them free of cost if lost or destroyed which makes them equipment and may or may not be targeted or destroyed in combat or a trap.
Obviously this is with player approval of course though the DM also has a say on how their world works. It’s a cooperative effort by both parties not only just one side.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely no one said that those with disabilities are not welcome at any table.
Though depending on the GM and their style of running the game some may want more realism. Some will just give them the item at that’s it. Some may want to impose penalties. Some may not there no wrong style of play.
And Asbourne has pointed out CWD will replace them free of cost if lost or destroyed which makes them equipment and may or may not be targeted or destroyed in combat or a trap.
Obviously this is with player approval of course though the DM also has a say on how their world works. It’s a cooperative effort by both parties not only just one side.
Everything in this thread that’s been argued against paints otherwise, demanding they suffer more or are somehow cheating or have an advantage that must be “neutralized” or specially targeted and singled out.
Look at the bold. You and others crave homebrew penalties for those who use assistive devices beyond the literal, actual rules on the subject… just cause.
“Realism!” Is not a defense and hasn’t been for a long time.
There is absolutely a wrong style of play, and that’s being a crap storyteller. Having challenges for the party is one thing, specifically plotting against one player for daring to use an assistive device is wrong style of play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely no one said that those with disabilities are not welcome at any table.
Perhaps not - at least not in those exact explicit words. But there have been posts wit the sentiment of "If you are playing a character with a disability, that character is required to be played as being 'less than' the other characters. And if your disabled character is given assistive devices in order to keep up, then what are we giving the other fully-abled characters in order to keep things fair?" Which to a lot of people is just as bad if not worse.
If you don't want to have disabled characters at your table, you should just say that. Something along the lines of "The existence of disabilities makes me uncomfortable and I would rather not explore that type of content here." Rather than trying to nerf and penalize the option to the point where it is so unattractive that the player drops the idea.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue isn't about realism.
It's about wanting to represent a character with an issue that you might have, and your want to spend a little of your characters resources to deal with, but don't want to be penalized for making what is completely an RP choice and not required of you.
I'm terms of making a character, deciding your character has some sort of disability is not so different from deciding height, weight, skin hue, accent, mannerisms, etc. None of those things have a mechanical affect on the character (by default, though some feats or abilities my create such). All people who are disabled are asking for (and not even all, some might be okay with) is to not be penalized for making an RP choice to play their character in the same way you wouldn't want to penalized for making what are normally non-mechanical linked decisions about your character.
The only difference is Paizo has added in some items to help role play with these specific issues.
You see that kind of the disconnect isn't it?
Height, weight, skin color, etc. are all non-mechanical cosmetic choices (baring some niche exceptions). But how many arms you have, your ability to hear, your ability to see, etc. are all mechanical non-cosmetic choices, with great impact to how the game plays. Saying that the decision to be blind, deaf, missing a limb, etc. is just "an EP choice" just like your height/weight is exactly what I mean by trivializing it.
If in game you have a two weapon character and they lose an arm, then they would not be able to use two weapons until said arm was fixed or replaced. So why would a person who began play with a missing arm who loses the prosthesis be any different?
No one has called for such a thing, again, an issue you and others repeatedly fall on is having an argument no one else is having.
The issue isn’t someone losing an arm, fleshy or prosthetic, it’s when a GM concocts a harebrained railroading scenario specifically and uniquely targets the PC with the prosthesis for the sole purpose of punishing them.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Ah yes telling the guy that specifically said,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.How they are fixating on it and targetting people. While actively fixating on how people are playing the game wrong for not blanket trivializing disabilities into being non-issues.
So who is the one fixated on making disabled people feel bad? The one that is open to having a conversation about it to make sure the player and GM are on the same page. Or the person who wants to just ignore the disability altogether because the only way to play is if you are fully able?
They’re fixating on it by introducing HOMEBREW rules.
No one is ignoring a disability or trivializing it, there’s for rules for how it works in game and those prosthetics. That’s not good enough for detractors who demand a stiffer penalty for people who aren’t able bodied.
Do you have your characters clothing get destroyed when hit by fire or acid attacks? Do all the potions break in the backpack when they get tripped or knocked out? Where’s the realism then?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is giving those who want to play say a blind character who are not blind penalties for playing one a solution. I am pretty sure if that if their no penalties at all for a disability it needs to be applied to both those with or without. To avoid any party conflict.
Depending on the home brew rules for example fireballs or at least a Dragon breath may affect items. Poitions have a hardness of 1 , hp of of 1 break Dc of 12. A light blade has a hardness of 10 hp 2. It almost never a come up in play as most GMs hand-wave it away. Some may do that other not.
Edited post as reverse ableism makes no sense
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do people also ignore the free set of clothing at character creation?
Do you regularly target armor, scrolls, potions, kits, weapons, backpacks. That might be on your players person during combat/ when in the area of an A.O.E?
I have chronic pain and sometimes have to walk with a cane, my partner has mobility issues. We do not speak for all people with disabilities, it is a nuanced conversation. But generally speaking I think the important ideas here are agency and fairness.
Fairness in that it is a generally understood part of the game, that unless an ability specifically targets an item on a person, items aren't *mechanicaly damaged* by a.o.es and attacks. So when people see others talk about oh well your wheelchair might break in a dragons breath that sets off some alarm bells.
And agency in that so often agency is taken away from a lot of people with disabilities. The amount of stories of heard from friends, family, and aquisntences of random strangers taken their wheelchairs and just moving them to the side, person and all, is exhausting, and the list can go on. So when players are looking to roleplay a character with a disability they may not want any extra loss of agency(when I say extra, I mean because often times these adventures involve big bads and tense situations that pull the players agency away just so that the platers can push against that and save the day.)
But the other thing is, at least in my experience, many people will choose to roleplay out difficulties that may arise from their disabilities if given the chance and feel safe. When it comes from them it helps reinforce the players control over themselves and their experiences while healthily tackling or exploring a lack of agency via a character. When a character of mine has chronic pain, i do have days where the pain flares up so bad they have to take things slow, or may fight in a iofferent way. Or maybe their tactics are off due to the extra cognitive load the pain requires. Once, due to numerous circumstances, i asked if the flying monstrr who grabbed my character could have snatched me out of my chair. The dm didnt force this moment on me, but it felt logical and I wanted to explore the ramfications of that happening.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is, in a way, a repeat of people who argued that 3.5/PF1 Wizards are balanced because somebody might go after their spellbook, which in practice is something that never happens in actual play unless the GM is a dick or that spellbook is a major plot hook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So an DM had zero say on what can or be can be allowed at their games. It’s anything and everything goes for the players. No home brew allowed or at the very least anything that gives a negative. Since the whole concept of homebrew is to not be exactly the same as Raw.
It seems to myself at least less actually about wanting to be inclusive and more not wanting to be told no they can’t play exactly what they want. Dm restrictions and homebrew be damned.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no homebrew rules allowed in organized play, and Paizos already set the standard for organized play.
Organized Play Foundation, Characters With Disabilities.
If you play at home with people you know, then the standard is whatever the people at the table agree to. If your playing in a game open to the public, you need to go by the organized play standards, and it's essential to get to know the individuals at the table to set any other standards to meet individual needs.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish that everyone with half a brain cell would realize that the same handful of terminally online posters who spend every day of their lives here and on Twitter trying to bait people into arguments, twist the words of others, and intentionally misrepresent folks they don't like, and just generally act like petulant children need to be ignored and left to their own devices, not interacted with regardless of what ethics, morality, cause, or identity they're using to shield themselves from reproach.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So an DM had zero say on what can or be can be allowed at their games. It’s anything and everything goes for the players. No home brew allowed or at the very least anything that gives a negative.
I think it's more that no one in their right mind (GM or player) would want to introduce anything to the game that could be considered a negative or that might devalue the fun of others.
It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of perceived power struggle between GMs and players.
If you're having power struggles of that sort at your table, then there are already some deep-seated issues that are likely beyond the scope of this thread. It's important to remember that this is a cooperative game, not an adversarial one.