|
| 9 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.
Yeah, but none of us agree on who exactly you are referring to.
|
| 2 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. 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.
The DM can’t be a dick. It’s that simple.
What nuance or interest or QoL are these homebrew changes adding to your game? Are they adding anything at all? Or just unfairly targeting people using assistive devices just cause?
You continue to ignore everything being said and lash out against arguments no one is making.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who is lashing out,
I’m simply stating an opinion and something I might possibly homebrew eventually in my own games. Even then it’s not set in stone.
Apparently responding to a counter post is considered lashing out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes... Let's remove options to the GM to prevent players from being screwed, even if they rolled three 1 in a row...
It's certainly not the GM's fault if the Wizard or Magus was caught in a fire attack, rolled a 1 and when rolling which item was damaged, it was the spellbook ¬_¬;
Back on topic, curing deafness with magic may not work, because genetic deafness or "accelerated deafness" won't be cured, so technology is available for them. Whether you get assistance items for free or as a fee is up to the GM and your situation. Not everyone is part of the Pathfinder Society, but not everyone starts without a gold piece.
Players can play whatever character they wish, but if they want to play a disabled character, they must "embrace the weakness". You lose your hearing aid, you're screwed until you can get it back or a new one. If you're in the middle of a cave, you're not gonna find a store.
Your character needs assistance for something. That something needs to be laid out. If you're using a cane or wheelchair, you're likely have a maximum walk speed of 5 feet and cannot run, if not even walk at all. If you're using a hearing aid, you likely have a penalty to sound-based Perception checks.
Seriously, stop defending players who want to be disabled [/b]without having penalties from being disabled[/b].
What,s next? Playing an asthmatic player without needing the inhaler or a penalty to Constitution checks when making efforts?
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I finally go to bed and this is what you leave me to wake up to... the sheer, "but my freedom of speech" deflections in here. It doesn't really matter whether you say that all people are welcome at your table if your actions create a hostile environment for some of those and your response to learning that is to double down on shallow claims of realism. It would also be realistic for adventurers all to get dysentery from drinking the wrong water, but we tend not to focus on that in our stories, do we?
If you can't have a disabled character without focusing on stories where their disability is taken advantage of--regardless of the player's own desire--you have created an environment hostile to disabled players and characters. If you're comfortable with that, go off, I guess. It's not about you, or your freedom as a GM, or even about realism. It's about basic empathy for other people who want to feel represented, and sometimes this means asking for a penalty, sometimes this means asking to be like every other adventurer, just one arm is wooden. Frankly some of the ancestries are entirely wooden.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's certainly not the GM's fault if the Wizard or Magus was caught in a fire attack, rolled a 1 and when rolling which item was damaged, it was the spellbook ¬_¬;
If I remember correctly, that was actually a rule in 1st Edition.
Though I've known a few GMs who would fudge that roll if it was something as severe as a wizard losing their only spellbook. Personally, I don't like cheating and so always like to roll in the open.
It does beg the question though: If rolling a 1 on a saving throw and potentially losing a wheelchair or some other invaluable piece of gear was perfectly acceptable in 1st edition, and no one demonized the developers for having such a rule, why should a GM considering adopting such a rule for their 2nd Edition games be made out to be a villain?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well of course homebrew rules imply home games. If one is playing at an official event one follows Society or rules by raw.
Not every table is the same. It’s like some here assume every and any GM won’t have houserules or they assume since they hate the houserules that penalize players, that no other GM will have houserules thst may penalize players.
GMs as players are not all the same or have different styles of running or what they want from a game. Some don’t want no restrictions or penalties. Some do.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me it is very simple.
Can a player choose to play a character that is not disabled in any way?
Can a player choose to play a character that is disabled but has no penalties from that disability?
If the answer to the first question is 'yes', the answer to the second question cannot be 'no' - that is not the GM's call to make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it not the GM call to make.
The GM is not another player at the table imo.
They can choose to run by Raw or they can implement their houserules. A player is free to stay or leave if they don’t like the options given.
What’s next if I choose core races and a c player chooses to play a non-core one I cannot refuse.
I guess my previous point stands it’s not really just about being inclusive it’s just allowing a player free for all at the table. This is the only forum where it seems the GM can never refuse anything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? The player can roleplay the difficulties just as well without the penalties.
Sounds like a table preference issue.
Some people would prefer it to be simply flavor, as you describe, and others just don't feel like there concepts are being represented appropriately if their isn't some kind of mechanics to back it up. Still more people are somewhere in the middle, a mix of the two.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is it not the GM call to make.
If the GM didn't make the call to add the disability, why should the GM get to enforce a penalty on it?
Does the GM get to arbitrarily enforce a penalty on a fully-abled character?
Again this goes back to the idea that Claxon was talking about earlier. If I decide that my character's hair is blue, the GM doesn't get to apply a penalty to the character because of that.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is the only forum where it seems the GM can never refuse anything.The homebrew forum is a different forum. This one is for discussing Paizo's rules. So, yeah, it's about the rules as written, not about how an individual GM wants to make changes to those rules.
This is neither the Homebrew forum nor the Rules forum. This is the General Discussion forum. It's a bit more...general...in its topics.
Stop defending the rules as Paizo wrote them?
Where in the rules did Paizo write that a one-armed adventurer without their prosthetic arm can wield two non-free-hand weapons or a two-handed weapon?
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, you gotta' draw that line somewhere.
How is it not the GM call to make.If the GM didn't make the call to add the disability, why should the GM get to enforce a penalty on it?
Does the GM get to arbitrarily enforce a penalty on a fully-abled character?
Again this goes back to the idea that Claxon was talking about earlier. If I decide that my character's hair is blue, the GM doesn't get to apply a penalty to the character because of that.
Please try not to forget that this is a cooperative game everyone. It doesn't matter what's being made of why. There should be a mutual discussion to make ensure that everyone is happy with their choices, to get everyone on the same page regarding expectations, and to avoid potential disrutpions.
It doesn't even matter if it's just blue hair. If blue hair could somehow be disruptive to the game, or take others out of the experience, there should probably be a discussion about it.
Simply wanting to discuss things should not in itself turn the experience adversarial.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rules did Paizo write that a one-armed adventurer without their prosthetic arm can wield two non-free-hand weapons or a two-handed weapon?
They did in Starfinder. Physiology
Note that even a species with 0 or 1 manipulation limbs is still considered to be able to wield two hands’ worth of equipment.
Not sure if it is spelled out in Pathfinder2 or not. But what do you think their answer is going to be if you get the chance to ask?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont see anyone actually arguing that though. No one is saying that without their prosthethic they want to dual wield weapons.
And no-one is saying gm's cant make homebrew rules. But whenever you are adding or creating rules that does have an affect on the game, the way players play the game, and the opinions on the games. Your actions may change how people feel at your table. That is simply true. And ya know disabled people are not a mponolith you might get a wide variety of thoughts. Some people might like your homebrew, some peoplr might be indifferent, some people may dislike it but just want to play a game so they wont say anything, and some eont like it, wont approve and leave the table. Some will decide that your table isnt for them as a disabled person.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where in the rules did Paizo write that a one-armed adventurer without their prosthetic arm can wield two non-free-hand weapons or a two-handed weapon?They did in Starfinder. Physiology
Note that even a species with 0 or 1 manipulation limbs is still considered to be able to wield two hands’ worth of equipment.
That has about as much bearing on this game as does Nasa's guide for keeping satellite's in orbit. (None.)
Not sure if it is spelled out in Pathfinder2 or not. But what do you think their answer is going to be if you get the chance to ask?
It's not, insofar as I'm aware.
If I had such a chance, I'm willing to bet it wouldn't be what you imply. Completely different systems will generally warrant completely different answers.
I dont see anyone actually arguing that though. No one is saying that without their prosthethic they want to dual wield weapons.
And no-one is saying gm's cant make homebrew rules. But whenever you are adding or creating rules that does have an affect on the game, the way players play the game, and the opinions on the games. Your actions may change how people feel at your table. That is simply true. And ya know disabled people are not a monolith you might get a wide variety of thoughts. Some people might like your homebrew, some people might be indifferent, some people may dislike it but just want to play a game so they wont say anything, and some won't like it, wont approve and leave the table. Some will decide that your table isn't for them as a disabled person.
That's quite true. However, if a GM (or even a player) opens up a discussion on potentially sensitive issues in the game in order to ensure a more pleasant experience for all involved, and someone chooses not to speak up about their concerns or discontent, then the GM (or whoever else) should not be held liable or in anyway responsible for any resulting fallout.
Now, if the GM pulled a surprise mid-game house ruling that disadvantaged one or more player characters, then I think any upset would be pretty justifiable. That's why session 0s and communication are key.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish that everyone ... would realize that the same handful of ... posters ... 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.
Yeah, that is the point that I am approaching too. I think I have said what I needed to say. The internet in general is not a safe space and no one can change the mind of someone else.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man what kind of games are you playing that non-shield equipment is damaged by mundane stuff? I had some goblins pepper us with alchemist's fire recently but it didn't strip me down to my knickers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Railing against assistive items on an online forum seems like one heck of a strange hill to die on.....paizo isn't going to change them to make them more punitive, the vast majority of tables aren't going to change them to make them more punitive, and seeking advice to do so in public only serves to paint a huge target on your back bc the optics are pretty hostile towards the disabled. I hope your players are comfortable with your homebrew, just don't be mad at the game as written being inclusive.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not? The player can roleplay the difficulties just as well without the penalties.Sounds like a table preference issue.
Some people would prefer it to be simply flavor, as you describe, and others just don't feel like there concepts are being represented appropriately if their isn't some kind of mechanics to back it up. Still more people are somewhere in the middle, a mix of the two.
I'm glad you agree it's all homebrew then.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you agree it's all homebrew then.Why not? The player can roleplay the difficulties just as well without the penalties.Sounds like a table preference issue.
Some people would prefer it to be simply flavor, as you describe, and others just don't feel like there concepts are being represented appropriately if their isn't some kind of mechanics to back it up. Still more people are somewhere in the middle, a mix of the two.
Not all of it. The parts directly contradicting the rules (like having a fireball destroy attended equipment or having someone with a prosthetic take penalties that people who dont need a prosthetic wouldn’t have to deal with) certainly are homebrew, sure, but the rest of the "gray areas" not covered by rules (such as saying a person with no legs that has lost a wheelchair needs to crawl) are just rulings. Even someone in PFS might have to make such a ruling.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's funny?
Even the link that was spammed about PFS says that those characters do have penalties with the corresponding assitive device. They houseruled that the devices are free and will be replaced for free, but the mechanics of what happens when you don't have them are written there is black and white.
Even the very organization that people are using as a "look you should copy these people or you are a bad GM" has the very same rules I would implement. The irony of the whole thing using PFS as a reason while it actively refutes those very people.
Unfortunately, that you believe this to be ironic, or in any way contradictory to the points raised by the those who have favoured this link (myself included) would suggest that you have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the argument to date. I'll grant the argument has shifted rapidly across multiple fronts, but the question of whether there are any mechanical penalties (in terms of numerical detriments) is only a small part of the question.
To illustrate the example that kindled this fire, a hard-of-hearing person can create a character who, like them, needs a hearing aid. This character can choose to take a -2 penalty to auditory perception checks to represent this and then have a hearing aid to negate this penalty. Here's the significant part: Unless the GM specifically targets that character's hearing aid or the player chooses to remove it, that character can express their disability while having functionally no penalties.
The other part of the issue is that a GM who does target your assistive devices to 'enforce' your disability is very likely being a wangrod unless you have expressed interest in telling such a story with your character.
It's as simple as "Don't target my disability to make my life miserable without my say so" and "Let me play a character with a disability (whether I have one or not) and let me choose how much impact that has on how my character functions in the game world." For some disabilities this is more difficult than others, but rather to the point, the assistive devices exist to meet these examples in the middle.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
how does this thread get 66 posts since last night. can you guys mad about assistive items existing just shut up and let the normal people on the forums have peace
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is both "I want to play a blind character who is like daredevil" (i.e. effectively not blind) and "I want to play a blind character who deals with blindness in a realistic way" are both valid perspectives for a character, it's just that they don't really work well together very well.
So figuring out the exact balance for "how (in)convenient your condition is" is a conversation you have at the table because it's something that a small group of people can agree on much more easily than figuring out game mechanics for.
It's generally better if the player takes the lead in determining how much they're hampered by whatever is going on with them. Like I've played a character who was terribly nearsighted and when given the opportunity to take certain perception checks I simply declined via "there's no way I'm going to notice that." I've also played a character whose left arm was a tentacle and the primary problems that character had were sartorial (if the straps don't cross in the back, there's no way they're going to stay up.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah yes... Let's remove options to the GM to prevent players from being screwed, even if they rolled three 1 in a row...
It's certainly not the GM's fault if the Wizard or Magus was caught in a fire attack, rolled a 1 and when rolling which item was damaged, it was the spellbook ¬_¬;
It is because this was a homebrew rule. Your homebrew has no control on my games and you can’t force anyone else to use it, so stay mad I guess?
Players can play whatever character they wish, but if they want to play a disabled character, they must "embrace the weakness".
You hate non-able bodied people, we know.
You lose your hearing aid, you're screwed until you can get it back or a new one. If you're in the middle of a cave, you're not gonna find a store.
Which isn’t the issue. The GM specifically going after the hearing aid with a vendetta is.
Your character needs assistance for something. That something needs to be laid out. If you're using a cane or wheelchair, you're likely have a maximum walk speed of 5 feet and cannot run, if not even walk at all. If you're using a hearing aid, you likely have a penalty to sound-based Perception checks.
Again, you are not a rules writer for Paizo, your homebrew is meaningless. We have rules for people needing to use wheelchairs and hearing aids.
Seriously, stop defending players who want to be disabled [/b]without having penalties from being disabled[/b].
What,s next? Playing an asthmatic player without needing the inhaler or a penalty to Constitution checks when making efforts?
The defending is in response to you and others MAKING UP PENALTIES TO PUNISH THE PLAYER MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL RULES STATE. Stop defending your crap homebrew.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how does this thread get 66 posts since last night. can you guys mad about assistive items existing just shut up and let the normal people on the forums have peace
Right? I thought this was resolved with solid answers in like the first 6 or 8 posts and put this out of my mind.
