Quote from: SHARK;1146039Greetings!

Well, I typically run harsh, brutal worlds where handicapped people in an adventuring team simply are not going to fit in well, generally speaking. As far as that goes, 98-lb weaklings aren't likely to make it, either. Everyone on a team is assumed to be mobile, independent, and functional, capable of dealing reasonably well with most physical obstacles and environments. A Wizard that can't swim or climb a rope is likely to be sent back and searches done until the party finds a Wizard that can swim and climb a rope. No one gets carried anywhere.

Well that sounds like Bullshit SHARK.  Like asking a Fighter to read an ancient language written on the side of a tomb.  Oh you cant?  Well you are out, lets look for a Fighter that can because this is a harsh, brutal world where everyone has to pull their own weight.

Quote from: SHARK;1146039Greetings!

Well, I typically run harsh, brutal worlds where handicapped people in an adventuring team simply are not going to fit in well, generally speaking. As far as that goes, 98-lb weaklings aren't likely to make it, either. Everyone on a team is assumed to be mobile, independent, and functional, capable of dealing reasonably well with most physical obstacles and environments. A Wizard that can't swim or climb a rope is likely to be sent back and searches done until the party finds a Wizard that can swim and climb a rope. No one gets carried anywhere.

Most people don't have access to special labs and uber magic super hero gear, doodads, and technology.

Severely handicapped characters don't fit well into the games I run. They likely get retired to a town somewhere, and a new character is rolled up. That's the breaks.

Absent a whole super-industry of magic and technology to *make* such handicapped characters otherwise functional and allegedly not a liability--it re-orientates the team's focus on how to constantly accommodate and deal with the handicapped character's problems and limitations--instead of getting on with the mission, and jumping crazily into adventure. I don't see that as a positive dynamic, and I don't think most players at the table would be overjoyed about it either. A character having a weird, glass eye, or a metal claw hand, is one thing. More severe handicaps become more problematic, and are generally dealt with as I mentioned.

If you like superhero blind characters, or characters confined to a wheelchair, or quadriplegics, great. In my world if they weren't safely locked away in a town somewhere, they would be eaten, or otherwise swiftly killed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Suddenly reminded of an adventure where my 1st level psychic bollixed a DC 5 Climb check and nearly killed himself before he got hold of the rope.

Vast psionic power, hilariously incompetent on a physical level. Good times.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146043Well that sounds like Bullshit SHARK.  Like asking a Fighter to read an ancient language written on the side of a tomb.  Oh you cant?  Well you are out, lets look for a Fighter that can because this is a harsh, brutal world where everyone has to pull their own weight.

Greetings!

Reading an ancient language isn't essential for every member of a adventuring team, Shasarak. Possessing basic mobility and functionality is an essential though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1146046Suddenly reminded of an adventure where my 1st level psychic bollixed a DC 5 Climb check and nearly killed himself before he got hold of the rope.

Vast psionic power, hilariously incompetent on a physical level. Good times.

Greetings!

Oh yeah! I love it when the Players blow simple, physical challenges. "I fumbled my Climb roll!" "Ahhhh....I crash to the ground, and hit the rocks? Really? Oh, man!"

Hilarious stuff!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK -

If you don't want to have disabled characters in your games, that's fine. It's your game - run it how you like. But your reasoning doesn't make sense and doesn't match with my experience.

Quote from: SHARK;1146039Severely handicapped characters don't fit well into the games I run. They likely get retired to a town somewhere, and a new character is rolled up. That's the breaks.

Absent a whole super-industry of magic and technology to *make* such handicapped characters otherwise functional and allegedly not a liability--it re-orientates the team's focus on how to constantly accommodate and deal with the handicapped character's problems and limitations--instead of getting on with the mission, and jumping crazily into adventure. I don't see that as a positive dynamic, and I don't think most players at the table would be overjoyed about it either. A character having a weird, glass eye, or a metal claw hand, is one thing. More severe handicaps become more problematic, and are generally dealt with as I mentioned.

If you like superhero blind characters, or characters confined to a wheelchair, or quadriplegics, great. In my world if they weren't safely locked away in a town somewhere, they would be eaten, or otherwise swiftly killed.

This doesn't make sense. So... Daredevil is a weakling who would be swiftly killed in your campaign? Why? He's not weak or a liability. I'm not saying that you need to accept such a character, but your claim that the team's focus would have to turn into accommodating him is bullshit.

In my experience, it's not difficult to come up with balanced characters. Some systems have a built-in system for disadvantages, but even without a built-in system, I as GM can adjust character balance to balance things out.

Quote from: jhkim;1146060I as GM can adjust character balance to balance things out.

That's true... But personally, if I've written a scenario about say a haunted village at the top of a frozen mountain. I'm not going to change the fabric of the story to accommodate a wheelchair.

I'd would suggest to the player to play a character that is able to traverse and survive in such a hostile environment.

Quote from: jhkim;1146060SHARK -

If you don't want to have disabled characters in your games, that's fine. It's your game - run it how you like. But your reasoning doesn't make sense and doesn't match with my experience.


This doesn't make sense. So... Daredevil is a weakling who would be swiftly killed in your campaign? Why? He's not weak or a liability. I'm not saying that you need to accept such a character, but your claim that the team's focus would have to turn into accommodating him is bullshit.

In my experience, it's not difficult to come up with balanced characters. Some systems have a built-in system for disadvantages, but even without a built-in system, I as GM can adjust character balance to balance things out.

Great example, yes sir. Daredevil, a "blind" character that has echolocation so strong, far reaching and fine tuned he sees better with it than people with 20/20 vision using binoculars...

Quote from: jhkim;1146060SHARK -

If you don't want to have disabled characters in your games, that's fine. It's your game - run it how you like. But your reasoning doesn't make sense and doesn't match with my experience.


This doesn't make sense. So... Daredevil is a weakling who would be swiftly killed in your campaign? Why? He's not weak or a liability. I'm not saying that you need to accept such a character, but your claim that the team's focus would have to turn into accommodating him is bullshit.

In my experience, it's not difficult to come up with balanced characters. Some systems have a built-in system for disadvantages, but even without a built-in system, I as GM can adjust character balance to balance things out.

Greetings!

I don't care about *DareDevil*. I don't have crazy, superhero characters typically in my games. Handicapped characters--as I've mentioned several times now--are in fact, sans special magic and tech--entirely liabilities. They get a glass eye, a metal claw hand--that's about it. Anything more severe, they're fucked. There's no magic gizmos for them, there's no special accommodations for them. They can't keep up, and endure a harsh, brutal world. They have so many limitations and restrictions, they are done. How does that not make sense? Most adventuring teams expect to run, swim, climb, dig, jump across chasms, scale mountain cliffs, rappel down cliffsides, quickly move along narrow ledges, kick in doors, kick ass and take names.

Characters that are blind, strapped to wheelchairs, or otherwise suffer under severe handicaps are generally fucked, and would typically be swiftly killed and eaten. To avoid that fate, most are simply retired to somewhere safe, and a new character is rolled up that is strong, healthy, and physically rugged, flexible, and mobile.

I don't tend to "balance" anything out. In my campaigns, there is no sympathy, no coddling, no special treatment. It is a harsh and brutal world. They either keep up, or they get eaten and slaughtered. To survive, they must stay back in the town or city, with the women, the kiddies, and the old people, protected by strong walls and strong men. Severely handicapped characters are fucked. They have been severely crippled, and do good to just survive in a quiet, safe place far from danger and stress.

And the whole idea of *Daredevil* *Laughing* Daredevil doesn't exist in my campaigns, nor are there "superhero" type characters. A blind character is a total liability. They're BLIND. They don't get special powers for being blind. They get to live in a garden villa somewhere like assisted living, with teenaged girls to lead them around and cook for them.

I note that Omega, Exploited, GeekyBugle, Spinachcat, and many others seem to understand what I'm saying quite well.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A disability is a liability, but so is not being a perfect god good at all things.

I hate arguments about realism because reality as a whole is generally boring and uneventful. We "Focus" on certain parts of reality where exceptional things happened. In most wars most people actually didn't do much and the battle ended after like 5% of the people panicked and the rest routed. In most wars nobody even aims to kill. They get a wound and then spend 3 months in a hospital.

Im not saying its unreasonable to want to have a game that stresses physical excelence, but its not really a more realistic display of reality then anything else thats fictional. Its about as realistic as daredevil because they both are fictional. IE 100% unrealistic.

In reality 99.99999999999% of the time what is done by an adventuring team of 5 in a game is done by a team of 50 professionals over a X10 extended timespan of the event. And even the rare 5 man team that does only does their one thing once and goes back to being part of the team of 50 professionals. But we overlook this part of "Realism" because we want to hand out with the people we like and play pretend. I don't find it somehow more "Realistically dignified' then a combat wheelchair.

But Daredevil is a really bad example of a disabled hero because hes not really disabled, especially in the way the sight should impact him, IE in his perception.

A wheelchair bound hero might work as something like a wizard with a tensers floating disk style thing for a chair. Its still a hinderance, but some people like playing with a challenge.

So what I find most hypocritical about this is you get your anti-realists advocating for 4e's gamist style (which is absolutely fine) but then they go and support integrating realistic physically AND mentally disabled characters. None of that can be construed as offensive at all. :rolleyes:
So I make an off the cuff remark on Enworld that hey if you want that much realism in your D&D where we are representing bi-polar disorder PCs and the like, why not introduce gender based ability capping [you know like the mechanic in 1e]. Well of course the Wokeratti mods on that politically insufferable leaning site decide - that is sexist.

So mechanising real life mental issue is A-ok, suggesting using an a 1e mechanic is sexist. What does that say about their view on 1e players?

One of the reasons I like OD&D is the 3D6 down the line for characters. The end result is often mages who are as physically capable as most of the party, but just smarter. The random chargen meant most mages weren't 98 lb nerds, but equal to the average human.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1146012The game simply isn't designed to accommodate characters with disabilities. That's unfortunate, but it cannot be changed without rewriting it into a new game.

Somebody should make a "Dungeons & Disabilities" game where all PCs are disabled and this is accounted for in the rules.

D&D can handle it in various ways depending on the edition. Bemusingly older editions had more options than newer ones. 5e at least has some options for limb loss and disabled limps.

This could be anything from a loss in an appropriate stat, to other sorts of negatives to combat or movement depending on the situation. Theres also been some articles and bits squirreled away in modules and magazines for options to cover impairments of one form or another.

Quote from: SHARK;1146048Greetings!

Reading an ancient language isn't essential for every member of a adventuring team, Shasarak. Possessing basic mobility and functionality is an essential though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You dont get to adventure if you can not speak friend and enter.

QED

Quote from: SHARK;1146066I don't care about *DareDevil*. I don't have crazy, superhero characters typically in my games.
SHARK

This... I mean, what has Dare Devil a super, got to do with a fantasy D&D? I've not read DD for years, but to my recollection he was far superior to someone with sight when in came to hand to hand combat.

I think it's really up to the GM's style along with the groups. If you want to make your blind character, effectively a superhero, then just customize your game. Simple as that... I'll just leave those shenanigans out of my game.

One thing I'd also say (and I know very little about 5e's lore). But the Curse of the Strahd (or whatever the fuck it's called). Now will have a NPC where she no longer hides her disability or something?  Retro fixing a scenario is just so fucking corporate. Also, why change that about the character? That's her personal view of 'her' disability (for good or ill). What if someone, who's disabled, relates to that? So their story is not taken into consideration? So no psychological nuances then?

This is why I firmly stick to the OSR or WFRP (early editions). I hate all this playground politics and corporate lick asses that couldn't care less in reality.

Quote from: SHARK;1146066I don't care about *DareDevil*. I don't have crazy, superhero characters typically in my games. Handicapped characters--as I've mentioned several times now--are in fact, sans special magic and tech--entirely liabilities.

SHARK - I understand that you don't have superheroes per se, but presumably your game does have magical abilities, right? For example, there is a warlock invocation "Devil's Sight" which grants the ability to see in normal and magical darkness to 120 feet. Further, a warlock with a familiar can see through their familiar's eyes. Even without any special magic, there are many magical options that grant senses or sight. As an alternate example, a blind druid could wildshape into seeing forms.

Again, it's your choice if you don't want to allow players in your game to take a disabled character as a PC. Your game, your rules.

But your claim is that all such characters are *inherently* helpless and weak pushovers, which doesn't make sense to me given that there is magic that exists in your world. Wouldn't it be possible for a blind warlock or druid to exist that was not weak and helpless? For example, would it be possible for the PCs to encounter a high level blind druid who would be a formidable opponent if they tried to cross him? Presumably a 15th level druid would be a dangerous opponent even if their human form was weak.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1146085But Daredevil is a really bad example of a disabled hero because hes not really disabled, especially in the way the sight should impact him, IE in his perception.

A wheelchair bound hero might work as something like a wizard with a tensers floating disk style thing for a chair. Its still a hinderance, but some people like playing with a challenge.

The fact that Daredevil isn't functionally weak or limited is exactly why I used him as an example. SHARK's claim is that all disabled characters in his world are weak and helpless -- despite the fact that his world has magic. That doesn't make sense to me. Even if there aren't superheroes per se, magic allows characters like Daredevil to exist.