TheRPGSite

Link:

http://decafbad.net/2019/08/05/the-fate-accessibility-toolkit-or-why-itll-take-me-a-while-to-really-play-gurps-again/?fbclid=IwAR1XMFyBcCfd_Y5Iry578rqDLF6j-3NCAt5raRnW6EesMNhTxNWWj-la66A

The tl;dr here seems to be that GURPS may be somewhat 'problematic', in that it shouldn't rate disabilities at different point values, because it "sends a signal to those who are disabled that what they're going through is simply there to help keep characters from being too powerful and too perfect."

Of course, I think this is a complete load of bollocks; and beyond, that this could somehow affect one's ability to enjoy a fucking roleplaying game. But I'm interested in hearing what others here think.

Anyone who thinks that should definitely not play GURPS.  Or Hero System.  Or really any game created before 1995 or any of their later versions.  Or most of the games that don't fit into that window.  Just to be absolutely safe, don't play any of them.  They might stumble on one that I missed.

Well as somebody with a disability, severe partial deafness + language difficulties, I am well aware that some people have it easier , and some have it harder. The situation that each of us find ourselves in is what it is along with what we have to do to live a normal life. If an RPG reflects the relative difficulty of various disabilities then it accurate.

As for GURPS specifically it may have a single point value attached there is also a paragraph of descriptive text and mechanics that explain the specific nuances of each disability. Unlike it is inaccurate in the description or mechanics, I don't have a problem with rating deafness at a lesser cost than blindness, or being quadriplegic.

Lets see, in a universe where magic is real, not being able to use it IS a disability, not being as charming, strong, smart, dexterous, etc IS a disability. Which is why lower points can grant you a negative to add in rolls for that particular attribute.

Now, onto what the morally deficient moron who wrote that piece of garbage says.

So my character being dumb as a brick should not impact the rolls related to INT?

If my character looses all four limbs this should not impact his speed, jumping, etc?

If my character goes deaf it shouldn't impact his rolls to hear something?

These morons are trying to make "problematic"TM one aspect of the game that's trying to model reality to give it verisimilitude. Good for them, the number of people that hear/read that something is "problematic"TM and take it as a recommendation to go check it out is growing by the minute. The more idiotic shit they pull out of their collective asses the better.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1098630Just to be absolutely safe, don't play any of them.

This does appear to be the prevailing rationale...

Quote from: estar;1098631Well as somebody with a disability, severe partial deafness + language difficulties, I am well aware that some people have it easier , and some have it harder. The situation that each of us find ourselves in is what it is along with what we have to do to live a normal life. If an RPG reflects the relative difficulty of various disabilities then it accurate.

As for GURPS specifically it may have a single point value attached there is also a paragraph of descriptive text and mechanics that explain the specific nuances of each disability. Unlike it is inaccurate in the description or mechanics, I don't have a problem with rating deafness at a lesser cost than blindness, or being quadriplegic.

I agree with each of your points. I think the biggest gripe one could levy at GURPS with regards to Disadvantages would be that some are simply misnomers. The "Honesty" disad is a good example of this, and it can make it unclear what a Disadvantage actually is unless you're familiar with it; I could see that being potentially offensive to someone if they felt a disability they had in reality was incorrectly modeled in the book in some fashion (though I have never actually seen or read about this happening, and I've played with plenty of people who had disabilities of one sort or another in varying degrees of severity).

What interests me continuously with regards to Evil Hat / Fate is the not-insignificant number of people with disabilities who have been displeased with them or their products (some of whom got banned from G+ when it was still around for voicing their complaints); including the Accessibility Toolkit (on the DTRPG page, even).

I recall one instance of a disabled person complaining about pandering and lack of plausibility with regards to one of the Fate "Worlds of Adventure" called "Deep Dark Blue;" essentially a sort of fantasy submarine setting. In any case, their complaint was that the book emphasizes the danger of being in the cramped/ramshackle sub interiors, while also including an apparently paraplegic/wheelchair-bound pregen PC (they were basically saying it felt unrealistic and unnecessary). I can't remember where the discussion went from there, aside from Fred Hicks essentially saying 'deal with it and fuck off' (which is what he says to pretty much everyone about pretty much every criticism; the guy is sort of a dick from what I've seen).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098651Lets see, in a universe where magic is real, not being able to use it IS a disability, not being as charming, strong, smart, dexterous, etc IS a disability. Which is why lower points can grant you a negative to add in rolls for that particular attribute.

[...]

These morons are trying to make "problematic"TM one aspect of the game that's trying to model reality to give it verisimilitude. Good for them, the number of people that hear/read that something is "problematic"TM and take it as a recommendation to go check it out is growing by the minute.

See, this is my real problem with this article. I get that the outrage brigade has to wave their big red flag every now and then to ward off the evil -ist demons, but how do you contemplate a point-buy system like GURPS and think that disadvantages are literally anything but a mechanical expression and game element? Not that I think point-buy is even a very good balancing method by itself, but pretending the Advantage/Disadvantage system is anything but a nod towards balance and mechanical proficiency is just... imagining yourself in a completely alien reality. It's not as if you're looking at a list of what disabilities are fucking "better" than another, you're looking at a point-valued expression/estimate of how limiting it will be with regards to a character's actions in the game world. It's not a literal value judgement assigned to people, unless then a 500-point evil supervillain is somehow objectively a "better" person than a 50-point social worker.

Edit: Oh, and that lovely little tidbit about "[GURPS tells disabled people] what they're going through is simply there to help keep characters from being too powerful and too perfect," what the fuck does that even mean? Because if you take Terminally Ill, you're going to have a hell of a lot more points to spend on skills, advantages and abilities than a non-disadvantaged character, especially in the realm of 50-point normals.

Also, so is "Honesty" something that's bad and keeps someone from being powerful or perfect simply because it's a disadvantage? What exactly qualifies as a disability, here? Because ALL Disadvantages are 'disabilities' in terms of the game itself. Perhaps SJGames should divide Disads into two categories, one that gives you no points (it's just a really long list of specifically statted out real-world disabilities; hm, I wonder how many pages that will take...) and one of "good/approved" disadvantages that are morally upright to accept points for.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098628Link:

http://decafbad.net/2019/08/05/the-fate-accessibility-toolkit-or-why-itll-take-me-a-while-to-really-play-gurps-again/?fbclid=IwAR1XMFyBcCfd_Y5Iry578rqDLF6j-3NCAt5raRnW6EesMNhTxNWWj-la66A

The tl;dr here seems to be that GURPS may be somewhat 'problematic', in that it shouldn't rate disabilities at different point values, because it "sends a signal to those who are disabled that what they're going through is simply there to help keep characters from being too powerful and too perfect."

Of course, I think this is a complete load of bollocks; and beyond, that this could somehow affect one's ability to enjoy a fucking roleplaying game. But I'm interested in hearing what others here think.

[video=youtube_share;yBLdQ1a4-JI]https://youtu.be/yBLdQ1a4-JI[/youtube]

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098655See, this is my real problem with this article. I get that the outrage brigade has to wave their big red flag every now and then to ward off the evil -ist demons, but how do you contemplate a point-buy system like GURPS and think that disadvantages are literally anything but a mechanical expression and game element? Not that I think point-buy is even a very good balancing method by itself, but pretending the Advantage/Disadvantage system is anything but a nod towards balance and mechanical proficiency is just... imagining yourself in a completely alien reality. It's not as if you're looking at a list of what disabilities are fucking "better" than another, you're looking at a point-valued expression/estimate of how limiting it will be with regards to a character's actions in the game world. It's not a literal value judgement assigned to people, unless then a 500-point evil supervillain is somehow objectively a "better" person than a 50-point social worker.

But to these morons you HAVE to make a moral judgment and express it, and it HAS to be a moral judgment they agree with otherwise you're a bad evul istphobeTM.

You have to remember that to them everything IS political, and that their politics are identity based, and you have to cater to their feelings when they are fauxoutraged in behalf of someone who isn't. Or they will cry wacism, muhsoggyknees, and any other its/phobia they just pulled out of their ass.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098656[snip]

LOL! :p Too perfect.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098657You have to remember that to them everything IS political, and that their politics are identity based, and you have to cater to their feelings when they are fauxoutraged in behalf of someone who isn't.

And to my eyes it's almost always well-off, far-left American college-goers who complain and rile up mobs over this type of shit, and almost never the demographics they speak openly for and claim to be assisting. It's just so tiresome at this point.

I think the core primal mistake lies in the quoted designer's stated purpose, i.e.:

"As a game designer, I feel like the biggest gift I can give to players is the ability to see yourself in the universe you play in."

The fundamental problem, of course, is that the entire activity is intentionally built around the imagined portrayal of A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE PLAYER.

All PCs possess capacities and abilities the real-life player doesn't, or gain opportunities to make choices the real-life person never will. Nobody ever "sees himself" in his character in a literal sense; he sees an enhanced, fantastical fictional persona who at best shares some of his own personality traits and brings some of his own perspectives to the fictional choices of the game. And any in-game character limitation a player builds into his design is there either for the sake of its own fun value, or because the player has decided it's an acceptable price for another in-game capacity he wants badly enough. An obstacle which provides neither fun nor reward is not worth overcoming.

If what Ms. Sjunneson-Henry means by "seeing yourself in the universe you play in" is "an RPG experience where a character can share his player's real-life disability, but find it no more a hindrance to the character than the player finds his own circumstances a 'hindrance' to him," it seems to me that this obviates the point of imagining fictional characters in fictional universes at all. If an ostensible "handicap" is neither an obstacle nor a benefit in game terms, there's no point in defining it in game terms.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098654I can't remember where the discussion went from there, aside from Fred Hicks essentially saying 'deal with it and fuck off' (which is what he says to pretty much everyone about pretty much every criticism; the guy is sort of a dick from what I've seen).

He was a good deal more civil to me the one time I complained about not understanding the game Don't Rest Your Head.

But in all fairness, that was over ten years ago, and pretty much everybody loses patience as they get older.  I'm considerably more of a dick now than I was back then.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098659The fundamental problem, of course, is that the entire activity is intentionally built around the imagined portrayal of A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE PLAYER.

[...]

If what Ms. Sjunneson-Henry means by "seeing yourself in the universe you play in" is "an RPG experience where a character can share his player's real-life disability, but find it no more a hindrance to the character than the player finds his own circumstances a 'hindrance' to him," it seems to me that this obviates the point of imagining fictional characters in fictional universes at all. If an ostensible "handicap" is neither an obstacle nor a benefit in game terms, there's no point in defining it in game terms.

These are excellent and compelling points I hadn't considered! Thinking back to the wheelchair-bound submarine crewman I mentioned earlier, that could explain some of the disabled person's frustration with it; not only is the disability apparently not an obstacle despite the conditions and demanding requirements of crewing a submarine, but I just checked and it doesn't show up in any form on the character sheet itself whatsoever.

Edit: So, I guess that could bring into question whether it was simply an art decision? If so, I could see that being interpreted as a form of pandering.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098661He was a good deal more civil to me the one time I complained about not understanding the game Don't Rest Your Head.

But in all fairness, that was over ten years ago, and pretty much everybody loses patience as they get older.  I'm considerably more of a dick now than I was back then.

I just make it clear I'm a dick up-front, so I don't have to worry so much about my condition worsening later. ;)

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098654This does appear to be the prevailing rationale...

aside from Fred Hicks essentially saying 'deal with it and fuck off' (which is what he says to pretty much everyone about pretty much every criticism; the guy is sort of a dick from what I've seen).

This is the difference between Virtue-Signaling Ne'er-Do-Well Regressive Left Fake Social Justice Warriors and real people who actually give a shit. This is done for PR, kudos within the cult, and Outrage Brigade brownie points. No, the Pundit didn't pay me to say that (for those lurkers possibly astonished that the self-identified Liberal is getting tired of the bullshit...).

Fascists don't really care about the causes they use to oppress you. It makes total sense that these ding-dongs freak out when called on their bullshit.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098659I think the core primal mistake lies in the quoted designer's stated purpose, i.e.: ...

Spot on. Well said. Bob's your Uncle. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Quote from: trechriron;1098676This is the difference between Virtue-Signaling Ne'er-Do-Well Regressive Left Fake Social Justice Warriors and real people who actually give a shit. This is done for PR, kudos within the cult, and Outrage Brigade brownie points.

That is certainly exactly how it reads to me. I can't imagine how someone who actually games with disabled people could write something like this with a straight face.

Quote from: trechriron;1098676No, the Pundit didn't pay me to say that (for those lurkers possibly astonished that the self-identified Liberal is getting tired of the bullshit...).

Now now trechriron, no need to fib, we all need to pad the pocketbook from time to time! :p

Quote from: trechriron;1098676Spot on. Well said. Bob's your Uncle. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Much obliged. Now all I have to do is come up with the content and the discipline to actually produce a newsletter. :)

More seriously, if the objective is to figure out an RPG mode/design that actually improves things for players with physical challenges, I applaud the sentiment, but it seems to me the absolute best way to render those challenges irrelevant to the game and the group is simply to let the individual players give them as much attention as they want: no more, no less. Trying to make a consistent, ever-present philosophy of design and play out of it only seems like it would accomplish the exact opposite of making those challenges a mundane, normal element of life.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098686More seriously, if the objective is to figure out an RPG mode/design that actually improves things for players with physical challenges, I applaud the sentiment, but it seems to me the absolute best way to render those challenges irrelevant to the game and the group is simply to let the individual players give them as much attention as they want: no more, no less. Trying to make a consistent, ever-present philosophy of design and play out of it only seems like it would accomplish the exact opposite of making those challenges a mundane, normal element of life.

And the award for "rational common sense of the day" goes to...!

Craig Maloney, sucking the fun out of RPGs in the name of inclusivity by Virtue Signalling.....

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098655See, this is my real problem with this article. I get that the outrage brigade has to wave their big red flag every now and then to ward off the evil -ist demons, but how do you contemplate a point-buy system like GURPS and think that disadvantages are literally anything but a mechanical expression and game element?

Why? Because these sociopaths are so divorced from reality that they think that RPing something, acting something, even reading something is the EXACT SAME as doing that something for real. Others are mundanes with obviously ZERO understanding of what it is like to be handicapped, minority, weaker sex, a rock, whatever they can virtue signal of the week over charging fourth to bravely defend us poor helpless cripples who are too stupid to know they are being oppressed! And toss in a few real representatives who have been brainwashed by these nuts.

And this isn't new. There was bitching some time ago about how unfair and bigoted it is to have all these disadvantages in Gurps. And on and on and on ad nausium.

As a handicapped person articles like in the OP piss me off to the Nth degree.

Now, if you want to talk about symbols and colors on dice, the size or readability of said dice, the colors chosen for book sections, etc. That's cool. Keeping color blind people, or people with bad vision, or people with other limitations in mind that you can make easier by a design choice, awesome! All this sounds like is another side-ways attempt at censorship and thought control.

Quote from: trechriron;1098702Now, if you want to talk about symbols and colors on dice, the size or readability of said dice, the colors chosen for book sections, etc. That's cool. Keeping color blind people, or people with bad vision, or people with other limitations in mind that you can make easier by a design choice, awesome! All this sounds like is another side-ways attempt at censorship and thought control.

Agreed 100%

Quote from: trechriron;1098702Now, if you want to talk about symbols and colors on dice, the size or readability of said dice, the colors chosen for book sections, etc. That's cool. Keeping color blind people, or people with bad vision, or people with other limitations in mind that you can make easier by a design choice, awesome! All this sounds like is another side-ways attempt at censorship and thought control.

I wonder if anyone has made audiobooks out of RPG rule books.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098717I wonder if anyone has made audiobooks out of RPG rule books.

Our very own Grim just finished the SRD of 5e as an audiobook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/281672/Fifth-Edition-DD-SRD-Audiobook)

A brief discussion with whomever runs the Evil Hat facebook page seems to indicate that by removing mechanical benefits to playing disabled characters (such as getting extra points to put into your GURPS character) was the goal. So you would play a blind or wheelchair bound character because its what you wanted, instead of paying off your Professor X powers. I'm not sure why this was supposed to make players with disabilities make characters with disabilities though.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098721Our very own Grim just finished the SRD of 5e as an audiobook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/281672/Fifth-Edition-DD-SRD-Audiobook)

Neat!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098656[video=youtube_share;yBLdQ1a4-JI]https://youtu.be/yBLdQ1a4-JI[/youtube]

Heh heh

(BTW do you know the context of this music clip excerpt?
It was done in tongue-in-cheek celebration of a very liberal law in Australia. It may not be what you intended...heh heh
Just sayin')

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098659I think the core primal mistake lies in the quoted designer's stated purpose, i.e.:
"As a game designer, I feel like the biggest gift I can give to players is the ability to see yourself in the universe you play in."

Yeah I find this totally bizarre, I thought the whole point of rpgs was to create exciting co-operative stories about charactes who aren't ourselves?
I quite like Fate Core, but this is perhaps the most odd statement from an rpg designer that I have seen written about rpgs in all the time I have been playing them.

Quote from: Mankcam;1098768Yeah I find this totally bizarre, I thought the whole point of rpgs was to create exciting co-operative stories about charactes who aren't ourselves?
I quite like Fate Core, but this is perhaps the most odd statement from an rpg designer that I have seen written about rpgs in all the time I have been playing them.

  Well, there have been several 'points' of RPGs I'm familiar with in their history ... 'Become someone else', 'immerse yourself in another time/place/world', and 'tell a cool story with your friends' seem to be the predominant ones, with emphasis varying.

  Given that we've emphasized subjectivity and personal experience to the point that we're about three steps removed from solipsism and autolatry, I'm not surprised that the 'be your ideal self' one is waxing.

Quote from: Longshadow;1098727A brief discussion with whomever runs the Evil Hat facebook page seems to indicate that by removing mechanical benefits to playing disabled characters (such as getting extra points to put into your GURPS character) was the goal. So you would play a blind or wheelchair bound character because its what you wanted, instead of paying off your Professor X powers. I'm not sure why this was supposed to make players with disabilities make characters with disabilities though.

In games which are primarily Drama-driven, where character failure, damage and death are mostly functions of agreed-upon narrative development rather than tactically managed simulated risk factors, and character-specific limitations are about making the story more narratively interesting rather than balancing in-system effectiveness-niche tradeoffs,  I can see something of the logic in this.

Certainly it's an option even in GURPS that as long as you understand you won't get further points for it, you can take Disadvantages beyond what your campaign point limit allows, if you genuinely think it will be enjoyable to play or appropriate to your character concept. In a standard 100-CP starting game with a maximum of -40 points in Disads, once you've taken Blindness for -50 CPs, after all, there's no more mechanical incentive to take any of the more "fun to roleplay" Disads like Honesty, Overconfidence, Impulsiveness and so on.  Yet people with physical challenges are just as capable of having personality issues as anybody else.

The basic problem with this approach is that "how dramatically interesting is it to play this trait?" is ultimately even more subjective an evaluation than "how much does this impede a PC's in-game effectiveness?".  The latter at least can define specific modifiers to specific rolls in specific circumstances. The former would be so dependent on the individuals and groups making that choice that it seems like any attempt to generally codify it would be either uselessly bland, or cause more frustration and annoyance through imposed "this is the Right Way To Play" expectations than it would be worth for those few players who found it a help.

Quote from: Omega;1098700Others are mundanes with obviously ZERO understanding of what it is like to be handicapped, minority, weaker sex, a rock, whatever they can virtue signal of the week over charging fourth to bravely defend us poor helpless cripples who are too stupid to know they are being oppressed!

These peacocking white knight "I'm speaking out in defense of the poor disabled/immigrant/black/women/ad infinitum" shits are the types that piss me off the most, and are usually the easiest to spot. It's one of the most self-congratulatory, destructive and condescending forms of vanity; and one of the most common now, to boot.  

Quote from: trechriron;1098702Now, if you want to talk about symbols and colors on dice, the size or readability of said dice, the colors chosen for book sections, etc. That's cool. Keeping color blind people, or people with bad vision, or people with other limitations in mind that you can make easier by a design choice, awesome!

This I'm completely on board with. In fact, when I first heard the Accessibility Toolkit was announced, I actually thought it was going to be an audio version (with retextured FUDGE/Fate dice for easy tactile reading) or even just a large print/reformatted version of Fate Core. THAT would have actually been cool. I suppose one could use text-to-speech with the online SRD if they were so inclined, but effort would have been much better spent on assisting actual accessibility to the game than this toolkit IMO.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098721Our very own Grim just finished the SRD of 5e as an audiobook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/281672/Fifth-Edition-DD-SRD-Audiobook)

This is awesome, great job Grim.

Quote from: trechriron;1098702Now, if you want to talk about symbols and colors on dice, the size or readability of said dice, the colors chosen for book sections, etc. That's cool. Keeping color blind people, or people with bad vision, or people with other limitations in mind that you can make easier by a design choice, awesome! All this sounds like is another side-ways attempt at censorship and thought control.

Tiny text is a bad habit I have to keep bashing designers over the head to stop doing. If you need a microfiche reader just to read the damn text then you have failed right out the gate.

Others need to occasionally be reminded that using colour only to ID things is going to make the game potentially unplayable for some. Though a few years ago there was a rather unpleasant group amongst the colourblind game design/playtest groups. Long gone now it seems.

And so on. Being considerate is perfectly fine. Pretending to be considerate so you can virtue signal is the diametric opposite of fine.

Part of why some of us like Gurps. Because it does not (or at least didnt) sugar coat the bitter pill.

Quote from: Longshadow;1098727A brief discussion with whomever runs the Evil Hat facebook page seems to indicate that by removing mechanical benefits to playing disabled characters (such as getting extra points to put into your GURPS character) was the goal. So you would play a blind or wheelchair bound character because its what you wanted, instead of paying off your Professor X powers. I'm not sure why this was supposed to make players with disabilities make characters with disabilities though.

This really boils down to the crux of the issue. Why can't people just mind their own fucking business? If you want to be a champion of Social Justice, or are concerned about how people with disabilities are treated, then actually do something about it. If you (in general, not you Longshadow...) believe that removing GURPS disadvantages is going to have some meaningful impact on the plight of the disabled you are truly a delusional fucking moron of the highest order. It hardly qualifies as a true smoke screen because your obvious self-masturbatory virtual signaling just got all over our liberty. At least bring a fucking towel bro.

Now. I'm not saying - in the act of minding you're own business - that you should then ignore injustice, mistreatment or oppression. I'm not saying that. Don't get your Underoos in a knot*. But for fucks sake. When the world is asking you to step up, treat people fairly, love your neighbor, be a good person and your reaction is "look mom, I shit all over my competitors game so people will like me!" - you are not helping.

PLEASE!! Onlookers and lurkers alike. DO NOT BE FOOLED!! The outrage brigade does not give one FUCK about the disabled. Or minorities. Or women. They want to weaponize your empathy against you. They are using the Cause Dejour to oppress you. They want one thing. Power! This is all they care about. They are fascists plain and simple. Watch how they eat their own regularly. They are a vain, unreasoned, uncaring bunch of asses. Of course, the far-right are no better. They just weaponize your fear instead. Gods forbid you think for yourself or have an opinion. One of the extremist polities will find you and light you on fire!

*My spiderman Underoos constantly knotted up but I always felt that had more to do with web-slingers than my attitude.

I wonder what is in the Toolkit?
As far as I know, if you want to play a Fate character with any major hindrance or disability, then it was just listed as the 'Trouble Aspect', and you riff off that.
Simple, clean, and it works really well for the system.
There really doesn't need to be a splat book about it that is also being put up as some noble virtue of the rpg industry.
I won't comment much more unless I read the pdf at some stage, otherwise I'm just talking outta my arse.
But I fail to see how an entire product has ballooned out by this.

Quote from: Mankcam;1098824I won't comment much more unless I read the pdf at some stage, otherwise I'm just talking outta my arse. But I fail to see how an entire product has ballooned out by this.

Here's the store page:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/283738/Fate-Accessibility-Toolkit-o-Prototype-Edition

Quote from: Storepage;1098824Inside the Fate Accessibility Toolkit you'll find:

• An exploration of the challenges and experiences facing people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities, in their own words.
• Advice on compassionately and respectfully playing characters with disabilities, as well as strategies for welcoming disabled players to your game table.
• Discussion of specific disabilities, including blindness, D/deafness and hardness of hearing, mobility issues, dwarfism, chronic illness, autism, depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bipolarity, and PTSD.
• Options for representing disability in the Fate system, using a mix of aspects, stunts, and conditions, and including an exploration of adaptive devices available to characters across a variety of settings.
• Appendices focused on creating safe spaces at your table, an ASL reference for common RPG terms, and a large-print character sheet for Fate Core.

The comments in the "discussion" section below are interesting.

Quote from: trechriron;1098823*My spiderman Underoos constantly knotted up but I always felt that had more to do with web-slingers than my attitude.

Well, silly, you're only supposed to keep one web-slinger in your pants; NOT all three.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098827Well, silly, you're only supposed to keep one web-slinger in your pants; NOT all three.

:eek: :eek: :eek: (life changing)

Quote from: trechriron;1098836:eek: :eek: :eek: (life changing)

Uncle Ben would be so proud! :p

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098628The tl;dr here seems to be that GURPS may be somewhat 'problematic', in that it shouldn't rate disabilities at different point values, because  -

Okay, then, when the guy is GMing GURPS, he can wave a hand and say, "all Disadvantages now have a cost of 0 points."

Let's see how many of his players take any then.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1098961Okay, then, when the guy is GMing GURPS, he can wave a hand and say, "all Disadvantages now have a cost of 0 points."

Let's see how many of his players take any then.

I have a wild guess...

I actually experimented with that in my own RPG wayyyyyyyy back. Handicaps were just... there. Mentioned as things a PC could start with. Or end up with through mishap.

A few still took them. And two came up with clever ideas for magical assists to counter in some way. Both players were handicapped.

Good news, the Fate Accessibility Toolkit has become a finalist in the 2019 Nebula Awards! (and for the industry as a whole, that's a good thing!)

https://www.tor.com/2020/02/20/announcing-the-2019-nebula-awards-finalists/

Category... "Game Writing"? Huh, I hadn't realized it would qualify as 'game writing' simply because it has "Fate" in the title and a few mention of Aspects sprinkled throughout the text, but I guess that shows how much I know. :o

My favorite comment so far: "Congratulations to Elsa and to the Evil Hat team for the Fate Accessibility Toolkit! Evil Hat has been doing great work for years, not just on tabletop roleplaying systems and scenarios, but on inclusivity and diversity in a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes. Their artwork always includes a variety of types of people; their scenario booklets go way beyond elfy-dwarfy fantasy and space-opera and dig into lots of non-Western cultures and myths; and now the Accessibility Toolkit steps up the game even further."

EDIT: In case you're curious, here are the other finalists in that category:

Outer Wilds, Kelsey Beachum (Mobius Digital)
The Outer Worlds, Leonard Boyarsky, Megan Starks, Kate Dollarhyde, Chris L’Etoile (Obsidian Entertainment)
The Magician’s Workshop, Kate Heartfield (Choice of Games)
Disco Elysium, Robert Kurvitz (ZA/UM)

I have to admit I'm not particularly familiar with any of them.

Greetings!

You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

What if women, or blacks, Hispanics, or Asian gamers were always referenced in such insulting terms? Oh, that's right. We have to always speak about them in hushed, reverent tones.

But go ahead. Shit all over the "dorky white guys."

I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

And these fucking morons wonder why so many people are fierce supporters of President Trump?:rolleyes: I think this pervasive, smug and insulting attitude displayed by so many provides an enormously powerful foundation of support for President Trump.

It gets so tiresome always being insulted, disrespected, and smugly condescended to by these kinds of fucking jackasses.:mad:

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122705Their artwork always includes a variety of types of people; their scenario booklets go way beyond elfy-dwarfy fantasy and space-opera and dig into lots of non-Western cultures and myths...

Cultural appropriation!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122705...and now the Accessibility Toolkit steps up the game even further."

Steps up the game? Tone deaf!

Quote from: SHARK;1122706But go ahead. Shit all over the "dorky white guys."

I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

I'm a smug white conservative, thankyou very much! And you're a dorky white guy, and I'll take a giant steaming dump on you if I want to. You can't oppress my excreta!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122705Good news, the Fate Accessibility Toolkit has become a finalist in the 2019 Nebula Awards! (and for the industry as a whole, that's a good thing!)

https://www.tor.com/2020/02/20/announcing-the-2019-nebula-awards-finalists/

Category... "Game Writing"? Huh, I hadn't realized it would qualify as 'game writing' simply because it has "Fate" in the title and a few mention of Aspects sprinkled throughout the text, but I guess that shows how much I know. :o

My favorite comment so far: "Congratulations to Elsa and to the Evil Hat team for the Fate Accessibility Toolkit! Evil Hat has been doing great work for years, not just on tabletop roleplaying systems and scenarios, but on inclusivity and diversity in a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes. Their artwork always includes a variety of types of people; their scenario booklets go way beyond elfy-dwarfy fantasy and space-opera and dig into lots of non-Western cultures and myths; and now the Accessibility Toolkit steps up the game even further."

EDIT: In case you're curious, here are the other finalists in that category:

Outer Wilds, Kelsey Beachum (Mobius Digital)
The Outer Worlds, Leonard Boyarsky, Megan Starks, Kate Dollarhyde, Chris L'Etoile (Obsidian Entertainment)
The Magician's Workshop, Kate Heartfield (Choice of Games)
Disco Elysium, Robert Kurvitz (ZA/UM)

I have to admit I'm not particularly familiar with any of them.

So an incomplete book is up against 4 video games?  Seems kind of odd.

Last I saw the FATE Accessibly Toolkit, at least according to the DTRPG page, is still in a prototype phase.  It doesn't have any of the art in it, just placeholder boxes.  Evil Hat said they would need to sell hundreds of copies to be able to pay for the art, finish the book and make it print on demand.  It's been like that since July of last year.  How does an unfinished work get nominated for an award?

Quote from: SHARK;1122706Greetings!

You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

What if women, or blacks, Hispanics, or Asian gamers were always referenced in such insulting terms? Oh, that's right. We have to always speak about them in hushed, reverent tones.

But go ahead. Shit all over the "dorky white guys."

I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

And these fucking morons wonder why so many people are fierce supporters of President Trump?:rolleyes: I think this pervasive, smug and insulting attitude displayed by so many provides an enormously powerful foundation of support for President Trump.

It gets so tiresome always being insulted, disrespected, and smugly condescended to by these kinds of fucking jackasses.:mad:

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Silly SHARK.  Welcome to EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES!  You already know that us evil white people already talk about anyone not-us like that every second of every day in AmeriKKK.  We've been casually racist, smug, condescending, etc toward everyone since the beginning of time.  That's why it's ok to talk like that about white people now.  Is your white masculinity so fragile that you are getting triggered?  Who's the real snowflake?!

Quote from: SHARK;1122706You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

When I saw that quote my reaction was the person could take their attitude and shove it up their ass. The primary reason why many "dorky-guy stereotypes" got into the hobby was because it was one of the few that welcomed dorks, before, you know, it got all trendy and shit to be a "geek".

Quote from: SHARK;1122706I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

Almost entirely smug, white liberals.  Because it is projection and hiding.  Hiding what they really do think behind the projection that everyone shares their clique's vices.  Think about it. What is the defining characteristic of the type?  They are certain that they are "better" than other people.  Or rather, they are desperate to not face up to the nagging doubt that their assumption that they are better than other people is not warranted.

I was only partly joking when I said such people should not be gaming.  I think it is actively destructive to their mental health and chances of getting better.  Unless, of course, they can summon the courage to go game with a normal group--that will naturally trample all over their shallow, unimportant sensibilities--but then hang in there long enough to see that the more important things are respected by that group.  Assuming such a group can put up with them long enough for them to learn the lesson.  I don't have that much charity in me when it comes to my roleplaying leisure time.  Of course they have difficulty with the idea of putting themselves into a completely different character mindset.  If they had enough basic empathy do that, they'd no longer be a smug, white liberal.

Quote from: SHARK;1122706Greetings!

You know, I often wonder if other WHITE people--or anyone really--ever gets tired of the constant, casual racism and condescending, smug and insulting attitudes expressed by these jackasses in things like "a scene long dominated by dorky-white-guy stereotypes."

What if women, or blacks, Hispanics, or Asian gamers were always referenced in such insulting terms? Oh, that's right. We have to always speak about them in hushed, reverent tones.

But go ahead. Shit all over the "dorky white guys."

I see this kind of attitude all the time. Not just by "minorities" per se, but especially by smug, white Liberals.

And these fucking morons wonder why so many people are fierce supporters of President Trump?:rolleyes: I think this pervasive, smug and insulting attitude displayed by so many provides an enormously powerful foundation of support for President Trump.

It gets so tiresome always being insulted, disrespected, and smugly condescended to by these kinds of fucking jackasses.:mad:

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Agreed. But in today's West racism is OK so long as it's against white people, and sexism is OK as long as it's against men (except for the ones that call themselves and want it legally enforced for others to call them women, that would be a BIG no-no). You are too right that this type of attitude is heavily entrenched among the smug, white far-left and particularly those brainwashed through college "education" as you have accurately noted elsewhere.

In any case, if you'd like a good laugh there are some hilarious Trump-hate/Liberal extremist tears threads over at TBP's Tangency forum like the "post-impeachment, what do we do now?! AAAAAGH!!" thread; some are having quite literal mental breakdowns over the fact that Trump has not been removed from office, spat upon, had his family history forcibly erased and his assets dissolved, hoisted upon a cross and lashed to death by illegal immigrants by now and had his body paraded around in an LGBT parade. The number of sour nicknames they've invented for both Trump and members of his staff in order to to vent their pathetic, fragile, desperate egos alone is hilarious. Reading those posts you'd think the sky has fallen and landed directly, and personally, on them and that the entire world has already burnt to the ground. Their lamentations read as people trapped in their own mental solitary confinement.

Such concentrated self-centeredness and narcissism is truly a sight to behold. I imagine their racist and sexist tendencies can be easily linked to such vitriol; all they want to do is strike out and hurt people they perceive as persecuting or oppressing them (which, being serial narcissists, is "everyone"). Ironic that they lack the self awareness to recognize their own racist, sexist tendencies they rail on/censor/smear/threaten/attack others for, but then introspection is not generally part of their repertoire.

Regardless of one's political leanings, when/if Trump is re-elected the breakdown and utter implosion of the far left will be truly spectacular. Bring sunglasses and don't stare directly at the mushroom cloud.

Quote from: rgalex;1122742So an incomplete book is up against 4 video games?  Seems kinda of odd.

Last I saw the FATE Accessibly Toolkit, at least according to the DTRPG page, is still in a prototype phase.  It doesn't have any of the art in it, just placeholder boxes.  Evil Hat said they would need to sell hundreds of copies to be able to pay for the art, finish the book and make it print on demand.  It's been like that since July of last year.  How does an unfinished work get nominated for an award?



Silly SHARK.  Welcome to EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES!  You already know that us evil white people already talk about anyone not-us like that every second of every day in AmeriKKK.  We've been casually racist, smug, condescending, etc toward everyone since the beginning of time.  That's why it's ok to talk like that about white people now.  Is your white masculinity so fragile that you are getting triggered?  Who's the real snowflake?!

That's a good point; how do you compare the writing of a videogame to the writing of an RPG, as they are *very* different things? And yeah, I think it's only one of several of Evil Hat's products yet to receive art. I wonder how the Accessibility Toolkit even popped up on their radar...?

And yes, all white people are fascist, sexist, racist Nazi KKK members (who support the Ebil NRA and own lots of guns, specifically to shoot at immigrants and black people). Well, depending who you ask anyway. In any case, that's why Black Panther was hailed for having such a "diverse" cast: no Evul YT's in sight! The Noble Left wants to Make Segregation Great Again! What progress!

Quote from: Dracones;1122744When I saw that quote my reaction was the person could take their attitude and shove it up their ass. The primary reason why many "dorky-guy stereotypes" got into the hobby was because it was one of the few that welcomed dorks, before, you know, it got all trendy and shit to be a "geek".

Let's not let reality leak into the discussion, what good has that ever done for anybody? History is what we tell you it is.

Quote from: rgalex;1122742So an incomplete book is up against 4 video games?  Seems kind of odd.

Last I saw the FATE Accessibly Toolkit, at least according to the DTRPG page, is still in a prototype phase.  It doesn't have any of the art in it, just placeholder boxes.  Evil Hat said they would need to sell hundreds of copies to be able to pay for the art, finish the book and make it print on demand.  It's been like that since July of last year.  How does an unfinished work get nominated for an award?

Nebula and Origins awards are increasingly a joke.

A wheelchair in a submarine? Apparently the author lacks basic knowledge about both wheelchairs and submarines.

Or maybe I should let my brother know his disability has so much virtue now that he can levitate at will through confined spaces. He's been waiting for some good news about this whole crippled gig for some time.

To be fair "there aren't even mechanics for how wheelchairs work in most games. They're vehicles, and they should have their own rules." is about the most GURPS thing you could say.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098654What interests me continuously with regards to Evil Hat / Fate is the not-insignificant number of people with disabilities who have been displeased with them or their products (some of whom got banned from G+ when it was still around for voicing their complaints); including the Accessibility Toolkit (on the DTRPG page, even).

No kidding.

This book is written for folks who consider their disability to be a central part of their identity, which inevitably alienates the ones who don't. And the debate over whether someone should be referred to as a 'handicapped person' or 'person with a handicap' is still a point of contention.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098659I think the core primal mistake lies in the quoted designer's stated purpose, i.e.:

"As a game designer, I feel like the biggest gift I can give to players is the ability to see yourself in the universe you play in."

The fundamental problem, of course, is that the entire activity is intentionally built around the imagined portrayal of A PERSON WHO IS NOT THE PLAYER.

Quote from: Omega;1098700Because these sociopaths are so divorced from reality that they think that RPing something, acting something, even reading something is the EXACT SAME as doing that something for real.

These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold. And the lengths they go to overcome the cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is rather breathtaking. This is why Fate of Cthulhu features that infamous statement on Lovecraft. This is why #EvilHat is releasing books like the Accessibility and Decolonization toolkits. This is why you're seeing all the nonsensical shit you're seeing from these people.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1098661He was a good deal more civil to me the one time I complained about not understanding the game Don't Rest Your Head.

All my interactions have been civil too, but not even they will deny they have anger issues. It's also unlikely current year Fred would have written such a game today given how it deals with 'madness' and mental illness, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1098662Thinking back to the wheelchair-bound submarine crewman I mentioned earlier, that could explain some of the disabled person's frustration with it; not only is the disability apparently not an obstacle despite the conditions and demanding requirements of crewing a submarine, but I just checked and it doesn't show up in any form on the character sheet itself whatsoever.

Once upon a time a friend of mine criticized a game for having unrealistic wheelchair mechanics, in that you were just way too mobile. Given they're wheelchair bound themselves I assumed they had a pretty good idea of what they're talking about, so I asked them if they thought that was a good thing or a bad thing. Their reply was: "I don't know".

Neither do I.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1098717I wonder if anyone has made audiobooks out of RPG rule books.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1098721Our very own Grim just finished the SRD of 5e as an audiobook (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/281672/Fifth-Edition-DD-SRD-Audiobook)

Yes, but does it have an index?

Quote from: Longshadow;1098727A brief discussion with whomever runs the Evil Hat facebook page seems to indicate that by removing mechanical benefits to playing disabled characters (such as getting extra points to put into your GURPS character) was the goal.

Which is a weird thing to imply as Aspects already give things like that mechanical weight.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122705Disco Elysium, Robert Kurvitz (ZA/UM)

Which better win because it's so fucking good I'm even willing to overlook the developers being Communists!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122793A wheelchair in a submarine? Apparently the author lacks basic knowledge about both wheelchairs and submarines.

Or maybe I should let my brother know his disability has so much virtue now that he can levitate at will through confined spaces. He's been waiting for some good news about this whole crippled gig for some time.

Well while you are of course correct, I suppose the only thing you could really tell your brother is that Fred Hicks says "fuck you." Good to know that disabilities just mean characterization I guess, rather than the reality that they are truly obstacles to the people afflicted with them. Good on Evil Hat for bringing that to us.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796To be fair "there aren't even mechanics for how wheelchairs work in most games. They're vehicles, and they should have their own rules." is about the most GURPS thing you could say.

LOL. OK that is pretty true.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796This book is written for folks who consider their disability to be a central part of their identity, which inevitably alienates the ones who don't. And the debate over whether someone should be referred to as a 'handicapped person' or 'person with a handicap' is still a point of contention.

Too right, and I would say IME the majority of people with real disabilities DO NOT consider those the primary component of their identities, regardless of how those obstacles have affected them. People who consider any singular trait of themselves their 'identity' are doomed to the labels they assign to themselves.

Only tangentially related as it's not a disability: my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay. He's a person. He likes Godzilla (as do I). He likes quiche (I do not). He enjoys socializing and participating in new hobbies. Does this prevent him from enjoying strip clubs? Yes. It was an obstacle. Particularly at my unexpected bachelor party. :p

My point is, nobody who is sane identifies themselves as one of these singular traits. I had an ex who was afflicted with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and even with its severe degenerative properties she would never introduce herself that way. Nor did she want to play such a character, or have her condition miraculously catered to in game. It's not uplifting, it's pandering and babying, it's talking down to people who have the unfortunate reality of being fucked up. If you have any sort of crippling disability you will know why it's so insulting.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold. And the lengths they go to overcome the cognitive dissonance when it comes to this is rather breathtaking. This is why Fate of Cthulhu features that infamous statement on Lovecraft. This is why #EvilHat is releasing books like the Accessibility and Decolonization toolkits. This is why you're seeing all the nonsensical shit you're seeing from these people.

Right, which is why orcs being inherently evil is automatically both racist and represents colonialism. Roleplaying is reality to these people.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796All my interactions have been civil too, but not even they will deny they have anger issues. It's also unlikely current year Fred would have written such a game today given how it deals with 'madness' and mental illness, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites.

Fred can go fuck himself as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796Which better win because it's so fucking good I'm even willing to overlook the developers being Communists!

Big praise! Haven't even heard of it to be honest, is it the writing or the gameplay that draws you to it?

Also, has anyone ever told you how fucking difficult it is to reply to you because of your multi-quotes? :p

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809Only tangentially related as it's not a disability: my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay. He's a person. He likes Godzilla (as do I). He likes quiche (I do not).

He likes quiche?! That monster! :eek: ;)

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1122796These people truly believe you are who you pretend to be, which means games which enable/encourage playing 'immoral' characters are immoral themselves, and any character you play must embody the values you yourself hold.

To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122828He likes quiche?! That monster! :eek: ;)

That's what I keep telling him but he's yet to come around. :p

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122830To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well;

Its nothing new really. And goes back at least to the early silent movie era and I'd bet there were sporatic incidents as long as theres been stage plays and actors. Some people just cannot grasp acting and for god unknown reasons see the actor and the character as one and the same nearly, or at least that the actor must have the same inclinations as the character. This seems to invariably be directed at the villains.

SJWs just take it to insane extremes as they do everything else. Hell its popped up in board gaming even.

I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

But I've always been a proponent that Real Men Cook. Why? Because Fire and Blades! What's more manly than commanding fire and steel to do our bidding? :cool:

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122830To be fair, I've run across this belief before from distinctly non-SJ thinkers as well; I once had a rather interesting discussion on TBP, well back before it moved to its current extremes, about the morality of playing games like Little Fears in which, as it was pointed out to me (with admittedly rather sound logic) the players are basically mentally envisioning acts of horrible abuse happening to children for the sake of their own entertainment. The gentleman who held this stance was most definitely right-wing and traditionalist in his outlook.

While it was (and is) my contention that nothing done in the imagination which is known to be imaginary and never intended to be real can be immoral in any objective sense, I nonetheless had to concede that there are some extremes of fantasy at which it's not unreasonable to raise a hackle or two, and to which one can be validly averse to allowing or encouraging in a game. Who we pretend to be is not who we are, but who and what we enjoy repeatedly pretending to be and do, by our own choice, can often say more about us than we are sometimes comfortable acknowledging. I think most people have encountered That Player at least once, the one whose characters squicked the rest of us out.

What I object to in the SJ outlook is the presumption that the connection between fantasy and reality is proscriptive and inevitable, and that it ultimately represents the only "real' reason anybody games in the first place, rather than simply being one element of it and not necessarily an indicative one. It's the assumption that we can't be trusted not to be That Player without the game itself trying to force us not to be.

I'm reading this, and a few things begin to make sense. I can see that there are some people for whom RPGs give them the license to go to dark places and enjoy imagining doing dark things there a little too much.  That Player has definitely made me uncomfortable...

But the rest is eye-opening. There's a certain puritanical aspect to the proscriptive connection between fantasy and reality, isn't there? Unless one's thoughts and imagination are good, there is no way to behave "good". So, where does this attitude stem from?  Is there a basis for this "imagination is who you really are" in psychology, or sociology? Or is this a pop-pseudo-science-psychiatry? Or is this entirely cynical?

Its definitely true that the media we consume influences us on some level. If it didn't we wouldn't watch it. Its also desensitized us to stuff maybe we could have been sensitive towards otherwise.

The question is of course the level it influences us and the amount of reasonable responsiveness. Maybe relishing in sadisism and the misery of others can be dangaerous but maybe not. I err more on the side of "Let people do what they want" but I still get the principle of not wanting overexposure.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122877I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1122877I truly have never understood the bias against quiche. I suspect its the weird name. It's a meat + cheese + eggs omelet in a savory tart shell. What's not to like?

But I've always been a proponent that Real Men Cook. Why? Because Fire and Blades! What's more manly than commanding fire and steel to do our bidding? :cool:

A lot of people don't like eggs in anything where they can still taste the egg itself.  But I think what put quiche over the top was that it had a wave of popularity in certain home cooking circles in the late '70s, when meat was so expensive and people were trying all kinds of substitutes.  The recipes were truly vile--even to someone like me that loves eggs.  Think "casserole with bitter, off taste mixed with egg texture."  

I've had quiche since that I don't mind or even enjoy, but the bad memories stay with me, almost like a flashback.  Plus, I'd rather have an omelet.  And like a lot of people, I'm the only one in my immediate family that enjoys such things.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122886For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.

Yeah, for me it's mainly the texture. Same reason I hate essentially any form of casserole.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1122902A lot of people don't like eggs in anything where they can still taste the egg itself.  But I think what put quiche over the top was that it had a wave of popularity in certain home cooking circles in the late '70s, when meat was so expensive and people were trying all kinds of substitutes.  The recipes were truly vile--even to someone like me that loves eggs.  Think "casserole with bitter, off taste mixed with egg texture."  

I've had quiche since that I don't mind or even enjoy, but the bad memories stay with me, almost like a flashback.  Plus, I'd rather have an omelet.  And like a lot of people, I'm the only one in my immediate family that enjoys such things.

I love eggs (preferably over-easy), and I like omelets well enough; oddly I think the fact that some quiche doesn't really taste like eggs puts me off it. The flashback thing you mention is pretty true IME; I have an aversion to specific combinations of cheeses and meats both texture and flavor-wise, due to my stepfather's love of "throw some macaroni+cheese and beef or whatever in a bowl, mix, heat, serve, repeat every day he has to cook dinner" habit. In fact pretty much any food that is a mush of multiple things is a no-go. If it feels like I'm eating something someone has pre-chewed and spit up for me I'm unlikely to enjoy it. :o Soups and chili are good though.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122908Yeah, for me it's mainly the texture. Same reason I hate essentially any form of casserole.

I love eggs (preferably over-easy), and I like omelets well enough; oddly I think the fact that some quiche doesn't really taste like eggs puts me off it. The flashback thing you mention is pretty true IME; I have an aversion to specific combinations of cheeses and meats both texture and flavor-wise, due to my stepfather's love of "throw some macaroni+cheese and beef or whatever in a bowl, mix, heat, serve, repeat every day he has to cook dinner" habit. In fact pretty much any food that is a mush of multiple things is a no-go. If it feels like I'm eating something someone has pre-chewed and spit up for me I'm unlikely to enjoy it. :o Soups and chili are good though.

Greetings!

"Pre chewed and spit up for me"--Oh my god. *Rolling*:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

:cool: psst! Hey buster, Hamburger is "pre-chewed" steak! :eek: You monster! :mad:

Sometimes I forget how spoiled I am for having an old school Italian mother! Mea culpa. You could send my mother into a dollar store with 5 bucks and she'd cook a three course meal for four people equal to most good restaurants. We ate so well as kids that I had zero idea how amazingly mom was stretching pennies until I went to college and had to cook for myself.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1122886For me it's just a totally physical repugnance to the texture. I've always loathed eggs in just about any form. But I fully concede that's entirely personal and irrational.

I dont like certain sorts of egg prep. Im more a scrambled egg or omlete sort usually. But some of the quiche I've had has been pretty good and if there was egg or bread in it I never noticed. Was more like a spinach cheese cream dish saw most oft labeled as quiche. Which is not what most people are referring to as real quiche. Which apparently I make now and then without knowing it, sans the bread part.

Back on topic. Such as it is.

A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".
I guess if you dont like quiche then to these sociopaths thats racist too.

Quote from: Omega;1123049A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".

I'm gonna regret asking this, but...WHY???

The Fate books were largely non-political until The Fate Horror Toolkit showed up. And honestly? It puts me off. I don't buy gamebooks to be lectured to by authors who think they are more clever than anyone else.

The more I see of the Fate Accessibility Toolkit, the less I want to own it.

I've branched the discussion about how much we are what we pretend to be over here (https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?41768-Are-You-What-You-Pretend-To-Be), as that rabbit hole is deep enough on its own.

So I found this quote from the work in question (http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=2278336&postcount=9) over on the GURPS forum...

Quote from: Fate Accessibility ToolkitAnd I realized I couldn't play myself and be as epic and badass as my peers. I wanted to explore what it meant to be disabled in fantastical settings without getting rid of the wheelchairs, or the hearing aids, or the sign language as a part of my play. I wanted to have tools at my disposal for characters like me. But the option just wasn't there.

...and while I get where they're coming from, as the post points out, I'm really not sure how GURPS doesn't provide that option.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809OK that is pretty true.

Yet the author is wrong there too, as rules for muscle-powered wheelchairs are given on p B142, while High-Tech provides two electric wheelchairs on p226 (http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=2278335&postcount=8).

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809Good to know that disabilities just mean characterization I guess, rather than the reality that they are truly obstacles to the people afflicted with them.

At the very least they're suggesting those who do view their condition as an obstacle, or don't want it to be part of their identity, are somehow wrong.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809my brother is gay, is that the first thing he tells people about himself? Or even the last? No. He's just gay.

***

I had an ex who was afflicted with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and even with its severe degenerative properties she would never introduce herself that way.

That's the problem with identity politics: It treats these two traits (one a sexuality, the other a debilitating illness) as equivalent. And this work does anything but challenge that assumption.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809It's not uplifting, it's pandering and babying, it's talking down to people who have the unfortunate reality of being fucked up. If you have any sort of crippling disability you will know why it's so insulting.

And it's astounding to see people like Fred (a white able bodied cis man) telling those who do have these crippling disabilities that they're somehow wrong about how they feel; that if only they read the work the right way they'd understand.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1122809has anyone ever told you how fucking difficult it is to reply to you because of your multi-quotes? :p

Can't be more difficult than composing the damn things :D

To wrap up, after digging deeper I actually consider this work potentially harmful, as the people who consider their disability to be part of their identity will never seek to overcome it, and through shame and policy make doing so more difficult for everyone, which is a recipe for offense and resentment if ever I saw one.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1123109IAt the very least they're suggesting those who do view their condition as an obstacle, or don't want it to be part of their identity, are somehow wrong.

That's the problem with identity politics: It treats these two traits (one a sexuality, the other a debilitating illness) as equivalent. And this work does anything but challenge that assumption.

In GURPS and all the GMing advice discussions about it on the forums, they do make the point that if it's never a disadvantage in play, it shouldn't be a Disadvantage in the game sense. For example, if your entire campaign is the lives of sentient mice, you don't get point for being weak, illiterate, etc - all the other mice are, too. But being the biggest mouse might cost you points, and being the smallest mouse might be worth points.

Likewise, if your entire campaign is people doing purely intellectual things - like, say, the internal politics of a university - then being wheelchair-bound isn't a Disadvantage. Of course, in reality it would still be an issue for the person every time they went to the toilet, and when they left the confines of the faculty, etc - but RPGs don't deal with that sort of things.

Roleplaying game systems deal with what happens on adventures, whatever the "adventure" is in that game setting. If it's not part of the adventure then it's just colour.

Now, what is and is not a disadvantage or advantage in this adventure we call life - well, that's another matter. In the gym I once worked with a guy with an incomplete spinal cord injury. It's funny how it works, for example this guy could contract his delts and biceps - but not triceps. So he could raise his arm and bring his hand closer to his body, but he couldn't straighten out his elbow. So he could feed himself with a spoon since it's essentially a pulling motion, but couldn't cut a steak since that's a pressing motion. Most importantly, he couldn't transfer himself from his chair, and wanted to be able to. If he could get in and out of his chair then he could sleep and go to the toilet on his own. This would take him from needing 24hr a day of care to needing 4 or at most 8hr of care.

He viewed his current ability to do things as disadvantageous, and felt that a greater ability to do things would be advantageous. I suspect the issue for many people in talking about this is the dis/advantage and dis/able talk, the either/or. But this is just the way people are. Consider rating attributes of character, we could have two scales, the first one is simply 1-5. Your character has an attribute of 2, this probably doesn't worry you. Now we change the scale to -2 to +2, your character's attribute changes to -1. Now you're probably a bit more worried about it. The in-game result is exactly the same, but having a -1 on a scale of -2 to +2 just feels different to having a 2 on a scale of 1 to 5.

Now we take these labels and put them on reality, and people really get upset.

Guys, please stay within the topic of RPGs only.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1123112In GURPS and all the GMing advice discussions about it on the forums, they do make the point that if it's never a disadvantage in play, it shouldn't be a Disadvantage in the game sense. For example, if your entire campaign is the lives of sentient mice, you don't get point for being weak, illiterate, etc - all the other mice are, too. But being the biggest mouse might cost you points, and being the smallest mouse might be worth points.

Likewise, if your entire campaign is people doing purely intellectual things - like, say, the internal politics of a university - then being wheelchair-bound isn't a Disadvantage. Of course, in reality it would still be an issue for the person every time they went to the toilet, and when they left the confines of the faculty, etc - but RPGs don't deal with that sort of things.

Context is everything. Problem is the people behind this work seem to only consider a single one in which to interpret things as valid, which is why they think white men have 'privilege' in every aspect of life among other things.

And ironically #Fate is designed with exactly this sort of context determinant play in mind. Fictional positioning as it were. You're supposed to take Aspects which are both detrimental and beneficial depending on the situation. So it should be as simple as putting 'blind' or 'wheelchair bound' on your sheet. Everything else is a matter of making sure the GM understands how to represent things the right way.

But what exactly is that? Because representing things respectfully, realistically, and in a way that's actually fun can be radically different, and they're all determined by individual interpretation. This work is attempting to present the only 'correct' interpretation however, which is another reason people find it so distasteful.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123050I'm gonna regret asking this, but...WHY???

I have no clue. I just put them on ignore and walked away from the thread as I could see allready others were agreeing with this statement and I wanted no part of the loony bin about to happen.

Quote from: Omega;1123049A few weeks ago we had some nuts over on BGG solemnly declare that "having in an RPG Dwarves liking beer... is racist".

That makes perfect sense, if you accept the idea that racism = prejudice + power. After all, we interact with fiction via shared tropes, or prejudices; and can you imagine something with less power than an imaginary being? By that logic, fiction itself becomes a system of oppression, and the only way to fight the Literarchy is to stop reading and writing.

Quote from: Pat;1123234By that logic, fiction itself becomes a system of oppression, and the only way to fight the Literarchy is to stop reading and writing.

That's basically the plot of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He wrote it in 1953 out of his fear of book burnings and people trading literature for vapid mass media. Apparently, we learned nothing!

Quote from: Spinachcat;1123242That's basically the plot of Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. He wrote it in 1953 out of his fear of book burnings and people trading literature for vapid mass media. Apparently, we learned nothing!

One way you can tell if someone is an SJW:  They use books like Fahrenheit and Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm as how to books, instead of cautionary tales.