Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cerebral Paladin" data-source="post: 5658587" data-attributes="member: 3448">I strongly disagree with what I understand to be Janx's approach.&nbsp; Partly because of my professional background, I tend to think about disabilities in terms of trying to find reasonable accommodations.&nbsp; Sure, sometimes there isn't a reasonable accommodation available.&nbsp; But disabilities cause lots of problems for people with them as a matter of course.&nbsp; In our play, we should be striving to reduce those problems, not being blase about creating more ones.One of the things I've always liked about gaming is that while it can be lacking in certain forms of diversity, it often attracts a large number of differently abled people.&nbsp; In an RPG, a player who can't walk, or is blind, or has a missing limb can still be, do, and achieve just as much as anyone else.&nbsp; I think that's a real virtue in rpgs.There are exceptions.&nbsp; Boffer LARPs, for example, necessarily privilege physical ability.&nbsp; But I like to keep those exceptions rare.So with Dread, my approach would be &quot;can I find a way to make this work, despite some players having physical issues that make it hard for them to play?&quot;&nbsp; And I would be hesitant to just say, &quot;tough, maybe you should sit it out.&quot;&nbsp; To be honest, before I got to that point I would say, &quot;maybe we should use a different system&quot;--and I love Dread.&nbsp; I think that the &quot;designated puller&quot; approach works.&nbsp; It's not perfect, but it works, and it's what I've used in the past and will likely use again.&nbsp; But if I concluded that that didn't work and that the randomized approaches don't work, I would tend towards using a different system rather than ostracizing people (except maybe in the context of a con or something where there are plenty of other options for them).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cerebral Paladin, post: 5658587, member: 3448"] I strongly disagree with what I understand to be Janx's approach. Partly because of my professional background, I tend to think about disabilities in terms of trying to find reasonable accommodations. Sure, sometimes there isn't a reasonable accommodation available. But disabilities cause lots of problems for people with them as a matter of course. In our play, we should be striving to reduce those problems, not being blase about creating more ones. One of the things I've always liked about gaming is that while it can be lacking in certain forms of diversity, it often attracts a large number of differently abled people. In an RPG, a player who can't walk, or is blind, or has a missing limb can still be, do, and achieve just as much as anyone else. I think that's a real virtue in rpgs. There are exceptions. Boffer LARPs, for example, necessarily privilege physical ability. But I like to keep those exceptions rare. So with Dread, my approach would be "can I find a way to make this work, despite some players having physical issues that make it hard for them to play?" And I would be hesitant to just say, "tough, maybe you should sit it out." To be honest, before I got to that point I would say, "maybe we should use a different system"--and I love Dread. I think that the "designated puller" approach works. It's not perfect, but it works, and it's what I've used in the past and will likely use again. But if I concluded that that didn't work and that the randomized approaches don't work, I would tend towards using a different system rather than ostracizing people (except maybe in the context of a con or something where there are plenty of other options for them). [/QUOTE]

Verification