|
So I’ve got a terminology issue with SBBQ. I’ve got a mechanical thing that I’ve called “Flaws”. Quite simply, they allow players to fail on their own terms, determining the time and way they fail, and they give players an action point for doing so. Think self-compels in FATE. They can also be roleplaying cues. So they can include things like “Fresh Off the Shuttle” or “Slow runner” or “Hunted by the CIA” or a bajillion other things. Now I’m making some pre-gen characters for the preview I’ll be posting and I want one of them to be deaf. Being deaf is certainly the sort of thing that mechanically speaking could fit in that space – the player can determine when their character’s deafness is the source of a challenge for them. But I can’t write “Flaw: Deaf” on a character sheet! That’s ablist and insensitive, to say the least! I think Deaf makes a great “Flaw” (as in, it fits with the intent of the mechanics) but is definitely not a personal flaw. Making it a “Flaw” mechanically puts it explicitly in the player’s hands and allows them to earn Action Points while using it. Significantly, it takes it OUT of the GM’s hands. I would like to be able to do this, but the language is an obstacle. So then I’ve got four possible solutions: 1) Change the word “Flaw” to something else across the entire game. I’m willing to do this, but I need to find a word that encompasses all the right things without being overbroad while still being evocative. 2) Simply don’t put Deaf (or any other similar thing) in that slot. Write that the character is deaf in the description and leave the rest up to roleplay. 3) Maybe make the “Flaw” something more specific, such as that the character is unwilling to speak (there are many reasons why deaf people may be unwilling to speak even if they are able). Would “Flaw: Unwilling to speak” be insensitive? 4) Put “Flaw: Deaf” but have a parenthetical explaining that deafness is not a personal flaw at all. And I’d like to say that I really don’t like #4. It seems like too much of a cop-out and I would bet it would still be offensive. And I think #3 would be improved by having better terminology too. So basically I’m looking for input from deaf people first if there are any who post here. Second, from anybody with any sort of disability or challenge where it would also be insensitive to call it a Flaw. Third, from anybody else who has some experience or knowledge dealing with these issues. This is important to me and I want to get it right before I publish. Edit: to make this about a CAT, here's a cat who knows how to sign "food": http://imgur.com/HeZtZcS Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jul 20, 2014 |
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
Error 404 posted:Flaw = Complication, Trouble, Setback. I don't have a list of flaws at all. They are chosen by the player. I'm just making a pre-gen. Trouble... Would "Trouble: Deaf" still be offensive? I think it might, based on my experiences with deaf people (I've been learning ASL for a few years now). Essentially, I'm looking for a short punchy word that encapsulates the idea of "a source of complications"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
DocBubonic posted:What reason do you have for using "Deaf"? Why is it important that a character is deaf? There is no particular reason, and I can and will drop it if it proves too problematic. Or rather, I will move it to a major NPC - then I don't have to worry about the mechanics because NPCs aren't built like PCs. It's an interesting trait for a character to have in the setting I'm using (low sci-fi, e.g. rockets and wearable computing, no star trek stuff). But while deafness in particular isn't vital for me to use, in general I absolutely do want to have characters with differences. It's about being explicitly inclusive. Same reason that the art won't be just a bunch of white dudes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Oh yes, with wearable computing the character should have no real difficulty in communicating under normal circumstances. The wearable can display what people are saying out loud, and the deaf character can send messages to other peoples' wearables nearly as fast as talking. So it's not going to be a constant problem or anything. Just something that might come up at the player's discretion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Bucnasti posted:How about instead of "Flaw", you use "Challenge". It covers what your mechanical system describes and it doesn't label something negatively. Yeah, that would be perfect. The problem is that I already use the word a whole bunch in the rules text. I'd rather not have to differentiate between challenges and Challenges, you know? So far, I think Complication is the winner. But I'd still love to hear from a deaf person on the issue. Maybe I'll just email my ASL instructor and out myself as a gamer nerd. It'd be easier to explain the issue to someone familiar with RPGs, though. As an aside, I wish I could play in an ASL roleplaying game. That would be the best way to learn ASL that I can imagine - I've already got a decent vocabulary, but the hard part for me now is describing things not present, putting them in relation to one another, etc. All the stuff you do in an RPG! ASL is missing a ton of grammatical forms we have in English and you get the same ideas across by the way you use the space in which you are signing, your facial expressions and more. An entirely different sort of grammar. It's a lot harder than learning German, I'll say that much. But it's also a lot of fun. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jul 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2014 02:13
|
|