So, it's pretty common for new players to be interested and ask about creating a blind character, but has anyone considered implementing rules for various levels of disability? (Either natural or imposed.)
For example, emulating the range increment rules we could have the following:
Mundane glasses could correct "Impaired Vision" without much issue, but be prone to getting lost or broken. Etc...
According to the rules, generally speaking, none of that happens. Items carried or worn by PCs are only under special circumstance, vulnerable to damage. So it would have to fall under RP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
One of my players has just asked about this actually, he wanted to have a character with a gammy leg, so it would reduce his movement but implement some RP elements he would be interested in. I personally would increase something else to balance the flaw with a positive, I like your ideas for partial blindness but would consider advantage on hearing related perception checks as they rely on that more.
If it gets tedious in a game, where after a few levels they feel penalised by the flaw, they could always get some magical healing or magic item that corrects it.
None of my players are power gamers/min maxers, so we enjoy the RP elements this brings to a fight and aren't scared to introduce effects into combat as a result of these character traits, even if the rulebook doesn't include them, we just houserule it on the fly but have a very brief discussion to ensure both DM and players are happy with the rule.
So, it's pretty common for new players to be interested and ask about creating a blind character, but has anyone considered implementing rules for various levels of disability? (Either natural or imposed.)
For example, emulating the range increment rules we could have the following:
Bad Vision (5/20): Disadvantage beyond 5ft, automatically fail beyond 20.
"Blind": As Blinded condition.
Mundane glasses could correct "Impaired Vision" without much issue, but be prone to getting lost or broken. Etc...
I suppose this could be categorized under "Flaws" per older and other systems.
Thoughts?
I think the first step would be to homebrew actual rules for things far away being difficult to see. Once you have that, it becomes feasible to implement myopia as a flaw, where difficulty seeing things far away increases with distance faster than normal.
Being nearsighted is a lot easier: disadvantage on vision-based checks against anything within 2.5 feet.
Whether it be physical or mental, the idea of roleplaying a disability in D&D feels inappropriate to me. So I generally handle it by saying no. There are plenty of other things to explore through roleplay.
I maintain a certain dislike for making rules of any kind that create real world impairments. Sadly, I have quite a few of those myself, and I can tell you, it's not fun.
The words "Automatically Fail" make me grit my teeth. I doubt there's all that many people who enjoy failing all that much, and having it happen automatically?
Being blind in the real world is a strong impairment. There's a huge pile of things they can't do. Put on a blindfold and walk around somewhere you know well, like your own house. See what it's like. Magic makes it pretty easy to get rid of. I'd say one of the Restoration spells ought to do it. I'd say Lesser fixes all varieties of visual impairment by tweaking the eyes. It would take Greater to grew a new set of eyes.
People love the concept of a blind character, but there are some who aren't actually interested in suffering the penalty. Most of those cool characters don't suffer them either, they use whatever sort of power there is and don't end up acting like they are blind. They want to be Daredevil, and he has something there really aren't rules for, his super powerful senses make him vulnerable to high levels of whatever sense is involved. Most of his are about hearing. Loud noises cause him disorientation. Champions calls that a "Flash Attack" Something that overloads the senses. They want to be Toshi from Rogue One, but the magic system and the Force aren't all that related. (Yes, there's ways to do it, but if you want to play a Star Wars game, there's some game systems better suited for that, and you have to do stuff to get Vancian Magic to behave like The Force in D&D).
I don't think D&D is the place for cool characters who get around disabilities. I don't really like to be disabled, and I don't want to do that to anyone's character unless they make me. I will tell people flat out that I don't like the idea. I will tell them why in private, and if they go ahead anyway? Ok, whatever it is they have in mind, if they have ignored my advice, the real world can be cruel, so they've just taken the "kind" part out of me, so I'll smile, take the penalty they have chosen and be a cruel as I can be in enforcing it.
I definitely agree that there is some grey area with deliberately playing disabled characters, though representation always has an important role.
However, there are variant rules for temporary injuries that result from massive damage and/or critical hit that often include things like scars, lost limbs, trauma, etc. In those circumstances compromised sight and/or hearing is a natural member of a list of afflictions. "Blindness" is an extreme condition, but intermediate versions would make it more accessible.
The main concern seems to be avoiding using disability as a costume. Though beyond that, it shouldn't be ignored as part of the world.
I probably overstated my position. I'm fine with people having a condition, and long as they recognize that with magic, such things are easily cured. Oh how I wish I could be cured. If someone takes a condition and refuses to allow it to be cured, I'm fine with that as well, and I'll just go ahead and give them what they want. They want to suffer, I will make sure they do so.
I like that comment about disability as a costume. I think I'll keep that one and tell players that. Thanks for that. :-)
While I understand that someone may want to reflect their reality by playing as a character with a visual impairment, I'd keep this strictly in terms of roleplay for them to choose how, and when, they want to apply it. If they like the idea that they have limited vision beyond 25ft, then let them play the character that way, and if they forget it when they need to make a clutch shot, then just let it slide.
I think that disabilities or impairments outside of things that could be considered dramatic combat injuries being factored into rules is a bad move all round, as it begins applying purely detrimental rules to characters. It's not needed as a rule and can be roleplayed without.
(I might be overstepping here, but if you decide to move on with this, would it be out of line to suggest using definitions of lightly and heavily obscured elements? I.e. distances past somebody's range of vision is considered lightly/heavily obscured area? 60ft Nearsight means anything past 60ft is lightly obscured, for instance?)
For what it's worth, I don't think that people should be too afraid to handle handicaps as long as they take it seriously and are willing to do their research on it first. I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to tell a more interesting story by taking a handicap to their stats and skills, but I do think that they have to be putting the work in to make sure that they don't come off as bigoted in any way at a table. One of my players did a Cleric with a prosthetic leg last campaign, and honestly the journey for them deciding on if they wanted to use Regenerate or not to get their leg back once they got to higher levels was perhaps one of the most interesting personal conflicts I've seen come out of my games. They eventually chose to keep it because they felt that it was an important device that had helped them through such a hard part of their life that they learned to trust it and treat it truly like a part of themselves. Either way, it was important that we made their character feel important and uninhibited from playing the game in a manner like all of the other PCs. (Also we said that, if they were really going to take any drawbacks by having the prosthetic, that we would always give them the added bonus of it coming with a built in blade that they could always use to kick and attack with. We never wanted it to feel like it made them less; just that it made them more in a unique way.)
The thing I'll add to this is that, if you heavily translate impairments or disabilities into rules and mechanics, the act of you playing those out and then imposing penalties upon them to inhibit somebody's gameplay experience is, for all intents and purposes, ableism. It would validate the idea that some characters are more or less suited to be performing certain actions due to their odds of success. I'm not going to try to push and claim to be an authority on any of this, but I think that we can all agree that it's important for a DM to be making sure that PCs are being treated equally and being given the same values of opportunity in gameplay; trying to integrate a handicap or disability into a player to validate a reason for a DM not to would be pretty iffy, if you ask me.
End of the day, the last thing anyone wants is for real world problems to be undermined through a gameplay experience. Try to take it seriously and don't try to poke holes or jokes into it if you want to avoid moral quandaries. Think of how it should really be felt and thought about. Don't make so much of a spectacle out of it if you'll do it, and don't make it a reason to create a divide in gameplay unless there's good reason to.
"if they were really going to take any drawbacks by having the prosthetic, that we would always give them the added bonus of it coming with a built in blade that they could always use to kick and attack with. We never wanted it to feel like it made them less; just that it made them more in a unique way.)"
I was fine with the post right up to that line. Yes, it's possible, for example, you can have a hook instead of a hand. You can stick a blade in a shoe, so you can certainly do so with a leg, but how much damage does that do? I can't imagine doing more than 1d4, and I am not sure there is a way to be proficient in such things for a Cleric. I think a Monk could make that a Dedicated weapon. The system of balancing drawbacks with benefits was removed from D&D.for the most part. They are still wearing a costume so far as I am concerned.
I need to think what I'll do about disabilities that people refuse to have cured. I said I'd be cruel, and I probably ought not do so. I'll try to be nice instead, and I'll help them appreciate their choice somehow. All I need to so is remove any benefits they could potentially get, and I'll tell them that before they make their choice.
They want to walk with something they need to use to help them, I'll reduce their base movement speed by 5. They want to wear glasses, that's perfectly fine, though they are kind of expensive, that's rare magic item. They want to reduce their Strength below 8, the Encumbrance rules really weren't designed around that assumption. 15 pound of gear times their Strength is way too much. I'll reduce it to 5 times their Strength, and below 3 it's just straight Strength. Physical disabilities I think I've got down. Mental disorders I really don't know. I'll have to figure something out that lets people do as they like as long as they don't benefit from it.
I'm all about letting people chose things as long is it's taken seriously.
"if they were really going to take any drawbacks by having the prosthetic, that we would always give them the added bonus of it coming with a built in blade that they could always use to kick and attack with. We never wanted it to feel like it made them less; just that it made them more in a unique way.)"
I was fine with the post right up to that line. Yes, it's possible, for example, you can have a hook instead of a hand. You can stick a blade in a shoe, so you can certainly do so with a leg, but how much damage does that do? I can't imagine doing more than 1d4, and I am not sure there is a way to be proficient in such things for a Cleric. I think a Monk could make that a Dedicated weapon. The system of balancing drawbacks with benefits was removed from D&D.for the most part. They are still wearing a costume so far as I am concerned.
I need to think what I'll do about disabilities that people refuse to have cured. I said I'd be cruel, and I probably ought not do so. I'll try to be nice instead, and I'll help them appreciate their choice somehow. All I need to so is remove any benefits they could potentially get, and I'll tell them that before they make their choice.
They want to walk with something they need to use to help them, I'll reduce their base movement speed by 5. They want to wear glasses, that's perfectly fine, though they are kind of expensive, that's rare magic item. They want to reduce their Strength below 8, the Encumbrance rules really weren't designed around that assumption. 15 pound of gear times their Strength is way too much. I'll reduce it to 5 times their Strength, and below 3 it's just straight Strength. Physical disabilities I think I've got down. Mental disorders I really don't know. I'll have to figure something out that lets people do as they like as long as they don't benefit from it.
I'm all about letting people chose things as long is it's taken seriously.
We let them take the Blade Mastery feat from UA Feats to compromise them being able to use the leg blade and called the blade a shortsword! The tradeoff being that even though it might affect them in other ways, they still had a reliable way in which to participate with it in mind rather than feeling benched because of it. But I don't think it's wrong for a character with a disability to have a compensator for such a thing so that they can operate and participate equally alongside others; I'm assuming you mean to say otherwise because then the concept of dealing with a handicap comes into question. I agree with you that it should be taken seriously either way, though I don't think that a disability always has to result in a handicap-induced disadvantage- only if one chooses and understand the nature of the handicap that they're dealing with. To think that a PC has to be played with disadvantages due to a disability seems like it's toeing the line of ableism...
Mental and emotional disorder/disability is a completely different beast- one I feel is best left alone by those who don't really have a say in it or best not made a spectacle of. I'd argue that technically physical disability shouldn't have such a large spectacle made out of it either, but at the end of the day I think the core of it is that disabilities come from something specific that should be worth exploring. If a warrior loses their leg in war and still has a cause to fight, I think a lot can be said for them finding a means of getting back in the saddle.
Trying to bring this topic back to the OP: though I'm not necessarily saying that you should or shouldn't delve into representing disability in your campaign, I think an important question to ask is- why? Would there be any benefit in narrative or gameplay for a creature to have such impairments to things like vision? I think that it can be a thing, especially towards making interesting encounters and interactions with other characters/creatures coming from different realms of skill and ability. One of my FAVORITE encounters in a game is from Demon's Souls, which comes in the form of (boss spoiler ahead)...
... the Old Hero, a blind warrior that fights you in a temple. He's fast and hits like a train, but the trick is that he relies entirely on hearing in order to track your movements and know where you are. Heavy clanging armor and running around cause him to detect you easily, so if you stay light and move slow you can sneak up on him. I don't think that this is a disservice to a character at all because you take him equally as seriously and you're able to appreciate how he's adapted to a disability to not only overcome it, but thrive anyhow. He's easily one of the coolest bosses in the game in my book, and I think that it's only natural for characters and creatures who deal with such disabilities to find a means of adapting.
My point being with all of this: yes, I think it's sensible that a player should be allowed to impose a disability and/or disadvantage upon themselves, but I don't think it's wrong for them to explore how they would want to adapt to it. If they elect to put themselves in a more difficult scenario, I don't think it's wrong for them to want to explore if there are ways out of or even beyond it as long as they understand the difficulties behind it. I think it's really important to give players that sort of agency, especially when dealing with heavier topics such as disability.
I maintain a certain dislike for making rules of any kind that create real world impairments. Sadly, I have quite a few of those myself, and I can tell you, it's not fun.
The words "Automatically Fail" make me grit my teeth. I doubt there's all that many people who enjoy failing all that much, and having it happen automatically?
Being blind in the real world is a strong impairment. There's a huge pile of things they can't do. Put on a blindfold and walk around somewhere you know well, like your own house. See what it's like. Magic makes it pretty easy to get rid of. I'd say one of the Restoration spells ought to do it. I'd say Lesser fixes all varieties of visual impairment by tweaking the eyes. It would take Greater to grew a new set of eyes.
People love the concept of a blind character, but there are some who aren't actually interested in suffering the penalty. Most of those cool characters don't suffer them either, they use whatever sort of power there is and don't end up acting like they are blind. They want to be Daredevil, and he has something there really aren't rules for, his super powerful senses make him vulnerable to high levels of whatever sense is involved. Most of his are about hearing. Loud noises cause him disorientation. Champions calls that a "Flash Attack" Something that overloads the senses. They want to be Toshi from Rogue One, but the magic system and the Force aren't all that related. (Yes, there's ways to do it, but if you want to play a Star Wars game, there's some game systems better suited for that, and you have to do stuff to get Vancian Magic to behave like The Force in D&D).
I don't think D&D is the place for cool characters who get around disabilities. I don't really like to be disabled, and I don't want to do that to anyone's character unless they make me. I will tell people flat out that I don't like the idea. I will tell them why in private, and if they go ahead anyway? Ok, whatever it is they have in mind, if they have ignored my advice, the real world can be cruel, so they've just taken the "kind" part out of me, so I'll smile, take the penalty they have chosen and be a cruel as I can be in enforcing it.
So I’ve toyed with the idea of one eye character/NPC especially after playing BG3 (Wyll) and been looking at converting the extra goblin “Buggy Bugeye” as a warlock vs. a Witch.
Basically Buggy has one eye (had it poked out when he was an ogre pet) and made a pact and has a centipede living in his eye. Flavor wise that is awesome. The idea of a goblin walking around with a hallow socket that houses his familiar is what I think is cool.
However both as a GM/Player I don’t care about mechanical advantages for flavor. If I ran this NPC or made it a PC; should it have a some type of penalty?
Having had impaired vision since I was a child ( born with cataracts ), I prefer to have the fantasy of good vision for my characters... I already know how to play the impaired role. But if I was going to affect this in D&D, it's better to roleplay it and not have a crunchy rules system for something so niche... IMHO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, it's pretty common for new players to be interested and ask about creating a blind character, but has anyone considered implementing rules for various levels of disability? (Either natural or imposed.)
For example, emulating the range increment rules we could have the following:
Normal Vision: No penalty
Impaired Vision (30/120): Disadvantage beyond 30ft, automatically fail beyond 120.
Bad Vision (5/20): Disadvantage beyond 5ft, automatically fail beyond 20.
"Blind": As Blinded condition.
Mundane glasses could correct "Impaired Vision" without much issue, but be prone to getting lost or broken. Etc...
I suppose this could be categorized under "Flaws" per older and other systems.
Thoughts?
According to the rules, generally speaking, none of that happens. Items carried or worn by PCs are only under special circumstance, vulnerable to damage. So it would have to fall under RP.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
One of my players has just asked about this actually, he wanted to have a character with a gammy leg, so it would reduce his movement but implement some RP elements he would be interested in. I personally would increase something else to balance the flaw with a positive, I like your ideas for partial blindness but would consider advantage on hearing related perception checks as they rely on that more.
If it gets tedious in a game, where after a few levels they feel penalised by the flaw, they could always get some magical healing or magic item that corrects it.
None of my players are power gamers/min maxers, so we enjoy the RP elements this brings to a fight and aren't scared to introduce effects into combat as a result of these character traits, even if the rulebook doesn't include them, we just houserule it on the fly but have a very brief discussion to ensure both DM and players are happy with the rule.
I think the first step would be to homebrew actual rules for things far away being difficult to see. Once you have that, it becomes feasible to implement myopia as a flaw, where difficulty seeing things far away increases with distance faster than normal.
Being nearsighted is a lot easier: disadvantage on vision-based checks against anything within 2.5 feet.
Whether it be physical or mental, the idea of roleplaying a disability in D&D feels inappropriate to me. So I generally handle it by saying no. There are plenty of other things to explore through roleplay.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I maintain a certain dislike for making rules of any kind that create real world impairments. Sadly, I have quite a few of those myself, and I can tell you, it's not fun.
The words "Automatically Fail" make me grit my teeth. I doubt there's all that many people who enjoy failing all that much, and having it happen automatically?
Being blind in the real world is a strong impairment. There's a huge pile of things they can't do. Put on a blindfold and walk around somewhere you know well, like your own house. See what it's like. Magic makes it pretty easy to get rid of. I'd say one of the Restoration spells ought to do it. I'd say Lesser fixes all varieties of visual impairment by tweaking the eyes. It would take Greater to grew a new set of eyes.
People love the concept of a blind character, but there are some who aren't actually interested in suffering the penalty. Most of those cool characters don't suffer them either, they use whatever sort of power there is and don't end up acting like they are blind. They want to be Daredevil, and he has something there really aren't rules for, his super powerful senses make him vulnerable to high levels of whatever sense is involved. Most of his are about hearing. Loud noises cause him disorientation. Champions calls that a "Flash Attack" Something that overloads the senses. They want to be Toshi from Rogue One, but the magic system and the Force aren't all that related. (Yes, there's ways to do it, but if you want to play a Star Wars game, there's some game systems better suited for that, and you have to do stuff to get Vancian Magic to behave like The Force in D&D).
I don't think D&D is the place for cool characters who get around disabilities. I don't really like to be disabled, and I don't want to do that to anyone's character unless they make me. I will tell people flat out that I don't like the idea. I will tell them why in private, and if they go ahead anyway? Ok, whatever it is they have in mind, if they have ignored my advice, the real world can be cruel, so they've just taken the "kind" part out of me, so I'll smile, take the penalty they have chosen and be a cruel as I can be in enforcing it.
<Insert clever signature here>
I definitely agree that there is some grey area with deliberately playing disabled characters, though representation always has an important role.
However, there are variant rules for temporary injuries that result from massive damage and/or critical hit that often include things like scars, lost limbs, trauma, etc. In those circumstances compromised sight and/or hearing is a natural member of a list of afflictions. "Blindness" is an extreme condition, but intermediate versions would make it more accessible.
The main concern seems to be avoiding using disability as a costume. Though beyond that, it shouldn't be ignored as part of the world.
I probably overstated my position. I'm fine with people having a condition, and long as they recognize that with magic, such things are easily cured. Oh how I wish I could be cured. If someone takes a condition and refuses to allow it to be cured, I'm fine with that as well, and I'll just go ahead and give them what they want. They want to suffer, I will make sure they do so.
I like that comment about disability as a costume. I think I'll keep that one and tell players that. Thanks for that. :-)
<Insert clever signature here>
While I understand that someone may want to reflect their reality by playing as a character with a visual impairment, I'd keep this strictly in terms of roleplay for them to choose how, and when, they want to apply it. If they like the idea that they have limited vision beyond 25ft, then let them play the character that way, and if they forget it when they need to make a clutch shot, then just let it slide.
I think that disabilities or impairments outside of things that could be considered dramatic combat injuries being factored into rules is a bad move all round, as it begins applying purely detrimental rules to characters. It's not needed as a rule and can be roleplayed without.
(I might be overstepping here, but if you decide to move on with this, would it be out of line to suggest using definitions of lightly and heavily obscured elements? I.e. distances past somebody's range of vision is considered lightly/heavily obscured area? 60ft Nearsight means anything past 60ft is lightly obscured, for instance?)
For what it's worth, I don't think that people should be too afraid to handle handicaps as long as they take it seriously and are willing to do their research on it first. I don't think there's anything wrong with a player trying to tell a more interesting story by taking a handicap to their stats and skills, but I do think that they have to be putting the work in to make sure that they don't come off as bigoted in any way at a table. One of my players did a Cleric with a prosthetic leg last campaign, and honestly the journey for them deciding on if they wanted to use Regenerate or not to get their leg back once they got to higher levels was perhaps one of the most interesting personal conflicts I've seen come out of my games. They eventually chose to keep it because they felt that it was an important device that had helped them through such a hard part of their life that they learned to trust it and treat it truly like a part of themselves. Either way, it was important that we made their character feel important and uninhibited from playing the game in a manner like all of the other PCs. (Also we said that, if they were really going to take any drawbacks by having the prosthetic, that we would always give them the added bonus of it coming with a built in blade that they could always use to kick and attack with. We never wanted it to feel like it made them less; just that it made them more in a unique way.)
The thing I'll add to this is that, if you heavily translate impairments or disabilities into rules and mechanics, the act of you playing those out and then imposing penalties upon them to inhibit somebody's gameplay experience is, for all intents and purposes, ableism. It would validate the idea that some characters are more or less suited to be performing certain actions due to their odds of success. I'm not going to try to push and claim to be an authority on any of this, but I think that we can all agree that it's important for a DM to be making sure that PCs are being treated equally and being given the same values of opportunity in gameplay; trying to integrate a handicap or disability into a player to validate a reason for a DM not to would be pretty iffy, if you ask me.
End of the day, the last thing anyone wants is for real world problems to be undermined through a gameplay experience. Try to take it seriously and don't try to poke holes or jokes into it if you want to avoid moral quandaries. Think of how it should really be felt and thought about. Don't make so much of a spectacle out of it if you'll do it, and don't make it a reason to create a divide in gameplay unless there's good reason to.
"if they were really going to take any drawbacks by having the prosthetic, that we would always give them the added bonus of it coming with a built in blade that they could always use to kick and attack with. We never wanted it to feel like it made them less; just that it made them more in a unique way.)"
I was fine with the post right up to that line. Yes, it's possible, for example, you can have a hook instead of a hand. You can stick a blade in a shoe, so you can certainly do so with a leg, but how much damage does that do? I can't imagine doing more than 1d4, and I am not sure there is a way to be proficient in such things for a Cleric. I think a Monk could make that a Dedicated weapon. The system of balancing drawbacks with benefits was removed from D&D.for the most part. They are still wearing a costume so far as I am concerned.
I need to think what I'll do about disabilities that people refuse to have cured. I said I'd be cruel, and I probably ought not do so. I'll try to be nice instead, and I'll help them appreciate their choice somehow. All I need to so is remove any benefits they could potentially get, and I'll tell them that before they make their choice.
They want to walk with something they need to use to help them, I'll reduce their base movement speed by 5. They want to wear glasses, that's perfectly fine, though they are kind of expensive, that's rare magic item. They want to reduce their Strength below 8, the Encumbrance rules really weren't designed around that assumption. 15 pound of gear times their Strength is way too much. I'll reduce it to 5 times their Strength, and below 3 it's just straight Strength. Physical disabilities I think I've got down. Mental disorders I really don't know. I'll have to figure something out that lets people do as they like as long as they don't benefit from it.
I'm all about letting people chose things as long is it's taken seriously.
<Insert clever signature here>
We let them take the Blade Mastery feat from UA Feats to compromise them being able to use the leg blade and called the blade a shortsword! The tradeoff being that even though it might affect them in other ways, they still had a reliable way in which to participate with it in mind rather than feeling benched because of it. But I don't think it's wrong for a character with a disability to have a compensator for such a thing so that they can operate and participate equally alongside others; I'm assuming you mean to say otherwise because then the concept of dealing with a handicap comes into question. I agree with you that it should be taken seriously either way, though I don't think that a disability always has to result in a handicap-induced disadvantage- only if one chooses and understand the nature of the handicap that they're dealing with. To think that a PC has to be played with disadvantages due to a disability seems like it's toeing the line of ableism...
Mental and emotional disorder/disability is a completely different beast- one I feel is best left alone by those who don't really have a say in it or best not made a spectacle of. I'd argue that technically physical disability shouldn't have such a large spectacle made out of it either, but at the end of the day I think the core of it is that disabilities come from something specific that should be worth exploring. If a warrior loses their leg in war and still has a cause to fight, I think a lot can be said for them finding a means of getting back in the saddle.
Trying to bring this topic back to the OP: though I'm not necessarily saying that you should or shouldn't delve into representing disability in your campaign, I think an important question to ask is- why? Would there be any benefit in narrative or gameplay for a creature to have such impairments to things like vision? I think that it can be a thing, especially towards making interesting encounters and interactions with other characters/creatures coming from different realms of skill and ability. One of my FAVORITE encounters in a game is from Demon's Souls, which comes in the form of (boss spoiler ahead)...
... the Old Hero, a blind warrior that fights you in a temple. He's fast and hits like a train, but the trick is that he relies entirely on hearing in order to track your movements and know where you are. Heavy clanging armor and running around cause him to detect you easily, so if you stay light and move slow you can sneak up on him. I don't think that this is a disservice to a character at all because you take him equally as seriously and you're able to appreciate how he's adapted to a disability to not only overcome it, but thrive anyhow. He's easily one of the coolest bosses in the game in my book, and I think that it's only natural for characters and creatures who deal with such disabilities to find a means of adapting.
My point being with all of this: yes, I think it's sensible that a player should be allowed to impose a disability and/or disadvantage upon themselves, but I don't think it's wrong for them to explore how they would want to adapt to it. If they elect to put themselves in a more difficult scenario, I don't think it's wrong for them to want to explore if there are ways out of or even beyond it as long as they understand the difficulties behind it. I think it's really important to give players that sort of agency, especially when dealing with heavier topics such as disability.
well said
I didn’t see what you did there.
So I’ve toyed with the idea of one eye character/NPC especially after playing BG3 (Wyll) and been looking at converting the extra goblin “Buggy Bugeye” as a warlock vs. a Witch.
Basically Buggy has one eye (had it poked out when he was an ogre pet) and made a pact and has a centipede living in his eye. Flavor wise that is awesome. The idea of a goblin walking around with a hallow socket that houses his familiar is what I think is cool.
However both as a GM/Player I don’t care about mechanical advantages for flavor. If I ran this NPC or made it a PC; should it have a some type of penalty?
Having had impaired vision since I was a child ( born with cataracts ), I prefer to have the fantasy of good vision for my characters... I already know how to play the impaired role. But if I was going to affect this in D&D, it's better to roleplay it and not have a crunchy rules system for something so niche... IMHO.