D&D General Nolzur creates inclusive miniatures, people can't handle it.

[Sacrosanct]

Realism doesn't work that way.

First off, it's a spectrum. Your tolerance for what is unrealistic as far as wheelchair movement might be greater or less than mine. It's not all or nothing.

sure.

Now if I were to as a DM rule that your PC in his wheelchair could not possible be moved through two foot deep mud because it's not realistic, then when you had your turn to DM I argued that my wheelchair bound PC should be able to move through two feet of mud, THAT would be hypocritical. I'd never do that, though.

No, what is hypocritical is you (general you from here on out) completely ignoring that low STR/CON PC's trouble to try to walk through 2 feet of mud but all the sudden crying "realism" to punish someone in a wheelchair. Want to punish someone in a wheelchair because it makes in game sense to do so? Knock yourself out. Don't have a problem with that. But I have a bit of an eyebrow raise when people start using these examples of why target people in wheelchairs while ignoring how "realism" would also make it near impossible for nearly anyone (let alone a low str/con PC) to trek through 2 feet of mud. Or to scale a cliff. Or even to climb a rope up a cliff. Have you done any of those things? They are hard. Really hard. For "normal" people. Especially if not trained. I'd bet 90% of the posters here couldn't walk more than 50 feet in 2 feet of mud while kitted out. Even with skill checks. But in game, we ignore stuff like that all the time because the game isn't fun if you enforced reality.

But I bet you hand wave away most of those those things (who does nothing but skill check after skill check all night long, because that's what "realism" would be) and just assume the PCs find a way. Just like we should be doing with people in a wheelchair. Unless it's critical, handle like anything else you're assuming in every game session--assume the PCs find a way to make it work.

Third, a lot of us do run low str/con people through the realism wringer when it comes to walking through two feet of mud or walking up 1000 stairs. There would be stat checks, exhaustion and resting in that PC's future in my game and in many other games. Stats mean things.

Hypocrisy is allowing skill checks even for the most feeble but automatically ruling "you can't do that" for someone in a wheelchair. if "realistically" neither can do a task, but you allow a check with one and not the other, that's hypocrisy. You're ignoring realism in one scenario but enforcing in another. Why? "My spectrum is different than yours" is a weak sauce excuse to hand wave away a double standard in how you apply skill checks.

 

[Hussar]

I'm aware. As I said it's players using modern knowledge to try and build in game stuff or modern conveniences.

My new game is ancient Greece. Not Greek themed butactual Fantasy Greece. Irons a relatively new concept no stirrups. In Eberron I don't care make a magic powered train or cart for all I care. This game not so much we're not even using Minis.

Then... wouldn't the simpler solution be... don't use this mini in your campaign?

 

[Zardnaar]

Then... wouldn't the simpler solution be... don't use this mini in your campaign?

Yes It wouldn't get used. I don't feel like a lecture why I'm bad person not allowing it. I have Minis but I'm trying to minimize amount of stuff I'm physically carrying.

 

[Hussar]

Yes It wouldn't get used. I don't feel like a lecture why I'm bad person not allowing it. I have Minis but I'm trying to minimize amount of stuff I'm physically carrying.

?

Who is saying you're a bad person for not allowing it? It's your game. Follow your bliss.

Just don't stand in the way of other people getting what they want. You don't want it? Fantastic. But, one has to wonder why you would choose to tell everyone you don't want this. What are you trying to say here? What's the point of telling people that you don't want this mini?

In all the years that you've been on En World, have you EVER posted to tell everyone that you aren't buying a specific mini? If not, then why is this one special?

 

[Zardnaar]

?

Who is saying you're a bad person for not allowing it? It's your game. Follow your bliss.

Just don't stand in the way of other people getting what they want. You don't want it? Fantastic. But, one has to wonder why you would choose to tell everyone you don't want this. What are you trying to say here? What's the point of telling people that you don't want this mini?

In all the years that you've been on En World, have you EVER posted to tell everyone that you aren't buying a specific mini? If not, then why is this one special?

I'm not to worried about what other people do more some people were implying in this thread you're a bad person if you dont allow it.

Are you familiar with Book of Wondrous Inventions? I the right type of campaign I would let you strap staves of meteor swarms to the chair and put a magical jet engine on it.

One game we kind of use Minis other game we don't. The mini doesn't offend me at all insisting to use it would. In 5E it wouldn't be needed after level 3?

 

[Hussar]

Again, I have to ask. Why are you bothering to tell people about a mini that you aren't going to use? You don't tell people about all the other minis you don't use. Have you ever posted to talk about a mini you have no interest in using before?

IOW, if this is a mini that doesn't interest you, that's groovy. There are all sorts of minis out there that don't interest me. Not a problem. But, the primary difference is, I don't ever post to talk about a mini I am not going to use or have no interest in.

So, what's special about this one? And, if there's nothing special about it, wouldn't the prudent course of action be to simply not post about it? Because, it looks an awful lot like you're arguing against the existence of this mini when you keep insisting that it's not useful or that it's not "needed after level 3".

This mini is not FOR you. It's not meant for you or your game. It has nothing to do with you. So, what's the point in joining a conversation that is 100% not about you? You're not going to use it? Great. No problem. No one is every saying you should.

All that's being asked is for people to stand out of the way. Like so many issues of inclusion, people seem to think that they need to be part of a conversation that has nothing to do with them. It's utterly bizarre.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes It wouldn't get used. I don't feel like a lecture why I'm bad person not allowing it. I have Minis but I'm trying to minimize amount of stuff I'm physically carrying.

You're getting pushback because you are going beyond simply saying, "This isn't for me." You are questioning whether it belongs in D&D and ignoring the very valid arguments for inclusivity . . . and from people with actual disabilities who are telling you that, YES, this belongs in the game. You may not mean to be saying this, but this is exactly how you and others are coming across.

If there is another mini, or piece of artwork, depicting an able-bodied person . . . and you don't care for the mini . . . would you make as big of a deal about it? "Ugh, that halfling miniature has a huge head, I can't stand it. NOT IN MY GAME!!!!" Where are those threads?

I will say that . . . in the future, if a wheelchair bound player joined your game, and wanted to play a character who is also in a wheelchair (and use one of the above minis to depict them) . . . what would you tell them? Even if it was in your ancient Greek fantasy game? That answer would go a long way towards how inclusive and open-minded a person you truly are.

 

[RareBreed]

Agree 100%. If I see an injustice, I step in and do something about it right then and there. What I don't do is what you did here.

Doing the right thing would be to respond to the post that you screen grabbed. Dragging that screen post here is the 'outrage posting' I was talking about. It feels like it's about getting attention. When I say doing it quietly, I don't mean 'do nothing about it'. I mean doing something about it, but not in a way that says 'everybody, look at me doing a good thing'.

I actually agree with you about the quiet thing.

Too many people think that by speaking out, you show others that you are against this kind of behavior. But as the age old saying goes, "actions speak louder than words". As we have seen far far too often in today's internet driven world, the tendency to drown out and shutdown others and to let everyone else see what "team" they are on.

Instead of shaming with words, it is better to shame with action. Shaming with words almost invariably leads to a hostile negative reaction; "who do you think you are??" When we try to tell others what a bad thing they did, it often leads to a defensive reaction, because they feel like they are being scolded like a child (even if they are behaving like child). The only way this works, is when the person doing the scolding is someone they look up to, not some internet stranger.

When I was a young teen, my grandfather told me "Arrogance is loud, but confidence is quiet". A confident and righteous person speaks through actions. I'm pretty much convinced that in today's society, the defensiveness of others, combined with the ease with which to find solidarity with like-minded individuals means that trying to use a stick instead of a carrot just won't work. People with socially maldjusted thoughts will just seek out people like themselves to find acceptance. The only way to combat this, is to let people see that there is another way through actions, then they will not feel provoked

 

[Hussar]

Just to add to @Dire Bare above.

Thousands of minis are produced every year without comment.

One wheelchair mini gets produced and we’re now coming up on 300 comments.

People get why that’s a really bad look, right?

 

[Zardnaar]

Again, I have to ask. Why are you bothering to tell people about a mini that you aren't going to use? You don't tell people about all the other minis you don't use. Have you ever posted to talk about a mini you have no interest in using before?

IOW, if this is a mini that doesn't interest you, that's groovy. There are all sorts of minis out there that don't interest me. Not a problem. But, the primary difference is, I don't ever post to talk about a mini I am not going to use or have no interest in.

So, what's special about this one? And, if there's nothing special about it, wouldn't the prudent course of action be to simply not post about it? Because, it looks an awful lot like you're arguing against the existence of this mini when you keep insisting that it's not useful or that it's not "needed after level 3".

This mini is not FOR you. It's not meant for you or your game. It has nothing to do with you. So, what's the point in joining a conversation that is 100% not about you? You're not going to use it? Great. No problem. No one is every saying you should.

All that's being asked is for people to stand out of the way. Like so many issues of inclusion, people seem to think that they need to be part of a conversation that has nothing to do with them. It's utterly bizarre.

You defeated your own argument. One person was saying rules should be written of some wanted to.


There's also an undercurrent of you're terrible if you dont allow it. I'm pointing out the DM side of things. I wouldn't allow a wheel chair in some of my games for the same reason I wouldn't allow a rifle, steam engine or light bulb all of which could theoretically be built using resources available in a typical campaign.

That's what I'm responding to not should the mini exist or not or if ones wants to use it. Knock yourself out.

For me it's.

1. Are we using Minis
2. Would the campaign support a wheelchair
3. Why include it the rules don't really support the concept.

I've used critical hit tables before where a wheel chair woukd beuseful afterwards. Stopped using them because of complexity.

Eg in 5E do you just turn a blind eye essentially ignoring its effects, treat it as a vehicle, difficult on anything that's not reasonably flat?

It's a moot point essentially but it's a headache if it ever comes up.