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

[Clint_L]

Not saying there is. I'm saying I'm pointing out the hypocrisy to suddenly care about "realism" of what an adventurer could do in a wheelchair when the question isn't even asked about the low STR or CON PC who would struggle against all the same obstacles.

In a game in which a gnome can successfully arm wrestle an ogre, I don't think we need to worry too much about realism. See the thread on realism vs. verisimilitude.

 

[Zardnaar]

And…so? Someone mentioned Toph, you asked who that is, and someone gave you the answer. Nobody was saying you have to like it or even care. It’s a common inspiration for contemporary D&D, what with Avatar: The Last Airbender having been a wildly successful series and remaining very popular, including many viewers who don’t care for typical anime-related stylistic conventions.

I know about lots of things I don’t care for. Whenever I learned because someone answered a question of mine, I’ve always found “oh, okay, thank you” to be a good answer. I recommend it over arguing that it’s better to not like that thing.

The answer was fine I was more commenting on everything after that. No big deal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Rules don't have wheelchairs or penalize low strength and con characters mobility wise.

He'll they don't even have rules from injuries outside vorpal weapons?

In a game in which a gnome can successfully arm wrestle an ogre, I don't think we need to worry too much about realism. See the thread on realism vs. verisimilitude.

Exactly. Which is yet another reason it's stupid to get all worked up over wheelchairs in the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Exactly. Which is yet another reason it's stupid to get all worked up over wheelchairs in the game.

It's not going to matter most of the time but could see problems from them.

 

[Maxperson]

Not saying there is. I'm saying I'm pointing out the hypocrisy to suddenly care about "realism" of what an adventurer could do in a wheelchair when the question isn't even asked about the low STR or CON PC who would struggle against all the same obstacles.

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.

Second, each individual thing is on a separate spectrum. I might feel strongly about falling damage being realistic and come up with a more realistic approximation for falling damage and speeds, yet not at all feel the need to model armor and weapon degradation and upkeep in any way at all. It's not hypocritical to have varied levels of realism for the different things in the game.

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.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Rules don't have wheelchairs or penalize low strength and con characters mobility wise.

Sure they do. Rough terrain for mobile people is half movement. Two feet of mud would be even harder to move through than rough terrain and the DM is told by RAW to create rulings for things like that when they come up. So the rules do in fact penalize movement for wheelchairs(rulings since it isn't in the game yet) and low/str con for moving through two feet of mud(rulings).

 

[Maxperson]

Exactly. Which is yet another reason it's stupid to get all worked up over wheelchairs in the game.

No. The lack of explicit rules on something is not a reason to leave it unattended in the game. The lack of explicit rules is a reason to make new rules.

 

[Zardnaar]

No. The lack of explicit rules on something is not a reason to leave it unattended in the game. The lack of explicit rules is a reason to make new rules.

Then you're adding things to the game from later timelines. A wheelchair as depicted more like a 19th century one.

You could build one earlier but you can make that argument about lots of things eg a steam engine. Or better firearms.

That can also annoy DMs using player knowledge in game to duplicate industrial revolution onwards things.

Some people like that, places like Eberron sure but it can also annoy the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you're adding things to the game from later timelines. A wheelchair as depicted more like a 19th century one.

You could build one earlier but you can make that argument about lots of things eg a steam engine. Or better firearms.

That can also annoy DMs using player knowledge in game to duplicate industrial revolution onwards things.

Some people like that, places like Eberron sure but it can also annoy the DM.

D&D has no timeline like that. It has from day 1 been a mix of different real world eras with regard to arms, armor, firearms, etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

D&D has no timeline like that. It has from day 1 been a mix of different real world eras with regard to arms, armor, firearms, etc.

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.