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

[Incenjucar]

True but I'm thre DM in that game. Make my life easier ffs.

This campaign was a new player request happy to accommodate the next new player in next campaign as long as everyone's more or less happy.

Same metric applies. As a DM I spend about ninety seconds with topics like these.

 

[Zardnaar]

Same metric applies. As a DM I spend about ninety seconds with topics like these.

How I normally roll is I gave a list of games I'm interested in running. A typical list might be

Egyptian
Greek
Norse (Midgard)
Magitech (Eberron/Midgard)
FR

Egyptian got picked so I added Drow, that got picked next I just asked new player any requests and they said Greek.

Occasionally I get a Star Wars or OSR game in.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For what it’s worth, as a wheelchair user myself, I wouldn’t have a problem with a GM saying that, no, that kind of wheelchair doesn’t fit an Ancient Greek vibe. I’d want to work with them on an alternative, like a small brass automaton that can carry a person in a fixed chair, or a two-wheeled cart pulled by a couple of dogs (a friend of mine made one for her Malamutes to pull when she had a broken leg not heal right and it served her great for a year or so near Mt. Shasta), or something like that. Adapting to specific circumstances is A-OK with me as long as it’s not just pushback on the basic concept at all.

Seems reasonable to me. As a 17th century invention self-propelled wheelchair certainly is close enough for sort of medieval/renaissance without gunpowder hodgepodge of most D&D settings, but as an person who is neurotic about aesthetics of settings, I also understand people who don't feel that this specific iteration of the technology fits their specific setting. In such cases it indeed would make sense to explore these sort of more aesthetically fitting alternatives.

 

[Zardnaar]

Seems reasonable to me. As a 17th century invention self-propelled wheelchair certainly is close enough for sort of medieval/renaissance without gunpowder hodgepodge of most D&D settings, but as an person who is neurotic about aesthetics of settings, I also understand people who don't feel that this specific iteration of the technology fits their specific setting. In such cases it indeed would make sense to explore these sort of more aesthetically fitting alternatives.

This. I've been kicking around two ideas I've never pulled the trigger on.

1. Stone age setting during or near the end of an ice age. 2E barbarians Handbook gave me that idea.

2. Phantasy Star type game. Starts off typical technology but you run into warforged with plasma swords and lasers. The campaigns a giant worldship in space.

 

[Voadam]

sure.

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.



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.

Disagree.

Everyone has different lines for where to draw the lines on what seems reasonable, what can be accepted because of game mechanics (20 strength three foot tall halfling/gnome PC grapplers), what can work to just get on with the game in a one off situation (mud adjudications), what can work to accommodate specific concepts, and what aesthetics and tone are being gone for (gritty, action movie, anime). These can all legitimately vary.

Two feet of mud, scaling cliffs, and 20 strength gnomes grappling ogres are fairly corner case. Much more so than stairs and wilderness travel.

Many who have realism impracticality type objections for a more realistic/gritty aesthetic would also have objections to things like the practicality of four legged horse sized centaur PCs. Some could also have objections to things like 20 strength halflings, no problem mud slogging, and the other things raised. Or some and not all because lines and tastes on aesthetics and judgments of what is reasonable or not vary.

 

[WyrmworksDale]

I think the issue is for some folks the chair itself is part how they see themselves so if you go magical like, a hover/spider chair then it isn't how they see themselves represented.

Personally I find the idea of self insert characters weird anyway. The reason I roleplay is to play someone different than myself.

Yeah, everyone has different preferences. But it can also be a matter of having those characters in the world as NPCs. Given how few disabled people get represented in any kind of media (especially given that we're talking about 20% of the population), it can communicate, "In the fantasy world I imagine, I want you in it," or thinking about, "What would it be like if I lived in this fantasy world with fantasy abilities, but it was still essentially me?"

And as a DM, I find a little of myself in most of the NPCs I create.

I think the problem is the game doesn't really have rules for it eg you don't really get permanently injured.

If you voluntarily become blind you've intentionally created a bad character in a team based game.

If you ignore the mechanical effects of being blind (or whatever) there's not really any point in choosing to be blind.

I've had players deliberately do stupid things to the point 3/6 got booted and the campaign ended and we added a houserule along the lines of don't deliberately create bad characters.

They were doing stuff like nothing higher than a 12 in prime ability scores if not a 8 or 10 and deliberately playing CN disruptive idiots.

So deliberately picking a blind fighter after that would be seen as trolling. This was 2015. If you got blinded in game that's different.

In game terns you're going to be at disadvantage on all your attack rolls and you voluntarily chose to do it.

I would encourage you to consider a different viewpoint on disabled player characters.

It's also a good opportunity to consider the advantages that come with various lived experiences.

• Blind characters are immune to gaze attacks, and while they may have a penalty to certain rolls overall (not Disadvantage — that's for the "blinded" condition, which is a sudden temporary condition and doesn't reflect long-term blindness), darkness and invisibility are not an obstacle.
• People with chronic pain are used to handling pain (They still feel it, but it has raised their tolerance level.), so they could get a bonus on saving throws against psychic damage.
• ADHD could, depending on the form of ADHD, give benefits to concentration if it's a hyperfocus or extra saves when charmed due to the way "squirrel brain" (as my psych evaluator calls it) interacts with enchantment magic.
• Schizophrenia with hallucinations could give advantage to recognizing/disbelieving illusions, since they have learned how to figure out what is and isn't real.
• And with the therapy I've received to deal with my self-critical depression, I probably now have a Feat to give me advantage against (though certainly not immunity from) Vicious Mockery and anything else that targets my self-perception.

But really, it's more about creating a more inclusive real-world environment while adding depth and variety to your fantasy world, just like including PoC, women, and other marginalized demographics.

 

[Oofta]

How I feel when DnD players ban firearms while talking about how rapiers are totally medieval.

Kind of depends on what a rapier is. Depending on definition, it's just a light blade not an epee. But there are all sorts of anachronisms in default D&D. Plate armor as depicted required pretty advanced steel making that didn't happen until the 15th century or so. In the real world firearms of one sort or another had been around for a while by then. Gunpowder doesn't exist in my world for other reasons, but that's a whole other topic.

For me it's not the wheelchair itself that I have an issue with, it wouldn't be enough out of place to matter. But if you're an adventurer and want to get around everywhere? In a world where a flight of stairs should still be a major obstacle? It's going to have to be a slightly magical wheelchair, which is something I have no issue with. There's only so much I want to hand-wave on a regular basis, doesn't mean I can't come up with a solution that I can envision working.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is constantly vexing how 'realism' and 'immersion' and 'verisimilitude' have become bludgeons in the community to block off fantasy for other people. It always seems to come down to 'I personally don't like this, so no one can have it, but I feel I can justify it with a buzzword'. And most of the time it isn't even something that's not realistic, just something they don't believe in like physically strong people like Jack Lalane or wheelchairs prior to 1985 and they then defy you call call that unreasonable.

I'd be clearly unreasonable to say 'I don't like playing wizards personally, so no one in my games gets to play them', but apparently you can get away with 'wizards break my personal view of acceptable breaks from reality, so I'm not allowing anyone in my games play them'.

Willing suspension of disbelief is WILLING, and PERSONAL. IS it really so terrible to let other people having their fantasy?

 

[Umbran]

Willing suspension of disbelief is WILLING, and PERSONAL. IS it really so terrible to let other people having their fantasy?

Great question. And, we can add to the point that, if you don't have someone at your table who might want to play with this, it is a complete non-issue for your game.

I'm not a coffee drinker. I am not going to bother forming an opinion on the latest trends coming out of coffeeshops. There was this thing with olive oil in coffee, that apparently switched to butter? Do I care? No.

If you aren't going to go near it anyway, why take a stand on it?

 

[WyrmworksDale]

For me it's not the wheelchair itself that I have an issue with, it wouldn't be enough out of place to matter. But if you're an adventurer and want to get around everywhere? In a world where a flight of stairs should still be a major obstacle? It's going to have to be a slightly magical wheelchair, which is something I have no issue with. There's only so much I want to hand-wave on a regular basis, doesn't mean I can't come up with a solution that I can envision working.

When you live with a disability, you get creative. You learn to problem-solve. The issue might be that only a disabled player would be used to that level of constant problem-solving. That said, I suggest that, if we all spend a little more time thinking about cultural accessibility and awareness in our games, it could have significant repercussions on the accessibility of the real world.

For me it's.

3. Why include it the rules don't really support the concept.

The rules used to give penalties for female characters and didn't allow for PoC elves living above ground. When we recognize that the rules exclude real-world people, it's time to discuss changing the rules.