A game has no social responsibility to represent anyone, nor do they have to do it in any arbitrarily "correct" way.This is a universe of magic, where people can be brought back from the dead using a diamond. You can shoot fire from your hands and mend broken things with magic.
To me, OP's point makes a lot of sense. A powerful adventurer who probably has lots of gold and resources at his disposal would more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions.
A game has no social responsibility to represent anyone, nor do they have to do it in any arbitrarily "correct" way.This is a universe of magic, where people can be brought back from the dead using a diamond. You can shoot fire from your hands and mend broken things with magic.
To me, OP's point makes a lot of sense. A powerful adventurer who probably has lots of gold and resources at his disposal would more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions.
A rich person who broke his spine in this world would "more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions". That doesn't mean they would be successful.
The only responsibility a game has it to be fun for its players. However, the company making it has a responsibility to make profits. From a pure business perspective, if being more inclusive generates more profit (hint: it generally does for many reasons), they will do it.
Sure, but I'm guessing a lot of those people don't have those disabilities from injuries. I'm guessing your parents didn't become deaf last week and that they've had to live with the condition for a long length of time. I think fewer people would choose disability if it was new and easily curable. If you were injured and paralysed from the waist down and the first doctor you see says "Oh, I can fix that for you . It would just take a minute." I think a small minority of people would say "No thanks, I prefer to never walk again."
I'm working my way through this thread, but this particular post stood out to me as something I could and probably should address.
First of all, full disclosure: I am able-bodied. I am not fit, and I do not have amazing senses, but I am not diagnosed with any form of sensory loss, nor am I missing parts or possessed of parts outside of normal operational parameters. Bear that in mind - I can only speak from my own perspective.
My current top-runner character, Starlight Through Driving Rain, is a one-armed tiefling artificer. She lost her original right arm in a horrific accident when she was young. The manner through which she lost it prevented easy Regeneration, and she actually spent a number of years of her childhood missing that arm before being fitted for her first prosthesis. Over time she became interested in the technology, and as she grew up she learned how to create her own prosthetics. Star-as-she-exists-today is a highly talented and respected limbsmith who creates high quality, artisan-grade replacement limbs for clients who desire something more artistic than the usual fare.
Star is proud of her talents, and proud of the work she does. She would not restore her natural arm now even if she had the opportunity to - it is, in fact, a minor plot point in her story that she's refused experimental Regeneration treatments that may have gotten around the inhibition on regrowing her arm and opted to stick with her prosthetics, instead. The artificial hand proves useful during adventures, where she can risk the limb in situations other people would be unwilling to risk a meat hand because she can repair or replace her prosthetic far more easily, and she's also simply proud to wear and show off her own work.
Now obviously none of this applies IRL, but the whole point of the thread was "doesn't magic invalidate disabilities?" No. No it does not. As Thoruck said, wounds can be as magical as their treatments and prevent easy handwave healing, and in some cases those who develop alternatives can wind up preferring the alternatives. There are plenty of situations where someone can arrive at new capabilities, new knowledge, and new identities because of the hardships they went through handling their disability and not want to give those gains up, just like there are plenty of situations where someone may just want to regain what they lost.
A game has no social responsibility to represent anyone, nor do they have to do it in any arbitrarily "correct" way.This is a universe of magic, where people can be brought back from the dead using a diamond. You can shoot fire from your hands and mend broken things with magic.
To me, OP's point makes a lot of sense. A powerful adventurer who probably has lots of gold and resources at his disposal would more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions.
A rich person who broke his spine in this world would "more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions". That doesn't mean they would be successful.
The only responsibility a game has it to be fun for its players. However, the company making it has a responsibility to make profits. From a pure business perspective, if being more inclusive generates more profit (hint: it generally does for many reasons), they will do it.
Really fair point. I'm just seeing lots of people getting needlessly worked up over a game that if you really disagree with something (on either side) you can change it for your game.
A rich person who broke his spine in this world would "more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions". That doesn't mean they would be successful.
The only responsibility a game has it to be fun for its players. However, the company making it has a responsibility to make profits. From a pure business perspective, if being more inclusive generates more profit (hint: it generally does for many reasons), they will do it.
Really fair point. I'm just seeing lots of people getting needlessly worked up over a game that if you really disagree with something (on either side) you can change it for your game.
This always applies both ways, though, and it is extremely rare that WotC actually change anything. They introduce new, optional rules or content that anyone who wishes to can ignore or modify to suit them.
However, as a business, they will keep trying to make money. Sometimes that means they make some new rules or content to suit certain groups, which is fine because any DM/group who dislikes them can ignore them. I'm not a fan of horror themes in my games, and also avoid content which brings in ideas of absolute morality or fixed racial alignments, so I don't include them in my game, but I'm not upset that rules exist for them or that other people use them.
It is the great thing about D&D: you may pay it however you like. If you are not happy with the rules, you are free to change them. If you are not happy with new rules coming out, ignore them or change them. If you are not happy with the direction WotC are taking, you are totally free to either keep the game as it is or change it to whatever you want it to be.
WotC, though, isn't D&D. It's a company which exists to make money for its shareholders. If it will make them more money to appeal to their older more traditional players, they will, but they also won't hesitate to change things if that will make them more. You are never forced to use that, though, because D&D is whatever you want it to be, not what WotC want it to be.
Just thinking about this: why would any hero or character of sufficient power be disabled in a fantasy setting like D&D?
.....I get why you might see the odd person in a town with a missing eye, arm or leg. But once you are a powerful adventurer, not even death is permanent. It's a bit obscene to pretend paralysis is.
Just thinking about this: why would any hero or character of sufficient power be disabled in a fantasy setting like D&D?
.....I get why you might see the odd person in a town with a missing eye, arm or leg. But once you are a powerful adventurer, not even death is permanent. It's a bit obscene to pretend paralysis is.
Because the player thinks it is a cool.
Well said Jasperrdm
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think we're all forgetting that this is a game.
A game has no social responsibility to represent anyone, nor do they have to do it in any arbitrarily "correct" way.This is a universe of magic, where people can be brought back from the dead using a diamond. You can shoot fire from your hands and mend broken things with magic.
To me, OP's point makes a lot of sense. A powerful adventurer who probably has lots of gold and resources at his disposal would more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions.
A rich person who broke his spine in this world would "more than likely seek a way to restore his bodily functions". That doesn't mean they would be successful.
The only responsibility a game has it to be fun for its players. However, the company making it has a responsibility to make profits. From a pure business perspective, if being more inclusive generates more profit (hint: it generally does for many reasons), they will do it.
I'm working my way through this thread, but this particular post stood out to me as something I could and probably should address.
First of all, full disclosure: I am able-bodied. I am not fit, and I do not have amazing senses, but I am not diagnosed with any form of sensory loss, nor am I missing parts or possessed of parts outside of normal operational parameters. Bear that in mind - I can only speak from my own perspective.
My current top-runner character, Starlight Through Driving Rain, is a one-armed tiefling artificer. She lost her original right arm in a horrific accident when she was young. The manner through which she lost it prevented easy Regeneration, and she actually spent a number of years of her childhood missing that arm before being fitted for her first prosthesis. Over time she became interested in the technology, and as she grew up she learned how to create her own prosthetics. Star-as-she-exists-today is a highly talented and respected limbsmith who creates high quality, artisan-grade replacement limbs for clients who desire something more artistic than the usual fare.
Star is proud of her talents, and proud of the work she does. She would not restore her natural arm now even if she had the opportunity to - it is, in fact, a minor plot point in her story that she's refused experimental Regeneration treatments that may have gotten around the inhibition on regrowing her arm and opted to stick with her prosthetics, instead. The artificial hand proves useful during adventures, where she can risk the limb in situations other people would be unwilling to risk a meat hand because she can repair or replace her prosthetic far more easily, and she's also simply proud to wear and show off her own work.
Now obviously none of this applies IRL, but the whole point of the thread was "doesn't magic invalidate disabilities?" No. No it does not. As Thoruck said, wounds can be as magical as their treatments and prevent easy handwave healing, and in some cases those who develop alternatives can wind up preferring the alternatives. There are plenty of situations where someone can arrive at new capabilities, new knowledge, and new identities because of the hardships they went through handling their disability and not want to give those gains up, just like there are plenty of situations where someone may just want to regain what they lost.
Please do not contact or message me.
Really fair point. I'm just seeing lots of people getting needlessly worked up over a game that if you really disagree with something (on either side) you can change it for your game.
This always applies both ways, though, and it is extremely rare that WotC actually change anything. They introduce new, optional rules or content that anyone who wishes to can ignore or modify to suit them.
However, as a business, they will keep trying to make money. Sometimes that means they make some new rules or content to suit certain groups, which is fine because any DM/group who dislikes them can ignore them. I'm not a fan of horror themes in my games, and also avoid content which brings in ideas of absolute morality or fixed racial alignments, so I don't include them in my game, but I'm not upset that rules exist for them or that other people use them.
It is the great thing about D&D: you may pay it however you like. If you are not happy with the rules, you are free to change them. If you are not happy with new rules coming out, ignore them or change them. If you are not happy with the direction WotC are taking, you are totally free to either keep the game as it is or change it to whatever you want it to be.
WotC, though, isn't D&D. It's a company which exists to make money for its shareholders. If it will make them more money to appeal to their older more traditional players, they will, but they also won't hesitate to change things if that will make them more. You are never forced to use that, though, because D&D is whatever you want it to be, not what WotC want it to be.
Because the player thinks it is a cool.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
Well said Jasperrdm