This has ventured off-topic into real-world politics and debates on inclusion. To return a little to the topic the question of new artwork depicting possibilities is a mere glimpse into a setting or game that many tables will not need to deal with and for those who would object to certain notions, perhaps the artwork will make others more receptive to the idea? Now, I enjoy verisimilitude, but depending on era and such - but in terms of a normal mundane wheelchair either our world or almost any D&D setting is not friendly. However this is a game which the world is already bending to the PCs.
I'm sorry, read your first two points, then read the third. Because, I mean, the irony is just hilarious.
Also I wasn't arguing a definition. I'm saying that when the opposing sides are "your disability cannot be realistically (or internally consistently) represented in my game" and "I want to be able to have my disability represented in-game", there's no middle ground. Those aren't two sides with a compromise. There's compromises to be had within including the representation (as we've discussed, various levels of "my character's disability is flavor with no additional mechanical aspects" to "I have a combat wheelchair with various bonuses and drawbacks"), but not between "I don't want it in my game" and "I want it in my game".
There is middle ground between having it represented realistically and having it represented in-game. You know how? Implement it realistically and you can have such a thing represented in-game. Your first sentence is not mutually exclusive because both are quite easy to implement.
Returning to the wheelchair aspect - I would be quite glad as a DM to ban someone from having a wheelchair (combat or otherwise) if a player expected it to be 'flavor'. I find it rather insulting that someone would willingly choose what amounts to having physical/mental handicaps and expect that it simply does not inconvenience them let alone secretly benefit them in some way. I don't need to describe my life situation or justify my reasoning to anyone; but I am not going to allow such things as wheelchairs to be an accessory or mere prop at my table.
People have a right to object to having wheelchairs (or anything for that matter) in the game. Where I disagree with Maximus is the ideas behind 'not in my game' may just be short for:
"I don't trust the player or the DM enough with this topic to portray it in a way that doesn't negatively impact me for a host of possible reasons that I do not feel comfortable disclosing. That whether wheelchairs exist or not in a setting is irrelevant and that I as a player have misgivings about the situation that are difficult to articulate without appearing to be discriminatory because I do not want to cast aspersions on whether or not the player and the DM can handle a sensitive subject without trivializing, mocking or otherwise running roughshod over the subject. Perhaps a wheelchair is or was part of my past and having to roleplay with a painful reminder is not something I am up to, but either way I am uncomfortable and that is not an invitation to pose an intervention."
Putting it less physically obvious, I do not like characters who have certain mental conditions because rarely is it portrayed genuinely and often it is the raison d'etre behind a character. Does this mean that they shouldn't exist, or that I am somehow not open to having something represented? No. It's mainly that I don't trust a group of strangers to not misinterpret anything aside from blind acceptance in a positive way - that feelings of uncertainly, or being just plain uncomfortable with a topic is not something directed at them personally or represents an inherent flaw in myself. It is pain avoidance to an extent because I am genuinely concerned about how something will play out. I think any hesitancy to have wheelchairs in a game comes down to about how it will be in play rather than objecting to the 'representation' because in truth, we likely haven't even seen how the real 'representation' is going to be and that's what bothers some people.
Defend exclusion however you wish, I still say it is something for tables to deal with not a rule book.
It's funny you'd say this when your very definition of "inclusion" involves excluding someone who's viewpoint you disagree with.
I am not excluding it, just pointing out a rule book is not the place to handle these types of situations as they are to varied and unique to be addressed in a rule book. It is just laughable to see so many saying others are wrong for the way they "would" address the hypothetical for many (if not most) posting here, when this is clearly an issue best solved at individual tables, how many posting here have actually had this issue at a table you have played at? I am simply saying leave it for the tables not the rule books, that is all I am saying, for that many are making me out to be against something I am not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
Of course if you're designing this into play you've got options to account for the effort it takes; manually wheeling 20 miles will take more recovery time than someone walking the same distance, so build in additional recovery time. Play athletics checks with disadvantage, or with an additional negative modifier to account for the chair.
I'm not doing that in any of my adventures, present or future, because that's bullshit for D&D.
I wouldn't disagree. It's like tracking rations etc, and just creates needless friction most of the time.
To an extent I'd expect the wheelchair using PC to be coming up with solutions to account for the mobility difference.
To be very clear, it is not “like tracking rations.” Any such rules are basically saying “Hey, you know those challenges you might face in the real world? Guess what, I am forcing you to face those challenges in the game as well.” Even something such as demanding the player “come up with solutions to account for the mobility difference” is going to ruin any escapism the person is seeking.
Tracking rations is one of those things you can easily ignore without really causing any difference to the game. Imposing penalties for a disability can very easily cross the line to discrimination and cruelty.
If the player is choosing to play mobility impaired, then I'd argue there's a cost to that. For us, going to a F2F game means adding an additional 20 minutes to travel time to account for getting to the car, transferring, getting the chair into the car, then similar at the other end. Similarly, I used the public transport example upthread; if there is one wheelchair user already on the bus, you've got to wait for the next bus as there is only one wheelchair space.
If I travel to London, less than 30% of the underground is wheelchair accessible, so it takes longer to move around, and it increases fatigue. That's just reality for wheelchair users.
There's a clue in the name of disability.
Empathy continues to be in short supply, I see.
D&D is a game about escapism - for some, that means escaping into someone completely different than themselves, for others, that means playing an heroic, fantasy version of yourself.
If a player wants to have their disability explored and have a mechanical elements in-game, that is fine. But saying that they should “expect” to be held back, merely because they want to play a fantasy version of themselves? Saying “sorry bud, you are disabled in the real world and face challenges, I do not care if you are trying to use D&D for some escapism - you are going to face challenges here also?”
That is un-empathetic and likely discriminatory.
OK, you summoned me. May I ask exactly where tf you get off undermining my lived experience? And I have a follow up question: how do you *not* see that what you are saying is discriminating against my potential choices and treating me just like every other prejudiced halfwit out here in the real world who seemingly wants me to go home and stay invisible? Talk about lack of empathy...
They are not undermining your lived experience. You didn't say "for me, in playing D&D, if I chose to explore my disability in game I would prefer a cost to that." You made a blanket statement that there should always be a cost to that. They were saying that if a different player (not you, obviously) wanted to explore their disability in a way that didn't automatically give them mechanical hurdles, but instead allowed themselves to see their character as themselves, but a hero, then that should be a thing that would be accepted by the DM/table. Note I am not saying they should be allowed to have a magic device that allows them a "get out of jail free card" in every situation, ignoring difficult terrain, triple the carrying capacity, invulnerable to prone, AC 20, blah blah blah all at level 1. If they simply wanted to play a wheelchair user, basically as flavor, so that they can imagine themselves to be doing heroic things, that that shouldn't automatically come with costs/downsides.
You are absolutely owed your experience, and they are not denying you that, just stating that you cannot push your experience/opinion in this case to all people who are in a similar situation to you.
I have made no statements, blanket or otherwise, before the first (ever) response to which you've replied. I shall now proceed to do so. (And please look who you are replying to instead of just making assumptions. It's less rude and shows you're actually following the conversation.)
As a matter of fact, someone in a chair *is* going to have certain blanket problems that they'll have to discuss with the DM. How are they going to get around a dungeon? What about stairs? Of *course* there are going to be certain blanket issues to be worked around, same as there would be if you played, I don't know, a halfling, for example. The human world isn't built for exceptions but for average, or as some have called it, 'normal' people. Folk like me have had to fight tooth and nail to be treated with the same respect. Until very recently, people addressed my white, male partner and not me. (Does she take sugar?) But we aren't created equal. We need adaptations. Our point is that we deserve those adaptations as a right, as humans of the same value as the rest of you. And we *especially* don't want to be told we'll be treated the same, regardless. How will that help? What about, and this is just me coming up with crazy ideas now, what about you asked us what we need instead of told us? And so, yes, for most of us we are going to need more. More rations? Very probably. More rest? Highly likely. While most wheelchair users are ambulatory, it generally takes much more effort to do what you do naturally and that's draining, exhausting. The upside of this is a more balanced character and, artificial or no, we see character balance in D&D. If I decide I want to have knives fitted to my wheels and get pushed down a slope at speed, firing magic missiles, flames in my hair, blades whirring into an enemy camp, there should be some balance. There are for other races and classes, so there should be here. What you and our 'friend' here are doing is patting our hands and humouring us, presumably whilst asking our companions if we take sugar. No. We want to be treated realistically, equally and with adaptations made to allow us to explore disabled characters as if we were any other character with advantages *and disadvantages*. Otherwise, we might as well all play white, male, human fighters. And we already know from bitter experience what that kind of world looks like.
Of course if you're designing this into play you've got options to account for the effort it takes; manually wheeling 20 miles will take more recovery time than someone walking the same distance, so build in additional recovery time. Play athletics checks with disadvantage, or with an additional negative modifier to account for the chair.
I'm not doing that in any of my adventures, present or future, because that's bullshit for D&D.
I wouldn't disagree. It's like tracking rations etc, and just creates needless friction most of the time.
To an extent I'd expect the wheelchair using PC to be coming up with solutions to account for the mobility difference.
To be very clear, it is not “like tracking rations.” Any such rules are basically saying “Hey, you know those challenges you might face in the real world? Guess what, I am forcing you to face those challenges in the game as well.” Even something such as demanding the player “come up with solutions to account for the mobility difference” is going to ruin any escapism the person is seeking.
Tracking rations is one of those things you can easily ignore without really causing any difference to the game. Imposing penalties for a disability can very easily cross the line to discrimination and cruelty.
If the player is choosing to play mobility impaired, then I'd argue there's a cost to that. For us, going to a F2F game means adding an additional 20 minutes to travel time to account for getting to the car, transferring, getting the chair into the car, then similar at the other end. Similarly, I used the public transport example upthread; if there is one wheelchair user already on the bus, you've got to wait for the next bus as there is only one wheelchair space.
If I travel to London, less than 30% of the underground is wheelchair accessible, so it takes longer to move around, and it increases fatigue. That's just reality for wheelchair users.
There's a clue in the name of disability.
Empathy continues to be in short supply, I see.
D&D is a game about escapism - for some, that means escaping into someone completely different than themselves, for others, that means playing an heroic, fantasy version of yourself.
If a player wants to have their disability explored and have a mechanical elements in-game, that is fine. But saying that they should “expect” to be held back, merely because they want to play a fantasy version of themselves? Saying “sorry bud, you are disabled in the real world and face challenges, I do not care if you are trying to use D&D for some escapism - you are going to face challenges here also?”
That is un-empathetic and likely discriminatory.
OK, you summoned me. May I ask exactly where tf you get off undermining my lived experience? And I have a follow up question: how do you *not* see that what you are saying is discriminating against my potential choices and treating me just like every other prejudiced halfwit out here in the real world who seemingly wants me to go home and stay invisible? Talk about lack of empathy...
They are not undermining your lived experience. You didn't say "for me, in playing D&D, if I chose to explore my disability in game I would prefer a cost to that." You made a blanket statement that there should always be a cost to that. They were saying that if a different player (not you, obviously) wanted to explore their disability in a way that didn't automatically give them mechanical hurdles, but instead allowed themselves to see their character as themselves, but a hero, then that should be a thing that would be accepted by the DM/table. Note I am not saying they should be allowed to have a magic device that allows them a "get out of jail free card" in every situation, ignoring difficult terrain, triple the carrying capacity, invulnerable to prone, AC 20, blah blah blah all at level 1. If they simply wanted to play a wheelchair user, basically as flavor, so that they can imagine themselves to be doing heroic things, that that shouldn't automatically come with costs/downsides.
You are absolutely owed your experience, and they are not denying you that, just stating that you cannot push your experience/opinion in this case to all people who are in a similar situation to you.
I have made no statements, blanket or otherwise, before the first (ever) response to which you've replied. I shall now proceed to do so. (And please look who you are replying to instead of just making assumptions. It's less rude and shows you're actually following the conversation.)
As a matter of fact, someone in a chair *is* going to have certain blanket problems that they'll have to discuss with the DM. How are they going to get around a dungeon? What about stairs? Of *course* there are going to be certain blanket issues to be worked around, same as there would be if you played, I don't know, a halfling, for example. The human world isn't built for exceptions but for average, or as some have called it, 'normal' people. Folk like me have had to fight tooth and nail to be treated with the same respect. Until very recently, people addressed my white, male partner and not me. (Does she take sugar?) But we aren't created equal. We need adaptations. Our point is that we deserve those adaptations as a right, as humans of the same value as the rest of you. And we *especially* don't want to be told we'll be treated the same, regardless. How will that help? What about, and this is just me coming up with crazy ideas now, what about you asked us what we need instead of told us? And so, yes, for most of us we are going to need more. More rations? Very probably. More rest? Highly likely. While most wheelchair users are ambulatory, it generally takes much more effort to do what you do naturally and that's draining, exhausting. The upside of this is a more balanced character and, artificial or no, we see character balance in D&D. If I decide I want to have knives fitted to my wheels and get pushed down a slope at speed, firing magic missiles, flames in my hair, blades whirring into an enemy camp, there should be some balance. There are for other races and classes, so there should be here. What you and our 'friend' here are doing is patting our hands and humouring us, presumably whilst asking our companions if we take sugar. No. We want to be treated realistically, equally and with adaptations made to allow us to explore disabled characters as if we were any other character with advantages *and disadvantages*. Otherwise, we might as well all play white, male, human fighters. And we already know from bitter experience what that kind of world looks like.
How you could so completely misrepresent what I have said is astounding.
EVERYTHING I've said has been about communication with player and DM. I've specifically stated if someone wants to play with realistic hindrances, then that can be worked on in how to balance that with the DM. If they prefer to play without them and it is a flavor for their character because they don't want their character experience to be the same as they face in reality, then they should not be forced to have drawbacks if they also get no advantages.
It's about what that player wants to experience, and balance. Blanket statements, for the most part, as bad, as no group acts as a monolith. Working with players to help them achieve their goals is what the game is all about. Forcing drawbacks on people for wanting to feel represented in the game is not the approach that I feel should be taken.
This thread has been very informative. My takeaway is, like so many things in D&D, that this is something best left for the tables to work out and not for official rule books.
Nah, I say official books should represent the whole gamut of people that play this game. I've never been a fan of the whole "I don't care who you are as long as you are it away from me" adjacent attitude.
This thread proves that is not possible.
ETA: I am responding to the first sentence, as the second one is nothing but conjecture.
No, it really doesn't. What this thread proves that if Wizards puts out any piece of content that says "you are welcome and represented in this game" to anyone but able bodied cishet white men, someone will object to that.
If anyone responds to a message of inclusion and welcoming into the hobby of D&D with "Um, actually...." they can be soundly ignored.
And before we get into technicalities, I'm not talking about "perfect" representation or inclusions. Perfect is the enemy of Good and "You're not doing this perfectly so shouldn't do this at all" is a fallacious argument that gets very selectively trotted out. And as for the other sentiment I've seen of "If you're being inclusive, you must be inclusive of my opinions that the game shouldn't be inclusive", well.....no. The paradox of tolerance isn't really a paradox, it's very simply solved by saying to those sorts of people "Get in the sea!" If you want to push back against inclusion, you can have a taste of your own medicine immediately. As many have said before, between "I want to be seen and see myself in this game" and "I don't want to see you or anyone like you in this game", there is no middle ground. There is no compromise. There is no inclusion of those two mutually exclusive ideals. And as such, the latter can be banished to the lowest layers of the Abyss.
Mod Hat On: Also folks, keep things civil, say away from the politics, and be excellent to each other. Oh, and one more thing. The moderation team can and will remove comments that border on straight up ableism. Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a "free marketplace of ideas" or any other nonsense like that. The Mod team has a responsibility to quash any bigotry or discrimination. So think before you make that post, otherwise there may be a rules warning in your inbox.
Respectfully, there is a large breadth of space between actively promoting ableism and saying that the DM should be allowed some small say in how the campaign setting and dynamics are structured, including if and how disabilities can be addressed in-universe. It is fair to say that the default of D&D does not realistically examine injuries given that aside from the plethora of spells that quickly and cleanly see to injuries (Lesser Restoration by RAW seems able to actually cure blindness or paralysis caused by congenital conditions or injuries that don't completely destroy the relevant body parts) there's the fact that a solid 8 hours of rest wipes away almost all wear and tear characters have endured during a day, and as a corollary that does suggest the default need not be held to a strictly realistic examination of how a character with a physical disability is able to overcome it to participate as a typical adventure. But, as a corollary to all of that in turn, just as the DMG provides for DM's who would like to run a campaign where that general wear and tear is not so casually shrugged off at the end of each day, it's fair for a DM to likewise be more stringent about the starting condition of the PCs, given that by participating in this sort of campaign- that is already explicitly promoted by the material- players are basically acknowledging that gameplay contrivances and handwaves are being set aside in favor of an approach that more closely mirrors the real world experience of injuries and their implications.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be passages encouraging inclusiveness in character traits, but rather than outright putting the onus on the DM to comply with player desires, I'd say it's better to emphasize mutual communication and collaboration from both sides of the table in setting all this up. If everyone is operating in good faith, then a workable setup can be hammered out. If one side isn't willing to budge on a point that's crucial to the other, then the group probably isn't meant to be in any case.
Respectfully, there is a large breadth of space between actively promoting ableism and saying that the DM should be allowed some small say in how the campaign setting and dynamics are structured, including if and how disabilities can be addressed in-universe.
I wasn't speaking at all to how DMs choose to run their game
I was speaking exclusively to how Wizards of the Coast includes representation in their books, products which are community facing
Please do not misconstrue or misrepresent what I am saying, unintentionally or otherwise
Just to poke my head back in to the thread... I'll offer up another magical option for consideration. It's effectively just flavouring a level 1ritual spell.
Take a chair, whether wheeled or normal, or a normal cushion or small rug. Have it enchanted with something akin tot he Tensers Floating Disk spell. It requires attunement, has duration of "Concentration" and requires an Action to activate the levitation. The description for it reads (and feel free to change the word "chair" to whatever item or piece of furniture or apparel you want):
"The chair levitates 3ft above the ground until you lose concentration or dismiss the levitation (no action required to dismiss it) and can hold up to 500 pounds and can move at an effective walking speed of 20ft. If more weight is placed on it, the levitationl ends, and the chair falls to the ground. If you leave the chair but retain your concentration the chair follows you so that it remains within 20ft of you. It can move across uneven terrain, up or down stairs, slopes and the Iike. but it can't cross an elevation change of 10ft or more. For example, the chair can't move across a 10ft deep pit, nor could it leave such a pit if it was at the bottom. If you move more than 100 feet from the chair (typically because it can't move around an obstacle to follow you), the levitation ends and the chair remains in place untilthe user returns or someone else attunes to it."
That way can be normal mode for day to day travel around town or Professor X mode when you need a bit more help.
To me, this is a different variation on the centaur problem. If a player wishes to play a centaur, is the DM obligated to create a campaign where there is no centaur unfriendly terrain? Are they obligated to handwave the stealth problems a centaur (or any large size character) would have?
If the centaur ever has to wait outside anywhere due to literally not fitting in the doorway, or is the DM obligated to have a world in which every door, and every interior for that matter, is centaur-friendly?
While the topic is ostensibly about inclusion, it is a fantasy setting, so unlike in the real world where we suffer through whatever issues our bodies have, we get to have whatever bodies the rules allow. So, not sure why anyone, including those in the disabled community, would want to treat having any such issues as something anyone would willingly choose. But, as I am sure many have said here, that is their choice.
Going all the way back to the OP, I have a halfling Bard/Artificer who is a chair salesman. He started out as a chair salesman, bardic trained as a sales person, guild background, carpentry trained. Seeking ever new improvements in chair technology, he took up artificer training and, besides this allowing him to make ever more magnificent chairs, eventually he was able to develop a new TACTIC:
(Bah, it does not seem to let me link the image, but his steel defender has the form of a tracked all terrain combat chair)
He is retired from active adventure, now but was one of my more successful characters. There were not many adventures where he did not manage to sell at least one chair...
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling?
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling?
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
An issue is the normal technological level in most D&D campaigns. In real life, although push wheelchairs have been around since around the 6th century BC, they required someone to actually push them to move them around. The first known self propelled wheelchair did not actually happen until the mid 1600's, which is usually a bit late for most (non-Eberron) D&D timelines.
Now for NPC's, push style wheelchairs are just fine, so... why not?
However, there is the question as to why those who need them would be that common in a world where most wounds can literally simply be slept off, there is no normal RAW bone breakage or mobility limiting malady that cannot be solved by worst a relatively low level spell or perhaps a trip to a major city's larger temple for some stronger healing.
While your point about this not being about DMing is, of course, fair, it is at least somewhat about world building, at least to the extent of what WotC presents as their examples of what the setting of any given published adventure might be like... While the OP's concern about overdoing with such situations has some validity, is that really happening to any degree already? Not seen any such depictions, at least not that I can remember...
Respectfully, there is a large breadth of space between actively promoting ableism and saying that the DM should be allowed some small say in how the campaign setting and dynamics are structured, including if and how disabilities can be addressed in-universe. It is fair to say that the default of D&D does not realistically examine injuries given that aside from the plethora of spells that quickly and cleanly see to injuries (Lesser Restoration by RAW seems able to actually cure blindness or paralysis caused by congenital conditions or injuries that don't completely destroy the relevant body parts) there's the fact that a solid 8 hours of rest wipes away almost all wear and tear characters have endured during a day, and as a corollary that does suggest the default need not be held to a strictly realistic examination of how a character with a physical disability is able to overcome it to participate as a typical adventure. But, as a corollary to all of that in turn, just as the DMG provides for DM's who would like to run a campaign where that general wear and tear is not so casually shrugged off at the end of each day, it's fair for a DM to likewise be more stringent about the starting condition of the PCs, given that by participating in this sort of campaign- that is already explicitly promoted by the material- players are basically acknowledging that gameplay contrivances and handwaves are being set aside in favor of an approach that more closely mirrors the real world experience of injuries and their implications.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be passages encouraging inclusiveness in character traits, but rather than outright putting the onus on the DM to comply with player desires, I'd say it's better to emphasize mutual communication and collaboration from both sides of the table in setting all this up. If everyone is operating in good faith, then a workable setup can be hammered out. If one side isn't willing to budge on a point that's crucial to the other, then the group probably isn't meant to be in any case.
Again, I think all this is fair, but I also think it speaks to the kinds of things we let blend quietly into the background of even gritty-realism fantasy, and the kinds of things we don't. I've never seen anyone suggest that players in even the crunchiest campaigns should have to worry about, say, equipment maintenance. Swords never gets rusty or need sharpening, packs never need mending or waterproofing, horses need food and water but generally not grooming or re-shoeing. I'm not saying we should have to keep track of those things, but I am saying that if we elide general gear maintenance but suddenly need an explanation about wear and tear on a wheelchair, that's weird, right? It says something not so much about the nature of wheelchairs, but more about the way we see and judge wheelchairs and their users.
Of course I agree that the best way to come to a solution that works for a given table is to have that discussion at the table. But there's a lot Wizards can do to prime that discussion, and I think they should. It's also worth pointing out that while the game must always be collaborative, the DM is very much in a power position in these kinds of discussions. No DM means no game, after all, and even absent the "taking my ball and going home" scenario, the DM is still the arbiter of success and failure in play. This is why I think the DM, specifically, should be encouraged to be accommodating towards players; the players already implicitly understand that they need to accommodate the DM. I think any player who approaches their DM asking for special dispensation enters that conversation expecting to compromise.
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling?
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
An issue is the normal technological level in most D&D campaigns. In real life, although push wheelchairs have been around since around the 6th century BC, they required someone to actually push them to move them around. The first known self propelled wheelchair did not actually happen until the mid 1600's, which is usually a bit late for most (non-Eberron) D&D timelines.
Now for NPC's, push style wheelchairs are just fine, so... why not?
However, there is the question as to why those who need them would be that common in a world where most wounds can literally simply be slept off, there is no normal RAW bone breakage or mobility limiting malady that cannot be solved by worst a relatively low level spell or perhaps a trip to a major city's larger temple for some stronger healing.
While your point about this not being about DMing is, of course, fair, it is at least somewhat about world building, at least to the extent of what WotC presents as their examples of what the setting of any given published adventure might be like... While the OP's concern about overdoing with such situations has some validity, is that really happening to any degree already? Not seen any such depictions, at least not that I can remember...
I'm sorry if I have given you the impression I would entertain this as a debate. I wouldn't, not in a million years. There's no debate around "should everyone who plays this game be represented in it". The answer is "yes", follow by "end of story".
Again, this seems like more misdirects and justifications for excluding people.
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling?
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
To be fair, throughout the playtest period, Wizards has talked about how they are using art not just as a flavorful afterthought (as with other versions of the game), but as a way to showcase different options, every bit as important as the game’s flavor text.
To that end, the explicit inclusion of art with disabilities was intentionally designed to tell players and DMs “this is an acceptable way to play your game.” Given how many times the art showcases individuals with disabilities, there also is a pretty clear (and sometimes stated in interviews) subtext of “Hey, we don’t want you to play our game in a way that is discriminatory.”
Saying this art is just about Wizards’ choices is doing the art a disservice. This art is not just about Wizards - it is about the person several pages ago whose sister was wheelchair-bound and played a wheelchair bound person…. And who felt discriminated against and forced to leave the game because the DM tried to implement “realism” rules that punished her and ruined her escapism. This is about giving a group whose voice is often lost in conversations about discrimination the ability to point to the PHB and say “the game acknowledges my existence as a person, rather than just as my disability, maybe you should also.“
And that is a great thing for Wizards to do. Wizards absolutely should use art to push boundaries and fight back against discrimination. We all know there is discrimination in this community - this thread has shown it, either through folks who might not realize they are being discriminatory (ableism is not really in the public eye to the same degree as other -isms) or folks who probably do and are fine with being discriminatory (is it all that surprising many of the ableist comments/folks upvoting them are from folks with a history of discriminatory posting?).
I do not think we should be short-selling Wizards. They absolutely intended this art to be about influencing players and DMs - and we should be celebrating that.
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling?
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
To be fair, throughout the playtest period, Wizards has talked about how they are using art not just as a flavorful afterthought (as with other versions of the game), but as a way to showcase different options, every bit as important as the game’s flavor text.
To that end, the explicit inclusion of art with disabilities was intentionally designed to tell players and DMs “this is an acceptable way to play your game.” Given how many times the art showcases individuals with disabilities, there also is a pretty clear (and sometimes stated in interviews) subtext of “Hey, we don’t want you to play our game in a way that is discriminatory.”
Saying this art is just about Wizards’ choices is doing the art a disservice. This art is not just about Wizards - it is about the person several pages ago whose sister was wheelchair-bound and played a wheelchair bound person…. And who felt discriminated against and forced to leave the game because the DM tried to implement “realism” rules that punished her and ruined her escapism. This is about giving a group whose voice is often lost in conversations about discrimination the ability to point to the PHB and say “the game acknowledges my existence as a person, rather than just as my disability, maybe you should also.“
And that is a great thing for Wizards to do. Wizards absolutely should use art to push boundaries and fight back against discrimination. We all know there is discrimination in this community - this thread has shown it, either through folks who might not realize they are being discriminatory (ableism is not really in the public eye to the same degree as other -isms) or folks who probably do and are fine with being discriminatory (is it all that surprising many of the ableist comments/folks upvoting them are from folks with a history of discriminatory posting?).
I do not think we should be short-selling Wizards. They absolutely intended this art to be about influencing players and DMs - and we should be celebrating that.
I never said it was "just about Wizards’ choices", I said
This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people
and
this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
I was explicitly saying this is about how Wizards markets the game, how it presents D&D to the world, and how it messages what D&D can and should be. I never said it was just about flavour or art, quite the opposite. This is about the messaging WotC is putting out. To reference my earlier post, it's about signalling of the virtues of inclusion and representation that are and should be key elements of how D&D exists.
It's funny you'd say this when your very definition of "inclusion" involves excluding someone who's viewpoint you disagree with.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This has ventured off-topic into real-world politics and debates on inclusion. To return a little to the topic the question of new artwork depicting possibilities is a mere glimpse into a setting or game that many tables will not need to deal with and for those who would object to certain notions, perhaps the artwork will make others more receptive to the idea? Now, I enjoy verisimilitude, but depending on era and such - but in terms of a normal mundane wheelchair either our world or almost any D&D setting is not friendly. However this is a game which the world is already bending to the PCs.
There is middle ground between having it represented realistically and having it represented in-game. You know how? Implement it realistically and you can have such a thing represented in-game. Your first sentence is not mutually exclusive because both are quite easy to implement.
Returning to the wheelchair aspect - I would be quite glad as a DM to ban someone from having a wheelchair (combat or otherwise) if a player expected it to be 'flavor'. I find it rather insulting that someone would willingly choose what amounts to having physical/mental handicaps and expect that it simply does not inconvenience them let alone secretly benefit them in some way. I don't need to describe my life situation or justify my reasoning to anyone; but I am not going to allow such things as wheelchairs to be an accessory or mere prop at my table.
People have a right to object to having wheelchairs (or anything for that matter) in the game. Where I disagree with Maximus is the ideas behind 'not in my game' may just be short for:
"I don't trust the player or the DM enough with this topic to portray it in a way that doesn't negatively impact me for a host of possible reasons that I do not feel comfortable disclosing. That whether wheelchairs exist or not in a setting is irrelevant and that I as a player have misgivings about the situation that are difficult to articulate without appearing to be discriminatory because I do not want to cast aspersions on whether or not the player and the DM can handle a sensitive subject without trivializing, mocking or otherwise running roughshod over the subject. Perhaps a wheelchair is or was part of my past and having to roleplay with a painful reminder is not something I am up to, but either way I am uncomfortable and that is not an invitation to pose an intervention."
Putting it less physically obvious, I do not like characters who have certain mental conditions because rarely is it portrayed genuinely and often it is the raison d'etre behind a character. Does this mean that they shouldn't exist, or that I am somehow not open to having something represented? No. It's mainly that I don't trust a group of strangers to not misinterpret anything aside from blind acceptance in a positive way - that feelings of uncertainly, or being just plain uncomfortable with a topic is not something directed at them personally or represents an inherent flaw in myself. It is pain avoidance to an extent because I am genuinely concerned about how something will play out. I think any hesitancy to have wheelchairs in a game comes down to about how it will be in play rather than objecting to the 'representation' because in truth, we likely haven't even seen how the real 'representation' is going to be and that's what bothers some people.
I am not excluding it, just pointing out a rule book is not the place to handle these types of situations as they are to varied and unique to be addressed in a rule book. It is just laughable to see so many saying others are wrong for the way they "would" address the hypothetical for many (if not most) posting here, when this is clearly an issue best solved at individual tables, how many posting here have actually had this issue at a table you have played at? I am simply saying leave it for the tables not the rule books, that is all I am saying, for that many are making me out to be against something I am not.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I have made no statements, blanket or otherwise, before the first (ever) response to which you've replied. I shall now proceed to do so. (And please look who you are replying to instead of just making assumptions. It's less rude and shows you're actually following the conversation.)
As a matter of fact, someone in a chair *is* going to have certain blanket problems that they'll have to discuss with the DM. How are they going to get around a dungeon? What about stairs? Of *course* there are going to be certain blanket issues to be worked around, same as there would be if you played, I don't know, a halfling, for example. The human world isn't built for exceptions but for average, or as some have called it, 'normal' people. Folk like me have had to fight tooth and nail to be treated with the same respect. Until very recently, people addressed my white, male partner and not me. (Does she take sugar?) But we aren't created equal. We need adaptations. Our point is that we deserve those adaptations as a right, as humans of the same value as the rest of you. And we *especially* don't want to be told we'll be treated the same, regardless. How will that help? What about, and this is just me coming up with crazy ideas now, what about you asked us what we need instead of told us? And so, yes, for most of us we are going to need more. More rations? Very probably. More rest? Highly likely. While most wheelchair users are ambulatory, it generally takes much more effort to do what you do naturally and that's draining, exhausting. The upside of this is a more balanced character and, artificial or no, we see character balance in D&D. If I decide I want to have knives fitted to my wheels and get pushed down a slope at speed, firing magic missiles, flames in my hair, blades whirring into an enemy camp, there should be some balance. There are for other races and classes, so there should be here. What you and our 'friend' here are doing is patting our hands and humouring us, presumably whilst asking our companions if we take sugar. No. We want to be treated realistically, equally and with adaptations made to allow us to explore disabled characters as if we were any other character with advantages *and disadvantages*. Otherwise, we might as well all play white, male, human fighters. And we already know from bitter experience what that kind of world looks like.
If an adventurer has a wheelchair of any description, would enemies be able to separate the adventurer from the wheelchair?
What obstacles does a wheelchair wielding adventure face compared to an abled bodied adventurer??
Would the wheelchair be aesthetic or involve some unique mechanics??
How you could so completely misrepresent what I have said is astounding.
EVERYTHING I've said has been about communication with player and DM. I've specifically stated if someone wants to play with realistic hindrances, then that can be worked on in how to balance that with the DM. If they prefer to play without them and it is a flavor for their character because they don't want their character experience to be the same as they face in reality, then they should not be forced to have drawbacks if they also get no advantages.
It's about what that player wants to experience, and balance. Blanket statements, for the most part, as bad, as no group acts as a monolith. Working with players to help them achieve their goals is what the game is all about. Forcing drawbacks on people for wanting to feel represented in the game is not the approach that I feel should be taken.
All things to work out with the player in question, and none of which would preclude including fantasy wheelchairs in official art.
Exactly what I have been saying.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
No, it really doesn't. What this thread proves that if Wizards puts out any piece of content that says "you are welcome and represented in this game" to anyone but able bodied cishet white men, someone will object to that.
If anyone responds to a message of inclusion and welcoming into the hobby of D&D with "Um, actually...." they can be soundly ignored.
And before we get into technicalities, I'm not talking about "perfect" representation or inclusions. Perfect is the enemy of Good and "You're not doing this perfectly so shouldn't do this at all" is a fallacious argument that gets very selectively trotted out. And as for the other sentiment I've seen of "If you're being inclusive, you must be inclusive of my opinions that the game shouldn't be inclusive", well.....no. The paradox of tolerance isn't really a paradox, it's very simply solved by saying to those sorts of people "Get in the sea!" If you want to push back against inclusion, you can have a taste of your own medicine immediately. As many have said before, between "I want to be seen and see myself in this game" and "I don't want to see you or anyone like you in this game", there is no middle ground. There is no compromise. There is no inclusion of those two mutually exclusive ideals. And as such, the latter can be banished to the lowest layers of the Abyss.
Mod Hat On: Also folks, keep things civil, say away from the politics, and be excellent to each other. Oh, and one more thing. The moderation team can and will remove comments that border on straight up ableism. Do not make the mistake of thinking this is a "free marketplace of ideas" or any other nonsense like that. The Mod team has a responsibility to quash any bigotry or discrimination. So think before you make that post, otherwise there may be a rules warning in your inbox.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Respectfully, there is a large breadth of space between actively promoting ableism and saying that the DM should be allowed some small say in how the campaign setting and dynamics are structured, including if and how disabilities can be addressed in-universe. It is fair to say that the default of D&D does not realistically examine injuries given that aside from the plethora of spells that quickly and cleanly see to injuries (Lesser Restoration by RAW seems able to actually cure blindness or paralysis caused by congenital conditions or injuries that don't completely destroy the relevant body parts) there's the fact that a solid 8 hours of rest wipes away almost all wear and tear characters have endured during a day, and as a corollary that does suggest the default need not be held to a strictly realistic examination of how a character with a physical disability is able to overcome it to participate as a typical adventure. But, as a corollary to all of that in turn, just as the DMG provides for DM's who would like to run a campaign where that general wear and tear is not so casually shrugged off at the end of each day, it's fair for a DM to likewise be more stringent about the starting condition of the PCs, given that by participating in this sort of campaign- that is already explicitly promoted by the material- players are basically acknowledging that gameplay contrivances and handwaves are being set aside in favor of an approach that more closely mirrors the real world experience of injuries and their implications.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be passages encouraging inclusiveness in character traits, but rather than outright putting the onus on the DM to comply with player desires, I'd say it's better to emphasize mutual communication and collaboration from both sides of the table in setting all this up. If everyone is operating in good faith, then a workable setup can be hammered out. If one side isn't willing to budge on a point that's crucial to the other, then the group probably isn't meant to be in any case.
I wasn't speaking at all to how DMs choose to run their game
I was speaking exclusively to how Wizards of the Coast includes representation in their books, products which are community facing
Please do not misconstrue or misrepresent what I am saying, unintentionally or otherwise
Thank you
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Just to poke my head back in to the thread... I'll offer up another magical option for consideration. It's effectively just flavouring a level 1ritual spell.
Take a chair, whether wheeled or normal, or a normal cushion or small rug. Have it enchanted with something akin tot he Tensers Floating Disk spell. It requires attunement, has duration of "Concentration" and requires an Action to activate the levitation. The description for it reads (and feel free to change the word "chair" to whatever item or piece of furniture or apparel you want):
"The chair levitates 3ft above the ground until you lose concentration or dismiss the levitation (no action required to dismiss it) and can hold up to 500 pounds and can move at an effective walking speed of 20ft. If more weight is placed on it, the levitationl ends, and the chair falls to the ground. If you leave the chair but retain your concentration the chair follows you so that it remains within 20ft of you. It can move across uneven terrain, up or down stairs, slopes and the Iike. but it can't cross an elevation change of 10ft or more. For example, the chair can't move across a 10ft deep pit, nor could it leave such a pit if it was at the bottom. If you move more than 100 feet from the chair (typically because it can't move around an obstacle to follow you), the levitation ends and the chair remains in place untilthe user returns or someone else attunes to it."
That way can be normal mode for day to day travel around town or Professor X mode when you need a bit more help.
To me, this is a different variation on the centaur problem. If a player wishes to play a centaur, is the DM obligated to create a campaign where there is no centaur unfriendly terrain? Are they obligated to handwave the stealth problems a centaur (or any large size character) would have?
If the centaur ever has to wait outside anywhere due to literally not fitting in the doorway, or is the DM obligated to have a world in which every door, and every interior for that matter, is centaur-friendly?
While the topic is ostensibly about inclusion, it is a fantasy setting, so unlike in the real world where we suffer through whatever issues our bodies have, we get to have whatever bodies the rules allow. So, not sure why anyone, including those in the disabled community, would want to treat having any such issues as something anyone would willingly choose. But, as I am sure many have said here, that is their choice.
Going all the way back to the OP, I have a halfling Bard/Artificer who is a chair salesman. He started out as a chair salesman, bardic trained as a sales person, guild background, carpentry trained. Seeking ever new improvements in chair technology, he took up artificer training and, besides this allowing him to make ever more magnificent chairs, eventually he was able to develop a new TACTIC:
This thread isn't about what DMs are expected to do though. This thread is about what WotC should or should not be including in their official content with regards to depicting diverse people. Trying to make this about any given specific table is a misdirect.
Actually going back to the OP;
This isn't about anyone's games, this is about how WotC presents the game to the community at large.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Does a wheelchair have its own hit points?
If a wheelchair is made of wood can I set it on fire with a spell (Firebolt)?
If a player in a wheelchair is given the "paralyzed" condition, are they immune?
Can a player in a wheelchair be knocked prone? Can they get up without assistance?
An issue is the normal technological level in most D&D campaigns. In real life, although push wheelchairs have been around since around the 6th century BC, they required someone to actually push them to move them around. The first known self propelled wheelchair did not actually happen until the mid 1600's, which is usually a bit late for most (non-Eberron) D&D timelines.
Now for NPC's, push style wheelchairs are just fine, so... why not?
However, there is the question as to why those who need them would be that common in a world where most wounds can literally simply be slept off, there is no normal RAW bone breakage or mobility limiting malady that cannot be solved by worst a relatively low level spell or perhaps a trip to a major city's larger temple for some stronger healing.
While your point about this not being about DMing is, of course, fair, it is at least somewhat about world building, at least to the extent of what WotC presents as their examples of what the setting of any given published adventure might be like... While the OP's concern about overdoing with such situations has some validity, is that really happening to any degree already? Not seen any such depictions, at least not that I can remember...
Again, I think all this is fair, but I also think it speaks to the kinds of things we let blend quietly into the background of even gritty-realism fantasy, and the kinds of things we don't. I've never seen anyone suggest that players in even the crunchiest campaigns should have to worry about, say, equipment maintenance. Swords never gets rusty or need sharpening, packs never need mending or waterproofing, horses need food and water but generally not grooming or re-shoeing. I'm not saying we should have to keep track of those things, but I am saying that if we elide general gear maintenance but suddenly need an explanation about wear and tear on a wheelchair, that's weird, right? It says something not so much about the nature of wheelchairs, but more about the way we see and judge wheelchairs and their users.
Of course I agree that the best way to come to a solution that works for a given table is to have that discussion at the table. But there's a lot Wizards can do to prime that discussion, and I think they should. It's also worth pointing out that while the game must always be collaborative, the DM is very much in a power position in these kinds of discussions. No DM means no game, after all, and even absent the "taking my ball and going home" scenario, the DM is still the arbiter of success and failure in play. This is why I think the DM, specifically, should be encouraged to be accommodating towards players; the players already implicitly understand that they need to accommodate the DM. I think any player who approaches their DM asking for special dispensation enters that conversation expecting to compromise.
I'm sorry if I have given you the impression I would entertain this as a debate. I wouldn't, not in a million years. There's no debate around "should everyone who plays this game be represented in it". The answer is "yes", follow by "end of story".
Again, this seems like more misdirects and justifications for excluding people.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
To be fair, throughout the playtest period, Wizards has talked about how they are using art not just as a flavorful afterthought (as with other versions of the game), but as a way to showcase different options, every bit as important as the game’s flavor text.
To that end, the explicit inclusion of art with disabilities was intentionally designed to tell players and DMs “this is an acceptable way to play your game.” Given how many times the art showcases individuals with disabilities, there also is a pretty clear (and sometimes stated in interviews) subtext of “Hey, we don’t want you to play our game in a way that is discriminatory.”
Saying this art is just about Wizards’ choices is doing the art a disservice. This art is not just about Wizards - it is about the person several pages ago whose sister was wheelchair-bound and played a wheelchair bound person…. And who felt discriminated against and forced to leave the game because the DM tried to implement “realism” rules that punished her and ruined her escapism. This is about giving a group whose voice is often lost in conversations about discrimination the ability to point to the PHB and say “the game acknowledges my existence as a person, rather than just as my disability, maybe you should also.“
And that is a great thing for Wizards to do. Wizards absolutely should use art to push boundaries and fight back against discrimination. We all know there is discrimination in this community - this thread has shown it, either through folks who might not realize they are being discriminatory (ableism is not really in the public eye to the same degree as other -isms) or folks who probably do and are fine with being discriminatory (is it all that surprising many of the ableist comments/folks upvoting them are from folks with a history of discriminatory posting?).
I do not think we should be short-selling Wizards. They absolutely intended this art to be about influencing players and DMs - and we should be celebrating that.
I never said it was "just about Wizards’ choices", I said
and
I was explicitly saying this is about how Wizards markets the game, how it presents D&D to the world, and how it messages what D&D can and should be. I never said it was just about flavour or art, quite the opposite. This is about the messaging WotC is putting out. To reference my earlier post, it's about signalling of the virtues of inclusion and representation that are and should be key elements of how D&D exists.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here