This is, indeed, not about excluding anyone. This is about finding reasonable ways to include, with the key words there being 'reasonable' and 'include.'
This is, indeed, not about excluding anyone. This is about finding reasonable ways to include, with the key words there being 'reasonable' and 'include.'
[REDACTED]
Funny how often the word “reasonable” is used to mean “discriminatory.” What you are advocating for - “realist” elements to produce mechanical effects of the disability can be fine, or it can be discriminatory. If the disabled person wants to have mechanical effects, that is fine. If they just want it to be a visual representation of their disability, which does not slow down their hero? Also fine.
What is not fine is when someone else, like the DM, tries to force “reasonable” and “realism” on the player. That is the players’ choice, not yours, and it very quickly crosses the line into discriminatory and exclusionary when you start saying “it is reasonable for you to have difficulties in doing this thing. I don’t care if you are trying to engage in escapism in a fantasy game, let me remind you that you are limited here also.”
That is what you are advocating for - taking the choice away from the disabled player and trying to have some rules-imposed penalties in the name of, let’s euphemistically call it, “realism.”
This is, indeed, not about excluding anyone. This is about finding reasonable ways to include, with the key words there being 'reasonable' and 'include.'
At this point, I am not even certain what level of discussion is allowed though.
Funny how often the word “reasonable” is used to mean “discriminatory.” What you are advocating for - “realist” elements to produce mechanical effects of the disability can be fine, or it can be discriminatory. If the disabled person wants to have mechanical effects, that is fine. If they just want it to be a visual representation of their disability, which does not slow down their hero? Also fine.
What is not fine is when someone else, like the DM, tries to force “reasonable” and “realism” on the player. That is the players’ choice, not yours, and it very quickly crosses the line into discriminatory and exclusionary when you start saying “it is reasonable for you to have difficulties in doing this thing. I don’t care if you are trying to engage in escapism in a fantasy game, let me remind you that you are limited here also.”
That is what you are advocating for - taking the choice away from the disabled player and trying to have some rules-imposed penalties in the name of, let’s euphemistically call it, “realism.”
You are accusing me of unreasonableness without even discussing the topic, though.
But what does such inclusion mean, in practical terms? The OP was even objecting to normal wheelchairs, suggesting things like flying carpets.
For my part, I would say it is reasonable for major cities to be mobility friendly by design and most smaller towns being mobility friendly simply by not needing two story buildings. Most caves when I run have conveniently relatively flat floors anyway, so would be no issues there.
But if the issues of being mobility limited are all just handwaved away, does that really do anything for awareness of what is faced by those facing such actual issues in real life?
Again, inclusion. Which can mean extra challenges to overcome. Which, especially working as a party, can be overcome.
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.
While most official D&D setting technology levels are based on medieval norms, they are very explicitly not totally medieval and never were. Even throwing out the relatively futuristich/high-tech settings like Eberron and parts of Ravenloft to focus on the more "vanilla-fantasy" ones like Faerun and Krynn, we see things medieval societies couldn't have dreamt of like airships (1800s), manufactories (1700s), and autonomous constructs (still sci-fi.) Cities like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter have printing presses. And that's just the stuff that's widespread, I haven't touched on the higher-tech gnomish areas like Lantan or Nevermind in those settings or how a PC could get their hands on technology from one of those areas in their backstory.
In short, if you're running a WotC setting and someone sits at your table and wants their character to have a wheelchair, even an advanced one, you have the tools to make that happen without breaking their settings' internal logic. If your own verisimilitude can't cope with that idea, the problem is not with WotC's books. And if you're running your own setting or a third-party where you feel wheelchairs can't possibly work.... the problem is still not with WotC's books.
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?
Again, all things to work out with the player.
That player might actually request steeper penalties when their PC is knocked prone. For example, maybe they think it should take them longer to get up unassisted, so they'd suggest giving up all their speed when knocked prone, or maybe all but 5ft, instead of only spending half. But the chair itself is more stable than standing, so they have advantage on any save or ability check to avoid being knocked prone in the first place. You can do all kinds of unique stuff, as long as you're doing them with the disabled PC's player's consent - just like any other rule change based on a personal characteristic would be.
But if the issues of being mobility limited are all just handwaved away, does that really do anything for awareness of what is faced by those facing such actual issues in real life?
Again, inclusion. Which can mean extra challenges to overcome. Which, especially working as a party, can be overcome.
This is a great point; the only thing I would add to it is that these challenges, where they are used, should be developed in a way that centers the voices of disabled people, whether that is the player at your table or the many professional and amateur game designers with disabilities who have lent their talents to creating appropriate rule sets to represent themselves. They shouldn't (and I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but I want to be clear) be imposed unilaterally by able-bodied DMs, based only on unexamined biases about what's possible for disabled people.
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.
While most official D&D setting technology levels are based on medieval norms, they are very explicitly not totally medieval and never were. Even throwing out the relatively futuristich/high-tech settings like Eberron and parts of Ravenloft to focus on the more "vanilla-fantasy" ones like Faerun and Krynn, we see things medieval societies couldn't have dreamt of like airships (1800s), manufactories (1700s), and autonomous constructs (still sci-fi.) Cities like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter have printing presses. And that's just the stuff that's widespread, I haven't touched on the higher-tech gnomish areas like Lantan or Nevermind in those settings or how a PC could get their hands on technology from one of those areas in their backstory.
In short, if you're running a WotC setting and someone sits at your table and wants their character to have a wheelchair, even an advanced one, you have the tools to make that happen without breaking their settings' internal logic. If your own verisimilitude can't cope with that idea, the problem is not with WotC's books. And if you're running your own setting or a third-party where you feel wheelchairs can't possibly work.... the problem is still not with WotC's books.
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?
Again, all things to work out with the player.
That player might actually request steeper penalties when their PC is knocked prone. For example, maybe they think it should take them longer to get up unassisted, so they'd suggest giving up all their speed when knocked prone, or maybe all but 5ft, instead of only spending half. But the chair itself is more stable than standing, so they have advantage on any save or ability check to avoid being knocked prone in the first place. You can do all kinds of unique stuff, as long as you're doing them with the disabled PC's player's consent - just like any other rule change based on a personal characteristic would be.
Since my last post was removed, let me try again differently. Are you saying a disabled player has the right to tell the DM how to run their table just because they are disabled? Is the DM obligated to make any change that player disagrees with? I disagree with that line of thinking, but I would say the DM should be as upfront as possible and any hiccups along the way should be explained very well. Usually the player "should" go along with the DM's direction in regards to things specific to the disability.
Typically... 9 times out of 10. Most tables are played amongst friends and there should be no issue with "accessibility" or anything else related to a disability in the game. This entire thread seems to be an argument about semantics as it looks to ME that everyone is agreeing on the accessibility part.
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.
While most official D&D setting technology levels are based on medieval norms, they are very explicitly not totally medieval and never were. Even throwing out the relatively futuristich/high-tech settings like Eberron and parts of Ravenloft to focus on the more "vanilla-fantasy" ones like Faerun and Krynn, we see things medieval societies couldn't have dreamt of like airships (1800s), manufactories (1700s), and autonomous constructs (still sci-fi.) Cities like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter have printing presses. And that's just the stuff that's widespread, I haven't touched on the higher-tech gnomish areas like Lantan or Nevermind in those settings or how a PC could get their hands on technology from one of those areas in their backstory.
In short, if you're running a WotC setting and someone sits at your table and wants their character to have a wheelchair, even an advanced one, you have the tools to make that happen without breaking their settings' internal logic. If your own verisimilitude can't cope with that idea, the problem is not with WotC's books. And if you're running your own setting or a third-party where you feel wheelchairs can't possibly work.... the problem is still not with WotC's books.
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?
Again, all things to work out with the player.
That player might actually request steeper penalties when their PC is knocked prone. For example, maybe they think it should take them longer to get up unassisted, so they'd suggest giving up all their speed when knocked prone, or maybe all but 5ft, instead of only spending half. But the chair itself is more stable than standing, so they have advantage on any save or ability check to avoid being knocked prone in the first place. You can do all kinds of unique stuff, as long as you're doing them with the disabled PC's player's consent - just like any other rule change based on a personal characteristic would be.
Since my last post was removed, let me try again differently. Are you saying a disabled player has the right to tell the DM how to run their table just because they are disabled? Is the DM obligated to make any change that player disagrees with? I disagree with that line of thinking, but I would say the DM should be as upfront as possible and any hiccups along the way should be explained very well. Usually the player "should" go along with the DM's direction in regards to things specific to the disability.
Typically... 9 times out of 10. Most tables are played amongst friends and there should be no issue with "accessibility" or anything else related to a disability in the game. This entire thread seems to be an argument about semantics as it looks to ME that everyone is agreeing on the accessibility part.
Yes. A player has a right to tell a DM “please don’t discriminate against me.” Any DM who disagrees with that should not be DMing.
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finding videos of wheelchair-bound athletes, any number of whom could do more than most non-professional athletes, and I suspect a great deal more than most in this thread could do. I was about to present my findings here, then I realized that is simply a waste of time. Because the problem isn’t about what a person in a wheelchair can do, the problem some have is what they think a person in a wheelchair should be allowed to do.
Many here are trying to make sure this game remains welcoming for everyone and I just want to say thank you for being awesome people. I’d gladly play at many of your tables.
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finding videos of wheelchair-bound athletes, any number of whom could do more than most non-professional athletes, and I suspect a great deal more than most in this thread could do. I was about to present my findings here, then I realized that is simply a waste of time. Because the problem isn’t about what a person in a wheelchair can do, the problem some have is what they think a person in a wheelchair should be allowed to do.
Many here are trying to make sure this game remains welcoming for everyone and I just want to say thank you for being awesome people. I’d gladly play at many of your tables.
A counterpoint there for people who desire a stronger sense of realism to character design is that while you can find athleteswho compete in wheelchairs, I have yet to hear of any first responders or soldiers who carry out their duties in wheelchairs, which is more analogous to the PC experience. Now, 95+% of the time I agree this distinction should not matter because most groups aren't looking for such realism and so the exact mechanics of making a wheelchair work can be handwaved, but I feel like this attitude I seem to be picking up at points in this thread that simply desiring to play a campaign that favors realism more heavily automatically proves someone is a bad person who is unconsciously if not deliberately discriminating against people is itself so aggressively egalitarian that it is verging a bit on toxic in its own way. If a group wants to play full grim and gritty rules, I think it's fair that they prefer characters who don't require notable handwaves for how they function at full capacity. Again, this is specifically when the intended purpose of the campaign is to delve farther into hardcore realism, which I think we can agree is a valid campaign playstyle. Encouraging inclusion is laudable, but at the same time players do need to read the room of a campaign a little when they're designing their characters. Again, the vast majority of the time handwaving a wheelchair should not be a hurdle here, I just think the language in the DMG shouldn't contain implicit pressure on either end of the table. Idk, maybe I'm making too much of this, I just think it's better if the tone doesn't come across like it's outright trying to force people.
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finding videos of wheelchair-bound athletes, any number of whom could do more than most non-professional athletes, and I suspect a great deal more than most in this thread could do. I was about to present my findings here, then I realized that is simply a waste of time. Because the problem isn’t about what a person in a wheelchair can do, the problem some have is what they think a person in a wheelchair should be allowed to do.
Many here are trying to make sure this game remains welcoming for everyone and I just want to say thank you for being awesome people. I’d gladly play at many of your tables.
A counterpoint there for people who desire a stronger sense of realism to character design is that while you can find athleteswho compete in wheelchairs, I have yet to hear of any first responders or soldiers who carry out their duties in wheelchairs, which is more analogous to the PC experience. Now, 95+% of the time I agree this distinction should not matter because most groups aren't looking for such realism and so the exact mechanics of making a wheelchair work can be handwaved, but I feel like this attitude I seem to be picking up at points in this thread that simply desiring to play a campaign that favors realism more heavily automatically proves someone is a bad person who is unconsciously if not deliberately discriminating against people is itself so aggressively egalitarian that it is verging a bit on toxic in its own way. If a group wants to play full grim and gritty rules, I think it's fair that they prefer characters who don't require notable handwaves for how they function at full capacity. Again, this is specifically when the intended purpose of the campaign is to delve farther into hardcore realism, which I think we can agree is a valid campaign playstyle. Encouraging inclusion is laudable, but at the same time players do need to read the room of a campaign a little when they're designing their characters. Again, the vast majority of the time handwaving a wheelchair should not be a hurdle here, I just think the language in the DMG shouldn't contain implicit pressure on either end of the table. Idk, maybe I'm making too much of this, I just think it's better if the tone doesn't come across like it's outright trying to force people.
The military has a reasonable proportion of disabled people, some wheelchair users, some not. Their employment varies depending on their skills and capabilities. Equally there are many ostensibly abled people who couldn't pull their weight in a combat arm role. Swapping out a track pad on an armoured vehicle, or swinging 4.5in rounds from hoist to gun ring during a shoot is something that some of those using the Olympic bars at my gym couldn't sustain.
I think the key point in the military is similar to what I've described upthread; talk about how. Generally a disabled person will already have thought of things, they're best able to propose solutions that we can then explore around functionality and impact.
One thing I would add, I'm not keen on letting abled people build a disabled character, although disability might emerge in the campaign. As we've seen in this thread, some of the assumptions about disabled people would probably come through as stereotypes.
Probably worth adding that there is a crossover with the real world effect of disabled players at the table; what adjustments do we put in to play conduct to improve the experience for the player? Again. That's a discussion about specific needs.
Yes people with disability should be included in artworks and d&d in general
No it is not virtue signalling to depict them as part of the d&d world
Personally think that regardless of any disability a player chooses for their ingame character that there should be challenges for them to overcome just as with abled bodied characters. Just because they may have a disability doesn't mean they should be treated any different then anyone else and I'm sorry to say if I was a dm that at least once at some stage during a campaign a wheelchair bound adventurer will come across a drunkard asking about their wheelchair or a goblin/ kobold mistaking it for a throne and will try to either worship or pinch it.
Outside that full freedom in what the wheelchair is capable of, you want it to fly sure within reason, you want it to be a submarine sure within reason, the within reason is basically just balance. Flight will come with limits as would duration if underwater.
As for needing to be disabled in real life to play a disabled character ingame, by same logic I guess only short people can be gnomes, kobolds, etc.. it's a game be whoever you wish to be and in any form you can think of. Be creative.
Lastly session 0 is a perfect place for the player to discuss with their dm as to their expectations and if/how certain aspects of gameplay could be approached and what would be acceptable antics ingame.
To be honest I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to everyone here so mods please do your thng if you need to:
For me the biggest issue with a wheelchair bound character was real life use vs ingame mechanics because, and I could be wrong so please correct me, as WOTC have no official stats or advice its left to individual players and DM's to hash out the details and the when/where/why/what and how's of the situation.
So, for instance, real world: wearing full plate armour, carrying a sword and shield and moving a wheelchair may not be possible/veasible because you need both hands to move the wheels to get from point a to point b, then unsling shield and draw sword and repeat whenever your opponent moves away from you and so my knee jerk reaction was "not in my game". But the game allows for this, so those real world considerations mean a lot less because the game turn is broken into stages of: Movement, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction and drawing/stowing a weapon is a freebie and so I now largely think "yep its fine".
Additionally, if I can get out of the real world mindset and look at it from a perspective of game mechanics the wheel chair really falls into a category of Vehicle (Land) proficiencies and so i have one more way of saying "yep its fine" and as a DM I can either say the character needs proficiency with Vehicles (land) to operate the wheel chair or I can just handwave it and say "off you go".
Now all I have to do is decide what sort of stats said wheel chair may have and I can go to the animate objects spell to pinch those, if its a small chair then its AC16 with 25HP, if its medium sized then is AC13 with 40HP etc and if they don't work I can tweak it as we go and you even get Strength Dexterity and Constitution scores so you can use those if you want to which might help with determining various damge to the chair and then you just have to decide on how much its going to weigh and if we use a real world example its somewhere around 35-40lbs so we can cover that in the event the chair needs to be lifted, carried, thrown etc.
You can then go to the use of more exotic materials to bolster or "bling out" the chair in various ways and that is with out going to the magic options I may have popped on this thread previoously and these can be things discussed during the course of adventuring and might be rather fun side quests.
Character build wise a Fighter Battlemaster using a wheelchiar as a weapon could be rather interesting as could tweaking the much maligned Barbarian Battlerager but for me, as someone who does enjoy the Necromancy school of magic a bit too much, then having a couple of skeleton or zombie lackeys pushing my wizard around has a certain appeal.
So as I said at the top of this, I'm not sure if any of this is releveant but thats my approach to it and if you like it feel free to use anything you want, there may be a way of doing this through the homebrew tool but I am far to lazy to do it as I am very much a "pen and parper" player and DM.
On realistic play, PsyrenXY floated the idea of making penalties for things like prone worse and I would not support increasing combat penalties on a player for the sake of realism. If we are being realistic, you could say a Plasmoid should have no penalty, or that a Tortle knocked on its back might have some increased penalty - but they don't. Particularly in combat situations, mechanics are mechanics and unless player has chosen to deliberately impose a self-chosen penalty then it should not exist.
Its heroic fantasy - they can right themselves, use their action, bonus action and still move the same as any other character - and they don't need help to do so. You don't need to quibble over whether or not the mechanics of 'walking' or the wording of the prone condition apply to them or whether or not a status condition affects them differently - it should not. Rules as written or by interpretation must not be used as a cudgel here if we are to have a welcoming and enjoyable game for all.
It is good WoTC is inclusive and artwork is something interpreted by the beholder, but I just would advise people to not impose mechanics or RP restrictions for 'realism' or as the 'default mode'. Most of the adventuring process is handwaved and if someone really has a problem with a PC in a wheelchair then discuss it or get a new player/table.
It is good WoTC is inclusive and artwork is something interpreted by the beholder, but I just would advise people to not impose mechanics or RP restrictions for 'realism' or as the 'default mode'. Most of the adventuring process is handwaved and if someone really has a problem with a PC in a wheelchair then discuss it or get a new player/table.
As a bit of an aside and potentially as a little exercise in "artistic interpretation and appreciation":
When we look at a picture depicting someone in fighting from a wheelchair in a D&D setting what is your reaction? In this I mean "Your" being the viewer not specifically anyone on the forums. Then ask yourself, if that wheelchair was replaced by a hand drawn cart or rickshaw with a person fighting from a seated position on said cart or rickshaw, do you still have the same reaction? Does your reaction change again if that person displays an obvious injury or appears unharmed?
From a game mechanics/in character storytelling stance, if a player said their character was going to buy a small cart and push and pull it around with them everywhere they went, would that be ok? It may not be optimal for them to do it but they could if they wanted. If that player then said their character would climb ontop of their cart each combat and use it as a platform to fight from would that be ok? Again, it may not be optimal but it is something they can do and game mechnics would allow it. If you then replace cart with wheel chair, is it still ok?
I dare say I have fallen into some sort of logical fallacy but its something to think about.
This is, indeed, not about excluding anyone. This is about finding reasonable ways to include, with the key words there being 'reasonable' and 'include.'
[REDACTED]
Funny how often the word “reasonable” is used to mean “discriminatory.” What you are advocating for - “realist” elements to produce mechanical effects of the disability can be fine, or it can be discriminatory. If the disabled person wants to have mechanical effects, that is fine. If they just want it to be a visual representation of their disability, which does not slow down their hero? Also fine.
What is not fine is when someone else, like the DM, tries to force “reasonable” and “realism” on the player. That is the players’ choice, not yours, and it very quickly crosses the line into discriminatory and exclusionary when you start saying “it is reasonable for you to have difficulties in doing this thing. I don’t care if you are trying to engage in escapism in a fantasy game, let me remind you that you are limited here also.”
That is what you are advocating for - taking the choice away from the disabled player and trying to have some rules-imposed penalties in the name of, let’s euphemistically call it, “realism.”
You are accusing me of unreasonableness without even discussing the topic, though.
But what does such inclusion mean, in practical terms? The OP was even objecting to normal wheelchairs, suggesting things like flying carpets.
For my part, I would say it is reasonable for major cities to be mobility friendly by design and most smaller towns being mobility friendly simply by not needing two story buildings. Most caves when I run have conveniently relatively flat floors anyway, so would be no issues there.
But if the issues of being mobility limited are all just handwaved away, does that really do anything for awareness of what is faced by those facing such actual issues in real life?
Again, inclusion. Which can mean extra challenges to overcome. Which, especially working as a party, can be overcome.
While most official D&D setting technology levels are based on medieval norms, they are very explicitly not totally medieval and never were. Even throwing out the relatively futuristich/high-tech settings like Eberron and parts of Ravenloft to focus on the more "vanilla-fantasy" ones like Faerun and Krynn, we see things medieval societies couldn't have dreamt of like airships (1800s), manufactories (1700s), and autonomous constructs (still sci-fi.) Cities like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter have printing presses. And that's just the stuff that's widespread, I haven't touched on the higher-tech gnomish areas like Lantan or Nevermind in those settings or how a PC could get their hands on technology from one of those areas in their backstory.
In short, if you're running a WotC setting and someone sits at your table and wants their character to have a wheelchair, even an advanced one, you have the tools to make that happen without breaking their settings' internal logic. If your own verisimilitude can't cope with that idea, the problem is not with WotC's books. And if you're running your own setting or a third-party where you feel wheelchairs can't possibly work.... the problem is still not with WotC's books.
Again, all things to work out with the player.
That player might actually request steeper penalties when their PC is knocked prone. For example, maybe they think it should take them longer to get up unassisted, so they'd suggest giving up all their speed when knocked prone, or maybe all but 5ft, instead of only spending half. But the chair itself is more stable than standing, so they have advantage on any save or ability check to avoid being knocked prone in the first place. You can do all kinds of unique stuff, as long as you're doing them with the disabled PC's player's consent - just like any other rule change based on a personal characteristic would be.
This is a great point; the only thing I would add to it is that these challenges, where they are used, should be developed in a way that centers the voices of disabled people, whether that is the player at your table or the many professional and amateur game designers with disabilities who have lent their talents to creating appropriate rule sets to represent themselves. They shouldn't (and I'm not saying you're suggesting this, but I want to be clear) be imposed unilaterally by able-bodied DMs, based only on unexamined biases about what's possible for disabled people.
Since my last post was removed, let me try again differently. Are you saying a disabled player has the right to tell the DM how to run their table just because they are disabled? Is the DM obligated to make any change that player disagrees with? I disagree with that line of thinking, but I would say the DM should be as upfront as possible and any hiccups along the way should be explained very well. Usually the player "should" go along with the DM's direction in regards to things specific to the disability.
Typically... 9 times out of 10. Most tables are played amongst friends and there should be no issue with "accessibility" or anything else related to a disability in the game. This entire thread seems to be an argument about semantics as it looks to ME that everyone is agreeing on the accessibility part.
Yes. A player has a right to tell a DM “please don’t discriminate against me.” Any DM who disagrees with that should not be DMing.
Yesterday, I spent a lot of time finding videos of wheelchair-bound athletes, any number of whom could do more than most non-professional athletes, and I suspect a great deal more than most in this thread could do. I was about to present my findings here, then I realized that is simply a waste of time. Because the problem isn’t about what a person in a wheelchair can do, the problem some have is what they think a person in a wheelchair should be allowed to do.
Many here are trying to make sure this game remains welcoming for everyone and I just want to say thank you for being awesome people. I’d gladly play at many of your tables.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
A counterpoint there for people who desire a stronger sense of realism to character design is that while you can find athletes who compete in wheelchairs, I have yet to hear of any first responders or soldiers who carry out their duties in wheelchairs, which is more analogous to the PC experience. Now, 95+% of the time I agree this distinction should not matter because most groups aren't looking for such realism and so the exact mechanics of making a wheelchair work can be handwaved, but I feel like this attitude I seem to be picking up at points in this thread that simply desiring to play a campaign that favors realism more heavily automatically proves someone is a bad person who is unconsciously if not deliberately discriminating against people is itself so aggressively egalitarian that it is verging a bit on toxic in its own way. If a group wants to play full grim and gritty rules, I think it's fair that they prefer characters who don't require notable handwaves for how they function at full capacity. Again, this is specifically when the intended purpose of the campaign is to delve farther into hardcore realism, which I think we can agree is a valid campaign playstyle. Encouraging inclusion is laudable, but at the same time players do need to read the room of a campaign a little when they're designing their characters. Again, the vast majority of the time handwaving a wheelchair should not be a hurdle here, I just think the language in the DMG shouldn't contain implicit pressure on either end of the table. Idk, maybe I'm making too much of this, I just think it's better if the tone doesn't come across like it's outright trying to force people.
The military has a reasonable proportion of disabled people, some wheelchair users, some not. Their employment varies depending on their skills and capabilities. Equally there are many ostensibly abled people who couldn't pull their weight in a combat arm role. Swapping out a track pad on an armoured vehicle, or swinging 4.5in rounds from hoist to gun ring during a shoot is something that some of those using the Olympic bars at my gym couldn't sustain.
I think the key point in the military is similar to what I've described upthread; talk about how. Generally a disabled person will already have thought of things, they're best able to propose solutions that we can then explore around functionality and impact.
One thing I would add, I'm not keen on letting abled people build a disabled character, although disability might emerge in the campaign. As we've seen in this thread, some of the assumptions about disabled people would probably come through as stereotypes.
Probably worth adding that there is a crossover with the real world effect of disabled players at the table; what adjustments do we put in to play conduct to improve the experience for the player? Again. That's a discussion about specific needs.
Yes people with disability should be included in artworks and d&d in general
No it is not virtue signalling to depict them as part of the d&d world
Personally think that regardless of any disability a player chooses for their ingame character that there should be challenges for them to overcome just as with abled bodied characters. Just because they may have a disability doesn't mean they should be treated any different then anyone else and I'm sorry to say if I was a dm that at least once at some stage during a campaign a wheelchair bound adventurer will come across a drunkard asking about their wheelchair or a goblin/ kobold mistaking it for a throne and will try to either worship or pinch it.
Outside that full freedom in what the wheelchair is capable of, you want it to fly sure within reason, you want it to be a submarine sure within reason, the within reason is basically just balance. Flight will come with limits as would duration if underwater.
As for needing to be disabled in real life to play a disabled character ingame, by same logic I guess only short people can be gnomes, kobolds, etc.. it's a game be whoever you wish to be and in any form you can think of. Be creative.
Lastly session 0 is a perfect place for the player to discuss with their dm as to their expectations and if/how certain aspects of gameplay could be approached and what would be acceptable antics ingame.
To be honest I'm not sure how much of this is relevant to everyone here so mods please do your thng if you need to:
For me the biggest issue with a wheelchair bound character was real life use vs ingame mechanics because, and I could be wrong so please correct me, as WOTC have no official stats or advice its left to individual players and DM's to hash out the details and the when/where/why/what and how's of the situation.
So, for instance, real world: wearing full plate armour, carrying a sword and shield and moving a wheelchair may not be possible/veasible because you need both hands to move the wheels to get from point a to point b, then unsling shield and draw sword and repeat whenever your opponent moves away from you and so my knee jerk reaction was "not in my game". But the game allows for this, so those real world considerations mean a lot less because the game turn is broken into stages of: Movement, Action, Bonus Action, Reaction and drawing/stowing a weapon is a freebie and so I now largely think "yep its fine".
Additionally, if I can get out of the real world mindset and look at it from a perspective of game mechanics the wheel chair really falls into a category of Vehicle (Land) proficiencies and so i have one more way of saying "yep its fine" and as a DM I can either say the character needs proficiency with Vehicles (land) to operate the wheel chair or I can just handwave it and say "off you go".
Now all I have to do is decide what sort of stats said wheel chair may have and I can go to the animate objects spell to pinch those, if its a small chair then its AC16 with 25HP, if its medium sized then is AC13 with 40HP etc and if they don't work I can tweak it as we go and you even get Strength Dexterity and Constitution scores so you can use those if you want to which might help with determining various damge to the chair and then you just have to decide on how much its going to weigh and if we use a real world example its somewhere around 35-40lbs so we can cover that in the event the chair needs to be lifted, carried, thrown etc.
You can then go to the use of more exotic materials to bolster or "bling out" the chair in various ways and that is with out going to the magic options I may have popped on this thread previoously and these can be things discussed during the course of adventuring and might be rather fun side quests.
Character build wise a Fighter Battlemaster using a wheelchiar as a weapon could be rather interesting as could tweaking the much maligned Barbarian Battlerager but for me, as someone who does enjoy the Necromancy school of magic a bit too much, then having a couple of skeleton or zombie lackeys pushing my wizard around has a certain appeal.
So as I said at the top of this, I'm not sure if any of this is releveant but thats my approach to it and if you like it feel free to use anything you want, there may be a way of doing this through the homebrew tool but I am far to lazy to do it as I am very much a "pen and parper" player and DM.
On realistic play, PsyrenXY floated the idea of making penalties for things like prone worse and I would not support increasing combat penalties on a player for the sake of realism. If we are being realistic, you could say a Plasmoid should have no penalty, or that a Tortle knocked on its back might have some increased penalty - but they don't. Particularly in combat situations, mechanics are mechanics and unless player has chosen to deliberately impose a self-chosen penalty then it should not exist.
Its heroic fantasy - they can right themselves, use their action, bonus action and still move the same as any other character - and they don't need help to do so. You don't need to quibble over whether or not the mechanics of 'walking' or the wording of the prone condition apply to them or whether or not a status condition affects them differently - it should not. Rules as written or by interpretation must not be used as a cudgel here if we are to have a welcoming and enjoyable game for all.
It is good WoTC is inclusive and artwork is something interpreted by the beholder, but I just would advise people to not impose mechanics or RP restrictions for 'realism' or as the 'default mode'. Most of the adventuring process is handwaved and if someone really has a problem with a PC in a wheelchair then discuss it or get a new player/table.
As a bit of an aside and potentially as a little exercise in "artistic interpretation and appreciation":
When we look at a picture depicting someone in fighting from a wheelchair in a D&D setting what is your reaction? In this I mean "Your" being the viewer not specifically anyone on the forums. Then ask yourself, if that wheelchair was replaced by a hand drawn cart or rickshaw with a person fighting from a seated position on said cart or rickshaw, do you still have the same reaction? Does your reaction change again if that person displays an obvious injury or appears unharmed?
From a game mechanics/in character storytelling stance, if a player said their character was going to buy a small cart and push and pull it around with them everywhere they went, would that be ok? It may not be optimal for them to do it but they could if they wanted. If that player then said their character would climb ontop of their cart each combat and use it as a platform to fight from would that be ok? Again, it may not be optimal but it is something they can do and game mechnics would allow it. If you then replace cart with wheel chair, is it still ok?
I dare say I have fallen into some sort of logical fallacy but its something to think about.