I've seen the phrase "virtue signalling" banded around a few times, and perplexingly almost exclusively as a pejorative.
Are virtues not something we're supposed to signal? We're supposed to declare something to be virtuous, right? At least I thought we were. Yes, Wizards of the Coast is very literally virtue signalling; they're signaling a virtue of D&D that you can play whoever you want which includes playing someone who represents you. Are you gay, lesbian, asexual, or poly? You can play a character like that, or completely different! Are you cis, trans, gender fluid, non-binary, or gender-queer? Again, you can be that in game or something wholly apart from your personal experience. Are you disabled or able bodied? You can be that in the game or not. And you can express that version of your self or a whole-cloth new character however you want. This is virtuous, this is how the game should be portrayed and this is how WotC should be portraying it. This is a virtue of D&D and it is worth signalling.
This leads me very nicely onto the initial "criticism", art depicting a wheelchair user hero. Here's the amazing, wonderful, mind blow, eye opening thing. If you don't like that art or that character concept or the notion of expressing (signalling if you will) that level of inclusivity, then it's not for you! Let the people who it is for have it, and have it in peace. Wizards isn't going to come round your house and demand you meet a diversity quota in your game. If you want to exclude people from expressing who they are in your game, that's still your power. Not my vibe, but D&D is to each of us something unique.
But WotC isn't talking to you specifically, they're talking to everyone. They're showcasing what D&D can be to everyone who may be interested in playing, or looking for that little bit of validation or encouragement to say "yes, I can play a tiefling in a wheelchair like mine" or "I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna play a halfling who is sending gold home to his husband so they can adopt" or countless other wonderful and varied character concepts.
But if you don't like that WotC is doing that, maybe just keep that to yourself? If you're not of the group that WotC is trying to welcome into our wonderful community, well you've got no ball in the game so just go back to rolling dice and slaying monsters. And if you are of one of those groups and don't personally like how WotC is trying to welcome in people like you, well remember that no group is a monolith and you don't speak for everyone. I'm personally part of at least one of the groups of people that WotC has tried to improve their presentation of and while I appreciate, it know I only speak for myself.
But coming out and claiming "this art is unrealistic" or "why would you want to play that?" isn't doing anything more than driving people away. It doesn't add anything, it doesn't build this hobby up, it'd doesn't lift people up. So find some joy in your heart and leave people be?
So, in terms of spec-fic as a whole I have no objection to disability negating items like this. The whole point of spec fic is coming up ways things could be different from the world as we know it after all.
Now, when I look at it as a standard PC creation option in D&D the idea of a "magic wheelchair" in particular hits a few bumps mostly regarding gameplay implications, but also a little suspension of disbelief. My biggest concern is similar to the perennial discussion of how to mechanically implement a "blind" character in D&D; I use the quotation marks because usually when people say they want such a character, what they have in mind is someone like Daredevil or Toph who will end up with what could generally be considered a mechanically "superior" sense instead of simply playing a character who permanently has the Blinded condition. Handwaving the general details of locomotion across varied terrain is fine, that kind of granularity is generally more a hindrance to game mechanics as a whole, particularly when you can't have a computer automatically crunching numbers on the variables in the background, but if the chair can levitate at will ad-infinitum then we're getting into a similar scenario as above where someone has potentially parleyed a disability into an objective mechanical advantage. One could attempt to put a bunch of restrictions on exactly how the levitation works, but then we're getting into the issue of more granularity of features than you can run smoothly in a typical D&D game along with the DM inadvertently You can try and handwave it as "it's functionally the same as a walking speed" which works for general gameplay, but that hits me personally on the "suspension of disbelief" part of things as I start picking over how that would work.
Also, as a table dynamics issue, there's the consideration of how one player being given a custom magic item will play out with the rest of the group; with respect to players who want to experience this particular character configuration, you do need to read the room a little if your approach is going to be along the lines of "my character needs special in-game treatment to fit the image I want"; I'm not saying this should never happen, but it's something I'd be more skeptical of if someone made the ask during a pick-up game at someplace like a convention or FLGS rather than if this was something one of the people in my regular group wanted to try in our next campaign. Again, not trying to categorically shut the concept down, but it's the kind of thing that needs some discussion at Session 0, and I don't think every Session 0 will be the right time and place for that discussion.
Really, a lot of this just relates to the mechanical implications as related to a hard RPG like D&D; in something like one of the WoD products which is much softer and more cinematic the idea of a custom mobility aid seems like less of a issue because it doesn't seem like it will bake in a bunch of mechanical advantages that could be employed later. And this is specifically hitting me for a magic wheelchair; if it was magic leg braces that gave full range of motion none of those nagging "what about" thoughts come into play.
TLDR: I don't have any hard reasons why there should never be "magic wheelchairs" or similar contrivances in D&D, but actually implementing one that has mechanical implications for things like a player's traversal options seems to have enough fiddly areas that I think it is better left as something a given group needs to work out independently rather than something that should have a codified green light that can be used to attempt to force concessions at character creation. No particular opinion of the inclusion of wheelchairs in general art.
Basically it seems like your whole point is "It is important to balance homebrew mechanics/magic items" and... yeah. That's pretty well known. It isn't specific to a magic wheelchair, it also pertains to "Sword of Tarrasque Summoning" and "Ring of Infinite Wishes" and "Robe of Deus ex Machina". Making sure a particular homebrew mechanic/item doesn't grant excessive advantages to a single player is important in DMing. That's not new.
The "Suspension of Disbelief" thing... I mean, if you run the kind of "simulation", "hardcore" game where you track encumbrance, make players take time to forage for food and roll a skill check to cook it, have lingering injuries, and don't fully recover hitpoints on a full rest, then sure I get where that could be hard. For the majority of games where people aren't playing a gritty realistic campaign, it is really a non-issue. If you can believe in hoards of the undead, floating eyebeam monsters, and somehow "dodging" 100% of the damage from a Fireball spell (looking at you, Rogues with evasion), then I think you can believe that someone in a wheelchair could be in the party. If you CAN'T imagine that, maybe D&D isn't the right game for you, as its whole basis is in imagination.
If Professor Xavier can be the leader of the X Men and be pretty badass then I'm sure its ok for a disabled person to be portrayed in DnD... With that said... A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a "fantasy" setting. Inclusiveness is cool, but get creative and make it amazing.
Why do you think having those classes in a wheelchair doesn't make sense? Genuinely asking. I think a Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair would be totally fine, and I want to work through your perspective with you.
Where in my statement did I even imply I was talking about that picture or even the glasses specifically? By that comment I can tell you're just trying to start an argument. I'm on your side of the discussion dude...
If you genuinely think quote "A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a 'fantasy' setting" then there is clearly daylight between your position and Mdhe's (and mine.)
I've seen the phrase "virtue signalling" banded around a few times, and perplexingly almost exclusively as a pejorative.
Are virtues not something we're supposed to signal? We're supposed to declare something to be virtuous, right? At least I thought we were. Yes, Wizards of the Coast is very literally virtue signalling; they're signaling a virtue of D&D that you can play whoever you want which includes playing someone who represents you. Are you gay, lesbian, asexual, or poly? You can play a character like that, or completely different! Are you cis, trans, gender fluid, non-binary, or gender-queer? Again, you can be that in game or something wholly apart from your personal experience. Are you disabled or able bodied? You can be that in the game or not. And you can express that version of your self or a whole-cloth new character however you want. This is virtuous, this is how the game should be portrayed and this is how WotC should be portraying it. This is a virtue of D&D and it is worth signalling.
Thank you for this. Every time I see "virtue signaling" thrown out like that I cringe.
I've seen the phrase "virtue signalling" banded around a few times, and perplexingly almost exclusively as a pejorative.
Are virtues not something we're supposed to signal? We're supposed to declare something to be virtuous, right? At least I thought we were. Yes, Wizards of the Coast is very literally virtue signalling; they're signaling a virtue of D&D that you can play whoever you want which includes playing someone who represents you. Are you gay, lesbian, asexual, or poly? You can play a character like that, or completely different! Are you cis, trans, gender fluid, non-binary, or gender-queer? Again, you can be that in game or something wholly apart from your personal experience. Are you disabled or able bodied? You can be that in the game or not. And you can express that version of your self or a whole-cloth new character however you want. This is virtuous, this is how the game should be portrayed and this is how WotC should be portraying it. This is a virtue of D&D and it is worth signalling.
This leads me very nicely onto the initial "criticism", art depicting a wheelchair user hero. Here's the amazing, wonderful, mind blow, eye opening thing. If you don't like that art or that character concept or the notion of expressing (signalling if you will) that level of inclusivity, then it's not for you! Let the people who it is for have it, and have it in peace. Wizards isn't going to come round your house and demand you meet a diversity quota in your game. If you want to exclude people from expressing who they are in your game, that's still your power. Not my vibe, but D&D is to each of us something unique.
But WotC isn't talking to you specifically, they're talking to everyone. They're showcasing what D&D can be to everyone who may be interested in playing, or looking for that little bit of validation or encouragement to say "yes, I can play a tiefling in a wheelchair like mine" or "I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna play a halfling who is sending gold home to his husband so they can adopt" or countless other wonderful and varied character concepts.
But if you don't like that WotC is doing that, maybe just keep that to yourself? If you're not of the group that WotC is trying to welcome into our wonderful community, well you've got no ball in the game so just go back to rolling dice and slaying monsters. And if you are of one of those groups and don't personally like how WotC is trying to welcome in people like you, well remember that no group is a monolith and you don't speak for everyone. I'm personally part of at least one of the groups of people that WotC has tried to improve their presentation of and while I appreciate, it know I only speak for myself.
But coming out and claiming "this art is unrealistic" or "why would you want to play that?" isn't doing anything more than driving people away. It doesn't add anything, it doesn't build this hobby up, it'd doesn't lift people up. So find some joy in your heart and leave people be?
I agree, I think there is nothing wrong with virtue signaling to a degree when it makes sense. Everyone of many different life situations play DnD and always has, I don't think we need to go out of our way to point out every specific demographic but art is art. The problem with society today is everything is black and white based off how you see things, context or not.
Just like the statement I made about a rogue or monk in a wheelchair... Totally taken out of context where the second part of my statement is totally disregarded.
As a small aside. I'll throw this out there If you want to have some rules/costs about creating wheelchairs or other items to help disabled characters in their adventuring you might find Planeshift: Kaladesh a helpful resource. LInk here: https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Plane_Shift
Planeshift: Kaladesh is based on the Magic the Gathering (or MTG) setting/Plane of Kaladesh and was created by the MTG team some time ago. The crafting bit starts on page 10 and there is a section on crafting magic powred items such as self drawn carriages on page 12.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
From a very practical perspective, many of these points are ones that disabled people experience all the time in the real world. We see people complain about wheelchair users expecting to use the wheelchair spaces on public transport, we see people with other disabilities experiencing resistance to adjustments because they're "not fair" on others.
As far as wheelchair use is concerned, you've got a range from a simple folding transit chair, that struggles on gravel paths, up to cross-country self propelled chairs that can go anywhere a mountain bike could go. Then you've got the inspiration **** stair climbing chairs that Masters students come out with on a regular basis; expensive, unreliable and widely derided by disabled people.
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.
Of course wheelchairs are a limited example. Whilst c23% of the population are disabled, wheelchair users make up less than 4%, but it's an example of how people approach disability in play. We can easily account for a wide range of disabilities in play, it just takes a bit of imagination.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
As a small aside. I'll throw this out there If you want to have some rules/costs about creating wheelchairs or other items to help disabled characters in their adventuring you might find Planeshift: Kaladesh a helpful resource. LInk here: https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Plane_Shift
Planeshift: Kaladesh is based on the Magic the Gathering (or MTG) setting/Plane of Kaladesh and was created by the MTG team some time ago. The crafting bit starts on page 10 and there is a section on crafting magic powred items such as self drawn carriages on page 12.
It took me a bit of time to find the image but there is a card in MTG called "Strider Harness" which might also be an option to use in place of a wheelchair, its basically a harness that fits over the waist and legs and allows you to walk, pic below for example. In essence for 5e you have a magical harness that requires the wearer to attune to it and allows them to walk, climb, swim as normal whilst wearing it and thats all it does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
In my opinion, it's definitely too much virtue signaling. Here's how the world's magic apparently works:
Cleric to first patient: "Oh, your loved one died? Give me an hour to cast Raise Dead... there you go! Now get some rest for a few days and you'll be all better!"
Cleric to the second patient: "Oh, you lost your leg? That's going to take a Regenerate.... one minute to cast.... two minutes for the leg to grow back... there you go! All better!"
Cleric to the third patient: "Oh, you're in a wheelchair. Nothing we can do!"
OK, so in terms of mechanics you've got to make several assumptions about what leads the PC to be a wheelchair user, so what's an appropriate spell to use to remedy the condition. I know someone with Tourettes that has to use a wheelchair user as a result, essentially you're going to have to find something that makes changes to their cerebral cortex, in a way that doesn't change their whole personality and capability set.
If you're assuming perhaps a spinal cord break you could potentially use Regenerate (7th Level), if you've got access to a character of an appropriate level, and have access to the funds to pay them for the work. You've cited Raise Dead (5th Level) as a comparator; a diamond work 500GP plus payment to the character for casting.
The choices we make, both as player and DM, don't come without cost. So the player may choose to use their resources in other ways.
OK, so in terms of mechanics you've got to make several assumptions about what leads the PC to be a wheelchair user, so what's an appropriate spell to use to remedy the condition. I know someone with Tourettes that has to use a wheelchair user as a result, essentially you're going to have to find something that makes changes to their cerebral cortex, in a way that doesn't change their whole personality and capability set.
If you're assuming perhaps a spinal cord break you could potentially use Regenerate (7th Level), if you've got access to a character of an appropriate level, and have access to the funds to pay them for the work. You've cited Raise Dead (5th Level) as a comparator; a diamond work 500GP plus payment to the character for casting.
The choices we make, both as player and DM, don't come without cost. So the player may choose to use their resources in other ways.
That assumes it's even a purely physical issue. In a magical setting, a character might be unable to walk/use their legs due to a curse that can't be removed with a "simple" 3rd-level spell
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
OK, so in terms of mechanics you've got to make several assumptions about what leads the PC to be a wheelchair user, so what's an appropriate spell to use to remedy the condition. I know someone with Tourettes that has to use a wheelchair user as a result, essentially you're going to have to find something that makes changes to their cerebral cortex, in a way that doesn't change their whole personality and capability set.
If you're assuming perhaps a spinal cord break you could potentially use Regenerate (7th Level), if you've got access to a character of an appropriate level, and have access to the funds to pay them for the work. You've cited Raise Dead (5th Level) as a comparator; a diamond work 500GP plus payment to the character for casting.
The choices we make, both as player and DM, don't come without cost. So the player may choose to use their resources in other ways.
That assumes it's even a purely physical issue. In a magical setting, a character might be unable to walk/use their legs due to a curse that can't be removed with a "simple" 3rd-level spell
That's a good point, and one that might show up in a campaign.
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.
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.
1) How about "as long as I'm in the chair and conscious, I have similar mobility options to an abled character unless otherwise stated."
2) The bolded part above, even if it's entirely accurate, assumes a mundane chair from our world. But there's no reason for that to be the only option available to a PC.
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.
I don't think they're implying those rules should be imposed by the DM without the input of the player. Some disabled players want higher-friction RP experiences. I've literally seen homebrewed rules for chronic pain conditions that do not benefit the character in any way, and I've seen people excited to use them, because they can play a character that has all the same struggles that they do and is a hero nonetheless. So I think it's fine to conceptualize rules for a player who wants their character's disability to affect the character in mechanical terms, including penalties. Those rules should only be used with open and enthusiastic input from the player, but from the rest of their post, I think the poster understands that.
Let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt here. The overwhelming majority of posters in this thread have expressed support for disability inclusion in D&D; we just have different ideas about how best to do that, and we can talk those ideas over in a civil way.
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.
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.
1) How about "as long as I'm in the chair and conscious, I have similar mobility options to an abled character unless otherwise stated."
2) The bolded part above, even if it's entirely accurate, assumes a mundane chair from our world. But there's no reason for that to be the only option available to a PC.
Your point 1, in most instances that's probably fair. I can think of instances where I'd probably be looking at accounting for it; rope bridge, river crossing. Equally I can see some benefits; additional load carry.
As far as your second point is concerned, we've got to make assumptions in both character build and in rulings. I can see some merit in enhancing, but if a player doesn't want that, then that's their choice. Probably something to be negotiated in the party.
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?”
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.
Are you disabled yourself? I've just described my own experience of managing wheelchair use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've seen the phrase "virtue signalling" banded around a few times, and perplexingly almost exclusively as a pejorative.
Are virtues not something we're supposed to signal? We're supposed to declare something to be virtuous, right? At least I thought we were. Yes, Wizards of the Coast is very literally virtue signalling; they're signaling a virtue of D&D that you can play whoever you want which includes playing someone who represents you. Are you gay, lesbian, asexual, or poly? You can play a character like that, or completely different! Are you cis, trans, gender fluid, non-binary, or gender-queer? Again, you can be that in game or something wholly apart from your personal experience. Are you disabled or able bodied? You can be that in the game or not. And you can express that version of your self or a whole-cloth new character however you want. This is virtuous, this is how the game should be portrayed and this is how WotC should be portraying it. This is a virtue of D&D and it is worth signalling.
This leads me very nicely onto the initial "criticism", art depicting a wheelchair user hero. Here's the amazing, wonderful, mind blow, eye opening thing. If you don't like that art or that character concept or the notion of expressing (signalling if you will) that level of inclusivity, then it's not for you! Let the people who it is for have it, and have it in peace. Wizards isn't going to come round your house and demand you meet a diversity quota in your game. If you want to exclude people from expressing who they are in your game, that's still your power. Not my vibe, but D&D is to each of us something unique.
But WotC isn't talking to you specifically, they're talking to everyone. They're showcasing what D&D can be to everyone who may be interested in playing, or looking for that little bit of validation or encouragement to say "yes, I can play a tiefling in a wheelchair like mine" or "I'm gonna do it, I'm gonna play a halfling who is sending gold home to his husband so they can adopt" or countless other wonderful and varied character concepts.
But if you don't like that WotC is doing that, maybe just keep that to yourself? If you're not of the group that WotC is trying to welcome into our wonderful community, well you've got no ball in the game so just go back to rolling dice and slaying monsters. And if you are of one of those groups and don't personally like how WotC is trying to welcome in people like you, well remember that no group is a monolith and you don't speak for everyone. I'm personally part of at least one of the groups of people that WotC has tried to improve their presentation of and while I appreciate, it know I only speak for myself.
But coming out and claiming "this art is unrealistic" or "why would you want to play that?" isn't doing anything more than driving people away. It doesn't add anything, it doesn't build this hobby up, it'd doesn't lift people up. So find some joy in your heart and leave people be?
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Basically it seems like your whole point is "It is important to balance homebrew mechanics/magic items" and... yeah. That's pretty well known. It isn't specific to a magic wheelchair, it also pertains to "Sword of Tarrasque Summoning" and "Ring of Infinite Wishes" and "Robe of Deus ex Machina". Making sure a particular homebrew mechanic/item doesn't grant excessive advantages to a single player is important in DMing. That's not new.
The "Suspension of Disbelief" thing... I mean, if you run the kind of "simulation", "hardcore" game where you track encumbrance, make players take time to forage for food and roll a skill check to cook it, have lingering injuries, and don't fully recover hitpoints on a full rest, then sure I get where that could be hard. For the majority of games where people aren't playing a gritty realistic campaign, it is really a non-issue. If you can believe in hoards of the undead, floating eyebeam monsters, and somehow "dodging" 100% of the damage from a Fireball spell (looking at you, Rogues with evasion), then I think you can believe that someone in a wheelchair could be in the party. If you CAN'T imagine that, maybe D&D isn't the right game for you, as its whole basis is in imagination.
If you don't want me criticizing your position, don't write something in it I'm critical of?
If you genuinely think quote "A Rogue or Monk in a wheelchair makes zero sense even in a 'fantasy' setting" then there is clearly daylight between your position and Mdhe's (and mine.)
Thank you for this. Every time I see "virtue signaling" thrown out like that I cringe.
I agree, I think there is nothing wrong with virtue signaling to a degree when it makes sense. Everyone of many different life situations play DnD and always has, I don't think we need to go out of our way to point out every specific demographic but art is art. The problem with society today is everything is black and white based off how you see things, context or not.
Just like the statement I made about a rogue or monk in a wheelchair... Totally taken out of context where the second part of my statement is totally disregarded.
As a small aside. I'll throw this out there If you want to have some rules/costs about creating wheelchairs or other items to help disabled characters in their adventuring you might find Planeshift: Kaladesh a helpful resource. LInk here: https://mtg.fandom.com/wiki/Plane_Shift
Planeshift: Kaladesh is based on the Magic the Gathering (or MTG) setting/Plane of Kaladesh and was created by the MTG team some time ago. The crafting bit starts on page 10 and there is a section on crafting magic powred items such as self drawn carriages on page 12.
From a very practical perspective, many of these points are ones that disabled people experience all the time in the real world. We see people complain about wheelchair users expecting to use the wheelchair spaces on public transport, we see people with other disabilities experiencing resistance to adjustments because they're "not fair" on others.
As far as wheelchair use is concerned, you've got a range from a simple folding transit chair, that struggles on gravel paths, up to cross-country self propelled chairs that can go anywhere a mountain bike could go. Then you've got the inspiration **** stair climbing chairs that Masters students come out with on a regular basis; expensive, unreliable and widely derided by disabled people.
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.
Of course wheelchairs are a limited example. Whilst c23% of the population are disabled, wheelchair users make up less than 4%, but it's an example of how people approach disability in play. We can easily account for a wide range of disabilities in play, it just takes a bit of imagination.
I'm not doing that in any of my adventures, present or future, because that's bullshit for D&D.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
It took me a bit of time to find the image but there is a card in MTG called "Strider Harness" which might also be an option to use in place of a wheelchair, its basically a harness that fits over the waist and legs and allows you to walk, pic below for example. In essence for 5e you have a magical harness that requires the wearer to attune to it and allows them to walk, climb, swim as normal whilst wearing it and thats all it does.
OK, so in terms of mechanics you've got to make several assumptions about what leads the PC to be a wheelchair user, so what's an appropriate spell to use to remedy the condition. I know someone with Tourettes that has to use a wheelchair user as a result, essentially you're going to have to find something that makes changes to their cerebral cortex, in a way that doesn't change their whole personality and capability set.
If you're assuming perhaps a spinal cord break you could potentially use Regenerate (7th Level), if you've got access to a character of an appropriate level, and have access to the funds to pay them for the work. You've cited Raise Dead (5th Level) as a comparator; a diamond work 500GP plus payment to the character for casting.
The choices we make, both as player and DM, don't come without cost. So the player may choose to use their resources in other ways.
That assumes it's even a purely physical issue. In a magical setting, a character might be unable to walk/use their legs due to a curse that can't be removed with a "simple" 3rd-level spell
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
That's a good point, and one that might show up in a campaign.
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.
1) How about "as long as I'm in the chair and conscious, I have similar mobility options to an abled character unless otherwise stated."
2) The bolded part above, even if it's entirely accurate, assumes a mundane chair from our world. But there's no reason for that to be the only option available to a PC.
I don't think they're implying those rules should be imposed by the DM without the input of the player. Some disabled players want higher-friction RP experiences. I've literally seen homebrewed rules for chronic pain conditions that do not benefit the character in any way, and I've seen people excited to use them, because they can play a character that has all the same struggles that they do and is a hero nonetheless. So I think it's fine to conceptualize rules for a player who wants their character's disability to affect the character in mechanical terms, including penalties. Those rules should only be used with open and enthusiastic input from the player, but from the rest of their post, I think the poster understands that.
Let's try to give each other the benefit of the doubt here. The overwhelming majority of posters in this thread have expressed support for disability inclusion in D&D; we just have different ideas about how best to do that, and we can talk those ideas over in a civil way.
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.
Your point 1, in most instances that's probably fair. I can think of instances where I'd probably be looking at accounting for it; rope bridge, river crossing. Equally I can see some benefits; additional load carry.
As far as your second point is concerned, we've got to make assumptions in both character build and in rulings. I can see some merit in enhancing, but if a player doesn't want that, then that's their choice. Probably something to be negotiated in the party.
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.
Are you disabled yourself? I've just described my own experience of managing wheelchair use.