I'm not going to dive into the topic since I don't have a coherent view with solid answers. I do want to say one thing.
Rather than "realistic", which makes no sense in a fantasy game, I think perhaps "coherent" or"sensical" is a better match for what is intended.
In terms of the topic, all I can really say is that I'm content for tables to include whatever kinds of adventurers they like, and to have thought out (or not thought out) the implicit ramifications to the extent they want. If they want to just accept that Bob is in a wheelchair and don't want to have to answer how he gets down those spiracle staircases...then that's just fine, let them. I appreciate that's not quite what the OP was talking about, but it's about as near a formed opinion on the matter as I have right now.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
With regards to DnD images of adventurers in wheelchairs, isn't it a bit too much virtue signaling? Don't get me wrong, as a disabled person myself with a spinal injury, I appreciate the effort to be more accessible, but it almost verges on inspiration ****. (for those of you who don't know about that, it is when able bodied people post pictures of disabled people with statements like "what is your excuse?"). Inspiration **** is dehumanizing.
Now, like I said, I appreciate the effort to make the game more inviting and accessible to those who are disabled. But, having an adventurer in a wheelchair is also very unrealistic. A wheelchair is just not going to be of much use when climbing through caves or over the broken ground of old dungeons. That's one of the reasons I think that such pictures really make the person in the wheelchair stand out and start to verge on inspiration ****.
My suggestion is to use something a bit more realistic (realistic in the context of a world of magic). This would include things like putting these disabled people on flying carpets or riding the backs of golems or on steel defenders. It is, I believe, why, to use a different genre, Professor X is often shown, outside of his mansion, in a chair which levitates.
"Realistic in the context of a world of magic" is such an interesting sentence that implies that despite the endless limitations of magic, there's a desire for magic to not go too far.
Most of the TTRPG-related disability aides that I've seen appear in the last few years have either been created by people with those disabilities or with the input of people who do. I don't think I can call any of them 'inspiration ****' in that instance.
Also, putting my CM hat on, remember to keep this discussion civil. I'll tell you flat-out that if this goes down the wrong road, I won't hesitate to lock the thread.
Allow me to clarify, "Realistic in the context of a world of magic." What it means is that every setting with magic has conventions that magic adheres to. For example, in DnD, you have rules like spell components, magic items glowing in response to certain divinations, the gods being real, etc. That's why I mentioned flying carpets, golems, and steel defenders. All of these things are established in DnD and already adhere to DnD's rules of magic. A wheelchair can as well. Such a wheelchair would have certain qualities identifying it as magical. It would also probably levitate/fly a few inches off the ground or, as per another poster, have legs.
As has been pointed out by multiple people, that is great for people who want to play a completely fantasy character, using fantasy equipment. Other people want to just play a realistic version of themselves, and live the fantasy of "the real version of my self is just as capable of being a hero as anyone else, without me having to rely on fantasy equipment I will never own in the real world."
The reason we need this art in the game is not to "pander" or create "token" characters. It is because there are people like you who are telling this second group of people "the way you are playing is wrong because it offends my aesthetical preferences." Including this art gives the second group of people something they can point to--something where they can say "you might not agree with the way I want to play, but Wizards of the Coast does."
That gives this second group of people some ammunition against the discrimination they might otherwise face from people who are basically telling them "no, the real you will never be and adventurer. You are lesser than able-bodied people and thus need magical/fantasy tech in order to compete with the rest of us."
" there are people like you who are telling this second group of people "the way you are playing is wrong because it offends my aesthetical preferences.""
Oh, please! The game already tells people what is bad, wrong, fun. Just look at the post by Caerwyn_Glyndwr who said I wanted the game to be more racist because I want the question of whether to explore race issues to be left to each GM and their table.
I also started this thread by saying, "as a disabled person myself with a spinal injury, I appreciate the effort to be more accessible," but now I have a bunch of people who are not disabled telling me how to handle issues of disability. You all really need to reflect on that a bit.
I also started this thread by saying, "as a disabled person myself with a spinal injury, I appreciate the effort to be more accessible," but now I have a bunch of people who are not disabled telling me how to handle issues of disability. You all really need to reflect on that a bit.
You don't know the nature of anyone's disability in this thread and none of us are required to disclose it to you. Refrain from being quick to make assumptions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her) You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On| CM Hat Off Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5]. Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Allow me to clarify, "Realistic in the context of a world of magic." What it means is that every setting with magic has conventions that magic adheres to. For example, in DnD, you have rules like spell components, magic items glowing in response to certain divinations, the gods being real, etc. That's why I mentioned flying carpets, golems, and steel defenders. All of these things are established in DnD and already adhere to DnD's rules of magic. A wheelchair can as well. Such a wheelchair would have certain qualities identifying it as magical. It would also probably levitate/fly a few inches off the ground or, as per another poster, have legs.
Sure, but how would you know a magic wheelchair was magic if it wasn't, for lack of a better description, "on"? Mark Thompson's Combat Wheelchair hovers when ascending or descending stairs, for example, but it just looks like an ordinary sport wheelchair when this property isn't active.
Such a wheelchair would have certain qualities identifying it as magical. It would also probably levitate/fly a few inches off the ground or, as per another poster, have legs.
Why does it have to? Unless the person is adventuring solo these qualities are not a necessity. What about terrain? What about combat? It doesn't matter, the party will make it work. Focusing on the wheelchair is like tracking how many times your PCs go to the toilet.
I think the point is that the person wants to envision themselves in a way they see as heroic. No need to make up new rules or anything. One PC has two legs, one has a snake tail instead of legs, one is in a wheelchair, one looks like a frog. Whatever, let's go have an adventure!
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?"
I understand being worried about "inspiration ****" and tokenism. However, I would like to hear how you would address the art you have, shall we say, criticized, and make it so that it didn't seem to fall into one of those two categories? Is there any way to portray a character in D&D in a wheelchair (non-magical) that you feel would not lend itself to inspiration **** or tokenism? Would it be better if the character in the art were an obvious villain, or instead of an obvious adventurer if they were depicted as the tavern-keeper or something?
There's a lot of discussion going back and forth, so I'm trying to pinpoint your issue. Is it the tokenism and inspiration ****/virtue signaling? Or is it the "realism"? Because you also seem to have an issue with the realism of it (though I can't figure that out in a world were an Artificer can make themself Iron Man armor).
Disclaimer: I am not physically disabled, and while I have physically disabled family, I am not speaking on their behalf. I am neurodivergent, so much of this post draws on parallels I see that don’t correspond on a 1:1 basis to physical disability, but should be analogous.
I think that this is an issue without a universal, one-size-fits-all answer. Representation is important evenespecially in fantastical contexts such as D&D, yet when one prioritizes representation to a certain degree over coherence and verisimilitude, it becomes virtue signaling (in the academic sense of the term, not the political epithet). The exact degree where representation crosses into virtue signaling is subjective and will vary from person to person, and thus drawing the line is an inherently fraught exercise, but one that we must draw somewhere, and inevitably some people are going to be upset in one way or another.
I haven’t seen the exact piece of artwork OP is referring to, so I can’t say at the moment whether for me it crosses from positive representation to virtue signaling; it seems like it does for Wren but not for most people on this thread. I cannot and will not ask anyone to out their disability on this forum, but as LaTia pointed out, in this largely-anonymous space, we don’t for the most part know among us who is and isn’t physically disabled. Since whether combat wheelchairs are good representation or virtue signaling is an issue of physical disability representation, physically disabled voices should be prioritized in the conversation. Speaking anecdotally, it seems most real-life wheelchair users approve of the concept as a whole, some taking umbrage with specific implementations. OP with their spinal injury, however, is entitled to take offense at depictions of their disability they feel cross into virtue signaling instead of authentic representation. That being said, in numerous situations it’s important to realize when you’re in the minority on an issue—that doesn’t mean saying oneself is wrong, but recognizing disagreements.
Incidentally, part of the reason Mark Thompson’s Combat Wheelchair was (is?) so controversial is that the backlash against it contained legitimate criticism on how the chair was so good in terms of game mechanics that anyone who could afford it should have one, regardless of ability or disability, as well as the sadly predictable torrents of ableist bigotry and threats.
My sister, who does use a wheelchair irl, had a D&D character that also used a wheelchair (it wasn't the combat wheelchair). Things were going fine until one session the DM ruled that her character couldn't go down the stairs into the dungeon. Obviously that was last session with that DM. In terms of realism, they do make wheelchairs that can handle stairs and the great outdoors. They are just really expensive and not covered by insurance.
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
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!"
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!"
That requires all magical worlds be saturated with high level PC Clerics to work. Since the rules do state that the adventurers are exceptional, it is safe to say that most worlds do not have a high level Cleric on every corner.
Ah, yes, this is specifically why no one in the Forgotten Realms ever dies: the availability of resurrection magic.
Why would you even need adventurers? There's already level 20 wizards somewhere in the world, right? Just call them up and they will slay the dragon.
The presence of healing magic in the world does not at all mean there cannot be people with disabilities. There can be a lot of reasons that healing magic wouldn't work: curses, the gods choose that it doesn't work, not enough gold to pay for healing magic, interaction with some rare herb that blocks healing/resurrection magic, etc.
The world's magic also works so that you can slay enough goblins with a frost cantrip to learn the Wish spell which reshapes the fabric of the universe.
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!"
It's not really about the fiction, though. You can come up with any old reason that a character might be paraplegic in a world with Regenerate. Maybe it's a cursed injury, maybe Regenerate doesn't work on impairments you were born with, maybe the character has just never met anyone who can cast a 7th level Cleric spell. The fictional explanation doesn't really matter; all of this is made up anyway.
The real issue is that disabled people sometimes want to play characters that look like them. They should be allowed to do that in the same way that abled people can. That's why disabled characters shouldn't all just be healed or converted into abled characters with perfect magical prosthetics: because if we did that, the characters wouldn't look like the players any more.
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!"
Your entire argument basically is telling someone in a wheelchair who wants to play a character like themselves, “your life is something wrong and representations of you do not belong in my perfect D&D world.”
I think it should be pretty obvious why Wizards is not following that kind of reasoning.
In terms of realism, they do make wheelchairs that can handle stairs and the great outdoors. They are just really expensive and not covered by insurance.
In our world, without magic or anything? But my realism!!
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
Was this WotC artwork? I'd like to see it, have a link?
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
Was this WotC artwork? I'd like to see it, have a link?
I'm not sure if there's another one, but what they're describing sounds like a splash page of Alanik Ray and Arthur Sedgewick fighting carrionettes from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.
Side note, I love the absolute nonchalance in Alanik Ray's body language on this page. His husband's up there working his butt off with that sword cane, and Alanik's just like... "I cast Gun."
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.
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.
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.
The irony of declaring something can't possibly exist coupled with an instruction to "get creative!" 🤨
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not going to dive into the topic since I don't have a coherent view with solid answers. I do want to say one thing.
Rather than "realistic", which makes no sense in a fantasy game, I think perhaps "coherent" or"sensical" is a better match for what is intended.
In terms of the topic, all I can really say is that I'm content for tables to include whatever kinds of adventurers they like, and to have thought out (or not thought out) the implicit ramifications to the extent they want. If they want to just accept that Bob is in a wheelchair and don't want to have to answer how he gets down those spiracle staircases...then that's just fine, let them. I appreciate that's not quite what the OP was talking about, but it's about as near a formed opinion on the matter as I have right now.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
" there are people like you who are telling this second group of people "the way you are playing is wrong because it offends my aesthetical preferences.""
Oh, please! The game already tells people what is bad, wrong, fun. Just look at the post by Caerwyn_Glyndwr who said I wanted the game to be more racist because I want the question of whether to explore race issues to be left to each GM and their table.
I also started this thread by saying, "as a disabled person myself with a spinal injury, I appreciate the effort to be more accessible," but now I have a bunch of people who are not disabled telling me how to handle issues of disability. You all really need to reflect on that a bit.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffYou don't know the nature of anyone's disability in this thread and none of us are required to disclose it to you. Refrain from being quick to make assumptions.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her)
You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On | CM Hat Off
Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5].
Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Useful Links: Site Rules & Guidelines | D&D Educator Resources | Change Your Nickname | Submit a Support Ticket
What a weird take. Magic can only work or be portrayed in art in one specific way? Magic that is subtle, ambiguous, or understated isn't magic?
This whole thread seems to be you trying to present your personal preferences as some kind of universally objective standard or fact. No, just no.
Sure, but how would you know a magic wheelchair was magic if it wasn't, for lack of a better description, "on"? Mark Thompson's Combat Wheelchair hovers when ascending or descending stairs, for example, but it just looks like an ordinary sport wheelchair when this property isn't active.
Why does it have to? Unless the person is adventuring solo these qualities are not a necessity. What about terrain? What about combat? It doesn't matter, the party will make it work. Focusing on the wheelchair is like tracking how many times your PCs go to the toilet.
I think the point is that the person wants to envision themselves in a way they see as heroic. No need to make up new rules or anything. One PC has two legs, one has a snake tail instead of legs, one is in a wheelchair, one looks like a frog. Whatever, let's go have an adventure!
"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
I understand being worried about "inspiration ****" and tokenism. However, I would like to hear how you would address the art you have, shall we say, criticized, and make it so that it didn't seem to fall into one of those two categories? Is there any way to portray a character in D&D in a wheelchair (non-magical) that you feel would not lend itself to inspiration **** or tokenism? Would it be better if the character in the art were an obvious villain, or instead of an obvious adventurer if they were depicted as the tavern-keeper or something?
There's a lot of discussion going back and forth, so I'm trying to pinpoint your issue. Is it the tokenism and inspiration ****/virtue signaling? Or is it the "realism"? Because you also seem to have an issue with the realism of it (though I can't figure that out in a world were an Artificer can make themself Iron Man armor).
Disclaimer: I am not physically disabled, and while I have physically disabled family, I am not speaking on their behalf. I am neurodivergent, so much of this post draws on parallels I see that don’t correspond on a 1:1 basis to physical disability, but should be analogous.
I think that this is an issue without a universal, one-size-fits-all answer. Representation is important
evenespecially in fantastical contexts such as D&D, yet when one prioritizes representation to a certain degree over coherence and verisimilitude, it becomes virtue signaling (in the academic sense of the term, not the political epithet). The exact degree where representation crosses into virtue signaling is subjective and will vary from person to person, and thus drawing the line is an inherently fraught exercise, but one that we must draw somewhere, and inevitably some people are going to be upset in one way or another.I haven’t seen the exact piece of artwork OP is referring to, so I can’t say at the moment whether for me it crosses from positive representation to virtue signaling; it seems like it does for Wren but not for most people on this thread. I cannot and will not ask anyone to out their disability on this forum, but as LaTia pointed out, in this largely-anonymous space, we don’t for the most part know among us who is and isn’t physically disabled. Since whether combat wheelchairs are good representation or virtue signaling is an issue of physical disability representation, physically disabled voices should be prioritized in the conversation. Speaking anecdotally, it seems most real-life wheelchair users approve of the concept as a whole, some taking umbrage with specific implementations. OP with their spinal injury, however, is entitled to take offense at depictions of their disability they feel cross into virtue signaling instead of authentic representation. That being said, in numerous situations it’s important to realize when you’re in the minority on an issue—that doesn’t mean saying oneself is wrong, but recognizing disagreements.
Incidentally, part of the reason Mark Thompson’s Combat Wheelchair was (is?) so controversial is that the backlash against it contained legitimate criticism on how the chair was so good in terms of game mechanics that anyone who could afford it should have one, regardless of ability or disability, as well as the sadly predictable torrents of ableist bigotry and threats.
My sister, who does use a wheelchair irl, had a D&D character that also used a wheelchair (it wasn't the combat wheelchair). Things were going fine until one session the DM ruled that her character couldn't go down the stairs into the dungeon. Obviously that was last session with that DM. In terms of realism, they do make wheelchairs that can handle stairs and the great outdoors. They are just really expensive and not covered by insurance.
In terms of the artwork in question, that character was wielding a gun and had the help of thier party members behind them which seems like a resonable scenario. If they were by themselves and were somehow wielding a longsword and a shield and using mind control powers to move the chair around then I could definitely see your point.
In my opinion, it's definitely too much virtue signaling. Here's how the world's magic apparently works:
That requires all magical worlds be saturated with high level PC Clerics to work. Since the rules do state that the adventurers are exceptional, it is safe to say that most worlds do not have a high level Cleric on every corner.
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
Ah, yes, this is specifically why no one in the Forgotten Realms ever dies: the availability of resurrection magic.
Why would you even need adventurers? There's already level 20 wizards somewhere in the world, right? Just call them up and they will slay the dragon.
The presence of healing magic in the world does not at all mean there cannot be people with disabilities. There can be a lot of reasons that healing magic wouldn't work: curses, the gods choose that it doesn't work, not enough gold to pay for healing magic, interaction with some rare herb that blocks healing/resurrection magic, etc.
The world's magic also works so that you can slay enough goblins with a frost cantrip to learn the Wish spell which reshapes the fabric of the universe.
But yeah, healing magic.
It's not really about the fiction, though. You can come up with any old reason that a character might be paraplegic in a world with Regenerate. Maybe it's a cursed injury, maybe Regenerate doesn't work on impairments you were born with, maybe the character has just never met anyone who can cast a 7th level Cleric spell. The fictional explanation doesn't really matter; all of this is made up anyway.
The real issue is that disabled people sometimes want to play characters that look like them. They should be allowed to do that in the same way that abled people can. That's why disabled characters shouldn't all just be healed or converted into abled characters with perfect magical prosthetics: because if we did that, the characters wouldn't look like the players any more.
Your entire argument basically is telling someone in a wheelchair who wants to play a character like themselves, “your life is something wrong and representations of you do not belong in my perfect D&D world.”
I think it should be pretty obvious why Wizards is not following that kind of reasoning.
In our world, without magic or anything? But my realism!!
Was this WotC artwork? I'd like to see it, have a link?
And no one in those settings has ever lost a limb or uses a prosthetic either. It's all in Rathkryn's imagination apparently.
I'm not sure if there's another one, but what they're describing sounds like a splash page of Alanik Ray and Arthur Sedgewick fighting carrionettes from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft.
Side note, I love the absolute nonchalance in Alanik Ray's body language on this page. His husband's up there working his butt off with that sword cane, and Alanik's just like... "I cast Gun."
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.
You want to know why the PC is in a wheelchair in a world full of magical healing? It's because the Player wants it like that.
"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
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.
The irony of declaring something can't possibly exist coupled with an instruction to "get creative!" 🤨