Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
Of course if you're designing this into play you've got options to account for the effort it takes; manually wheeling 20 miles will take more recovery time than someone walking the same distance, so build in additional recovery time. Play athletics checks with disadvantage, or with an additional negative modifier to account for the chair.
I'm not doing that in any of my adventures, present or future, because that's bullshit for D&D.
I wouldn't disagree. It's like tracking rations etc, and just creates needless friction most of the time.
To an extent I'd expect the wheelchair using PC to be coming up with solutions to account for the mobility difference.
To be very clear, it is not “like tracking rations.” Any such rules are basically saying “Hey, you know those challenges you might face in the real world? Guess what, I am forcing you to face those challenges in the game as well.” Even something such as demanding the player “come up with solutions to account for the mobility difference” is going to ruin any escapism the person is seeking.
Tracking rations is one of those things you can easily ignore without really causing any difference to the game. Imposing penalties for a disability can very easily cross the line to discrimination and cruelty.
If the player is choosing to play mobility impaired, then I'd argue there's a cost to that. For us, going to a F2F game means adding an additional 20 minutes to travel time to account for getting to the car, transferring, getting the chair into the car, then similar at the other end. Similarly, I used the public transport example upthread; if there is one wheelchair user already on the bus, you've got to wait for the next bus as there is only one wheelchair space.
If I travel to London, less than 30% of the underground is wheelchair accessible, so it takes longer to move around, and it increases fatigue. That's just reality for wheelchair users.
There's a clue in the name of disability.
Empathy continues to be in short supply, I see.
D&D is a game about escapism - for some, that means escaping into someone completely different than themselves, for others, that means playing an heroic, fantasy version of yourself.
If a player wants to have their disability explored and have a mechanical elements in-game, that is fine. But saying that they should “expect” to be held back, merely because they want to play a fantasy version of themselves? Saying “sorry bud, you are disabled in the real world and face challenges, I do not care if you are trying to use D&D for some escapism - you are going to face challenges here also?”
That is un-empathetic and likely discriminatory.
OK, you summoned me. May I ask exactly where tf you get off undermining my lived experience? And I have a follow up question: how do you *not* see that what you are saying is discriminating against my potential choices and treating me just like every other prejudiced halfwit out here in the real world who seemingly wants me to go home and stay invisible? Talk about lack of empathy...
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
This is still a fantasy “it magically simulates full range and responsiveness” item, just one sidesteps all the further wrangling over features and realism by essentially just restoring leg function.
Of course if you're designing this into play you've got options to account for the effort it takes; manually wheeling 20 miles will take more recovery time than someone walking the same distance, so build in additional recovery time. Play athletics checks with disadvantage, or with an additional negative modifier to account for the chair.
I'm not doing that in any of my adventures, present or future, because that's bullshit for D&D.
I wouldn't disagree. It's like tracking rations etc, and just creates needless friction most of the time.
To an extent I'd expect the wheelchair using PC to be coming up with solutions to account for the mobility difference.
To be very clear, it is not “like tracking rations.” Any such rules are basically saying “Hey, you know those challenges you might face in the real world? Guess what, I am forcing you to face those challenges in the game as well.” Even something such as demanding the player “come up with solutions to account for the mobility difference” is going to ruin any escapism the person is seeking.
Tracking rations is one of those things you can easily ignore without really causing any difference to the game. Imposing penalties for a disability can very easily cross the line to discrimination and cruelty.
If the player is choosing to play mobility impaired, then I'd argue there's a cost to that. For us, going to a F2F game means adding an additional 20 minutes to travel time to account for getting to the car, transferring, getting the chair into the car, then similar at the other end. Similarly, I used the public transport example upthread; if there is one wheelchair user already on the bus, you've got to wait for the next bus as there is only one wheelchair space.
If I travel to London, less than 30% of the underground is wheelchair accessible, so it takes longer to move around, and it increases fatigue. That's just reality for wheelchair users.
There's a clue in the name of disability.
Empathy continues to be in short supply, I see.
D&D is a game about escapism - for some, that means escaping into someone completely different than themselves, for others, that means playing an heroic, fantasy version of yourself.
If a player wants to have their disability explored and have a mechanical elements in-game, that is fine. But saying that they should “expect” to be held back, merely because they want to play a fantasy version of themselves? Saying “sorry bud, you are disabled in the real world and face challenges, I do not care if you are trying to use D&D for some escapism - you are going to face challenges here also?”
That is un-empathetic and likely discriminatory.
OK, you summoned me. May I ask exactly where tf you get off undermining my lived experience? And I have a follow up question: how do you *not* see that what you are saying is discriminating against my potential choices and treating me just like every other prejudiced halfwit out here in the real world who seemingly wants me to go home and stay invisible? Talk about lack of empathy...
They are not undermining your lived experience. You didn't say "for me, in playing D&D, if I chose to explore my disability in game I would prefer a cost to that." You made a blanket statement that there should always be a cost to that. They were saying that if a different player (not you, obviously) wanted to explore their disability in a way that didn't automatically give them mechanical hurdles, but instead allowed themselves to see their character as themselves, but a hero, then that should be a thing that would be accepted by the DM/table. Note I am not saying they should be allowed to have a magic device that allows them a "get out of jail free card" in every situation, ignoring difficult terrain, triple the carrying capacity, invulnerable to prone, AC 20, blah blah blah all at level 1. If they simply wanted to play a wheelchair user, basically as flavor, so that they can imagine themselves to be doing heroic things, that that shouldn't automatically come with costs/downsides.
You are absolutely owed your experience, and they are not denying you that, just stating that you cannot push your experience/opinion in this case to all people who are in a similar situation to you.
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
I think it's great as an option for players who want essentially a nod towards disability without any mechanical effects. For others, though, the thorny bits are the point. And it's a fair question to ask how frictionless one can actually make disability representation without functionally erasing the disability.
For me, I think if a player wanted their character to use a mobility harness in my game, I'd let them do it no questions asked. But on the flipside, I don't think I would bring up the harness myself in a conversation with a player about how best to represent their character's disability in game.
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
It can and should absolutely be an option for those who would choose it. However it should not be the only option if a player wants to explore their own disability in the game. If a player came to the table and really simply just wanted to say their character uses a wheelchair, as flavor or with certain bonuses and equal drawbacks, then that should be ok, and not for the DM to say "Yeah, I hear you, but it really breaks my immersion, so instead please use these magic robot legs, they seem more realistic to me."
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
This is still a fantasy “it magically simulates full range and responsiveness” item, just one sidesteps all the further wrangling over features and realism by essentially just restoring leg function.
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
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.
Even for something like a rope bridge I'd consider (a) giving them a chair that can handle that kind of stuff anyway (e.g. it has flight / limited flight or limited teleportation of some kind) or (b) if they've exhausted whatever limited-use mobility resources/options the chair possesses before that challenge, as long as an ally or summon is able to help them clear the obstacle I'd do that, or even (c) they or a tools-focused character can jury-rig some alternate solution like pullies.
In short, I would minimize "negotiation" points unless the character is truly in a dire situation, and I would keep those to a minimum and work them out with the player ahead of time.
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
Is paying for it out of pocket the only option? Maybe they're in debt, or the kind benefactor who made it for them is in trouble. Reason enough to adventure I'd say.
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.
Even for something like a rope bridge I'd consider (a) giving them a chair that can handle that kind of stuff anyway (e.g. it has flight / limited flight or limited teleportation of some kind) or (b) if they've exhausted whatever limited-use mobility resources/options the chair possesses before that challenge, as long as an ally or summon is able to help them clear the obstacle I'd do that, or even (c) they or a tools-focused character can jury-rig some alternate solution like pullies.
In short, I would minimize "negotiation" points unless the character is truly in a dire situation, and I would keep those to a minimum and work them out with the player ahead of time.
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.
I don't think this is so hard. Functionally the same as walking speed. If it's difficult terrain it's still difficult terrain for a hovery thing, because the distance from the ground changes so rapidly, because there's no hard bottom, because there are vines reaching out to grab, whatever. All the reasons that make it hard to walk there can make it hard to move across while hovering. Hovercraft like nice, smooth, regular, predictably hard surfaces just like feet do.
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
This is still a fantasy “it magically simulates full range and responsiveness” item, just one sidesteps all the further wrangling over features and realism by essentially just restoring leg function.
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
This is still a fantasy “it magically simulates full range and responsiveness” item, just one sidesteps all the further wrangling over features and realism by essentially just restoring leg function.
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
It’s not uncommon for a DM to let players start with a Common magic item, and if nothing else I think it’s fair to say the baseline utility of any magic item that exists solely to counteract a handicap shouldn’t be higher than that of a Common item.
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
As a DM, that seems more like something I'd handle via backstory than starting equipment
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)
If a player came to the table and really simply just wanted to say their character uses a wheelchair, as flavor or with certain bonuses and equal drawbacks, then that should be ok, and not for the DM to say "Yeah, I hear you, but it really breaks my immersion, so instead please use these magic robot legs, they seem more realistic to me."
It's also worth noting this actually happened in a thread on the DM forum a little while back. This dude pitched a fit about a player who wanted their character to use a wheelchair, and one of the "solutions" he presented was a magic pair of boots that allowed the character to walk. Then the DM couldn't figure out why the player was unhappy. Like, if a disabled player wanted to make a character that can walk they could just... Do that. That's literally the default state of player characters.
This thread has been very informative. My takeaway is, like so many things in D&D, that this is something best left for the tables to work out and not for official rule books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
This thread has been very informative. My takeaway is, like so many things in D&D, that this is something best left for the tables to work out and not for official rule books.
I'm fine with this but I'll also add - the art can be as inclusive / signal as many virtues as they damn well want.
I am seeing people insert their own real life experience here as justification to play the game related to wheelchair use in ways that impose limitations. I do believe that this experience can only inform how this option may be best suited to run for that one individual, and that they do not and cannot speak for an entire population of wheelchair users, or those who wish to play a PC that uses a wheelchair. People have created options (such as Mark Thompson) to offer resources to players who at that time, had an unmet need. Whether that resource is overpowered is a separate discussion, with different solutions that can be created to address that perceived problem.
My beliefs on the topic is that it is the responsibility of the DM to accommodate player needs to the best of their ability because the entire goal of this game (which has been a very loud position WotC has taken more recently) is that the game is meant to be fun for everyone. If a DM cannot meet the player needs, that should be addressed in session 0 so the player can make the decision to seek more accommodating tables if they need to. This is not a game designed with realism in mind however; it is designed to be high fantasy fun and that fun can look different for each individual and each table. A person who may be a wheelchair user in real life may also want to play a self-insert PC that uses a wheelchair, but may not want to deal with the personal limitations or societal barriers that come with it in real life because those things are not fun for them. Why not let them? The game is literally intended to meet needs like that.
No one here is writing a book that will see publication based entirely on whether they handle wheelchair use in certain ways. There can be a world that has countless high level NPC clerics in virtually every town that cures literally any curse, illness, and injury that ever occurs and there can still be a person in a wheelchair that has literally no mechanical limitations borne from that character creation decision. There doesn't even need an explanation for why this is the case.
This is a game where players do literally impossible things all the time without even using magic. Things like punching through stone walls or a PC walking on their finger tips through a room of spinning blades while also attacking enemies by spitting a dagger at their enemy. There is no need to have some logical consistency or that the game be rooted in the unforgiving reality of physics or real life human limitations. There is no need to let one's own biases limit the fun of someone else. The problems I am seeing expressed are those of a personal nature (things like 'it makes no sense' in a game where you can hit a Ghost with a non-magical sword), not problems created by the game making room for the people who want to be an adventuring wheelchair user.
Our of curiosity, exactly how objectionable do people find the mobility harness that has come up a few times as a compromise between personal empowerment and verisimilitude? Honestly, the more this goes on the more it seems like the best way to enable a mobility impaired character without hitting all the thorny “how exactly does this work?” points cropping up around wheelchairs.
OK, you summoned me. May I ask exactly where tf you get off undermining my lived experience? And I have a follow up question: how do you *not* see that what you are saying is discriminating against my potential choices and treating me just like every other prejudiced halfwit out here in the real world who seemingly wants me to go home and stay invisible? Talk about lack of empathy...
To me it really depends on the individual player. If we look at a real world comparator the kit is expensive, slow and unreliable.
If someone wanted to play it, I wouldn't object, but I'd expect a negotiation with the players around what the impact is.
This is still a fantasy “it magically simulates full range and responsiveness” item, just one sidesteps all the further wrangling over features and realism by essentially just restoring leg function.
They are not undermining your lived experience. You didn't say "for me, in playing D&D, if I chose to explore my disability in game I would prefer a cost to that." You made a blanket statement that there should always be a cost to that. They were saying that if a different player (not you, obviously) wanted to explore their disability in a way that didn't automatically give them mechanical hurdles, but instead allowed themselves to see their character as themselves, but a hero, then that should be a thing that would be accepted by the DM/table. Note I am not saying they should be allowed to have a magic device that allows them a "get out of jail free card" in every situation, ignoring difficult terrain, triple the carrying capacity, invulnerable to prone, AC 20, blah blah blah all at level 1. If they simply wanted to play a wheelchair user, basically as flavor, so that they can imagine themselves to be doing heroic things, that that shouldn't automatically come with costs/downsides.
You are absolutely owed your experience, and they are not denying you that, just stating that you cannot push your experience/opinion in this case to all people who are in a similar situation to you.
I think it's great as an option for players who want essentially a nod towards disability without any mechanical effects. For others, though, the thorny bits are the point. And it's a fair question to ask how frictionless one can actually make disability representation without functionally erasing the disability.
For me, I think if a player wanted their character to use a mobility harness in my game, I'd let them do it no questions asked. But on the flipside, I don't think I would bring up the harness myself in a conversation with a player about how best to represent their character's disability in game.
It can and should absolutely be an option for those who would choose it. However it should not be the only option if a player wants to explore their own disability in the game. If a player came to the table and really simply just wanted to say their character uses a wheelchair, as flavor or with certain bonuses and equal drawbacks, then that should be ok, and not for the DM to say "Yeah, I hear you, but it really breaks my immersion, so instead please use these magic robot legs, they seem more realistic to me."
And if a player wanted to do that, fine. How are they obtaining it at Level 1 with their 30GP?
Even for something like a rope bridge I'd consider (a) giving them a chair that can handle that kind of stuff anyway (e.g. it has flight / limited flight or limited teleportation of some kind) or (b) if they've exhausted whatever limited-use mobility resources/options the chair possesses before that challenge, as long as an ally or summon is able to help them clear the obstacle I'd do that, or even (c) they or a tools-focused character can jury-rig some alternate solution like pullies.
In short, I would minimize "negotiation" points unless the character is truly in a dire situation, and I would keep those to a minimum and work them out with the player ahead of time.
As the CM clearly stated upthread, nobody is required to disclose or prove that to anyone here, so let's stick with the in-game situations.
Is paying for it out of pocket the only option? Maybe they're in debt, or the kind benefactor who made it for them is in trouble. Reason enough to adventure I'd say.
You've just described "accounting for it"
My "accounting" amounted to a handwave in-game though, not a 'negotiation,' 'cost,' or other tangible drawback.
I don't think this is so hard. Functionally the same as walking speed. If it's difficult terrain it's still difficult terrain for a hovery thing, because the distance from the ground changes so rapidly, because there's no hard bottom, because there are vines reaching out to grab, whatever. All the reasons that make it hard to walk there can make it hard to move across while hovering. Hovercraft like nice, smooth, regular, predictably hard surfaces just like feet do.
Health Insurance of course.......
If that's how you'd want to DM it, that's fine.
I'm not going to tell you that your approach is right or wrong.
It’s not uncommon for a DM to let players start with a Common magic item, and if nothing else I think it’s fair to say the baseline utility of any magic item that exists solely to counteract a handicap shouldn’t be higher than that of a Common item.
As a DM, that seems more like something I'd handle via backstory than starting equipment
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)
It's also worth noting this actually happened in a thread on the DM forum a little while back. This dude pitched a fit about a player who wanted their character to use a wheelchair, and one of the "solutions" he presented was a magic pair of boots that allowed the character to walk. Then the DM couldn't figure out why the player was unhappy. Like, if a disabled player wanted to make a character that can walk they could just... Do that. That's literally the default state of player characters.
This thread has been very informative. My takeaway is, like so many things in D&D, that this is something best left for the tables to work out and not for official rule books.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I'm fine with this but I'll also add - the art can be as inclusive / signal as many virtues as they damn well want.
I am seeing people insert their own real life experience here as justification to play the game related to wheelchair use in ways that impose limitations. I do believe that this experience can only inform how this option may be best suited to run for that one individual, and that they do not and cannot speak for an entire population of wheelchair users, or those who wish to play a PC that uses a wheelchair. People have created options (such as Mark Thompson) to offer resources to players who at that time, had an unmet need. Whether that resource is overpowered is a separate discussion, with different solutions that can be created to address that perceived problem.
My beliefs on the topic is that it is the responsibility of the DM to accommodate player needs to the best of their ability because the entire goal of this game (which has been a very loud position WotC has taken more recently) is that the game is meant to be fun for everyone. If a DM cannot meet the player needs, that should be addressed in session 0 so the player can make the decision to seek more accommodating tables if they need to. This is not a game designed with realism in mind however; it is designed to be high fantasy fun and that fun can look different for each individual and each table. A person who may be a wheelchair user in real life may also want to play a self-insert PC that uses a wheelchair, but may not want to deal with the personal limitations or societal barriers that come with it in real life because those things are not fun for them. Why not let them? The game is literally intended to meet needs like that.
No one here is writing a book that will see publication based entirely on whether they handle wheelchair use in certain ways. There can be a world that has countless high level NPC clerics in virtually every town that cures literally any curse, illness, and injury that ever occurs and there can still be a person in a wheelchair that has literally no mechanical limitations borne from that character creation decision. There doesn't even need an explanation for why this is the case.
This is a game where players do literally impossible things all the time without even using magic. Things like punching through stone walls or a PC walking on their finger tips through a room of spinning blades while also attacking enemies by spitting a dagger at their enemy. There is no need to have some logical consistency or that the game be rooted in the unforgiving reality of physics or real life human limitations. There is no need to let one's own biases limit the fun of someone else. The problems I am seeing expressed are those of a personal nature (things like 'it makes no sense' in a game where you can hit a Ghost with a non-magical sword), not problems created by the game making room for the people who want to be an adventuring wheelchair user.
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