Quote from: Batman;1146962You're possibly under the incorrect assumption that I really give a rats-ass who or why they're doing it..

Then why you spending so time on it and the fact that you are shows that you are lying and are just part of them problem.

Quote from: Batman;1146997Is there a source for this?

The "creator's" Twatter feed:  twitter.com/mustangsart

Quote from: Batman;1146962You're possibly under the incorrect assumption that I really give a rats-ass who or why they're doing it. I simply don't. It's a small thing on the internet among thousands of related stuff on the internet. Use it. Don't. It really doesn't matter. What I found funny is just how much people really do care about something that A) will most likely NEVER affect their game and B) wouldn't probably allow anyways should it attempt to be brought in.

Ive heard this argument before. And every time in the end, one way or another it has ended up affecting the games or entertainment of others. And in this iteration of this stupid its exponentially more likely to be parroted by other companies as apparently just about every fucking company is falling over themselves to get on the woke wagon and virtue signal big or small.

No woke gestapo is in our houses coming for our games... yet.

But we are allready seeing them start to strongarm and "police" conventions. And that was going on as of the last few years also gradually increasingly. If it werent for the lockdowns and practically end of conventions for now, we'd likely had by now more threads here on cons that have been either infiltrated or completely co-opted.

Quote from: Omega;1147073No woke gestapo is in our houses coming for our games... yet.

Its a trolls truism. A kinda pointless true statement used to cover up the actual practice. When the woke gestapos goal is to ultimately shape the entire landscape into one they find preferable with no space for dissenters saying "Well they haven't smashed down your door" is a worthless intelectual excercise.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1147080Its a trolls truism. A kinda pointless true statement used to cover up the actual practice. When the woke gestapos goal is to ultimately shape the entire landscape into one they find preferable with no space for dissenters saying "Well they haven't smashed down your door" is a worthless intelectual excercise.

It's basically a type of straw man. No one's actually arguing that they're literally going to come to your house to confiscate your books or fine you for playing the game "wrong". So of course they have to argue against that, cuz this isn't about having a reasonable discussion, but about putting down the people who have the audacity to complain and dismissing them by making them look like morons. Since they can't do that by arguing against actual points they have to invent ridiculous straw points to attack them furiously instead.

Of the people in Wheelchairs who have played in my D&D or Traveller games, and there have been a few, absolutely none of them wanted to play a character in a Wheelchair. They opted of course to play Heroes, and Wizards, and Fighters and Rogues, without any disabilities, instead whenever possible, just like the rest of the player, they wanted to play healthy and strong larger than life heroes.


Also WOTC is not original in this. GURPS has had disadvantages since the 80's, and you could play a guy in a wheelchair, (Professor Charles Francis Xavier, for a guy in one of my X-Men games), which would give you more points for other skills or advantages.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1147085Of the people in Wheelchairs who have played in my D&D or Traveller games, and there have been a few, absolutely none of them wanted to play a character in a Wheelchair. They opted of course to play Heroes, and Wizards, and Fighters and Rogues, without any disabilities, instead whenever possible, just like the rest of the player, they wanted to play healthy and strong larger than life heroes.


Also WOTC is not original in this. GURPS has had disadvantages since the 80's, and you could play a guy in a wheelchair, (Professor Charles Francis Xavier, for a guy in one of my X-Men games), which would give you more points for other skills or advantages.

...and it -works- in GURPS and similar point-based games; in that you are agreeing to play a character weaker in some aspects, to be stronger in others, while the wheelchair as written is all advantage, no downside.  Even if you are ok with this in theory, it either becomes purely  cosmetic (crippled in name only) or an unfair advantage.

Here's a question, if my so stunning, so brave team member dies to dragon breath due to a tragic inability to quickly move to the sides, and the chair itself survives, can my slightly overweight mage retrieve the gems to make a flight belt?  I want to go full Harkkonen.

Quote from: Batman;1146996In the 22/23 pages of this thread, it's mostly people going back and forth complaining about how someone made a homebrewed thing that represents the possibility of having a wheelchair bound character and still, somehow, be applicable to dangerous life of adventuring. Not that the concept is bad -per se- but because the creator (who's name I forget) is bad because she's championing a cause she doesn't apparently belong to (I didn't bother to verify her actual disabilities - fictional or real and one wasn't provided here) and then she apparently called people bad for either not liking her idea or because it's some white-knighting or other some such dog-whistle word. This lends itself, to me in my uninformed opinion, that people are mad because they feel this is another SJW push at that terrible word representation! or *gasp* diversity and it's particularly damning since the greater disabled community of D&D players don't agree with the concept of Powered Wheelchairs (though, I'm guessing the poll is still out on that or have they surveyed all of them?).

Um... why are you putting my name on someone elses comments?

As for the wheelchair. The spark of all this was the illustration. Which in no way suggests the thing is magical in any way. It looks fairly mundane and a bit more modern than I remember some older wheelchairs looking. Presented as it was, it was pretty out of place and more than a little impractical for an adventurer. Which makes me wonder if this flying self righting can be quick-fixed wheelchair features was added in after the fact or not? I assume not and were features from the start? Is the conveyance described and the one in the illustration even the same?

The description sounds alot like what I described here and elsewhere for designing an artficer Steel Defender as a conveyance. Just with wheels instead of legs.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1147085Of the people in Wheelchairs who have played in my D&D or Traveller games, and there have been a few, absolutely none of them wanted to play a character in a Wheelchair. They opted of course to play Heroes, and Wizards, and Fighters and Rogues, without any disabilities, instead whenever possible, just like the rest of the player, they wanted to play healthy and strong larger than life heroes.


Also WOTC is not original in this. GURPS has had disadvantages since the 80's, and you could play a guy in a wheelchair, (Professor Charles Francis Xavier, for a guy in one of my X-Men games), which would give you more points for other skills or advantages.

I've had two trans players in my games. They both wanted to play, and played, born women. I've had several gay women and gay men in my campaign. One of the gay women occasionally liked to play a slutty straight woman "because I used to be one." The rest of the gay players varied their characters. The Black players in my campaigns never asked about race. The ethnic groups you could play did not equate to races. No one seemed to want "representation."

Quote from: GameDaddy;1147085Of the people in Wheelchairs who have played in my D&D or Traveller games, and there have been a few, absolutely none of them wanted to play a character in a Wheelchair. They opted of course to play Heroes, and Wizards, and Fighters and Rogues, without any disabilities, instead whenever possible, just like the rest of the player, they wanted to play healthy and strong larger than life heroes.

Also WOTC is not original in this. GURPS has had disadvantages since the 80's, and you could play a guy in a wheelchair, (Professor Charles Francis Xavier, for a guy in one of my X-Men games), which would give you more points for other skills or advantages.

1: I've worked with a broader spectrum then than you and seen all manner of approaches from playing normal person, to playing themselves pretty much. Everyone has their takes on approaching this. Saying no handicapped person would ever want to play a handicapped character is pretty off base from experience. And on top of that these rules arent there for only the handicapped to use. Its also for normal people to try playing with such disadvantages. Weve gone over reasons before.

2: We've also gone over that as well. This isnt new. That is not the issue at hand. Its the execution and reason behind it. Not the inclusion itself overall. Its akin to the gay gnome kings in Essentials. Just less meaningless. Maybe.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Gagarth;1147047Then why you spending so time on it and the fact that you are shows that you are lying and are just part of them problem.

So, does this mean we can't be Facebook friends?

Quote from: Omega;1147092Um... why are you putting my name on someone elses comments?

Apologies, I fixed that.

Quote from: Omega;1147092As for the wheelchair. The spark of all this was the illustration. Which in no way suggests the thing is magical in any way. It looks fairly mundane and a bit more modern than I remember some older wheelchairs looking. Presented as it was, it was pretty out of place and more than a little impractical for an adventurer. Which makes me wonder if this flying self righting can be quick-fixed wheelchair features was added in after the fact or not? I assume not and were features from the start? Is the conveyance described and the one in the illustration even the same?

The description sounds alot like what I described here and elsewhere for designing an artficer Steel Defender as a conveyance. Just with wheels instead of legs.

Initially I saw a miniature with a skeletal guy in a wheelchair, which made me curious as to what it was in the D&D context, and went down that rabbit hole. And yea, the illustration of what was presented definitely seemed out of place for something that could be geared for adventuring. Like you, I could easily see something like this for an Artificer, which I thought would've been pretty cool.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1147027Here's why people are upset.

WotC is the 500 lb gorilla of the RPG industry. As they "normalize" more and more of the left-progressive freakshow into the hobby, it becomes the de facto baseline of the hobby that other publishers will adhere to, and will shape the expectations of players.

This is already playing out on Boardgame Geek as has been pointed out repeatedly, as they are the 500 lb gorilla of the boardgame hobby. Game designers are AFRAID to upset the BGG mob in fear of losing their livelihood.

So isn't this where the beauty of Capitalism comes into play? That if there's a big enough market and like-minded consumers, it doesn't matter because in the end money will be the biggest deciding factor in what goes forward? IF the so-called "Left-Progressive Freakshow" is enjoying a lot of limelight and there's significant unrest/backlash towards these ideals, wouldn't it make sense to hit them in their wallet? Basically if there's a sizable market for content outside the mob mentality, they shouldn't be fearful because it'll be bought anyways.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;1147027WotC, like all coastal elites, believe SJWs are not just the way, truth and the light, but also make up the majority of the fanbase - especially because the WotC scum live on Twatter where the SJWs scream the loudest, thus make up the entirety of their world.

So essentially they have a bigger consumer base and their marketing team caters to them fairly well.  

Quote from: Spinachcat;1147027Leftists have openly preached "never let a crisis go to waste", and in 2020 we're seeing that played out across our lives on many battlefronts, and unfortunately, our hobby is one of those. So last month it was "Orcs are Blacks Peoples!" and this month is "Wheelchair Accessible Dungeons!", and of course, any dissent is met with the usual screeching on Twatter.

Thus, it's approaching the "one thin wafer" moment.  

And what, exactly, is going to explode? I think this whole thing equates to a small sub-set of people in an already small niche market being upset because the content created is moving far away from the ideals, values, and likes of said small sub-set of people. I say this is "small" because - from your description above - they don't have the marketable size to combat the business model that's currently going on. Both Paizo and WotC have done a LOT in the last decade to put in elements that would be deemed "left-leaning" like gay NPCs in their adventures (I think Paizo did this a few years ago) or trans characters in video games (Beemdog did this with their Baldur's Gate game), and of course WotC recent changes too.

If there's going to be an explosion from people who don't want this content, then it'd better be pretty damn big or otherwise, resign to fade away into obscurity.

Quote from: Omega;1147073Ive heard this argument before. And every time in the end, one way or another it has ended up affecting the games or entertainment of others. And in this iteration of this stupid its exponentially more likely to be parroted by other companies as apparently just about every fucking company is falling over themselves to get on the woke wagon and virtue signal big or small.

No woke gestapo is in our houses coming for our games... yet.

Better to realize the direction the game is heading in now and get out while you can, because I don't see their trends and left-progression changing in the slightest and - like you said - it pushes other companies to do like-minded things as well. I'd say the way to combat it is to come up with a similar platform, catering to the needs of those who are upset, and see where it gets you.

Quote from: Omega;1147073But we are all ready seeing them start to strongarm and "police" conventions. And that was going on as of the last few years also gradually increasingly. If it werent for the lockdowns and practically end of conventions for now, we'd likely had by now more threads here on cons that have been either infiltrated or completely co-opted.

I don't go to conventions, but what policing are you talking about? Like, people aren't allowed to go and promote games that don't fall under left-think ideology?

The thing that stands out to me about the discussion is differing reactions. Some posters are like "Disabled PCs work fine in other cases, but the combat wheelchair write-up is dumb" - while other posters like SHARK are like "Disabled PCs should *suffer* and suck". I think the split over this shows that there is an actual issue here about how people play games, not just political posturing.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1147085GURPS has had disadvantages since the 80's, and you could play a guy in a wheelchair, (Professor Charles Francis Xavier, for a guy in one of my X-Men games), which would give you more points for other skills or advantages.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1147086...and it -works- in GURPS and similar point-based games; in that you are agreeing to play a character weaker in some aspects, to be stronger in others, while the wheelchair as written is all advantage, no downside.  Even if you are ok with this in theory, it either becomes purely  cosmetic (crippled in name only) or an unfair advantage.

Yeah, a lot of posters have cited different disabled characters in their games - which worked fine in practice. Also, I don't see a problem with characters like Daredevil or M.A.N.T.I.S. who are only cosmetically disabled -- or Elric for an example from fantasy. I've had characters like that in HERO and GURPS, and I have had no problems. They typically don't take the full disadvantage value, or alternately, they spend on compensation equal to what they get.

To my mind, the dumb part that stands out to me about the combat wheelchair is how it can fly, but only over stairs. If I wanted to have a wheelchair, I'd probably have it as an animate object like a living statue or living armor -- a parallel for it would be the "Steel Defender" companion for the Artificer class. So it can flex and move to some degree on its own, which could allow dodging and limited climbing, and there is precedent for how it can heal.

Quote from: SHARK;1146936If any character in my campaign wants to begin the game being severely disabled, they are going to suffer. Even a somewhat lesser disability like missing one arm, one ear, or one eye is going to have significant penalties. No balancing, no special goodies provided to them to compensate--NO. They get to suffer.

Such characters get to suffer and endure, and learn of the glories of humility, and come face to face with just how limited they are.

How does balancing work in your games for cases *other* than disabled characters? If a player wanted a character from a disadvantaged background - like being an orphan or an escaped slave, would you give them a bunch of penalties and make them suffer to represent the reality of how life is difficult?