Quote from: jhkim;1145939I agree that there is no true neutral -- but there are more than two positions that can both be wrong.

SHARK has taken an extremely broad position not just against this specific combat wheelchair option, but against disabled PCs in general. I fundamentally disagree with SHARK's premise that having disabled PCs is adding shit to play. I've had a bunch of disabled PCs in play, and they have been a lot of fun.

Agreed. My favorite Jojo is the crippled one. During a time period without wheelchairs who has to master a horse instead. The more disadvantaged the protagonist the more satisfying the wins.

But its about execution. That Jojo didn't get a friggin wheelchair stand and zoomed around in the desert.

Quote from: Mistwell;1145950My saying I like a houserule you do not like is not an invitation for you to make up shit about my hidden motives and then bash me for that made up shit.

But me saying there are house rules I dislike is to makeup fascistic motives about me? You wanna throw shit, but you puss at receiving it.

Earth To mistwell: Disliking something, even a pattern of thought =/= Totalitarian thought control no more then you throwing a fit is an act of aggression towards me.

I was surprised when i read that part that he took so long to get use if his legs back since it was teased so early on.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1145877No, it really isn't. I mean, the wheelchair is silly, sure. But try to name all the things in the Forgotten Realm that are silly...

Killer pillows.

Or more aptly. Things that seem silly. Till they eat you alive.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1145883Like I have said before, for this to work you need to change the world, and that's their goal, to control how you play. If you don't accommodate them you're an Istophobe of course.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4780[/ATTACH]

And this is what vexes the absolute hell out of us handicapped people. Stuff like this, statements like these make us look like unreasonable nutcases because to an outsider it look like one of us, and sometimes IS one of us that has been brainwashed. As said, a few years back I met a hearing impaired gal who was on a crusade to stop people calling us deaf because "that is a slur". And had to sit her down and explain why it isnt. And even if it were, why trying to remove the word would not change anything at all and just make matters worse.

My issue isn't with PCs who can't use their legs, it's that a wheelchair would be a fucking stupid way to try to deal with it for people needing high mobility in bad terrain in a fantasy world.  A PC with mobility issues is an invitation to come up with actually creative ways to deal with that, and anyone whose go-to is, "Hurr, magic wheelchair," is a cretin.  Show me someone riding trained dire monkeys.  Show me a golem that's a chair with a bunch of legs on it.  Show me a gondola held aloft by a bunch of mini-beholders.  Show me anything that's halfway cool and creative and you have my full support.

Just as an old example, I had a halfling psion forever ago.  He had no particular disability other than being a halfling, but being small made him naturally slower than the rest of the party.  He was, however, an eeeeevil halfling psion, so he had a solution to this: a steady stream of mind-wiped humanoids who'd carry him around in a backpack, all of whom he referred to only as "Mule", and who would randomly be a different person now and then, with no mention of what had happened to the last one.

I'm going to zig where people are zagging a bit on this one.

And I get why people are zagging.  In skimming the thread I don't disagree with the reasons people give for opposing it, that have little to do with wheelchairs per se.

But if talking about this in terms of a culture war struggle, if I'm on the other side and I know that I've aroused a dedicated opposition that will react fervently against whatever I do; that are primed to see beyond the face value of whatever odd demand I make next

Then I will entice them to take the rhetorical field in the most unsympathetic stance I can imagine.  If two sides are battling for the middle - a middle so saturated on macro-news that we know most never go beyond the headline - then I want the middle to see a headline like "alt-right gamers pitch fit over poor girl who wanted a cool D&D wheelchair in their game."

Unlike other fields of rhetorical combat, this is an impotent field.  The odds of combat wheelchairs being adopted in games approaches absolute zero.  The number of gamers in that middle 30% who desire to escape to a combat wheelchair fantasy are nil.  This is not like other issues.  

But even if it has no chance of impacting the hobby long-term, the image of scathing denunciations for those discussing combat wheelchairs is a rhetorical win.  Not for you.  

This is one that should be allowed to fade out to yawning silence.  The two-week rule would have nuked this into a memory hole it would never escape from.  Never choosing your battles eventually means certainly joining a fight where a victory gains the privilege of winning horrible optics.

Quote from: Omega;1145960And this is what vexes the absolute hell out of us handicapped people. Stuff like this, statements like these make us look like unreasonable nutcases because to an outsider it look like one of us, and sometimes IS one of us that has been brainwashed. As said, a few years back I met a hearing impaired gal who was on a crusade to stop people calling us deaf because "that is a slur". And had to sit her down and explain why it isnt. And even if it were, why trying to remove the word would not change anything at all and just make matters worse.

Carlin had a routine about changing the language, what do they accomplish? What REAL effort do they do? (Speaking of the activists) Nothing and none. Ah, but in exchange they get to scream "Look, look how virtuous I am!".

They have a while working on all the "communitehs" based on disabilities. So now self diagnosed Autists speak for us people in the spectrum, and so on ad nauseum.

Quote from: EOTB;1145972then I want the middle to see a headline like "alt-right gamers pitch fit over poor girl who wanted a cool D&D wheelchair in their game."

Any reaction other than clapping for their idiocy incites headlines like that.

I've got zero interest in what the mushy middle thinks anymore. If they haven't figured out that "alt-right" means "anyone who doesn't bow to this week's nutcase propaganda", then they're already a lost cause.

Quote from: EOTB;1145972This is one that should be allowed to fade out to yawning silence.  The two-week rule would have nuked this into a memory hole it would never escape from.  Never choosing your battles eventually means certainly joining a fight where a victory gains the privilege of winning horrible optics.

"Horrible optics" have the advantage of furthering the divide in the hobby.

There is no kumbaya reconciliation in the future. The culture war results in submission or division.

Quote from: Mistwell;1145535Like most things, it's what you make with it rather than the motives of other people for being interested in the topic to begin with.

To me, wheelchairs in D&D is just an opportunity to get creative with a new concept.

It am thinking up spells that spellcasters would research to help a wheelchair get over difficult terrain, or lower it's weight so it can be more easily hoisted up a rope. I am imagining things a combat wheelchair with magic and machinery added to it might be able to do. I am imagining other magical and mundane modifications which could happen for other physical disabilities, like blindness or a missing limb. I am thinking if this kind of stuff can better allow for long-term injury to PCs due to incurable magical damage. I am imagining what kind of magical damage would be incurable such as curses, partial disintegration, disease, anti-magic attacks, etc.. I am considering if birth defects would "heal" only back to what they were originally, making healing spells ineffective for that kind of disability. I am going down all sorts of avenues of creation for this concept which I hadn't before.

You can dwell on the negative, you can fret over the motivations of other people who you will never know and never encounter at a game table. Or, you can focus on the cool stuff you can make with it. I'd rather do the later.

Quote from: Mistwell;1145895How is it you don't see it's you that's trying to control my game?

I never said or implied or hinted you need to adopt this house rule.

You, and several others here, went full-on Twitter mob on me for a while there because I dared to say I liked it.

How do you not look at yourself in the mirror and see the devil you're condemning. You're that dude. You're the one who attempted to control my game. You're the one who called names and demeaned and exaggerated and went hysterical about futurecrimes of WOTC because someone said the liked a fucking houserule you don't, and how it couldn't possibly just be a houserule you don't like it had to be so much more because you disliked it so much and the motives of some people who liked it.  Wake the fuck up dude, YOU'RE THE BADDIES IN THIS SCENARIO.

LOL!

I admire your technique Sir.

I salute you!

Taking a wheelchair into a dungeon, makes about as much sense as taking an elephant into one. Just asking for something to go wrong.

Even before getting to the dungeon theres that not so little problem of wilderness travel.

The game simply isn't designed to accommodate characters with disabilities. That's unfortunate, but it cannot be changed without rewriting it into a new game.

Somebody should make a "Dungeons & Disabilities" game where all PCs are disabled and this is accounted for in the rules.

I've said similar in another thread, but since it is split, I'm addressing SHARK's specific issues here.

Quote from: jhkimSHARK has taken an extremely broad position not just against this specific combat wheelchair option, but against disabled PCs in general. I fundamentally disagree with SHARK's premise that having disabled PCs is adding shit to play. I've had a bunch of disabled PCs in play, and they have been a lot of fun.

Quote from: SHARK;1145944Handicapped *people* can certainly find ways to survive within a society, and contribute in meaningful ways to their family and community around them. Handicapped characters are however, generally entirely unsuitable for operating with an adventuring group. An Adventuring Team is much like a squad of Marine Infantry or Navy Seals. Just like in the real world, no one in their right minds would *expect* a squad of Marines or Navy Seals to take handicapped person along with them into the field. No one would even suggest it. In a similar fashion, in a harsh, brutal, unforgiving ancient world, no one would embrace the idea of bringing handicapped characters along with an Adventurer team going out into the savage wilderness, either.

In the real world, no one would *expect* a squad of Marines or Navy Seals to take along a 98-pound weakling and bookworm. They would be a liability to the rest of the team, especially if they also didn't have particularly good fighting skills. But in D&D, adventuring parties regularly take along such a character. The reason why is that a wizard has magical power that compensates for their lack of physical skill and ability.

The same can easily be true of a character with a disability. When I include a disabled character in a campaign, I make sure that the PC is an equal contributor to the others - not a liability, but also not overpowered. This is straightforward given magic and game mechanics. I just adjust the level of their other abilities until they're roughly an equal contributor. RoliingBones gave a bunch of examples in his post:

Quote from: RollingBones;1145948Just off the top of my head, some fun characters that could be considered disabled, that don't require the introduction of incongruous and complex artefacts. Because even without Combat Wheelchairs, D&D does not discriminate:

- Aforementioned half legged mastiff riding Gnome wizard.

- Blind Monk or Fighter class (Daredevil or Zaitoichi) Just give them Blindsight 20ft, & advantage on perception (hearing) checks.

- Paraplegic Ranger, modelled after Clytemnestra (Horsewoman) from DC comics. A modified Animal Companion could be played in dungeons while she keeps watch outside, or goes on to the dungeon exit.

- One armed finesse weapon dex fighter/rogue (disadvantage climbing, and no two handed weapons, but that's about it for penalties. Throw in a feat and call it even. I can already imagine them as a discharged musketeer.)

- Wildshape druid, who spends as much time as possible wildshaped for ease of locomotion. Maybe just allow permanent Wildshape, it rarely runs out in practice anyway.

- Muscle-wasted Wizard (Raistlin comes to mind, but basically every low str & con wizard ever made)

- Paladin who's quadriplegia is nullified by her blessed plate armour (think Batman's exosuit immediately post Bane)

- Asperger's Bard who can't understand that this is not the time and place for one of his songs!

- Burn-victim low dex barbarian, who wears her dragon scorched skin with pride.

- EVERY SINGLE LOW INT FIGHTER CLASS CHARACTER

It's almost endless.

Hate to say it... But I'm quite happy to avoid 'very' disabled characters in game. I just don't want the hassles of lugging someone around, or something that breaks my immersion or even fun for my players. Bear in mind however, that I'd never play a high fantasy setting, so a magical artifact wheelchair is a ridiculous concept. Sure, do it for a wacky setting like in D&D that's fair enough.

For low level stuff... I'm fine with a character who loses an eye, hand or even has to use a peg leg. But there will be consequences. Of course we've been doing this as I said before with WFRP for years.

Dare Devil and shit won't fly in my games either as that's a bit too 'superhuman'.

On the other hand I'm very happy to accommodate a disabled player, but I may not allow them play a paraplegic or something that could disrupt the gaming experience for the group.

I've seen a lot of SJW's say stuff like.... 'But this adds rich character detail to your characters and games'. That and their 'really interesting' morally ambiguous Orcs. EEEEvil Orcs are boring apparently. SJWs can go play with quadriplegic unicorns and best of luck to them!

Sorry, but I'm quite happy having boring games, in that case. Go me!

Greetings!

Well, I typically run harsh, brutal worlds where handicapped people in an adventuring team simply are not going to fit in well, generally speaking. As far as that goes, 98-lb weaklings aren't likely to make it, either. Everyone on a team is assumed to be mobile, independent, and functional, capable of dealing reasonably well with most physical obstacles and environments. A Wizard that can't swim or climb a rope is likely to be sent back and searches done until the party finds a Wizard that can swim and climb a rope. No one gets carried anywhere.

Most people don't have access to special labs and uber magic super hero gear, doodads, and technology.

Severely handicapped characters don't fit well into the games I run. They likely get retired to a town somewhere, and a new character is rolled up. That's the breaks.

Absent a whole super-industry of magic and technology to *make* such handicapped characters otherwise functional and allegedly not a liability--it re-orientates the team's focus on how to constantly accommodate and deal with the handicapped character's problems and limitations--instead of getting on with the mission, and jumping crazily into adventure. I don't see that as a positive dynamic, and I don't think most players at the table would be overjoyed about it either. A character having a weird, glass eye, or a metal claw hand, is one thing. More severe handicaps become more problematic, and are generally dealt with as I mentioned.

If you like superhero blind characters, or characters confined to a wheelchair, or quadriplegics, great. In my world if they weren't safely locked away in a town somewhere, they would be eaten, or otherwise swiftly killed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK