Quote from: MeganovaStella on March 26, 2024, 06:18:02 PMOne idea I have for a character (NPC or PC) is a man so strong he crippled himself to actually have a fair fight.

Man, the Mohammad Ali lore is wild.

Quote from: Grognard GM on March 26, 2024, 06:01:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 03:57:37 PM
If a character has enough compensating power and skills, then they are still an asset to the group and will be taken along even if they sometimes need help.

'Sometimes need help' is a woman or child getting tired and needing a hand over a wall. Trying to cross a rubble-strewn hellscape crawling with killer robots, with wheelchair gal, is stupid to the point of destroying verisimilitude.

Watch the T1 flashback, where able bodied people are killed after being visible for a second.

The whole point of the Terminator movies was having unlikely heroes rather than the standard action heroes. T1 had a seasoned commando as a plot device, but the real protagonist was an unassuming waitress who is the one that wins in the end. T2 the protagonist was a ten-year-old kid. A wheelchair-using character is spot-on with the theme.

If, say, the wheelchair-using character were the only one with the skill to reprogram terminator robots, then I'm pretty sure the others would go through fire to make sure to get them into the right place to do it.

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 07:39:14 PM

The whole point of the Terminator movies was having unlikely heroes rather than the standard action heroes. T1 had a seasoned commando as a plot device, but the real protagonist was an unassuming waitress who is the one that wins in the end. T2 the protagonist was a ten-year-old kid. A wheelchair-using character is spot-on with the theme.

If, say, the wheelchair-using character were the only one with the skill to reprogram terminator robots, then I'm pretty sure the others would go through fire to make sure to get them into the right place to do it.

What the literal fuck is this take...holy shit

i'd be happier if they just give him terminator legs from the waist or knee down instead.

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 03:57:37 PM
If a character has enough compensating power and skills, then they are still an asset to the group and will be taken along even if they sometimes need help. David Johansen gave an example of the GURPS mage who was towed on a string. I've seen many weakling PCs, who would be a liability were it not for their magic. But if their magic (or other talents) are important enough, then the rest of the party will want them along - even if they have to be carried or minded. In real-world history, military teams would carry along a 300-pound cannon with them through very difficult terrain because of the importance of it.

Every occupation has a certain basic requirements where if you don't fill them, then no matter what your other merits are, you can't do that job. A fantasy adventurer needs to be able to run, climb, swim, sneak, fight and probably ride a horse. They don't need to be the best at any of those things, but if they can't do them at all, they're not qualified to be an adventurer. If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically.

You might say "Wait a minute! Lots of D&D characters can't do all those things". Yeah, I think it stretches plausibility that anyone would take a 1st level wizard with 6 strength, 3 HP, no armor and one spell per day with them into a dungeon. The chances are just too high of him either forcing the expedition to stall because he can't traverse the dungeon, or getting his companions killed trying to defend him. The only reason that happens is game convention.

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 07:39:14 PM
The whole point of the Terminator movies was having unlikely heroes rather than the standard action heroes. T1 had a seasoned commando as a plot device, but the real protagonist was an unassuming waitress who is the one that wins in the end. T2 the protagonist was a ten-year-old kid. A wheelchair-using character is spot-on with the theme.

If, say, the wheelchair-using character were the only one with the skill to reprogram terminator robots, then I'm pretty sure the others would go through fire to make sure to get them into the right place to do it.

I would agree with you that that is one of the themes of Terminator, but I don't think they would take the wheelchair-bound person to raid the machine base. That's too likely to cause the mission to fail. They'd either aim to clear out the base and then bring the wheelchair user in, or capture the terminator and bring it back to the person that could hack it. Arguably, if you only had one person who could reprogram the terminator, you wouldn't bring them on the assault no matter what their condition is. They're too important to risk.

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 07:39:14 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on March 26, 2024, 06:01:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 03:57:37 PM
If a character has enough compensating power and skills, then they are still an asset to the group and will be taken along even if they sometimes need help.

'Sometimes need help' is a woman or child getting tired and needing a hand over a wall. Trying to cross a rubble-strewn hellscape crawling with killer robots, with wheelchair gal, is stupid to the point of destroying verisimilitude.

Watch the T1 flashback, where able bodied people are killed after being visible for a second.

The whole point of the Terminator movies was having unlikely heroes rather than the standard action heroes. T1 had a seasoned commando as a plot device, but the real protagonist was an unassuming waitress who is the one that wins in the end. T2 the protagonist was a ten-year-old kid. A wheelchair-using character is spot-on with the theme.

If, say, the wheelchair-using character were the only one with the skill to reprogram terminator robots, then I'm pretty sure the others would go through fire to make sure to get them into the right place to do it.

You're a shining example of someone being highly intelligent, and extremely educated, then letting ideology turn your brain to shit.

The absolute nonsensical BS you'll twist your mind into knots excusing is truly a sight to behold.

This is the only Fantasy Wheelchair I want to see in a game I run.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 26, 2024, 08:18:47 PMI would agree with you that that is one of the themes of Terminator, but I don't think they would take the wheelchair-bound person to raid the machine base. That's too likely to cause the mission to fail. They'd either aim to clear out the base and then bring the wheelchair user in, or capture the terminator and bring it back to the person that could hack it. Arguably, if you only had one person who could reprogram the terminator, you wouldn't bring them on the assault no matter what their condition is. They're too important to risk.

They could have had her strapped to the back of that reprogrammed T-800. It's strong enough to easily carry her and still keep up with the team, but that would treat her being crippled as, well, some kind of disability! Also there's a fetish for wheelchairs doing the rounds of prog game designers.

Quote from: Grognard GM on March 26, 2024, 09:36:31 PMYou're a shining example of someone being highly intelligent, and extremely educated, then letting ideology turn your brain to shit.

The absolute nonsensical BS you'll twist your mind into knots excusing is truly a sight to behold.

We really do need a Like button....

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 26, 2024, 08:18:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 03:57:37 PM
If a character has enough compensating power and skills, then they are still an asset to the group and will be taken along even if they sometimes need help. David Johansen gave an example of the GURPS mage who was towed on a string. I've seen many weakling PCs, who would be a liability were it not for their magic. But if their magic (or other talents) are important enough, then the rest of the party will want them along - even if they have to be carried or minded. In real-world history, military teams would carry along a 300-pound cannon with them through very difficult terrain because of the importance of it.

Every occupation has a certain basic requirements where if you don't fill them, then no matter what your other merits are, you can't do that job. A fantasy adventurer needs to be able to run, climb, swim, sneak, fight and probably ride a horse. They don't need to be the best at any of those things, but if they can't do them at all, they're not qualified to be an adventurer. If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically.

You might say "Wait a minute! Lots of D&D characters can't do all those things". Yeah, I think it stretches plausibility that anyone would take a 1st level wizard with 6 strength, 3 HP, no armor and one spell per day with them into a dungeon. The chances are just too high of him either forcing the expedition to stall because he can't traverse the dungeon, or getting his companions killed trying to defend him. The only reason that happens is game convention.

Even if you think that a 1st level wizard is too unplausibly weak for other 1st level characters, and thus AD&D as written doesn't work -- that's a matter of game balance. There is a level of magical power at which you'd think it *is* plausible that the party would take them. If, say, they had 5th level wizard casting then would that balance their weakness? I would think that to be overpowered, if anything.

I don't put much stock in game balance - at best, it's an art rather than a science. But in general, weaknesses are compensated for by strengths. In 3rd edition, they balanced races with "effective character level" (ECL). For example, if a starting 1st level party had the option to bring along a 12th level wizard who used a wheelchair, then the wheelchair-using character would overshadow everyone else. Even though they can't walk, they can summon monsters to carry them or similar. Regardless of how one assesses the wheelchair, that degree of magical power more than compensates.

---

It's the same game balance logic as when I had a wheelchair-using character in my superpowers game. The superpowered PCs still had to do things like move, sneak, and so forth -- but they could and did use their abilities to compensate.

Saying "all adventurers must be able to do XYZ" sounds like 4E D&D style balance - where all characters do the same things, just by different methods. And if one likes 4E, then that's fine. But it is also possible and playable to have characters that are more differentiated.

Like, your comment about riding reminded me of an old 1E Rolemaster character who was too big to ride a horse. He also was an avowed pacifist, masochistic, and simple-minded. So he was quite limited. But he was also insanely tough and was a powerful sympathetic healer who could take on the wounds of others, and was if anything a dominant character for the group.

Quote from: Grognard GM on March 26, 2024, 09:36:31 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 07:39:14 PM

Quote from: Grognard GM on March 26, 2024, 06:01:29 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2024, 03:57:37 PM
If a character has enough compensating power and skills, then they are still an asset to the group and will be taken along even if they sometimes need help.

'Sometimes need help' is a woman or child getting tired and needing a hand over a wall. Trying to cross a rubble-strewn hellscape crawling with killer robots, with wheelchair gal, is stupid to the point of destroying verisimilitude.

Watch the T1 flashback, where able bodied people are killed after being visible for a second.

The whole point of the Terminator movies was having unlikely heroes rather than the standard action heroes. T1 had a seasoned commando as a plot device, but the real protagonist was an unassuming waitress who is the one that wins in the end. T2 the protagonist was a ten-year-old kid. A wheelchair-using character is spot-on with the theme.

If, say, the wheelchair-using character were the only one with the skill to reprogram terminator robots, then I'm pretty sure the others would go through fire to make sure to get them into the right place to do it.

You're a shining example of someone being highly intelligent, and extremely educated, then letting ideology turn your brain to shit.

The absolute nonsensical BS you'll twist your mind into knots excusing is truly a sight to behold.

Since we don't have an upvote button...

To simplify the game balance point:

• If a wheelchair-bound character is created the same way as any other, and then apply realistic effects of being paraplegic - then yeah, that character will be a liability compared to the others.
• If being wheelchair-bound is balanced by other advantages (as is normal in game balance), then whether the character is a liability, balanced, or overpowered depends on what the compensating advantages given are.

It's the same principle as any other weakness in a game.

Just watched Dune Part 2 yesterday and I kept thinking about this topic when watching the Baron floating around with his assistive devices.  Now THAT is a type of disabled future-wheelchair character that I'd be fine with playing!   And, of course, we get to see what his life is like without it at one point.

Quote from: jhkim on March 27, 2024, 01:09:31 PM
It's the same game balance logic as when I had a wheelchair-using character in my superpowers game. The superpowered PCs still had to do things like move, sneak, and so forth -- but they could and did use their abilities to compensate.

That's exactly what I meant when I said  "If they can't do those things physically, they need to be able to reliably produce an equivalent result magically." It's not about an abstracted power level, it's about whether or not you can deal with situations which will reliably turn up in the adventure. How big of a fireball you can shoot doesn't really matter if you can't get down the stairs into the dungeon, or run away from the inevitable monster which is too powerful, or survive a goblin throwing a rock at you.

Quote from: jhkim on March 27, 2024, 01:09:31 PM
Saying "all adventurers must be able to do XYZ" sounds like 4E D&D style balance - where all characters do the same things, just by different methods. And if one likes 4E, then that's fine. But it is also possible and playable to have characters that are more differentiated.

I don't put much stock in game balance - at best, it's an art rather than a science. But in general, weaknesses are compensated for by strengths. In 3rd edition, they balanced races with "effective character level" (ECL). For example, if a starting 1st level party had the option to bring along a 12th level wizard who used a wheelchair, then the wheelchair-using character would overshadow everyone else. Even though they can't walk, they can summon monsters to carry them or similar. Regardless of how one assesses the wheelchair, that degree of magical power more than compensates.

I understand why someone would read things that way, but it's genuinely not about balance to me. It's about verisimilitude. I'm apparently alone in this, but I don't buy that a person who can't withstand physical hardship or defend themselves would succeed long-term as a career adventurer. It's not often an issue in D&D because of a bunch of meta reasons which are external to the fictional world of the game: everything from the way turn-based combat works, to dungeon design, the experience system and which factors are and are not simulated in the rules. That's what I mean by "game convention". Mostly I can let willing suspension of disbelief fill in the gaps, but it does bother me a bit that most fantasy RPGs reward specialization over generalism, just because I personally find playing generalists more fun.

"Game balance" is a bit of an old-school gaming bogeyman. Every edition of D&D since at least AD&D1e has had substantial thought put into game balance, and frankly so has every RPG I've ever read. Success rates vary, but the effort is obvious in the text. People complain about newer editions of D&D focusing on class roles, but that's how the game has always been. Fighters excel in combat, Thieves excel at dungeon exploration. Wizards get utility abilities and act as artillery. Etc. Etc. All that changed is that the roles went from macro to micro. Instead of some classes having "be good at fighting" as their role, they moved towards every class having a designated combat role. That attitude has never been as well realized in other aspects of the game, such as exploration and socializing, but they've clearly tried. That isn't at all what I was arguing for (though again I see why it might read that way), but it's not the worst idea. I just think "every character is good at some things and bad at others" vs. "every character can do everything equally well" is a false dichotomy. I'd prefer a game where every character has a base competence in the mandatory major activities of the game (unless they choose to handicap themselves at character creation), but has one or two things they excel at.

Quote from: jhkim on March 27, 2024, 01:43:45 PM
To simplify the game balance point:

• If a wheelchair-bound character is created the same way as any other, and then apply realistic effects of being paraplegic - then yeah, that character will be a liability compared to the others.
• If being wheelchair-bound is balanced by other advantages (as is normal in game balance), then whether the character is a liability, balanced, or overpowered depends on what the compensating advantages given are.

It's the same principle as any other weakness in a game.

GM: "So in this campaign you will all be playing Mer-People, fighting the cruel ruler of Atlantis to free your people."

jhkim: "I'm taking air-breather as a disadvantage."

GM: "It's...set under the ocean."

jhkim: "It's a disadvantage from the rulebook. All things work in all situations, as long as the points balance out. I may breathe air, but I have some very nice skills to help the party."

GM: "OK, so the adventure starts, jkhim's character instantly drowns. Do you give it a decent burial, or use it to distract the King's guardian sharks?"

jhkim: "AHA! Told you I was useful to bring along" (Smug grin of victory)