Fair enough. I mean, I disagree, but I see your point, and we'd just be arguing semantics.

It doesn't change that nothing was ever stopping any player from creating a character that they think represents them. No rule said "no wheelchairs." The rules did say (and I paraphrase)... and whatever else you can come up with.

Instead, now there are people on her twitter asking if it's OK if they, as non-disabled players, dare play a disabled character and use her wheelchair. I mean seriously, they need some random activist's permission before playing a character amongst their own friends?

I maintain the whole thing was a red herring. By making a scene about how bad the lack of wheelchairs is, then marketing her solution, she's raised her profile, and doubtless raised some nice cash from her Kofi and Patreon.

I understand that definition, I just reject it.

And I'm completely unaware of any Twitter discussion. I'm just responding to a post on a message board that has a problem with pork derivatives.

Quote from: Pat;1145842I understand that definition, I just reject it.

And I'm completely unaware of any Twitter discussion. I'm just responding to a post on a message board that has a problem with pork derivatives.

I was unaware of the twitter discussion too, until I had to go look up what all the fuss was about. Which meant, in the name of due diligence, I had to read her posts, then read the actual documents she's spruiking. Honestly, I wish I hadn't. It's time I'll never get back.

Quote from: RollingBones;1145846I was unaware of the twitter discussion too, until I had to go look up what all the fuss was about. Which meant, in the name of due diligence, I had to read her posts, then read the actual documents she's spruiking. Honestly, I wish I hadn't. It's time I'll never get back.

I still have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that OP's post was inspired by Twitter somehow?

Quote from: PatI just provided one explanation that fits the "representative of said disability" angle you were discussing. I speak for no one else in the thread, and my personal preferences would fall more along the lines "is it fun?".

Quote from: RollingBones100% agree, it all just comes down to "is it fun".

What I was trying to say about being "representative of disability", is that if the wheelchair totally negates the disability, it isn't, by its very definition, representative or inclusive of disability.

If the disabled character isn't disabled, then where's the representation?

Quote from: Pat;1145833I look at it from the standpoint of the individual. If the player thinks the character represents them, whether it's wish-fullfillment, a desire to explore something different from themselves, or just comedy, that's real representation. "Disability" isn't a person, so whether or not they're "represented" doesn't matter.

When I mentioned the topic to my son, he said he'd already heard about it through his mother, who uses a wheelchair. She apparently said she was totally buying the combat wheelchair miniatures, for what it's worth. As I see it, there are people who identify as "I'm someone who use a wheelchair" rather than "I'm a victim who's lesser than other people", and for them, it's not important that wheelchair users be less capable.

As you say, the point is whether some people have fun with it. It seems like some people enjoy the concept - so they're welcome to use it, and others are welcome to not use it.

Like 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]4781[/ATTACH]

The underlying issue isn't individual games house-ruling a wheelchair. It's not even, 'how would wheel chairs in D&D work'.

This is going to sound obtusely academic, but I'm being trying to be specific with my words: The underlying issue is the assumption that TTRPGs are inherently ableist and discriminatory if they do not explicitly include solutions for cosmetic replication of real world paraphernalia inherent to the self perception of marginalised persons.

My interpretation has been formed by reading the work of the designer who has spearheaded the Combat Wheelchair, and going over the rules and descriptions she has produced. The designer's output, as far as I can tell, is largely from her twitter feed, and that is certainly how it has circulated social media. So yes, almost all discussion of the Combat Wheelchair in particular can be traced back to this designer's twitter posts.

It's clearly wrong to say 'no game anywhere can or should have wheelchairs', that'd be oppressive, stupid, and objectively incorrect. Any game can have wheelchairs, and that's kind of the point. They always could. Wheelchairs were never explicitly excluded. I strongly disagree with the accusations underlying the Combat Wheelchair's development.

I can say objectively that replicating real world wheelchairs for adventurers is incongruous, and that in the fantasy world in question, many other creative solutions are already afforded by the existing rules. I can also objectively say that creating a complicated solution to introduce something that looks like a wheelchair and simultaneously negates every non-cosmetic implication of a wheelchair is inelegant in the least.

In game, the Combat Wheelchair as written is an outrageously roundabout and complex solution to what is really a rather simple problem.

But it's not an 'in game' problem that it's seeking to solve. It is seeking to solve a manufactured problem. It appears to me that the designer's purpose in publishing the Combat Wheelchair is concretisation of the accusation that TTRPGs are discriminatory. Further to that, the implication that someone must fight this discrimination. The person making this fight for justice on the behalf of marginalised disabled persons is the game designer, and [sarcasm] won't you please donate to her patreon [/sarcasm].

I do like the minis, I think they're kind of badarsed. There's definitely appeal there, but the minis don't come with a side order of false accusation and misrepresentation for the purposes of virtue signalling and profit. Which the "Combat Wheelchair" does.

We all agree that the purpose of roleplaying is to have fun. TTRPGS are all about shenanigans.

We disagree whether the Combat Wheelchair has been introduced in the interests of fun, or for politically derived profit.

Quote from: RollingBones;1145826100% agree, it all just comes down to "is it fun".

What I was trying to say about being "representative of disability", is that if the wheelchair totally negates the disability, it isn't, by its very definition, representative or inclusive of disability.

If the disabled character isn't disabled, then where's the representation?

Um... are you really that dense... or are you just trolling? Both?

Quote from: Omega;1145962Um... are you really that dense... or are you just trolling? Both?

I guess I must just be that dense.

I see a distinct difference between "representing disability", with it's associated complications, and what is effectively a cosmetic option for a wheelchair.

In my personal opinion (which isn't worth a damn in anyone else's world, and I'm providing just to clarify my position), one celebrates triumph over adversity, the other trivialises it.

I get that saying, "hey, that hero looks like me," can be empowering. But I don't think (personally again) introducing a cosmetic artefact which disregards the complications of disability is what I'd describe as "representative" in any nuanced sense of the word. YMMV. Which is why I didn't think it was worth arguing semantics.

By way of contrast, if a character took the 'blinded' condition whenever not wearing *Combat Goggles*, but they never removed those goggles, I wouldn't say that character was "representative" of blind people in the real world. Yet if a character's vision were limited to Blindsight 20ft, I'd say they go at least some way toward being representative. Probably as far as is practical for most TTRPG tables.

Of course we could all have this arse about. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the original purpose wasn't about character portrayal at all. Maybe it was just about wish fulfilment for a magical better wheelchair than we can make in the real world. That would actually make a lot more sense, reading the way it's been specced. That'd be a whole different kettle of fish, and if it's true it's a shame the ableism and representation issues got attached to it.

In short I see three broad stands on this here, and we're going in circles:

• People that are ok with disabled players, and possibly characters, that recognize the wheelchair is the worst solution in D&D.
• People that are ok with disabled players, but think disabled characters are a non-starter.
• People that would freely allow disabled characters, but then remove the disability for game purposes making it just cosmetic.

I'm pretty sure we're all with just running slightly nuanced versions of one of those arguments, with some are being misrepresented as

- Hating disabled players.
or
- Forcing me to have this crap in my game.

Best summary I can come up with.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1145984In short I see three broad stands on this here, and we're going in circles:

• People that are ok with disabled players, and possibly characters, that recognize the wheelchair is the worst solution in D&D.
• People that are ok with disabled players, but think disabled characters are a non-starter.
• People that would freely allow disabled characters, but then remove the disability for game purposes making it just cosmetic.

I'm pretty sure we're all with just running slightly nuanced versions of one of those arguments, with some are being misrepresented as

- Hating disabled players.
or
- Forcing me to have this crap in my game.

Best summary I can come up with.

You're forgetting:
Whatever. Hasn't come up in my gaming, and I don't anticipate that it will. If it does, I'll base my decision on the specifics and people involved without giving two shits about some greater meaning behind it all.

I always kind of assumed that a disabled player would prefer to not play a disabled character. What with gaming being an escapist fantasy, and all that.

Regardless, I don't see a band of adventurers being okay with bringing a wheelchair-bound individual with them. That seems like just too much of a liability, in my mind, to the adventuring life. People in wheelchairs in reality have to be accommodated for in rather extreme ways, and I don't see how a naturally-formed cave system would be accessible to them in any meaningful sense.

IMC, this is moot because the tech level is a lot higher than in a typical setting. The dude with a sword may very well have a cybernetic hand, and if we're at that point, I think the typical answer to paraplegia would be some kind of cybernetics to fix that. Or stick 'em in a suit of power armor.

Or, y'know, some kind of magic to heal it.

It's fantasy. Part of that is that there can exist fantastical solutions to some of the real world's shittier problems. I don't know of anyone who is physically disabled in some fashion who wouldn't work towards a magical resolution to their problem if such a thing actually existed.

Quote from: LiferGamer;1145984I'm pretty sure we're all with just running slightly nuanced versions of one of those arguments, with some are being misrepresented as

- Hating disabled players.
or
- Forcing me to have this crap in my game.

I'd toss in one minor distinguo that for me it's less about being "forced" to have it in a game and more about the moral browbeating on how it should be included if at all, including the implicit assumption that the players who want to play it should be deferred to as the highest priority, even at the expense of the game. (Making sure everyone is happy is a priority, but it isn't the highest priority if the alternative is ruining the game.)

Quote from: LiferGamer;1145984In short I see three broad stands on this here, and we're going in circles:

• People that are ok with disabled players, and possibly characters, that recognize the wheelchair is the worst solution in D&D.
• People that are ok with disabled players, but think disabled characters are a non-starter.
• People that would freely allow disabled characters, but then remove the disability for game purposes making it just cosmetic.

I'm pretty sure we're all with just running slightly nuanced versions of one of those arguments, with some are being misrepresented as

- Hating disabled players.
or
- Forcing me to have this crap in my game.

Best summary I can come up with.

I'm pretty much at 1 with the added caveat that I would even allow said "solution" but will not change the world to accommodate for it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1145994I always kind of assumed that a disabled player would prefer to not play a disabled character. What with gaming being an escapist fantasy, and all that.

From experience. It varies a fair bit.

Some will do just like other players and essentially play themselves. Within limits of the system or DM allowances.

Some play the exact opposite and their characters are totally not disabled.

And some play somewhere in between those two. Such as my, and others, various examples of workarounds. Or their character just isnt as disabled as the player is. And so on. I know a few who like to explore how a setting would allow them to overcome a disability by some means. Or how under the tight circumstances or setting a disability becomes an advantage. Similar approach to a disabled player playing a non-disabled character.

Then there are a few edge cases, myself included, where a player might have a disabled character because they are unsure of playing otherwise. Or it is what they are used to. For some like myself it is simply a factor of not having a frame of reference.