Quote from: jhkim;1145574It's not a given that magic will let you automatically cure any injury more easily than creating an automaton. Magic varies a ton from game to game. For example, I'm playing in Call of Cthulhu now, and we regularly have to deal with a PC being temporarily disabled from a major injury. And here "temporarily" means weeks in-game since there is no healing magic. We have some magic from spell books (mostly summoning horribly things), but no healing magic. We haven't had a permanent crippling in my current game, but it's not impossible to imagine how it could work.

The only long-term wheelchair-using PC I recall was a long time ago, in a realistic modern-day superpowers game I ran in college. One of the PCs had electrical powers, and would have died from being shot, but as a twist, I offered to have him live but his spinal cord was severed. After the injury, he learned he could temporarily still use his legs by using his powers, but only for a short time and with concentration. So he needed a wheelchair for any long-term movement. I thought that made for a very interesting wrinkle to the game.

One of my favorite PCs in recent years didn't use a wheelchair, but did have limited mobility and used a cane to walk. It was in a game based on the TV series Alphas, where all the PCs had a neurological super-ability but it came with a major downside. My son's PC had perfect muscular control - he could make a house of cards as quickly as he could move his hand and was a masterful pickpocket and martial artist, but at the cost that he couldn't fully relax and was tired all the time. He needed a cane and frequent stops to get around. It was an intriguing concept that worked well in play.

I haven't had a wheelchair user in a fantasy game, but that doesn't mean it's an unworkable concept. I've had plenty of PCs with different disabilities -- partly but not wholly because of a past fondness for GURPS and HERO. It's sometimes taken some thinking to work them in, but doing so has always meant the game was better for it.



I'm sorry about your accidents -- and it's totally a valid preference to not want to play a PC with any disability. That said, just because you wouldn't want it or you would be offended by it, that doesn't mean it can't be fun for other groups.

Virtue signaling and then strawmaning.

Lets see if some finally get the objections:

[video=youtube;P_t9vMKRhyo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_t9vMKRhyo[/youtube]

Quote from: jhkim;1145574That said, just because you wouldn't want it or you would be offended by it, that doesn't mean it can't be fun for other groups.

If only this could be adopted for everyone, everywhere about everything...

"Dungeons have stairs my dude."

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1144569Doing my usual blithe miss-the-point-completely gig, it occurs to me that you could make a fantastic RPG or literary hero out of a tragically paralyzed warrior given a magical suit of armour that allowed him to walk and fight again -- a suit of metal black as night, glinting blood red at the joints, animated by a dark supernatural force that demands its price from the wearer not in blood, but in tiny bits of soul and heart, wearing away one's humanity bit by bit . . . a suit that mysteriously, without warning, locks up in total immobility whenever the wearer comes too near a church, or a powerful cleric of Good, and which whispers . . . thoughts . . . to the wearer's mind whenever alone with innocents . . . .

I almost skipped this thread to avoid all the nonsense ... so glad I didn't miss this.

Dirty Ho is a 1979 kung fu comedy movie. It's very silly 70s cheesy kung fu. This scene involves what would be considered a D&D monk in a wheelchair in battle. It works fine. In a 70s cheesy king fu way.

[video=youtube;GiFQwyG_epw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiFQwyG_epw[/youtube]

Quoting this answer from kythri from the other thread because it is important and relevant.

Quote from: kythri;1145671Learn a bit about "the one who made it" - "the one who made it" isn't in a wheelchair.  The one who made it is self-diagnosed with such a mild form of Ehlers-Danlos - so mild that it doesn't impact her life in any way, other than giving her the abilithy to virtue signal by appropriating disability, and using it to get sham jobs like "disability consultant" and "sensitivity reader - she's the "disabled" version of Rachel Dolezal.

A wheelchair user did not create this, you twat.  But the creator has no problem attacking wheelchair users who have dared to criticized this nonsense, as "ableist", which goes even further to show you what kind of a trash person they are.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1144569Doing my usual blithe miss-the-point-completely gig, it occurs to me that you could make a fantastic RPG or literary hero out of a tragically paralyzed warrior given a magical suit of armour that allowed him to walk and fight again -- a suit of metal black as night, glinting blood red at the joints, animated by a dark supernatural force that demands its price from the wearer not in blood, but in tiny bits of soul and heart, wearing away one's humanity bit by bit . . . a suit that mysteriously, without warning, locks up in total immobility whenever the wearer comes too near a church, or a powerful cleric of Good, and which whispers . . . thoughts . . . to the wearer's mind whenever alone with innocents . . . .

Quote from: Zalman;1145676I almost skipped this thread to avoid all the nonsense ... so glad I didn't miss this.

Tasty, thirst quenching lemonade from the lemons of the initial concept being discussed.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1145237I've no problem with someone wanting play in a wheelchair. As long as they accept the possible consequences for doing so. Like not being able to get in and out of a dungeon every easily (if at al depending on the size). Or having the players leave them when the party encounter some nasty creature and they have to run like blazes. Or having tactical disadvantages to the rear. Or even having to traverse that narrow cliff pass atop of a snowy mountain. The list is endless.

In my experience, it is very unlikely that the player will accept the consequences of their choice. Rather, those consequences will land on the rest of the party, as they will be the ones who have to haul Bob across the river.

If I were to allow this as a GM, it would be under the condition that the player doesn't get any points for the "disad" and the rest of the party gets to buy Wheelchair Character as a dependent.

Honestly, if the point is to get the character extra "screen time" they should have to buy it as an advantage.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1145699In my experience, it is very unlikely that the player will accept the consequences of their choice. Rather, those consequences will land on the rest of the party, as they will be the ones who have to haul Bob across the river.

Yeah, I can see that if you have very self-entitled players. Fair point.

As a GM, if you know that will be a problem then I'd simply say no you can't play a crippled character from the get go (who the hell would want to play one anyway??). I've always thought when it comes to RPGin' that the needs of the group comes before the individual. Everyone is welcome at the table until one idiot wants to screw the game up for the others.

Didnt we discuss this to death four threads ago? And bang arouns all manner of ideas on how to make it work? Or better alternatives?

Why yes. Yes we did.

So here we are at this... again... Why?

Yes. A straight up wheelchair for an adventurer is a "roll new character" waiting to happen in myriad ways. But there are so many alternatives as listed off in the other threads.

At this point do I care if some fake handicapped person makes us look like morons, again? Yes. And No. Because this isnt the last we will see of stuff like this and it isnt new either. Sometimes its not a malicious inclusion. Someone just thinks its a cool idea or are handicapped themselves and think its worth including, or did research and think its worth including. Im one of those in the "handicapped and thought it was worth including" types and actually surprised a few RPG designers way back because they admitted the idea had never occurred to them. I put it in my book as a chargen option with the notation that its going to be a problem. As mentioned before I had one player who was disabled who wanted to play a disabled character who was for all intents and purposes not disabled through various magical workarounds. The character was created normally with no bonus points.

Quote from: Lurkndog;1145699In my experience, it is very unlikely that the player will accept the consequences of their choice. Rather, those consequences will land on the rest of the party, as they will be the ones who have to haul Bob across the river.

If I were to allow this as a GM, it would be under the condition that the player doesn't get any points for the "disad" and the rest of the party gets to buy Wheelchair Character as a dependent.

Honestly, if the point is to get the character extra "screen time" they should have to buy it as an advantage.

In my old group, well, you all know the joke about outrunning a bear right?

Just shoot it down immediately.  Don't open yourself to the headache.  Nine times out of ten its some asshole either wanting to game the system or just pull your chain.

I had a player want their tiefling (KoS in civilization in my campaign) warlock (ditto, but at least some can lay low) of the elder gawd (FML) have just one arm.  I told them: ''You don't really want that.''  Well, I allowed it, and even allowed that one of their spells manifested as a tentacle bursting from the stump.  That said, disadvantage rolls A PLENTY for anything that needs more than one arm.  Fortunately, he dropped out (again).


---------------------

ASIDE/Why I think it's mostly attention whores in play - This is the same fucker:

My setting has a very tropey (cliche'd) barely hidden American Western theme.  The halfling settlers moving west as part of the reclamation are downright quaker/puritan-esque; black floppy hats and all.  Ultra-consevative.

I explained that they worship Tamara the healer, and are mostly pacifistic, turn-the-other-cheek sorts.  (The main cultures worship the dragon pantheon; it's actually a meta-plot point for them to figure out why)  

So this fucker two sessions in, announced that their female cleric (already semi-scandalous, she was one-of-a-kind, but the worshipers took their cue from the fact that Tamara granted her her spells, so the earthly authorities begrudgingly accepted it) was now a married lesbian.  Basically, I ignored it.  When he first dropped out, his character was recalled, and pulled an accidental Martin Luther, so now the most beneficent, compassionate, widespread healers in the campaign, are having a (so far cold) holy war/schism.  Not helped by the fact that their gawdess is bleeding out in avatar form to heal the land, so can't exactly pay attention to this shit.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1145701I'd simply say no you can't play a crippled character from the get go (who the hell would want to play one anyway??).

To look at the other side of it, I can imagine somebody with an impairment in real life starting to find it really painful playing characters who don't share it. Sometimes forgetting one's problems temporarily only makes having to remember them again all the worse.  It's not unreasonable to try to find a middle road where you can still play a game you love with your friends without setting yourself up for that.

QuoteI've always thought when it comes to RPGin' that the needs of the group comes before the individual. Everyone is welcome at the table until one idiot wants to screw the game up for the others.

This too makes sense, but again, on the other hand, if a game isn't fun for everybody in the group then it's failing somewhere. The individual has a right to object if the rest of the group is doing something that's screwing things up for him too.

Of course, leaving groups to work all this out for themselves used to be a perfectly valid option. Trying to preach moral or sociopolitical standards for it in an attempt to sell a new kind of product is an altogether dodgier approach.

Quote from: RandyB;1145695Tasty, thirst quenching lemonade from the lemons of the initial concept being discussed.

Eh, 'swhat I do.  Much obliged for the kind words.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1145707To look at the other side of it, I can imagine somebody with an impairment in real life starting to find it really painful playing characters who don't share it. Sometimes forgetting one's problems temporarily only makes having to remember them again all the worse.  It's not unreasonable to try to find a middle road where you can still play a game you love with your friends without setting yourself up for that.



This too makes sense, but again, on the other hand, if a game isn't fun for everybody in the group then it's failing somewhere. The individual has a right to object if the rest of the group is doing something that's screwing things up for him too.

Of course, leaving groups to work all this out for themselves used to be a perfectly valid option. Trying to preach moral or sociopolitical standards for it in an attempt to sell a new kind of product is an altogether dodgier approach.

The middle ground is found by saying, sure you can play a crippled character buuuut you're mobility is limited. A person who wishes to play a cripple should also be willing to make some sacrifices to the group and not be a dick either.

On the group side of things... It really depends on who they are. It's my role as a GM to make sure everyone is enjoying the game (myself included). The guys I generally play with are all pretty cool. So, you'd not get any one person screwing the group dynamic up. If an interloper came along and wanted to play something silly, and that could screw the game up, I would not allow it. And I'd be fine if they wanted to play somewhere else or called me a prick. I'm not trying to be deliberately mean... But I just want to play with people who are on the same level so-to-speak.

Lastly, and this is a definite sticking point for me. And one that I wouldn't move on personally... In a high-fantasy 5e setting you could get a floating magical chair thingey. But not in a low-magic or gritty setting. So, at the end of the day, if you do get a chair in that type of setting you're screwed, when it comes to going down stairs or into a small cave, tomb or whatever. Then it's up to the players, do you want to carry 300lb Bulbo the Barbarian, or leave him there at the entrance as a guard? Up to them...