/cannonballing into the pig-pen...

Why do you REALLY think this wheelchair nonsense is even being discussed, jhkim?

C'mon. Show me you can shoot for the outiest-outlier of examples to justify your rationalization.

jhkim, here is an article for you.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/931-jen-kretchmer-teases-her-candlekeep-mysteries

QuoteAs an ambulatory wheelchair user, Kretchmer says that is was important to her that her dungeon was a place that she could explore. As such, it's filled with fantasy elevators (whether they functioned by pulley or by magic, she didn't say), and ledges are accessible by ramps rather than by stairs.

Now let's do madlibs:

Because I am a ______, I included a ______ in the adventure I wrote.

The D&D wheelchair is obviously a case of representation and tokenism. But besides that, it is antithetical to good adventure design. It conflates real life with a fantasy world. It chips away at what a fantasy world is supposed to be: a coherent and believable world.

Some old vampire in a wheelchair is not the problem. The problem is people wholesale importing anachronisms into fantasy worlds in the name of "representation." There people are wrong and should be mocked. Like the person in OP's video said, they should be tossed out of the hobby.

Here is another link for you. It's the first hit when searching d&d wheelchair.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/pddtg9/combat_wheelchair_30_released_today/

Look at how powerful it is. Why wouldn't every character use this thing? It is cynical and condescending. It says: hey cripples, now you can finally enjoy d&d because I made you a wheelchair that makes the game easy for you.

Now go back to the madlibs above. Run through it a few times for yourself.

Because I am short, I included some elevator shoes in the adventure I wrote.

Because I have dyslexia, I omitted books from the adventure I wrote.

Because I am diabetic, I included some cookies in the adventure I wrote.

This is a forest and you are very much focused on the trees, so I expect you won't appreciate this argument or what others have tried to tell you.

Yes OF COURSE it depends on the specific setting and what the table expects and wants. That goes without saying. But that seems to be your entire argument in this thread: wheelchairs are not inherently unsuitable because here are some examples. We are not IDIOTS. This is fucking obvious. What you seem genuinely baffled by is regular gamers who don't want tokenism and "representation" used as a wedge to fuck with the games that they love. 

The combat wheelchair rules that people are talking about are for D&D 5e so I will address it in the context of that game.  The entire idea makes no sense for that system on a very fundamental level.  The reason is that 5e has no rules for lingering injuries.  When you take damage, your hit points go down.  When you heal, your hit points go up.  That's it.  Hit points go down.  Hit points go up.  Critical hits have no effect other than probably making your hit points go down more.  A lingering injury like a spinal cord injury is not something that even can happen in the system.  You would need to add your own lingering injury rules or just do it by fiat for this to even happen. 

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 01:58:29 PM
People other than you and I have been talking about everything from Terminator to martial arts movies.

The original conversation was obviously about the plausibility and viability of wheelchair-bound characters in a D&D setting.  You responded by talking about super hero rpgs.  You have refused to engage with the topic that people were actually talking about since then.  You have managed to divert the conversation to some extent by talking about tangentially related topics though.

Quote from: jhkim on April 01, 2024, 02:20:37 PM
What you're talking about here is people's motives - but others have been arguing that any wheelchair-using PC is ridiculous without regard to the motives of the GM or player.

---

I don't even know that I disagree.

When you say "these damn wheelchairs" - what are you talking about? The published examples mentioned in this thread are Lord Weathermay from Ravenloft II, and the cover of the Terminator: Resist sourcebook. Three years ago, I bought Candlekeep Mysteries because I was curious after Pundit's claim that the combat wheelchair was in it, for example -- but there were no wheelchairs at all in the book.

This all seems to me like an invented controversy from social media, not actual gaming or even actual gaming products.

I'm talking about this point because too many here are just blindly lashing out at anything which lessens or even nullifies any valid arguments. Which may be the whole motive of a few here.

Candlekeep is a great example of WotC baiting people and just how well Pundit fell for it, again. wotc has been pulling this stunt for a while now because they know that they 100% will get free advertising by getting people outraged. And if the book just happens to not have that thing in it then it discredits anyone speaking out. Win Win in wotc marketing eyes.

As long as people keep falling for it they will keep being wotc's trained lapdogs working for free for wotc.

And it will happen again and again because people like Pundit keep falling for it.

Quote from: Habitual Gamer on April 02, 2024, 11:40:32 AM
One good thing this thread got me thinking about is how dungeons are always built around the assumption that everyone is around 6' tall.

Not really. Most dungeons halls and rooms are 10x10. I think AD&D averaged human height to 5'6" at best. I'd have to dig through. I do not think any edition has had humans at a standard 6ft tall.

(watch it turn out that 4e did...)

Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2024, 03:50:09 PM
Why do you REALLY think this wheelchair nonsense is even being discussed, jhkim?

C'mon. Show me you can shoot for the outiest-outlier of examples to justify your rationalization.

I can only speculate about why other people in this thread are discussing it. I'll say why I'm discussing it, and other people can discuss about why they are. I'm discussing it because some posters made blanket statements about how it is unworkable to have a wheelchair-bound character in a game -- and this conflicts with my experience, because I've played with one wheelchair-using PC and dozens of PCs with various other disabilities.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
jhkim, here is an article for you.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/931-jen-kretchmer-teases-her-candlekeep-mysteries
...
The D&D wheelchair is obviously a case of representation and tokenism. But besides that, it is antithetical to good adventure design. It conflates real life with a fantasy world. It chips away at what a fantasy world is supposed to be: a coherent and believable world.

Some old vampire in a wheelchair is not the problem. The problem is people wholesale importing anachronisms into fantasy worlds in the name of "representation."

OK, I've read the article, and I've read Kretchmer's adventure ("The Canopic Being"). The adventure has no wheelchairs in it. It does have ramps, but it is an Egyptian-style tomb, and many real-world Egyptian tombs are built with ramps - like the Great Pyramid at Giza. That's not an anachronism. That's historical accuracy.

So no, I think you're wrong about it "importing anachronisms".

Kretchmer was evidently inspired by her disability in choosing that dungeon design which uses ramps. I'm sure there is some psychological or ethical complexity to that, but I don't have an immediate reaction. By parallel, Charles Saunders was a black author, and he wrote the Imaro stories about a black fantasy hero. Is that tokenism? I don't know, but I do know that I love the Imaro stories. They're awesome.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
Here is another link for you. It's the first hit when searching d&d wheelchair.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/pddtg9/combat_wheelchair_30_released_today/

Look at how powerful it is. Why wouldn't every character use this thing? It is cynical and condescending. It says: hey cripples, now you can finally enjoy d&d because I made you a wheelchair that makes the game easy for you.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
Yes OF COURSE it depends on the specific setting and what the table expects and wants. That goes without saying. But that seems to be your entire argument in this thread: wheelchairs are not inherently unsuitable because here are some examples. We are not IDIOTS. This is fucking obvious. What you seem genuinely baffled by is regular gamers who don't want tokenism and "representation" used as a wedge to fuck with the games that they love.

If the problem isn't with wheelchairs in general but with only the specific cases (like Thompson's homebrew rules), then the discussion should be "these wheelchairs suck - here's the right way to have wheelchair-using PCs in a game".

But that isn't what most posters have been saying. There's been tons of venting about how any wheelchair-using PC is completely ridiculous and unworkable.

If you want to talk about what are good ways to have a wheelchair-using PC, then I'd be open to that. All this talking about it has poked at my imagination some about what I might like in one of my fantasy games.

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 10:05:17 PM
It does have ramps,

Why does it have ramps?  We know the answer.

"As an ambulatory wheelchair user, Kretchmer says that is was important to her that her dungeon was a place that she could explore. As such, it's filled with fantasy elevators (whether they functioned by pulley or by magic, she didn't say), and ledges are accessible by ramps rather than by stairs.  Kretchmer was evidently inspired by her disability in choosing that dungeon design which uses ramps."

So don't even pretend that this isn't about the author making in wheelchair accessible.  We know it was.  Pretending otherwise is deeply disingenuous.

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 10:05:17 PMIs that tokenism?

No, it's self-involved narcissism.  These people make everything they do about themselves.   

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 10:05:17 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
jhkim, here is an article for you.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/931-jen-kretchmer-teases-her-candlekeep-mysteries
...
The D&D wheelchair is obviously a case of representation and tokenism. But besides that, it is antithetical to good adventure design. It conflates real life with a fantasy world. It chips away at what a fantasy world is supposed to be: a coherent and believable world.

Some old vampire in a wheelchair is not the problem. The problem is people wholesale importing anachronisms into fantasy worlds in the name of "representation."

OK, I've read the article, and I've read Kretchmer's adventure ("The Canopic Being"). The adventure has no wheelchairs in it. It does have ramps, but it is an Egyptian-style tomb, and many real-world Egyptian tombs are built with ramps - like the Great Pyramid at Giza. That's not an anachronism. That's historical accuracy.

So no, I think you're wrong about it "importing anachronisms".

Kretchmer was evidently inspired by her disability in choosing that dungeon design which uses ramps. I'm sure there is some psychological or ethical complexity to that, but I don't have an immediate reaction. By parallel, Charles Saunders was a black author, and he wrote the Imaro stories about a black fantasy hero. Is that tokenism? I don't know, but I do know that I love the Imaro stories. They're awesome.

Kretchmer explained why she put the ramps in the dungeon. She did not mention historic fidelity. She literally said it was so that she, Kretchmer in the 21st century, could explore it. The fact that you find it to be historically accurate is irrelevant. Besides, the Egyptians used ramps because they rolled heavy objects on logs. Again, not a wheelchair.

I've never read the Imaro stories, but obviously that's a case of an author building a world based on his vision. I'm sure his world is internally consistent because, as you say, they are great stories. I don't know what else to say if you think this could be tokenism or is at all comparable to Kretchmer's expressed design intent.

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 10:05:17 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
Here is another link for you. It's the first hit when searching d&d wheelchair.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/pddtg9/combat_wheelchair_30_released_today/

Look at how powerful it is. Why wouldn't every character use this thing? It is cynical and condescending. It says: hey cripples, now you can finally enjoy d&d because I made you a wheelchair that makes the game easy for you.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 07:49:06 PM
Yes OF COURSE it depends on the specific setting and what the table expects and wants. That goes without saying. But that seems to be your entire argument in this thread: wheelchairs are not inherently unsuitable because here are some examples. We are not IDIOTS. This is fucking obvious. What you seem genuinely baffled by is regular gamers who don't want tokenism and "representation" used as a wedge to fuck with the games that they love.

If the problem isn't with wheelchairs in general but with only the specific cases (like Thompson's homebrew rules), then the discussion should be "these wheelchairs suck - here's the right way to have wheelchair-using PCs in a game".

But that isn't what most posters have been saying. There's been tons of venting about how any wheelchair-using PC is completely ridiculous and unworkable.

If you want to talk about what are good ways to have a wheelchair-using PC, then I'd be open to that. All this talking about it has poked at my imagination some about what I might like in one of my fantasy games.

We have published examples with clear design intent to be "inclusive" or "allow" a disabled person to play. This is what we are criticizing.

You say that it's workable. Okay, so that remains to be seen, but the first question is: why?

Tomb of Horrors should be rewritten, to include wheelchair ramps.  Acererak would welcome those using them, with open arms.  Shucks, wheelchair ramps should also be installed in Rapan Athuk.  Orcus would also welcome those using them, with open arms.

Quote from: Man at Arms on April 02, 2024, 11:45:23 PM
Tomb of Horrors should be rewritten, to include wheelchair ramps.  Acererak would welcome those using them, with open arms.  Shucks, wheelchair ramps should also be installed in Rapan Athuk.  Orcus would also welcome those using them, with open arms.

Well, there is one ramp in the Tomb of Horrors...

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 02, 2024, 11:15:31 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 02, 2024, 10:05:17 PM
OK, I've read the article, and I've read Kretchmer's adventure ("The Canopic Being"). The adventure has no wheelchairs in it. It does have ramps, but it is an Egyptian-style tomb, and many real-world Egyptian tombs are built with ramps - like the Great Pyramid at Giza. That's not an anachronism. That's historical accuracy.

So no, I think you're wrong about it "importing anachronisms".

Kretchmer was evidently inspired by her disability in choosing that dungeon design which uses ramps. I'm sure there is some psychological or ethical complexity to that, but I don't have an immediate reaction. By parallel, Charles Saunders was a black author, and he wrote the Imaro stories about a black fantasy hero. Is that tokenism? I don't know, but I do know that I love the Imaro stories. They're awesome.

Kretchmer explained why she put the ramps in the dungeon. She did not mention historic fidelity. She literally said it was so that she, Kretchmer in the 21st century, could explore it. The fact that you find it to be historically accurate is irrelevant. Besides, the Egyptians used ramps because they rolled heavy objects on logs. Again, not a wheelchair.

I've never read the Imaro stories, but obviously that's a case of an author building a world based on his vision. I'm sure his world is internally consistent because, as you say, they are great stories. I don't know what else to say if you think this could be tokenism or is at all comparable to Kretchmer's expressed design intent.

In general, what I care about in an adventure is the game content. For the vast majority of RPG adventures, I don't know the author and don't care enough to examine their motivations for writing the adventure.

Here, I think you're conflating real world motivation and fictional consistency. For example, an author might want to write a story for the money. One could then say "That sucks. He doesn't give a shit about the consistency of the fictional world at all, and he'll write absolute crap just for the money." But I think that's mistaken. He could want to develop consistency because he thinks it will make him more money.

So if I ask "Why do demons have four wings in his fantasy world?" One could answer "To make money." -- and that's technically correct, but that doesn't mean that the fiction is inconsistent. The fictional world is always written for real world reasons. Authors don't work just to serve their fictional worlds. They need to eat real food, and they have real-world interests and dreams that guide their writing.

---

Regarding Saunders, he could be accused of tokenism because he explicitly wrote a black fantasy protagonist because of his frustration with white-authored fantasy. Here's him talking about starting his writing career:

QuoteIt was when I discovered fantasy that I also discovered that I wanted to be a storyteller - a griot, although I hadn't yet discovered that term. I soon would, though. I spent my university days at a historically black college in Pennsylvania, Lincoln. I started in 1964 and graduated in 1968. Seldom has so much changed during a four-year period. So much was going on, from three-piece suits and processed hair to Afros and dashikis. From integration to Black Power... From non-violent demonstrations to riots in the streets... From punching somebody for calling you black to shouting 'Black is beautiful!' Lincoln had a lot of students from Africa at the time, and I learned a great deal from them. I started reading more about the history and culture of Africa. And I began to realise that in the SF and fantasy genre, blacks were, with only few exceptions, either left out or depicted in racist and stereotypic ways. I had a choice: I could either stop reading SF and fantasy, or try to do something about my dissatisfaction with it by writing my own stories and trying to get them published. I chose the latter course. I was crazy enough to think I could break into what was essentially a white genre - at the time, I didn't know Chip Delany was black, even though I'd read, and enjoyed, his work. That fact wasn't exactly advertised back then.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110607105724/http:/www.zone-sf.com/crsaunders.html

All of you just collectively walk away from the discussion with JhKIM.

Seriously why put up with all the disingenuousness of  a poster who is clearly not wanting to argue in good faith.

It's like dealing with the rpg version of Dave Meltzer in his defence of AEW wrestling. Nothing good can come of it.

Why do you think I am not engaging with him because it's more of the same old BS.

Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2024, 01:30:01 AM
In general, what I care about in an adventure is the game content. For the vast majority of RPG adventures, I don't know the author and don't care enough to examine their motivations for writing the adventure.

Here, I think you're conflating real world motivation and fictional consistency. For example, an author might want to write a story for the money. One could then say "That sucks. He doesn't give a shit about the consistency of the fictional world at all, and he'll write absolute crap just for the money." But I think that's mistaken. He could want to develop consistency because he thinks it will make him more money.

So if I ask "Why do demons have four wings in his fantasy world?" One could answer "To make money." -- and that's technically correct, but that doesn't mean that the fiction is inconsistent. The fictional world is always written for real world reasons. Authors don't work just to serve their fictional worlds. They need to eat real food, and they have real-world interests and dreams that guide their writing.

OK, so you stand for game content and authors should be able to eat. You've generalized so much that nobody can disagree. Congrats, you win the argument!

Quote from: jhkim on April 03, 2024, 01:30:01 AM

Regarding Saunders, he could be accused of tokenism because he explicitly wrote a black fantasy protagonist because of his frustration with white-authored fantasy. Here's him talking about starting his writing career:

QuoteIt was when I discovered fantasy that I also discovered that I wanted to be a storyteller - a griot, although I hadn't yet discovered that term. I soon would, though. I spent my university days at a historically black college in Pennsylvania, Lincoln. I started in 1964 and graduated in 1968. Seldom has so much changed during a four-year period. So much was going on, from three-piece suits and processed hair to Afros and dashikis. From integration to Black Power... From non-violent demonstrations to riots in the streets... From punching somebody for calling you black to shouting 'Black is beautiful!' Lincoln had a lot of students from Africa at the time, and I learned a great deal from them. I started reading more about the history and culture of Africa. And I began to realise that in the SF and fantasy genre, blacks were, with only few exceptions, either left out or depicted in racist and stereotypic ways. I had a choice: I could either stop reading SF and fantasy, or try to do something about my dissatisfaction with it by writing my own stories and trying to get them published. I chose the latter course. I was crazy enough to think I could break into what was essentially a white genre - at the time, I didn't know Chip Delany was black, even though I'd read, and enjoyed, his work. That fact wasn't exactly advertised back then.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110607105724/http:/www.zone-sf.com/crsaunders.html

"He could be accused..." - I'm not going to argue against speculation in passive voice. You raised Saunders and now seem to be arguing with someone else, maybe a ghost or maybe yourself. Sort out whether you think Imaro is tokenism and get back to us.

QuoteIn general, what I care about in an adventure is the game content. For the vast majority of RPG adventures, I don't know the author and don't care enough to examine their motivations for writing the adventure.

That's the whole point of this thread: intent. IF the intent of the author to include wheelchair access to a dungeon because they're wheelchair bound in real life, it is a bit narcissistic and potentially anachronistic depending on the campaign.

But we can all read between the lines: WoTC fulfilling D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) requirements as laid out by a D.E.I. consulting firm and dictated by WoTC H.R. Dept.

We know Wizards is doing this by hiring one four years ago:

https://articles.starcitygames.com/news/wotc-seeking-diversity-equity-inclusion-manager/

There's your answer to why this is happening folks. It's not game content. It's not even GOOD game content.

It's fulfilling D.E.I. not just in the real world, BUT IN A GAME.

Which ultimately leads to WoTC wanting to dictate what YOU can have in 5E:

-by going away from print to almost all digital
-doing away with "half" races like half orc and half elf, because they consider it racist
-and having the insane and laughable concept of a wheelchair accessible dungeon

You can believe what yo want, but don't blow sunshine up my ass and tell me it just "making content".

It's an agenda.

Quote from: blackstone on April 03, 2024, 10:41:19 AM

QuoteIn general, what I care about in an adventure is the game content. For the vast majority of RPG adventures, I don't know the author and don't care enough to examine their motivations for writing the adventure.

That's the whole point of this thread: intent. IF the intent of the author to include wheelchair access to a dungeon because they're wheelchair bound in real life, it is a bit narcissistic and potentially anachronistic depending on the campaign.

But we can all read between the lines: WoTC fulfilling D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) requirements as laid out by a D.E.I. consulting firm and dictated by WoTC H.R. Dept.

We know Wizards is doing this by hiring one four years ago:

https://articles.starcitygames.com/news/wotc-seeking-diversity-equity-inclusion-manager/

There's your answer to why this is happening folks. It's not game content. It's not even GOOD game content.

It's fulfilling D.E.I. not just in the real world, BUT IN A GAME.

Which ultimately leads to WoTC wanting to dictate what YOU can have in 5E:

-by going away from print to almost all digital
-doing away with "half" races like half orc and half elf, because they consider it racist
-and having the insane and laughable concept of a wheelchair accessible dungeon

You can believe what yo want, but don't blow sunshine up my ass and tell me it just "making content".

It's an agenda.

Greetings!

Absolutely right, my friend! Jhkim's complete failure to truly understand this and acknowledge this salient reality is simply a reflection of his delusion, at best--or his actual agreement and support for such a corporate agenda.

I'm inclined to believe that Jhkim totally supports the Woke BS, because he is a Leftist to begin with. He likes the Woke BS, and is totally on board with all of it. He likes to tap dance and hedge, and always run interference for it, while claiming that he is some kind of reasonable, neutral-aligned centrist. Or some other figure of reasonableness. All the while though, defending the Woke BS, or gaslighting people that it really isn't that bad, or it isn't what people think, or it is really just the product if a few extremists on the Left. You know the drill. Gaslighting, running interference, promoting word salads, proclamations of being reasonable, and also constant efforts at derailing, misdirection, deflection, and confusion.

Jhkim loves to shriek about Pundit claiming the wheelchairs were in the WOTC adventure, and somehow, they weren't there, so Pundit was wrong, supposedly.

And yet, I have often reminded Jhkim that Pundit did not make it up, or lie at all. Where did he get this idea from? I saw the whole wheelchair BS talked about by Clownfish, The Quartering, and more--in addition to WOTC talking about how important wheelchairs and inclusivity was in their adventures, on their website. There was some official article of WOTC that talked about it, and then I think some twitter posts or something by WOTC developers themselves. So, Pundit did not lie about anything. Pundit did not distort anything, or misrepresent anything. If the actual published adventure was somehow cleansed of the fucking wheelchair in the last minute before publication, that isn't Pundit's fault. It could also be like Omega likes to talk about, WOTC publicly signaling they are including whatever BS, and then at the last minute, scrubbing it, or otherwise the real actual content is actually fairly minimal--because it is simply an effort of WOTC marketing to harvest outrage and support from the Woke activists, and cultivate publicity from the public, like Pundit and others, pulling them into giving WOTC more advertising, clicks, and exposure.

I'm not sure I agree with Omega's theory entirely, but I can definitely see that aspect as a contributing factor. Still, though, that all makes Pundit's video entirely vindicated. Pundit was talking about something very relevant. Jhkim doesn't like that, so he always tries to shriek about Pundit being wrong, and on and on. *Laughing*

I just cycle back to the huge TRUTH that Pundit didn't invent the whole wheelchair BS, the Kretchmer woman did, and then WOTC promoted and encouraged it. Bottom line. Exactly how much or how little of it they explicitly included in some adventure is irrelevant. I KNOW that WOTC wants to, and has included all kinds of Woke BS in the books ALREADY. Jeremy Crawford himself--a homosexual--declares that D&D is going to get a lot more gayer, guaranteed.

Jeremy Crawford. Lead designer at WOTC. How much more BS do we need shoveled into our mouths before we Yeah, realize that WOTC is absolutely committed to promoting the fucking Woke, Marxist, BS agenda? Kretchmer, WOTC, The Quartering, Clownfish, and I think a few other YouTubers talked about wheelchairs in the WOTC adventures and in the hobby BEFORE Pundit did. So, as I said, Pundit didn't make this shit up, or pull it out of thin air.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK