https://strataminiatures.com/shop/?store-page=Dungeons-and-Diversity-c57880798&fbclid=IwAR0yEN-EgFwt1MI2GX9cyRt3dPAJTV2KL0sB5KATffKzv2TWLmQEqnYfoOI

What is Dungeons and Diversity?

Creating an inclusive and welcoming Roleplaying environment means a great deal to us, so we’d like to say thank you for showing your support. As well as being able to own some unique and lovingly created characters, buying this model will help support disability work with 25% of your purchase being donated to https://www.ehlers-danlos.org/

We hope our Dungeons and Disability miniatures will brings you many hours of awesome adventures. Part of our passion for these miniatures were fueled by some amazing rules created by Sara (@mustangart)

Rules and Background: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ysDrH2vqKz6NSGkf3_0WX5tV-Ch_t_N_?fbclid=IwAR2RjQ_DooZEBzCNs-iXsp1tgn-cXD9JQ7jgg4Z3fajvezabf4Xj7Tr_4L8


If you want to support Sara in creating more rules, why not check out her https://www.patreon.com/mustangsart?fbclid=IwAR1ZuT3ckiTUg7h8YD5gITeYOW4mR5vaI6quExpsD5XVafiXgcwgTCpF4xU


human druid


elf rogue


tiefling cleric


barbarian dwarf

Edit: They are on 25mm bases to give folk an idea of size/scale

a really neat idea and some good looking renders (hope the casts live up to them) and they'll certainly help inclusion for some youngsters who want to play a character closer to themselves in physical ability

I hope it does well enough that they consider expanding the classes/races available

Really neat idea and the renders do look neat. I hope they do well and can certainly see a nice market for models of this type and more.

These look amazing!

Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

Those are pretty cool.

The dwarf needs something to drive while holding his two axes though, he can't always roll downhill. Maybe someone who moves him, or longer axe handles to use them as ski poles.

john_chandler wrote:
Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

I can't see the scale stated anywhere, but they're STLs so you should be able to re-size them.

beast_gts wrote:

john_chandler wrote:
Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

I can't see the scale stated anywhere, but they're STLs so you should be able to re-size them.

True, but I was thinking of the metal/resin versions.

Absolutely a cool idea.

Dwarf needs axe blades on the wheels or something. Bladed wheels perhaps?

When I think bad asses in wheel chairs my brain always goes to Heartless of the Four Constables. They need a pretty boy kung fu tactician up in there with all sorts of chains, knives, and throwing weapons!
...but that just may be me pining for more wuxia- influenced models on the tabletop.

I'm going to keep my eyes on this one!

john_chandler wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

john_chandler wrote:
Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

I can't see the scale stated anywhere, but they're STLs so you should be able to re-size them.

True, but I was thinking of the metal/resin versions.

i'm sure they'll be in the 28-35mm range most D&D stuff is, but as you say there's nothing on the website to say that I can see,

I've messaged them to ask and will report back

Ohh thats a cool idea!

Id be interested to see how "over the top" a Gnome inventor/tinker character would look.

So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Okay. Sure is nice of the evil overlord to construct their dungeon of doom and secret lair to modern accessibility standards...

 Yodhrin wrote:
Okay. Sure is nice of the evil overlord to construct their dungeon of doom and secret lair to modern accessibility standards...

Well, we have to be inclusive now, Yod.

That dwarf is screaming for me to buy him.

Will there be resin releases, or just STLs?

Looks like you can buy the minis or the STLs.

The sculpts are nice but I'm genuinely wondering if that's really something that people in wheelchairs are asking for.
I think it would be nice to have more fantasy elements in the chair themselves, like one floating magicaly instead of having wheels, or having a steam engine, or havin a battle-plow.

 Yodhrin wrote:
So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Who said that's the setting they live in?

 Tim the Biovore wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Who said that's the setting they live in?

Exactly, not everyone plays in Eberron or <insert other setting where mundane tasks are done wtih magic>.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That dwarf is screaming for me to buy him.

Will there be resin releases, or just STLs?

there are both stls and physical options (resin with metal bits although whats's what isn't shown)

 Yodhrin wrote:
So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Okay. Sure is nice of the evil overlord to construct their dungeon of doom and secret lair to modern accessibility standards...

It's incredibly dumb and while the miniatures are nice, the whole exercise reveals an exceptionally unpleasant mentality towards fantasy.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Tim the Biovore wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Who said that's the setting they live in?

Exactly, not everyone plays in Eberron or <insert other setting where mundane tasks are done wtih magic>.

Ah okay, so it's not a typical D&D setting with ultra-high-magic then(although frankly, I haven't seen a D&D setting with low enough magic to preclude magical healing in over a decade). So now either these chairs are even rarer and more expensive by virtue of making use of a rare and potentially scarce resource, in which case the attempt to introduce diversity has only led to classism as only fabulously wealthy merchants and the nobility will have access to them(have fun doing wheelies down the main street of town while all the poor crippled beggars languish in the gutter I suppose), or they're not magical at all just wheelchairs, which only amplifies the accessibility issues. That Rogue isn't going to be sneaking up on many folk in a non-magic wood & iron banded wheelchair

Seriously people, do the non-crazy town disabled a favour and just donate the entire sum you'd have spent on this nonsense directly to the charity.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Tim the Biovore wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So wait, the idea here is that characters who live in a setting where you can magically cure basically anything unless you're the kind of dirt-poor that could never afford a magic wheelchair anyway would continue to use wheelchairs rather than just curing whatever ails them?

Who said that's the setting they live in?

Exactly, not everyone plays in Eberron or <insert other setting where mundane tasks are done wtih magic>.

Ah okay, so it's not a typical D&D setting with ultra-high-magic then(although frankly, I haven't seen a D&D setting with low enough magic to preclude magical healing in over a decade). So now either these chairs are even rarer and more expensive by virtue of making use of a rare and potentially scarce resource, in which case the attempt to introduce diversity has only led to classism as only fabulously wealthy merchants and the nobility will have access to them(have fun doing wheelies down the main street of town while all the poor crippled beggars languish in the gutter I suppose), or they're not magical at all just wheelchairs, which only amplifies the accessibility issues. That Rogue isn't going to be sneaking up on many folk in a non-magic wood & iron banded wheelchair

Seriously people, do the non-crazy town disabled a favour and just donate the entire sum you'd have spent on this nonsense directly to the charity.

"Oh no, the dastardly goblins have ... pushed Eliza the wheelchair user over ... and now he can't get up. Why did we bring this guy with us again?"

There are plenty of Fantasy books which are magic heavy where the hero (or side character) has a illness or injury magic can't fix

cuses, culture, some gods not liking the ones that do healing or unexplained 'nope, not fixable'

and if your running a classic dungeon once you get in there it's all nice 10x10x10 corridors and rooms, perfectly accessible (although you might not get through some of the secret doors)…..

and yes that is dumb, but so are dungeons full of random monsters who would swiftly starve in a game world with more thought behind it

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
and yes that is dumb, but so are dungeons full of random monsters who would swiftly starve in a game world with more thought behind it

That's bad dungeon design, and a failure to construct a compelling world imo. Dungeons should have, on even a basic level, a semi-functional ecosystem in which the presence of monsters is explained by their environment, and the monsters not just be a random selection of stat blocks.

Makes me want this guy

http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Mad_Hamish

Re: "unrealistic"

1) you're really going to pick a fight with trying to be inclusive as the "unrealistic" part of fantasy settings? Whether you'e talking magic, dumb physics, alignment, mass, the bizarre way religion and faith work in a setting where gods are demonstrably real, etc. there are about a million other social and practical in-world things (plus metagame stuff like power gaming or stat dumping) to nit-pick before getting to the absurdity of encouraging someone identify with a character that they like, with their friends or, hell, choose a character who needs a wheelchair because they think it's an interesting backstory choice.

2) Orlando linked to their documents outlining why and how they felt wheelchairs fit.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Re: "unrealistic"

1) you're really going to pick a fight with trying to be inclusive as the "unrealistic" part of fantasy settings? Whether you'e talking magic, dumb physics, alignment, mass, the bizarre way religion and faith work in a setting where gods are demonstrably real, etc. there are about a million other social and practical in-world things (plus metagame stuff like power gaming or stat dumping) to nit-pick before getting to the absurdity of encouraging someone identify with a character that they like, with their friends or, hell, choose a character who needs a wheelchair because they think it's an interesting backstory choice.

I've always found this something of a dishonest, "You too!" kind of response. Fantasy realism is obviously selective, but I struggle to see how the presence of dragons and gods, etc. then permits something that seems outright dumb and completely impractical. I also don't really think metagame issues really have any relevance here, since that is basically an issue that should be handled with a conversation between the GM and 'offending' player. It has nothing to do with the game world itself.

At the end of the day, this really just comes down to GM and player preference. Thankfully I play with people who all thought this was really dumb, and didn't fit their vision of a fantasy world.

All I can think of are the Chronicles of Thomas Covenent, the Unbeliever.

If a main character can be a Leper for the better part of 6 novels, why not wheelchairs?

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Re: "unrealistic"

1) you're really going to pick a fight with trying to be inclusive as the "unrealistic" part of fantasy settings? Whether you'e talking magic, dumb physics, alignment, mass, the bizarre way religion and faith work in a setting where gods are demonstrably real, etc. there are about a million other social and practical in-world things (plus metagame stuff like power gaming or stat dumping) to nit-pick before getting to the absurdity of encouraging someone identify with a character that they like, with their friends or, hell, choose a character who needs a wheelchair because they think it's an interesting backstory choice.

2) Orlando linked to their documents outlining why and how they felt wheelchairs fit.

Too add to this, one of the biggest things about RPG adventuring is increasing diversity of the setting. The unleashing of imagination. If you can have dragons and ogors and cubes of moving jelly and a billion other things that the imagination can call up then surely a few wheelchairs isn't beyond the realms of fantasy.

Besides we've many famous wheeled characters or otherwise crippled/disabled ones. Discworld has already raised one in this thread and we can also raise X-Men for having another. I'm sure if we put our heads together we can think of a good few other fantasy stories where not every character is a gleaming pinnacle of robust health.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:
Thankfully I play with people who all thought this didn't fit their vision of a fantasy world.

In the end surely that's the most important thing? Surely we can all allow other groups to be diverse however they want. Some iwll argue till they are blue in the face that dragons can only have 2 legs and 2 wings; others will argue that they can be any shape or size. Different groups and different games and different stories and settings are all part of the vast diversity that RPG gaming unlocks. Surely we should be ENCOURAGING diversity in all things not limiting it? This isn't just wheelchairs its everything - from wizards to dragons to cave and dungeon design and more.

 blood reaper wrote:
something that seems outright dumb and completely impractical.

Honest question. Do you play in a highly realist setting? Do you require rules for fatigue, weather conditions, equipment wear, etc.? Do you discourage "unrealistic" stuff like castles that aren't architecturally sound, towns that don't reflect probable class demographics? If players use the wrong sort of armor for an environment are they penalized?

Ultimately: what is your threshold between fantasy realism vs. outright dumb, and why does it matter to you if someone else's is different? It isn't even like a tabletop miniatures game where you might not like someone's modification of canon (or the designers' modification of canon) and you might run across it in some unexpected circumstance: it's just a game mod.

If you actually read the document, they did a decently thorough job coming up with mechanics that accounted for their fantasy version of a wheelchair. including gear, abilities, designer notes, etc I don't agree with all of it, but they put some effort into it.

The models look really cool, and more options for RPG characters is always nice. Not everyone likes to RP Sir Cookiecutter McWonderbread.

Hmmm. Resin AND metal? Perhaps I’ll see if I can find someone with a resin printer willing to print a mini or two for a reasonable price.

 Overread wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Re: "unrealistic"

1) you're really going to pick a fight with trying to be inclusive as the "unrealistic" part of fantasy settings? Whether you'e talking magic, dumb physics, alignment, mass, the bizarre way religion and faith work in a setting where gods are demonstrably real, etc. there are about a million other social and practical in-world things (plus metagame stuff like power gaming or stat dumping) to nit-pick before getting to the absurdity of encouraging someone identify with a character that they like, with their friends or, hell, choose a character who needs a wheelchair because they think it's an interesting backstory choice.

2) Orlando linked to their documents outlining why and how they felt wheelchairs fit.

Too add to this, one of the biggest things about RPG adventuring is increasing diversity of the setting. The unleashing of imagination. If you can have dragons and ogors and cubes of moving jelly and a billion other things that the imagination can call up then surely a few wheelchairs isn't beyond the realms of fantasy.

Besides we've many famous wheeled characters or otherwise crippled/disabled ones. Discworld has already raised one in this thread and we can also raise X-Men for having another. I'm sure if we put our heads together we can think of a good few other fantasy stories where not every character is a gleaming pinnacle of robust health.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:
Thankfully I play with people who all thought this didn't fit their vision of a fantasy world.

In the end surely that's the most important thing? Surely we can all allow other groups to be diverse however they want. Some iwll argue till they are blue in the face that dragons can only have 2 legs and 2 wings; others will argue that they can be any shape or size. Different groups and different games and different stories and settings are all part of the vast diversity that RPG gaming unlocks. Surely we should be ENCOURAGING diversity in all things not limiting it? This isn't just wheelchairs its everything - from wizards to dragons to cave and dungeon design and more.

Groups can be diverse as they want - but diversity of ideas is not a sign the idea is good. It is not an inherent, categorical good. And I think I'm free to say "this looks dumb".

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 blood reaper wrote:
something that seems outright dumb and completely impractical.

Honest question. Do you play in a highly realist setting? Do you require rules for fatigue, weather conditions, equipment wear, etc.? Do you discourage "unrealistic" stuff like castles that aren't architecturally sound, towns that don't reflect probable class demographics? If players use the wrong sort of armor for an environment are they penalized?

Ultimately: what is your threshold between fantasy realism vs. outright dumb, and why does it matter to you if someone else's is different? It isn't even like a tabletop miniatures game where you might not like someone's modification of canon (or the designers' modification of canon) and you might run across it in some unexpected circumstance: it's just a game mod.

If you actually read the document, they did a decently thorough job coming up with mechanics that accounted for their fantasy version of a wheelchair. including gear, abilities, designer notes, etc I don't agree with all of it, but they put some effort into it.

No, I don't. Because I recognise realism can be selective. Just because I think someone rolling around a dungeon would be a bit silly does not mean I am going to demand of my players that they do not wear horned helmets. It doesn't fit the aesthetics of my setting, or really any setting I'd want to play in, and I ultimately think it's just a little bit silly.

And why does it matter? Why does it matter if you think something is good? This is a public forum for people to voice their opinions. It matters because it feels silly in an environment where everyone is basically a grizzled soldier running around hacking other people to pieces; the moment you start saying "Ah well, but the chair is actually a magical chair which does X, Y, Z," and is basically power armour, then everyone who is able bodied should also be able to access this equipment and therefore leave the wheelchair bound character in the dust.

And I did; I still thought it was dumb. Effort doesn't mean anything.

Honestly I find it kind of laughable that people are using "imagination" as a justification for this.

Self-inserts are not imaginative. And of course, I trust no able-bodied people will be using these models or rules, since a person who isn't [insert category] playing as [insert category] is extremely problematic.

I have an autism spectrum disorder, but that does not define me as a person, it is not all that I am. If someone were to make it into a huge deal like this, implying that being pandered to in this way is necessary for someone like me to be "included" in RPGs, I would find that grossly offensive. I suspect quite a lot of people with physical and mental health issues would feel very similarly. Those without a Patreon to advertise anyway...

Importing our real lives into escapist fantasies is not inclusion, it's condescension.

I reiterate - if you actually want to help disabled people, just give all of the money you would spend on this silliness directly to the charity.

Love it.

And for anyone who says "that's unrealistic, any society with magic and magical healing would have no need for wheelchairs!", we live in a society with far simpler things that we could fix, yet don't, due to inequality of wealth and negligence of lower classes. As long as wheelchairs are around for us IRL, there is nothing to be lost by featuring them in our fiction. What, do you ban people from carrying swords as they were less common than spears and billhooks "in reality"?

On the actual twitter page where this idea is discussed, I see plenty of wheelchair users happy to see representation and cool interpretations of their apparatuses represented in model form. And frankly, if they like it, that's enough reason for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Importing our real lives into escapist fantasies is not inclusion, it's condescension.

Tell that to wheelchair users who are overjoyed to see this kind of stuff.

For them, escapism might not be "here's your legs!", it's "here's your character being a badass in their wheelchair"! You have no right to declare what someone's escapist fantasy is, especially if that fantasy doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Love it.

And for anyone who says "that's unrealistic, any society with magic and magical healing would have no need for wheelchairs!", we live in a society with far simpler things that we could fix, yet don't, due to inequality of wealth and negligence of lower classes. As long as wheelchairs are around for us IRL, there is nothing to be lost by featuring them in our fiction. What, do you ban people from carrying swords as they were less common than spears and billhooks "in reality"?

On the actual twitter page where this idea is discussed, I see plenty of wheelchair users happy to see representation and cool interpretations of their apparatuses represented in model form. And frankly, if they like it, that's enough reason for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Importing our real lives into escapist fantasies is not inclusion, it's condescension.

Tell that to wheelchair users who are overjoyed to see this kind of stuff.

For them, escapism might not be "here's your legs!", it's "here's your character being a badass in their wheelchair"! You have no right to declare what someone's escapist fantasy is, especially if that fantasy doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.

Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Whatever, if you guys want to feel like you're being Good Guys by supporting this nonsense feel free, I just hope you don't offer this unprompted to the next wheelchair user to come to one of your games, I suspect you'd be in for a rude awakening.

Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Here's the deal, the existence of this line of models harms no one, and if it made one person happy, it made the world a better place by that tiny bit. There is no reason to be upset about this, it harms you in no way.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Love it.

And for anyone who says "that's unrealistic, any society with magic and magical healing would have no need for wheelchairs!", we live in a society with far simpler things that we could fix, yet don't, due to inequality of wealth and negligence of lower classes. As long as wheelchairs are around for us IRL, there is nothing to be lost by featuring them in our fiction. What, do you ban people from carrying swords as they were less common than spears and billhooks "in reality"?

On the actual twitter page where this idea is discussed, I see plenty of wheelchair users happy to see representation and cool interpretations of their apparatuses represented in model form. And frankly, if they like it, that's enough reason for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Importing our real lives into escapist fantasies is not inclusion, it's condescension.

Tell that to wheelchair users who are overjoyed to see this kind of stuff.

For them, escapism might not be "here's your legs!", it's "here's your character being a badass in their wheelchair"! You have no right to declare what someone's escapist fantasy is, especially if that fantasy doesn't affect you in any way whatsoever.

Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Whatever, if you guys want to feel like you're being Good Guys by supporting this nonsense feel free, I just hope you don't offer this unprompted to the next wheelchair user to come to one of your games, I suspect you'd be in for a rude awakening.

Wow, how bitter must you be to take offense at someone else's fantasy existing? Very sad.

Yodhrin wrote:Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

The twitter folks who *use wheelchairs*? Yeah, I think they are representative. Don't you?

Frankly, if so much as one wheelchair user thinks this is good and they want it, that's enough people in my eyes.

Still waiting for you to elaborate on why you implied that some escapist fantasies have to be a certain way, and that "surely any wheelchair user would NEVER like their character in one".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Whatever, if you guys want to feel like you're being Good Guys by supporting this nonsense feel free, I just hope you don't offer this unprompted to the next wheelchair user to come to one of your games, I suspect you'd be in for a rude awakening.

Wow, how bitter must you be to take offense at someone else's fantasy existing? Very sad.

I know, right! Yodhrin over here basically saying "who'd want to imagine their character in a wheelchair haha dumb condescension".

Interesting concept and the sculpts look really nice. But I'm not a fan of the designs. The wheelchairs look too modern and efficient (in fact, they remind me of powered wheelchairs like the Hoveround) for the technology level of the fantasy settings they represent. I would prefer sculpts based on the early wheelchair designs, perhaps enhanced by magic to make them more practical.

https://abilitytools.org/blog/history-of-the-wheelchair/

This just my opinion based on personal tastes. If others like the designs, more power to them.

Cronch wrote:

Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Here's the deal, the existence of this line of models harms no one, and if it made one person happy, it made the world a better place by that tiny bit. There is no reason to be upset about this, it harms you in no way.

I wouldn't use words like "harm", neither am I upset(it's always nice to just imagine anyone you disagree with is an angry-cry memeface though doesn't it, saves you from having to actually consider their point of view), but I do think it's a step backwards in terms of representation. We've gone from seeing tokenism and treating people with disorders of whatever kind as special cases that need to be catered to and "helped" as being condescending and even offensive, to an insistence that people who're different can only properly participate in "normal" activities if what makes them different is not just included but celebrated and elevated.

You see only the positive, but when some well-meaning woke DM offers this to someone who still holds to that previous way of thinking about their disability that can cause some amount of upset. I've seen that kind of thing happen to friends in the past, they felt like garbage for ages afterwards, they felt reduced to their difference and nothing more. It's happened to me even, though only the once since my thing is "invisible" so most of the well-meaning dopes I interact with casually have no obvious reason to blunder about. No matter how nice it makes you feel, this is not an unalloyed good.

EDIT:

ITT - Neurotypical physically able people telling people with actual disorders that they're bitter and dumb because their views based on actual experience rather than reading a couple of twitter replies are invalid.

Genuine comedy.

TBH I believe this would look better in a modern to cyberpunk/scifi setting than in a fantasy one. Things like Xarls Xavier.


But I mean. More options for people, go ahead, if you like it and it makes you day feel a little bit happier the existence of this is allready worth it.

I can agree with Yodhrin that if somebody goes to a disabled person and tells them "Ey look at this miniatures, you should use this!" it would be pretty much inconsiderate. But if somebody in weelchair (Or even people that is not in one) wants to use this then go ahead.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Cronch wrote:

Ah yes, because the twitter activist types who're "overjoyed" about this are extremely representative.

Here's the deal, the existence of this line of models harms no one, and if it made one person happy, it made the world a better place by that tiny bit. There is no reason to be upset about this, it harms you in no way.

I wouldn't use words like "harm", neither am I upset(it's always nice to just imagine anyone you disagree with is an angry-cry memeface though doesn't it, saves you from having to actually consider their point of view), but I do think it's a step backwards in terms of representation. We've gone from seeing tokenism and treating people with disorders of whatever kind as special cases that need to be catered to and "helped" as being condescending and even offensive, to an insistence that people who're different can only properly participate in "normal" activities if what makes them different is not just included but celebrated and elevated.

You see only the positive, but when some well-meaning woke DM offers this to someone who still holds to that previous way of thinking about their disability that can cause some amount of upset. I've seen that kind of thing happen to friends in the past, they felt like garbage for ages afterwards, they felt reduced to their difference and nothing more. It's happened to me even, though only the once since my thing is "invisible" so most of the well-meaning dopes I interact with casually have no obvious reason to blunder about. No matter how nice it makes you feel, this is not an unalloyed good.

EDIT:

ITT - Neurotypical physically able people telling people with actual disorders that they're bitter and dumb because their views based on actual experience rather than reading a couple of twitter replies are invalid.

Genuine comedy.

Funny you should say that, because i sent this to a friend of mine who is actually wheelchair bound. He thought they were cute and a neat idea. Perhaps it's better off to leave it to the individual to decide if they like it or not rather than speak on their behalf.

 Yodhrin wrote:
but I do think it's a step backwards in terms of representation.

And what about the wheelchair users who enjoy this? You're going to tell them that they shouldn't be represented?

We've gone from seeing tokenism and treating people with disorders of whatever kind as special cases that need to be catered to and "helped" as being condescending and even offensive, to an insistence that people who're different can only properly participate in "normal" activities if what makes them different is not just included but celebrated and elevated.

No-one's saying that wheelchair users even need to use these characters though? They're there as an option, an additional extra, which has nothing to do with you.

You see only the positive, but when some well-meaning woke DM offers this to someone who still holds to that previous way of thinking about their disability that can cause some amount of upset. I've seen that kind of thing happen to friends in the past, they felt like garbage for ages afterwards, they felt reduced to their difference and nothing more. It's happened to me even, though only the once since my thing is "invisible" so most of the well-meaning dopes I interact with casually have no obvious reason to blunder about. No matter how nice it makes you feel, this is not an unalloyed good.

You're right, there could be a case where a DM turns around and says "ah, I see you're in a wheelchair, would you like to use the wheelchair rules?" - but this is no different assuming that someone might want to play the same character as their own race, or gender, or anything else. The DM shouldn't be "offering" anything pointedly, but should basically say to the whole table "these are what I'm using for character creation, go wild, and if there's something you want clarification on or want to see added, I'll see what I can do". This is here for players who want their characters in wheelchairs to turn around to their DM and say "this is cool, can I use this?".

ITT - Neurotypical physically able people telling people with actual disorders that they're bitter and dumb because their views based on actual experience rather than reading a couple of twitter replies are invalid.

Genuine comedy.

ITT: People laying down the law on what your escapist fantasies for your player characters can and can't be.

I mean, come on - you have people in wheelchairs on that twitter thread saying they like it. I don't care what anyone else has to say on the matter. What, you're going to dismiss them too?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
More options for people, go ahead, if you like it and it makes you day feel a little bit happier the existence of this is allready worth it.

I can agree with Yodhrin that if somebody goes to a disabled person and tells them "Ey look at this miniatures, you should use this!" it would be pretty much inconsiderate. But if somebody in weelchair (Or even people that is not in one) wants to use this then go ahead.

I agree on that - but that's not that the wheelchair rules/models are bad, that's just the DM being inconsiderate to their players. But also totally agreed on what you've said about "if wheelchair users like it, that's good enough for me".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
Funny you should say that, because i sent this to a friend of mine who is actually wheelchair bound. He thought they were cute and a neat idea. Perhaps it's better off to leave it to the individual to decide if they like it or not rather than speak on their behalf.

I'm glad they think it's a good idea!

Yodhrin, would you care to tell their friend that they're being condescending to their own condition?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Interesting concept and the sculpts look really nice. But I'm not a fan of the designs. The wheelchairs look too modern and efficient (in fact, they remind me of powered wheelchairs like the Hoveround) for the technology level of the fantasy settings they represent. I would prefer sculpts based on the early wheelchair designs, perhaps enhanced by magic to make them more practical.

https://abilitytools.org/blog/history-of-the-wheelchair/

This just my opinion based on personal tastes. If others like the designs, more power to them.

That's a nice little thought to consider for design.

I could see these being useful in a moderate level magic setting, or one that doesn't have divine healing/blessings, or any number of various flavors of fantasy. I'd honestly like to see the range of these expanded to include the older style, and some with like 'golem' chairs, where they're all terrain types with legs, multiple wheeled variants, the works. There'a lot you can do with this idea.

Whos' going to tell the dwarf berserker that his legs don't work, so he can't go killing? No one now.

I don't have a problem with these minis existing for those that are interested but one of them is downright silly not because he's in a wheelchair but rather because of who he is and the type of wheelchair he is in.



A dwarven bezerker... in a hand powered wheelchair... wielding double weapons. I suppose if I was a dastardly orc (which are now considered racist btw according to WOTC) then I would simply just take a five foot step away from him after attacking. He'd then have to drop both weapons, move five feet, and spend his standard action picking up his weapons again and not be able to attack. Rinse, lather, repeat until he's dead.

I don't have any issue with mages or ranged characters in normal hand powered wheelchairs but I think that they just put the minimal amount of creative thought into that dwarven mini. I don't have an issue suspending my disbelief to included disabled characters in fantasy/scifi settings but they should at least be true to the setting. Why not give him a reach weapon instead? Or make the wheelchair steampowered? Or on a blood bowl style deathroller since he is a dwarf after all. Heck, put a ramming prow or spinning bladed weapon contraption powered by gears from the wheels on the front of it or instead if you want to keep it hand powered. YMMV but dwarves were on of my favorite races to play back when I was playing D&D and this is just the bare minimum of creativity.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
but I do think it's a step backwards in terms of representation.

And what about the wheelchair users who enjoy this? You're going to tell them that they shouldn't be represented?

...

Yodhrin, would you care to tell their friend that they're being condescending to their own condition?

Well firstly, were I to speak to them, I'd probably avoid using leading questions designed not to provoke a genuine discussion but rather to make a passive-aggressive attempt to paint them as unreasonable.

But I might well *discuss* with them the ways in which this approach to "inclusion" are not as simple and positive as they might first appear, how they contribute to a broader conception of difference that makes many people with disabilities and disorders feel othered, and ask that they consider their views of it in that light. I would also hope they would be discussing "representation" as in the defined concept as it relates to equality in good faith, rather than using it as wordplay to try and score points.

Regardless, I've said my piece, if people need to ascribe some elevated level of emotion and outrage to it so they don't have to have any uncomfortable doubts about them being the Good Guys, that's on them.

Cronch wrote:
Not everyone likes to RP Sir Cookiecutter McWonderbread.

You sound hungry... and that sounds like an awesome character! Certainly more interesting than some of the pregens I've had to choose from at conventions.

 warboss wrote:
I don't have a problem with these minis existing for those that are interested but one of them is downright silly not because he's in a wheelchair but rather because of who he is and the type of wheelchair he is in.



A dwarven bezerker... in a hand powered wheelchair... wielding double weapons. I suppose if I was a dastardly orc (which are now considered racist btw according to WOTC) then I would simply just take a five foot step away from him after attacking. He'd then have to drop both weapons, move five feet, and spend his standard action picking up his weapons again and not be able to attack. Rinse, lather, repeat until he's dead.

I don't have any issue with mages or ranged characters in normal hand powered wheelchairs but I think that they just put the minimal amount of creative thought into that dwarven mini. I don't have an issue suspending my disbelief to included disabled characters in fantasy/scifi settings but they should at least be true to the setting. Why not give him a reach weapon instead? Or make the wheelchair steampowered? Or on a blood bowl style deathroller since he is a dwarf after all. Heck, put a ramming prow or spinning bladed weapon contraption powered by gears from the wheels on the front of it or instead if you want to keep it hand powered. YMMV but dwarves were on of my favorite races to play back when I was playing D&D and this is just the bare minimum of creativity.

I was just planning to add a ram pulling his chair or put some boilers and pipes on the back for “dwarfy” steam power. Someone jot read mentioned ski pole-type contraptions. There are ways to make him just practical enough.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

I was just planning to add a ram pulling his chair or put some boilers and pipes on the back for “dwarfy” steam power. Someone jot read mentioned ski pole-type contraptions. There are ways to make him just practical enough.

Sounds great (either one). Personally I think the steam powered chair is better for in game real world practical reasons (still fits on a 25mm base) and just adding bits to the back even without removing the torch should be fine; it could be the pilot light for the steam boiler! It doesn't take much effort to make it fit into a fantasy setting and I'm surprised the sculptor didn't.

Anyone complaining that this is unrealistic needs to take a chill pill and watch this very detailed documentary on the history of Japan called Robo-Geisha to see that this exists IN ACTUAL REAL LIFE FOR REAL! (at 2:00)


More to the point, I'm never going to buy, or try to convince others to buy those, but I'm never going to object, or comment negatively on those if someone bring them for a game. I don't think much more needs to be said. No need to go on a crusade against people enjoying their escapism WRONGLY imo!!!

These look cool and a great idea.

If you’re spending your time telling people why they shouldn’t like these or that they shouldn’t exist then maybe just accept they’re not for you and step away from the keyboard.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
If you’re spending your time telling people why they shouldn’t like these or that they shouldn’t exist then maybe just accept they’re not for you and step away from the keyboard.

If there is anything the covid thread has taught us, there is a bottomless market for a single poster to make up 10-20% of the total posts in a thread with "I'm not triggered, you are" over and over again until it's finally locked.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Okay. Sure is nice of the evil overlord to construct their dungeon of doom and secret lair to modern accessibility standards...

I mean what if the Dark Lord is also in weelchair? Or what if the weelchar bound Dark Lord's mother wants to visit. He might be evil, but even evil has a mom.

PS: Those mini are really well done.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

john_chandler wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

john_chandler wrote:
Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

I can't see the scale stated anywhere, but they're STLs so you should be able to re-size them.

True, but I was thinking of the metal/resin versions.

i'm sure they'll be in the 28-35mm range most D&D stuff is, but as you say there's nothing on the website to say that I can see,

I've messaged them to ask and will report back

They've got back to me and the minis are on 25mm bases, so that should give you an idea of the size

Jesus, this thread is depressing.


The minis, on the other hand, are fantastic.

 warboss wrote:

A dwarven bezerker... in a hand powered wheelchair...

Is it? Or is it an ensorcelled chair that moves under its own power, and responds to his commands. Usually... But maybe not always, because it's semi - intelligent and not particularly obedient?

It's fantasy. A chair doesn't have to be just a chair.

As someone with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, confined to a wheelchair all of my life, let me say how woefully disappointed I am in a chunk of this forum right now.

My disability should've condemned me to a socio-economically miserable life for countless institutional reasons. It was 100% the power of imagination which liberated me, and took me everywhere from Hollywood to the game industry. Writing stories told from the imagination gave me a wonderful life and my respect and devotion to games and fiction of all sorts is rules my life.

Models like this are magnificent, and can be incredibly empowering, especially for younger disabled people who are frequently made to feel like there is no place for them. To deny their merits to not to intelligently challenge hyper-wokeness, or whatever someone may call it, rather it just exposes you as an donkey-cave, belligerent, piece of crap.

If they aren't to your personal liking... that's totally reasonable, but to dismiss them outright says far more about the few loud folks here who have gotten themselves so very worked up.

Now, I will gladly go order a set, along with extras i'll make sure to give away here on Dakkadakka, as gamers of every ilk should feel wanted and welcome.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And for anyone who says "that's unrealistic, any society with magic and magical healing would have no need for wheelchairs!", we live in a society with far simpler things that we could fix, yet don't, due to inequality of wealth and negligence of lower classes. As long as wheelchairs are around for us IRL, there is nothing to be lost by featuring them in our fiction. What, do you ban people from carrying swords as they were less common than spears and billhooks "in reality"?

Gosh, what is "Negligence of lower classes" supposed to mean? I think you need to take some more intersectionality classes if you think it's proper to classify certain sections of society as "lower" and believe that their grading is caused by their negligence, or if you see the position of the lowers as due to the "Neglect" of the highers and middlers, what with the lowers lacking in agency and competence. Both ideas seem a bit gross imo.

This is awesome, I refer naysayers to Brandon Stark - did the whole quest without the wheelchair, had to unlock time travel spell before he could get the crafting plans for it, most unreasonable DM ever!

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:As someone with Spinal Muscular Atrophy, confined to a wheelchair all of my life, let me say how woefully disappointed I am in a chunk of this forum right now.

My disability should've condemned me to a socio-economically miserable life for countless institutional reasons. It was 100% the power of imagination which liberated me, and took me everywhere from Hollywood to the game industry. Writing stories told from the imagination gave me a wonderful life and my respect and devotion to games and fiction of all sorts is rules my life.

Models like this are magnificent, and can be incredibly empowering, especially for younger disabled people who are frequently made to feel like there is no place for them. To deny their merits to not to intelligently challenge hyper-wokeness, or whatever someone may call it, rather it just exposes you as an donkey-cave, belligerent, piece of crap.

If they aren't to your personal liking... that's totally reasonable, but to dismiss them outright says far more about the few loud folks here who have gotten themselves so very worked up.

Now, I will gladly go order a set, along with extras i'll make sure to give away here on Dakkadakka, as gamers of every ilk should feel wanted and welcome.

I am so glad that you enjoy these. Like, if there's ANYONE that really gets a say on how "valuable" these are, it's you - and that they empower you and make you feel like you belong? That's a great success.

JWBS wrote:Gosh, what is "Negligence of lower classes" supposed to mean?

You know what it means, even if my wording is improper. Disparity of wealth being withheld from the majority of the population, and left to suffer while others profit.

But, I think that's a bit too political for Dakka's rules, so I'll leave it at that. TL;DR - anyone saying "your character could just use magic and fix all their problems!" has the same energy as "you could just have surgery for your medical condition!"

JWBS wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


And for anyone who says "that's unrealistic, any society with magic and magical healing would have no need for wheelchairs!", we live in a society with far simpler things that we could fix, yet don't, due to inequality of wealth and negligence of lower classes. As long as wheelchairs are around for us IRL, there is nothing to be lost by featuring them in our fiction. What, do you ban people from carrying swords as they were less common than spears and billhooks "in reality"?

Gosh, what is "Negligence of lower classes" supposed to mean? I think you need to take some more intersectionality classes if you think it's proper to classify certain sections of society as "lower" and believe that their grading is caused by their negligence, or if you see the position of the lowers as due to the "Neglect" of the highers and middlers, what with the lowers lacking in agency and competence. Both ideas seem a bit gross imo.

No to put words in his mouth, but the apparent “obvious” meaning is the lack of care or attention given to people of lower socioeconomic standing. I think—although I cannot be sure— you are most likely coming from a similar place and misunderstanding a turn of phrase.

Edit: ninja

I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

100% agreed on all points. At the very least, if one does not like it they can walk away. No one is forcing anyone to be inclusive, despite what triggered conservatives like to say. Sticking around to get offended is just... increasing the toxicity for no reason.

On an unrelated note, some of the sculpts are really good from a technical perspective. Look how crisp the leaves are on the druid.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think—although I cannot be sure— you are most likely coming from a similar place and misunderstanding a turn of phrase.

Edit: ninja

No, you are correct to doubt. Although I wouldn't exactly call myself a Libertarian, I find the idea that the the lack of success of some people should be blamed on those that have succeeded to be fairly reprehensible. Maybe that's not really what he's saying, but if not, it seems to me to be perilously close to that ("The woes of the poor are mainly caused by the not-poor" etc etc).

I like these minis, though I can see why some people might see them as possibly being a bit condescending and some people might find them to be quite immersion-breaking (I don't see them as being either of those things but I'm not disabled and I don't play DnD).

I don't even think anyone would have a problem should someone express that they found them immersion-breaking, it is people making the extension of 'I do not like them = they are objectively bad' coupled with trying to justify that logical step via some link to disability or even as far as 'I have a different disability so it's okay for me to be toxic but not you.'

Anyways, @the OP do you forsee an expansion in the steampunk direction? I could definitely use that as a GM.

I'm iffy on the idea of identifying disabled people with wheelchairs. We did indeed use them several decades ago for various disabled advocacy groups (eg. cerebral palsey).

However, recent research with exoskeletons mentions preference of exoskeletons over wheelchairs. Even being able to stand up and be the same height as others was seen as an improvement. Some exoskeletons can be used in daily lives, but their current problem is that they're cost-prohibitive.

The closest to wheelchairs I've seen in RPG's are crippled beggars in cities on crude movement devices. However, you can argue that we certainly do have the disabled in RPG's. Pirates have amputated hands and feet, as well as missing eyes. Stealth types may wear blindfolds or masks which would prevent them from seeing. Some RPG systems have rules for disabled characters.

https://phys.org/news/2018-07-robotic-exoskeleton-disabled-people.html

THREE WORDS!!!!


Ivar The Boneless!!!

A mini in his metal leggings in his chariot..


I looked through the rest of the thread, and yeah It's not something people were screaming for, but it does look like a pretty good looking render so far. Lets see the casts, though.

As to fantasy with missing limbs, paralyzed, wounded, etc.etc...


Old World Warhammer Fantasy...

Those D100 tables ,,,,, mmmm....

http://bindslet.dk/rpg/4e_Critical_Reference_Sheet_1.04.pdf


And yeah, if you've seen someone smashed with a Warhammer, or Battle Axe, a "Wheeled Chair, pulled by 6 or 8 war dogs with spikes, and weapons and shield at the ready is not out of the question. We had one show up in a D and D game from hell one time, and it was quite a site to see a armored wheeled chair/ tank with the dogs running it around mowing people down.

A second thing that showed up was the armored skull cap, where one of the players lost half of his head and they scooped the brain up and cupped the brain cap and had an alchemist and I think it was the Blacksmith that put together an armored skull cap for the player.

Of course he had the battle rage rolls and some other crazy stuff, but it meant for a pretty cool game with a player that kept a guy going who could have easily rolled the sheet up in a ball and started from scratch....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warhammer- Damage Smithsonian You Tube show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsEzB4jxXt8

MAN AT ARMS: REFORGED Sigmar's hammer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvCr3oztVpg

Battle Axe, from Perth demonstration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkwRdv2i1EY

Longbow shooting the French
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGg3dqrzaY4

Vikings - The Great Heathen Army Battle #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kyeK3hKbBc


So yeah, getting pounced by these weapons can destroy a character.... You can end up crushed and in a "Wheeled Chair", or a Armored walking suit before you know it...

Then there would be the Undead character... You get killed, hacked to peices, and then are reanimated and put into the armored wheeled carts of doom...



MMMMM......

One of my favourite parts of the development of this are the rules that allow shape-shifting of the chair user.

If a chair user shifts into, say, a wolf then they can either have the chair simply disappear or (my favourite bit) have the chair shift into one of those awesome mobility aids for disabled animals.

And I just love the idea of a shape-shifted wolf with a pair of mobility wheels.

Our games can be challenging, inspiring, immersive and exciting, but above all, in a world that can seem joyless, or hobby should bring us joy. And the existence of these minis brings me joy.

That is fantastic, thank you for pointing that out.

The miniatures look great, although I would personally prefer some sci-fi versions as a later addition

Giving people fictional role models can be a very empowering thing, I know it helped me go through some of the issues I faced growing up and still face as an adult, just for being different. It is something that I have found while reading and seeing certain movies and series, which have helped me with my uniqueness and all of its good and bad things. It is something I also try to do when I write, as if it has helped me, it can help others.

Obviously, no generalization can be done with people, so some will like it, some will dislike it and some will feel neutral towards this concept. That applies to both those who are bound or not to a wheelchair. Humans are complex and strange beings. The important thing to remember is: if you dislike it you don't need to advertise it with a fiery passion, but you are allowed to dislike it, just the same as someone is allowed to like it. Remember that and play nice

There are people that will be offended with anything and can be very vocal about it, so don't worry about those
Even in this day and age I have met people that felt offended because I don't drink alcohol for health related reasons (and some other reasons as well), so people will complain about everything.

This isn't new there was Cohen the Barbarians mob of geriatric marauders some of whom had scythed wheelchairs or spiked mobility frames. It was a running joke in Pratchett's Discworld books. There were miniatures even:




Jokes aside some wounds don't heal, or there is a reason why a hero uses a mobile chair. Now I do think that articulated legs are better, wheels work too, and it cam be achieved with little more than an Animate Object spell.
If candelabra can be animated wheeled chairs can,

and according to the 3e rules would be fairly fast and have good carry weight. One need not even be disabled to use one, merely laden or in need of having a spread of accessories at easy hand.

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/animatedObject.htm

According to 3e rules these wheelchairs have a speed of up to 70ft, which is ridiculously fast.

https://5e.d20srd.org/srd/spells/animateObjects.htm

According to 5e rules you would need an external mechanic to permanently animate your chair, but the fighting stats are not bad: Medium animated object (wheelchair) 40Hp, 13AC, +5 to hit, 2d6 + 1 damage Str10 Dex12.



If Davros can threaten the universe from a mobility scooter, fantasy heroes should able to perform too, and a common spell/ item enchantment can make this go a long way in the meta.

 GreenScorpion wrote:
The miniatures look great, although I would personally prefer some sci-fi versions as a later addition

True -- Outside of generic fantasy, it's not hard to find examples.

For superheroes, we have Marvel's Charles Xavier of the X-Men, who had both a wheelchair and hovercraft. He even had a new body, but had mental blocks walking -- perhaps similar to phantom limbs. DC has Oracle, formerly Batgirl, whose injury and disability was a key plot point and turning point for the character. If we go beyond wheelchairs, Marvel's Iron Man, Tony Stark, originally built his armor for a heart condition. While in cyberpunk and steampunk, the users of assistance technology.may not be thought of as disabled, that may be the whole point.

I should mention that, while old age isn't the same as a disability, fictional generic fantasy (and the Cthulhu mythos) treats the elderly, at least elderly males, much better than our own society. I don't think it would be difficult to say that generic fantasy miniatures have a far greater proportion of elderly male miniatures than, say, modern-day miniatures.

My only issue with the dwarf berzerker is that his chair isn't dwarfy enough!
It should be big, chunky, armor plated, with big grindy wheels for crunching up goblins. Like Bob the Inquisitor said, with a few exhaust pipes and boilers for good measure.

Good point!

Mebbe something that I also don't quite like about the the miniatures (and The Sims are that they feel like reskins.

So, yeah, I'd figure a dwarf would make a device based on their culture and use their Blood Bowl devices as inspiration for a wheelchair. Or, rather, Death Wheel Chair...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

100% agreed on all points. At the very least, if one does not like it they can WALK AWAY. No one is forcing anyone to be inclusive, despite what triggered conservatives like to say. Sticking around to get offended is just... increasing the toxicity for no reason.

Bolded for Irony .

It's been a long time since I've read any D&D novels, but I distinctly remember one where a Character was cursed by their God and wasn't getting healed by anyone else , basically the God blackballed them for failing to complete their task, and none of the other deities were going to get involved.

Plenty of stories could be made to involve characters with disabilities, especially to go find a healing scroll/balm or other remedy. Plus I have had the pleasure of playing with people who were wheelchair bound (unfortunately he passed away many years ago now), so I might see which one reminds me most of Seth and paint it up as a reminder.

Find some of the comments here almost reprehensible. I don't care if you don't like them, the fact that there is an opportunity for a player to utilize a character that exists in a world that they have only ever known is fantastic. As a physical therapist, I completely applaud this project. Bravo.

You know what's more practical? A horse.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

john_chandler wrote:

beast_gts wrote:

john_chandler wrote:
Dumb question, but I'm assuming they're 28mm?

I can't see the scale stated anywhere, but they're STLs so you should be able to re-size them.

True, but I was thinking of the metal/resin versions.

i'm sure they'll be in the 28-35mm range most D&D stuff is, but as you say there's nothing on the website to say that I can see,

I've messaged them to ask and will report back

They've got back to me and the minis are on 25mm bases, so that should give you an idea of the size

Cool, thanks.

Will recommend to a friend of mine who is into D&D. She's done SF and fantasy cosplay in the past incorporating her wheelchair, and would dig these.

Inclusion should do just that- include everyone.

For any martial arts fans, do yourself a favor and find some of the media based on "The Four Constables" by Wen Ruian. The leader of the constables is a genius kung fu tactician and master of concealed weapons... who just so happens to be in a tricked- out wheelchair.

I know there's been a few seasons of it on TV (it's called "the four") and there were some comics based on it from Tony Wong's studios...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what's more practical? A horse.

Yup, very practical!

Really, though, practicality isn't always the most important concern.

In fairness when you consider that most dungeons appear to have giants, giant spiders, dragons, gorgons and all manner of huge monsters I'd wager most could easily let you ride a horse inside.

 insaniak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what's more practical? A horse.

Yup, very practical!

Really, though, practicality isn't always the most important concern.

Dungeons always hold trolls and Dragons and garbage like that. I think we can let a horse and other various mounts get a pass as I'm doubting most dungeons were built with wheelchair ramps in mind to begin with.

I mean, I get the product and the miniatures look good, but a mount just makes a bit more sense.

Wow I just notice this had gone up.

If you have any questions just ask!

Scale picture attached!

Im in a wheelchair and love these! Ill be looking into getting some.

Thank you.

I was more thinking of them for Warhammer and the like.

Quite like to see some more fantastical versions - so animated corpses/bones for a Necromancer, living wood for a druid etc?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what's more practical? A horse.

It isn't really about practicality to begin with. Even if it was, horses are not at all practical (for far more reasons than just their size) as anyone who has actually dealt with horses will tell you. I would go so far as to say you probably know that, and are trying to criticize just for the sake of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strataminiatures wrote:
Wow I just notice this had gone up.

If you have any questions just ask!

Scale picture attached!

Thank you!

I mean, they look interesting and if makes people happy I don't think what the problem might be.

As an abled bodied cis white man, I personally would have preferred to see more "out there" versions of the wheelchairs, as those look a tad too... pedestrian, if you pardon the pun. Other than that? The minis look great.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what's more practical? A horse.

It isn't really about practicality to begin with. Even if it was, horses are not at all practical (for far more reasons than just their size) as anyone who has actually dealt with horses will tell you. I would go so far as to say you probably know that, and are trying to criticize just for the sake of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strataminiatures wrote:
Wow I just notice this had gone up.

If you have any questions just ask!

Scale picture attached!

Thank you!

I mean my girlfriend's dad owns a Ranch with horses soooooooo I've dealt with them before, and in terms of maintenance sure they're not easy, though riding isn't hard. In terms of an RPG though, it seems more likely you trained a horse or other mount, and you're strapped on compared to the magic wheelchair.

Like I said, I get the point of the miniatures and they look nice (especially the dwarf) but a mount just makes more sense if we are gonna break that barrier. I knew a guy in a wheelchair aeons ago that made his stand-in a Paladin riding some lizard thing (I forget the name it's been a while). It was cool how he did the mini as well. I already asked two of my current patients in wheelchairs (since they're younger adults and one actively wargames) and they asked why would you do that compared to riding on a bug or something. So I'm wondering how many actual handicapped people are enthused about it.

That is perfect; since you have access to horses, ride one into a tunnel no larger than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet, the traditional size for a large creature in RPGs) then turn around, go backward, attack with a mock weapon, and the like. I am not being sarcastic; it would be very interesting to hear real-world experience of how practical it is. Doubly so, since in an actual dungeon the steed would be getting attacked, injured, exposed to all manner of effects, and the like. Finding an animal trained to deal with those things without completely panicking would plausibly be at least as difficult as finding the magic to animate a wheelchair. So the horse needs to be as easy or easier to manage in a dungeon to even theoretically compete in the practicality department. This is also assuming all parts of all areas the adventurer encounters are large enough in the first place, which is almost never true from the onset.

Or admit the comment 'just use a horse!' was probably in poor taste and move on.

Wow.. did not notice that the rogue there was using her wheels as a bandolier for throwing knives..

 Vaktathi wrote:
I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

I don't think offended is necessarily the right word.

High Fantasy is largely escapist and does not reflect the real world. Villains (i.e. LotR Orcs) are frequently one dimensional. Evil, whether overt or not, exists as a necessary obstacle to the hero(es) and less so as a representation of real world moral issues. Now, yes, modern fantasy is moving away from that, but I can see why a traditionalist would be a tad annoyed at what they perceive as being the politicized inclusion of real world issues.

Ultimately, it's a free market economy and companies can produce whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't use it, if you love it, use it, so on and so forth. I just think your perception of the issue is a little narrow minded.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I mean, I get the product and the miniatures look good, but a mount just makes a bit more sense.

Then you use a mount.

It's not about what makes the most sense. It's about what the player would prefer to use to represent themselves. If the player thinks a mount would be better, then sure, they can go that route. If they think just roleplaying a character with a functional lower half would be better, then they can go that route.

On the other hand, if they think that having a character in a wheelchair is a cool way of integrating themselves into the game, seriously, where is the problem? Sure it's not the most practical solution. Neither are decorative horns and wings on helmets, but we've all spent 30 years successfully not complaining about those, for the most part.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You know what's more practical? A horse.

It isn't really about practicality to begin with. Even if it was, horses are not at all practical (for far more reasons than just their size) as anyone who has actually dealt with horses will tell you. I would go so far as to say you probably know that, and are trying to criticize just for the sake of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strataminiatures wrote:
Wow I just notice this had gone up.

If you have any questions just ask!

Scale picture attached!

Thank you!

I mean my girlfriend's dad owns a Ranch with horses soooooooo I've dealt with them before, and in terms of maintenance sure they're not easy, though riding isn't hard. In terms of an RPG though, it seems more likely you trained a horse or other mount, and you're strapped on compared to the magic wheelchair.

Like I said, I get the point of the miniatures and they look nice (especially the dwarf) but a mount just makes more sense if we are gonna break that barrier. I knew a guy in a wheelchair aeons ago that made his stand-in a Paladin riding some lizard thing (I forget the name it's been a while). It was cool how he did the mini as well. I already asked two of my current patients in wheelchairs (since they're younger adults and one actively wargames) and they asked why would you do that compared to riding on a bug or something. So I'm wondering how many actual handicapped people are enthused about it.

I'm sure if the players character had the choice of riding a mount everywhere or being in a wheelchair it might make a difference, but when the adventurer gets to town there are probably going to be a few townsfolk telling them to get their horse out of the pub. Also you don't need to feed a wheelchair, some minor maintainance yes, but not nearly as much as a mount. Your wheelchair won't get spooked by the beasts in the dungeon. Probably fewer thing are going to try and eat your wheelchair over eating a mount.

Theres at least one person in this thread excited about a wheel chair character as they have said they are in one right now.

you keep arguing practicality, but what most others are talking about is inclusion. While a wheelchair bound individual may want to play an able bodied person, this gives everyone the opportunity to play someone that is not. I can see plenty of cool stories to place heroes in wheelchairs. You also have to remember that not every adventure is in a dungeon, some are in towns, courts or castles.

A young prince/princess was injured and left for dead when his escort detail (including priest) were attacked and slaughtered by an Uncle who has since taken over the throne. The child survived though terribly injured by dragging himself to safety until he came upon a friendly craftsman who repurposes his deceased fathers wheelchair for the kid not knowing that he/she is a royal. The craftsman and his family nurses them to health and the child leaves to try and rebuild his power base to one day reclaim their throne. Knowing where some of the kingdoms treasures have been stashed in outposts destroyed by the takeover, the child enlists the help of others to collect some of what is rightfully theirs. The rest of the party is unaware of who this brat is, but their knowledge has been right on so far, so they bring them along each taking turns pushing them around in the chair. Lots of non-cave action, and even if there were some caves that were not wheelchair accessible the party could assist the kid by carrying them and the chair when needed. Man I miss RPGing.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

I don't think offended is necessarily the right word.

High Fantasy is largely escapist and does not reflect the real world. Villains (i.e. LotR Orcs) are frequently one dimensional. Evil, whether overt or not, exists as a necessary obstacle to the hero(es) and less so as a representation of real world moral issues. Now, yes, modern fantasy is moving away from that, but I can see why a traditionalist would be a tad annoyed at what they perceive as being the politicized inclusion of real world issues.

Ultimately, it's a free market economy and companies can produce whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't use it, if you love it, use it, so on and so forth. I just think your perception of the issue is a little narrow minded.

I'm going to exercise my right to be "narrow-minded" in this instance when people make comments insisting that self-insertion into fantasy worlds isn't an inherent and fundamental part of that genre and RPG's in general , or that isn't exercising one's imagination (how many of us imagined ourselves in the worlds of Star Wars as kids? I know I did), and actually do appear genuinely offended at the concept of these mini's, going so far as to call it condescension or outright calling it an unpleasant mentality and actively mock conceptual characters.

@Theopony, cool if I steal that idea?

 porkuslime wrote:
Wow.. did not notice that the rogue there was using her wheels as a bandolier for throwing knives..

Same, that is a sneaky and clever use of the resources at hand.

 trexmeyer wrote:
[but I can see why a traditionalist would be a tad annoyed at what they perceive as being the politicized inclusion of real world issues.

Not sure how acknowledging the existence of people in wheelchairs is "politicizing real world issues", to be honest. I feel like some of you guys are really reaching for things to be upset about.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is perfect; since you have access to horses, ride one into a tunnel no larger than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet, the traditional size for a large creature in RPGs) then turn around, go backward, attack with a mock weapon, and the like. I am not being sarcastic; it would be very interesting to hear real-world experience of how practical it is. Doubly so, since in an actual dungeon the steed would be getting attacked, injured, exposed to all manner of effects, and the like. Finding an animal trained to deal with those things without completely panicking would plausibly be at least as difficult as finding the magic to animate a wheelchair. So the horse needs to be as easy or easier to manage in a dungeon to even theoretically compete in the practicality department. This is also assuming all parts of all areas the adventurer encounters are large enough in the first place, which is almost never true from the onset.

Or admit the comment 'just use a horse!' was probably in poor taste and move on.

The same dungeons that host 25 foot tall Spiders in dungeons that would probably be worse for traveling around even in a magic wheelchair that won't get damaged then? Even for a fantasy setting that's a bit...over the top don't you think?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
@Theopony, cool if I steal that idea?

Have fun. Almost have enough of an idea to make an actual story out of it myself.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is perfect; since you have access to horses, ride one into a tunnel no larger than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet, the traditional size for a large creature in RPGs) then turn around, go backward, attack with a mock weapon, and the like. I am not being sarcastic; it would be very interesting to hear real-world experience of how practical it is. Doubly so, since in an actual dungeon the steed would be getting attacked, injured, exposed to all manner of effects, and the like. Finding an animal trained to deal with those things without completely panicking would plausibly be at least as difficult as finding the magic to animate a wheelchair. So the horse needs to be as easy or easier to manage in a dungeon to even theoretically compete in the practicality department. This is also assuming all parts of all areas the adventurer encounters are large enough in the first place, which is almost never true from the onset.

Or admit the comment 'just use a horse!' was probably in poor taste and move on.

The same dungeons that host 25 foot tall Spiders in dungeons that would probably be worse for traveling around even in a magic wheelchair that won't get damaged then? Even for a fantasy setting that's a bit...over the top don't you think?

Only if you're going out of your way to view it as such just for its own sake. The idea of a 25ft spider is probably substantially less viable than a wheelchair given that it's almost certainly not possible for such an arthropod's trachial network to deliver sufficient oxygen to sustain it, even in an atmosphere with substantially higher oxygen levels, much less the issues with molting a creature that size. If you can accept the spider, the wheelchair should be substantially less of an issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is perfect; since you have access to horses, ride one into a tunnel no larger than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet, the traditional size for a large creature in RPGs) then turn around, go backward, attack with a mock weapon, and the like. I am not being sarcastic; it would be very interesting to hear real-world experience of how practical it is. Doubly so, since in an actual dungeon the steed would be getting attacked, injured, exposed to all manner of effects, and the like. Finding an animal trained to deal with those things without completely panicking would plausibly be at least as difficult as finding the magic to animate a wheelchair. So the horse needs to be as easy or easier to manage in a dungeon to even theoretically compete in the practicality department. This is also assuming all parts of all areas the adventurer encounters are large enough in the first place, which is almost never true from the onset.

Or admit the comment 'just use a horse!' was probably in poor taste and move on.

The same dungeons that host 25 foot tall Spiders in dungeons that would probably be worse for traveling around even in a magic wheelchair that won't get damaged then? Even for a fantasy setting that's a bit...over the top don't you think?

Only if you're going out of your way to view it as such just for its own sake. The idea of a 25ft spider is probably substantially less viable than a wheelchair given that it's almost certainly not possible for such an arthropod's trachial network to deliver sufficient oxygen to sustain it, even in an atmosphere with substantially higher oxygen levels, much less the issues with molting a creature that size. If you can accept the spider, the wheelchair should be substantially less of an issue.

But what if the spider had a mount instead of a wheelchair?

*Mind Blown*

Being chained to a mount makes more sense, see https://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/skorne/warlocks/xerxis-fury-of-halaak.

The wheelchairs don't bother me but I'm glad there's no orc because that would be truly offensive.

Would love to see a Wizard with a modified "Tenser's Floating Disc" wheelchair that hovers ala Professor X.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Being chained to a mount makes more sense, see https://privateerpress.com/hordes/gallery/skorne/warlocks/xerxis-fury-of-halaak.

The wheelchairs don't bother me but I'm glad there's no orc because that would be truly offensive.

Just think of Wharf from Star Trek TNG when his back is broken. Imagine his chair having spiky wheels all the better to roll over his downed enemy with .

 Vain wrote:
Would love to see a Wizard with a modified "Tenser's Floating Disc" wheelchair that hovers ala Professor X.

That would be pretty awesome. Alternately, a wizard wouldn't bother with a physical body, or change himself into a lich.

Medieval cities were hardly wheelchair friendly. Filth and excrement in the streets. Ruts in the road. Mud in the rain.

Mounts certainly do sound like better assistance in a medieval world. Yes, you can't bring them into dungeons, but they were certainly taken outside, and most outside terrain is inaccessible to wheelchairs. Goblin wolf riders, fairies on bugs, giant lizard mounts, dwarves on ponys, etc. are examples of assistance to non-disabled and disabled alike.

Still, kinda strange that we don't see more assistance to disabled in RPG terms. Certainly you could put someone in an animated suit of armor or other construct.

 ced1106 wrote:

 Vain wrote:
Would love to see a Wizard with a modified "Tenser's Floating Disc" wheelchair that hovers ala Professor X.

That would be pretty awesome. Alternately, a wizard wouldn't bother with a physical body, or change himself into a lich.

Medieval cities were hardly wheelchair friendly. Filth and excrement in the streets. Ruts in the road. Mud in the rain.

Mounts certainly do sound like better assistance in a medieval world. Yes, you can't bring them into dungeons, but they were certainly taken outside, and most outside terrain is inaccessible to wheelchairs. Goblin wolf riders, fairies on bugs, giant lizard mounts, dwarves on ponys, etc. are examples of assistance to non-disabled and disabled alike.

Still, kinda strange that we don't see more assistance to disabled in RPG terms. Certainly you could put someone in an animated suit of armor or other construct.

Realistically a disabled adventurer would have both; the magical wheelchair would simply be more likely to be useful in miniature form for combat encounters. It is pretty common for any PC to have a mount they use out of combat, or they rent/borrow/'borrow' one for a period of time. There just isn't nearly as much a demand for such miniatures because the fighting rarely happens mounted.

Speaking of magic, I think you are onto something with that floating disc idea. It doesn't even have to be used by the wizard himself; it could have been enchanted on commission.

 ced1106 wrote:
Still, kinda strange that we don't see more assistance to disabled in RPG terms. Certainly you could put someone in an animated suit of armor or other construct.

There are some "magical prosthesis" options out there, but sadly it often more of a fetishistic "rule of cool" thing than a real effort for representation (god knows I'm guilty of that at times) or just a way for an injured character to return back to the 'default' gaming experience.

For examples:

Rule of Cool / Potential Fetishism


Just return to default


I like that these wheelchair models exist, even if I don't plan to use them myself anytime soon.
The fact that people are getting upset about them strikes me as dumb as someone getting upset that there is a Half-Orc Bard model because obviously a Half-Elf would be a much better Racial choice for the that class.


edited for a better fantasy example of the Rule of Cool

 Vain wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
Still, kinda strange that we don't see more assistance to disabled in RPG terms. Certainly you could put someone in an animated suit of armor or other construct.

There are some "magical prosthesis" options out there, but sadly it often more of a fetishistic "rule of cool" thing than a real effort for representation (god knows I'm guilty of that at times) or just a way for an injured character to return back to the 'default' gaming experience.

For examples:

Rule of Cool / Potential Fetishism

Spoiler:

Just return to default

Spoiler:

I like that these wheelchair models exist, even if I don't plan to use them myself anytime soon.
The fact that people are getting upset about them strikes me as dumb as someone getting upset that there is a Half-Orc Bard model because obviously a Half-Elf would be a much better Racial choice for the that class.


edited for a better fantasy example of the Rule of Cool

...honestly? I'm not sure how, or why, one of those examples would be more or less "rule of cool/potential fetishism" than the other. Both seem to do the same (restoring an arm), and both seem to do it by way of cool (one is MAGITECH COOL, the other is fething FLAMING/PHANTASM HAND COOL).

Is it because of capabilities? And if so, should beneficial magical items be considered "potential fetishism" too, in a medieval fantasy setting, seeing as they don't just put you into baseline?

If it's a matter of representation, I would argue that the above examples are/can be as much about representation (for example, war vets or accident survivors) than the wheelchairs. I mean, RPGs are all about being someone you're not, too, so I could play a blind/paralised/autistic/etc. character too: in that case it wouldn't be about my representation, but about exploring the situation (and please, don't tell me I can't play anything else than myself in an RPG).

 Albertorius wrote:
...honestly? I'm not sure how, or why, one of those examples would be more or less "rule of cool/potential fetishism" than the other. Both seem to do the same (restoring an arm), and both seem to do it by way of cool (one is MAGITECH COOL, the other is fething FLAMING/PHANTASM HAND COOL).

Legit criticism, ymmv on these, as I was going for what it looked like for me, with mechanical arm looking awesome the amorphus gas-like mage arm being boring...but that is from the view firmly lodged in my wheelhouse of "cyberpunk/cyberisation is cool".

 Vain wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:
...honestly? I'm not sure how, or why, one of those examples would be more or less "rule of cool/potential fetishism" than the other. Both seem to do the same (restoring an arm), and both seem to do it by way of cool (one is MAGITECH COOL, the other is fething FLAMING/PHANTASM HAND COOL).

Legit criticism, ymmv on these, as I was going for what it looked like for me, with mechanical arm looking awesome the amorphus gas-like mage arm being boring...but that is from the view firmly lodged in my wheelhouse of "cyberpunk/cyberisation is cool".

Yeah, I think it's very much down to everyone's PoV. Someone all about "magic is awesome" would probably much rather have the second one.

 Vain wrote:
The fact that people are getting upset about them strikes me as dumb as someone getting upset that there is a Half-Orc Bard model because obviously a Half-Elf would be a much better Racial choice for the that class.

Now you make me want a half-orc bard model with a big mohawk, rocking an electric guitar and making the horns, wearing a stud leather cut-off.

Impact Miniatures

Strata Miniatures made 4 very cool wheelchair RPG adventurers. They are based in the UK. I had some US customers ask me about printing them but they are not for commercial license.

However last night just had a US customer buy the digital file for 2 of them send them over to Impact's 3-D print lab so I had a chance to see them in person. VERY detailed models. They were tricky to set up to print but I think the prints came out great. I can print them for anyone that buys the STLs from Strata for around $14 per a character if you are interested.

If you are going to have these 3-D printed by a service ... make sure to use someone with some really good printers as there a lot of small details that you'll get to enjoy if they are printed on a printer that can do that level of detail!

Thought i'd post this as it shows what the resin print can look like (the details clearly come across well), and to suggest Impact! Miniatures if your in the USA and need a 3D print shop because and don't want to deal with ordering minis from the UK

Thanks, Orlando.

Impact Miniatures has a good reputation for miniature production.

The Berserker looks quite good. The angle of the wheels reminds me of those used in wheelchair basketball. And, yeah, those wheelchairs are made not to tip over, not that they don't.

BTW, For those of you who read manga, or want to read a good sports manga, take a look at REAL, which uses wheelchair basketball and rehabilitation for its character development. Illustrated by the same guy who did Slam Dunk, if you're familiar with manga and anime. : https://genecellstories.blogspot.com/2015/03/real-manga-review.html



Article criticizing "ableism" in D&D, and discussion of disabled NPC's in D&D adventures.
http://analoggamestudies.org/2018/03/blinded-by-the-roll-the-critical-fail-of-disability-in-dd/

 ced1106 wrote:


Article criticizing "ableism" in D&D, and discussion of disabled NPC's in D&D adventures.
http://analoggamestudies.org/2018/03/blinded-by-the-roll-the-critical-fail-of-disability-in-dd/

In previous editions of dnd (or dnd-like games, I'm honestly not certain if this came to ACTUAL dnd or if it was one of the other similar titles) you could choose to play a character with disabilities that would give you more "points" during character creation to put toward other things, and it became a stereotype that power-gamers would always choose to take negative attributes like "mute" and "short" in order to gain the maximum number of points to put in, for example, strength.

This is exactly why power-gamers of RPGs were colloquially called "munchkins" leading to the popular card game - because they'd play characters that were like short, fat, mute, ugly, etc - essentially giving up all their social role-playing mechanical abilities in exchange for more power in combat.

If I'm understanding the article's criticism, a situation like that would play into the "super-crip" negative stereotype, implying that someone who has a particular disability gets some extra "bonus" to compensate them, like the myth that blind people get to have super hearing.

And the current system, where you might represent a disability like not having a limb, or being blind, or being deaf, as something that would primarily be a penalty and does not inherently come with any advantages that fully compensate for it, is bad because it portrays disabilities as a penalty that the DM imposes on players.

That would leave you with a third option to simply have no mechanical effect to the disability, or at least, no inherent mechanical effect, and just leave it to the player to describe their actions or limitations in a particular way, much the same as how a player might currently portray a character of some fantasy race that would have some sort of inherent difference in how they move around in the world. But that's also bad, because it reduces disability to 'flavor text'.

How would you suggest setting this up in a way that would not fall into one of these negative stereotypical portrayals? should there simply be a section in the phb about how to explain, portray and mechanically represent physical and mental differences? Should there be fixed mechanics at all, or just suggestions/ideas?

There are numerous examples of major technological advances as a result of people compensating for their own or others' disabilities. I think that it would be entirely appropriate to give a penalty and some sort of skill buff, whether it's more of them or special options or whatever, representing ingenuity and compensation.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
There are numerous examples of major technological advances as a result of people compensating for their own or others' disabilities. I think that it would be entirely appropriate to give a penalty and some sort of skill buff, whether it's more of them or special options or whatever, representing ingenuity and compensation.

It could be, but it's a ridiculously complicated topic and I'm not surprised Wizards has avoided touching it with their 10-foot poles considering the history of powergamers and "munchkins". Between players adopting disabilities to gain mechanical advantages, bad GM's assigning players disabilities to penalize them or force them to accept some "realistic" penalty based on the DM's interpretation of what that would mean, and players adopting in-game disabilities in order to further their Tragic Backstory TM, it's never not gonna be a minefield.

I recently saw an article from someone who seemed to be really geniunely trying to come from a decent place suggesting that a person with impaired vision could have a set of magical corrective lenses, but any time they made a dexterity saving throw they'd have to pass a check, or their glasses would fall off and break.

I can just imagine the obnoxious GM who has accepted, for years, that a fully covered up chonky dwarf wearing head to toe chainmail and a hawt elven babe wearing a metal bikini have the same armor class deciding that because someone who made a character look more like them - including the glasses - they now have to take this extra roll or end up crawling around on the floor like velma in scooby doo.

DnD has plenty of hooks that are present, but generally are mechanically "ignorable' by the players. If someone wants to play a Tortle or a Warforged, a good roleplayer can have a really great time with the fact that those characters are like 500 pounds, and it can come up as an advantage and as a limitation that needs to be considered. But you can also generally just ignore it if that's not an aspect of the game the player finds entertaining.

Representation of disabilities as mechanical effects has GOT to come from the players themselves, and in the best cases should really be something that they can decide to opt out of without removing it from their character, in the same way that if you play a gnome with a high strength score, you don't constantly have to be explaining how your character who is supposed to be like 2 feet tall can actually be strong.

I don't know if there's a good way for Wizards to put that out into the world without it being a super general guideline on how to represent things and homebrew mechanics for it, without making their own "canonical" system of mechanics through a UA or something.

the_scotsman wrote:
Representation of disabilities as mechanical effects has GOT to come from the players themselves, and in the best cases should really be something that they can decide to opt out of without removing it from their character, in the same way that if you play a gnome with a high strength score, you don't constantly have to be explaining how your character who is supposed to be like 2 feet tall can actually be strong.

Absolutely. Let the players decide how they want to treat their characters. If they want negative modifiers for things, so be it. End of the day, D&D ought to be the ultimate expression of Rule of Cool.

Oh yeah, I think it's easy to see why they've avoided it. It's also I think perfectly reasonable to have a third-party variant rules set, and I was suggesting a relatively easy mechanical representation of how one might balance it.

Personally, I prefer others' homebrews to my own responses with stuff like this, just to avoid my own mistakes of making cool things too strong.

the_scotsman wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
There are numerous examples of major technological advances as a result of people compensating for their own or others' disabilities. I think that it would be entirely appropriate to give a penalty and some sort of skill buff, whether it's more of them or special options or whatever, representing ingenuity and compensation.

It could be, but it's a ridiculously complicated topic and I'm not surprised Wizards has avoided touching it with their 10-foot poles considering the history of powergamers and "munchkins". Between players adopting disabilities to gain mechanical advantages, bad GM's assigning players disabilities to penalize them or force them to accept some "realistic" penalty based on the DM's interpretation of what that would mean, and players adopting in-game disabilities in order to further their Tragic Backstory TM, it's never not gonna be a minefield.

I recently saw an article from someone who seemed to be really geniunely trying to come from a decent place suggesting that a person with impaired vision could have a set of magical corrective lenses, but any time they made a dexterity saving throw they'd have to pass a check, or their glasses would fall off and break.

I can just imagine the obnoxious GM who has accepted, for years, that a fully covered up chonky dwarf wearing head to toe chainmail and a hawt elven babe wearing a metal bikini have the same armor class deciding that because someone who made a character look more like them - including the glasses - they now have to take this extra roll or end up crawling around on the floor like velma in scooby doo.

DnD has plenty of hooks that are present, but generally are mechanically "ignorable' by the players. If someone wants to play a Tortle or a Warforged, a good roleplayer can have a really great time with the fact that those characters are like 500 pounds, and it can come up as an advantage and as a limitation that needs to be considered. But you can also generally just ignore it if that's not an aspect of the game the player finds entertaining.

Representation of disabilities as mechanical effects has GOT to come from the players themselves, and in the best cases should really be something that they can decide to opt out of without removing it from their character, in the same way that if you play a gnome with a high strength score, you don't constantly have to be explaining how your character who is supposed to be like 2 feet tall can actually be strong.

I don't know if there's a good way for Wizards to put that out into the world without it being a super general guideline on how to represent things and homebrew mechanics for it, without making their own "canonical" system of mechanics through a UA or something.

I think your wisdom score is too high for this campaign setting.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:
Oh yeah, I think it's easy to see why they've avoided it. It's also I think perfectly reasonable to have a third-party variant rules set, and I was suggesting a relatively easy mechanical representation of how one might balance it.

Personally, I prefer others' homebrews to my own responses with stuff like this, just to avoid my own mistakes of making cool things too strong.

That's true. I know that in a campaign my father ran at one point, he had someone playing who was hard of hearing who wanted to put that into his character, so the character had magical hearing aids that he and my dad had an understanding would not be taken away from his character or broken as a plot device, that while they were activated just had no mechanical effect. When he deactivated the aids, he'd fail any perception check that involved hearing, his party members could not communicate with him unless his character could see their mouths moving, but he had resistance to thunder damage and advantage on any saving throw vs an effect that would cause thunder damage.

To represent that negative effect, he'd turn his off at the table and just watch the GM, and as a mechanic I think it was ideal for this kind of thing. Because most of the time, you can just ignore it, it's not a nagging effect that he has to continuously deal with, and every once in a great while the party ends up fighting some banshees and has to figure out how to communicate with their rogue in the middle of the chaos that he needs to grab the macguffin and LEAVE NOW.

One of the mini's creators is involved in the just started Mantic Hellboy RPG.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/manticgames/hellboy-the-next-chapter

With all these people claiming the chair is dumb, we do know a character called Bran the broken right?

 bullyboy wrote:
With all these people claiming the chair is dumb, we do know a character called Bran the broken right?

To be fair, Bran never does an fighting.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I am astounded at how offended some people are at miniatures in wheelchairs. There's room to criticize the styling or look, but being upset at the fundamental concept just for its own sake, or acting like the idea that people inserting themselves into fantasy worlds (or wanting to identify with characters) isn't something fundamentally inherent to the genre and RPG's in general (or that it isn't imagination), is both absurd and disappointing in the extreme. If *this* is what's going to ruin your immersion in a fantasy world, you probably weren't going to have a fun time anyway.

These mini's are pretty neat. The goals expressed are positive ones. Not seeing the problem here.

I don't think offended is necessarily the right word.

High Fantasy is largely escapist and does not reflect the real world. Villains (i.e. LotR Orcs) are frequently one dimensional. Evil, whether overt or not, exists as a necessary obstacle to the hero(es) and less so as a representation of real world moral issues. Now, yes, modern fantasy is moving away from that, but I can see why a traditionalist would be a tad annoyed at what they perceive as being the politicized inclusion of real world issues.

Ultimately, it's a free market economy and companies can produce whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't use it, if you love it, use it, so on and so forth. I just think your perception of the issue is a little narrow minded.

Bigotry is the right word, and cries of "free market" are a cover for bigotry. Would you say the same thing about a "free market" if the miniatures in question depicted people of color rather than people in wheelchairs? Is it OK for me to run a game where people of color don't exist?

The escapism argument is trash. Fiction reflects the real world. There's no escaping the real world. You don't write fiction, create art, or do anything else without being influenced by the real world. Saying "nothing means anything, it's just the imagination" is just a red herring for racist, sexist, and ablest tropes.

fefdsghhtrefds wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
[...]Evil, whether overt or not, exists as a necessary obstacle to the hero(es) and less so as a representation of real world moral issues. Now, yes, modern fantasy is moving away from that, but I can see why a traditionalist would be a tad annoyed at what they perceive as being the politicized inclusion of real world issues.

Ultimately, it's a free market economy and companies can produce whatever the hell they want. If you don't like it, don't use it, if you love it, use it, so on and so forth. I just think your perception of the issue is a little narrow minded.

Bigotry is the right word, and cries of "free market" are a cover for bigotry. Would you say the same thing about a "free market" if the miniatures in question depicted people of color rather than people in wheelchairs? Is it OK for me to run a game where people of color don't exist?

The escapism argument is trash. Fiction reflects the real world. There's no escaping the real world. You don't write fiction, create art, or do anything else without being influenced by the real world. Saying "nothing means anything, it's just the imagination" is just a red herring for racist, sexist, and ablest tropes.

trexmeyer... I can't tell by "perceived": are you saying that perception is accurate, in question, one view among many, etc?

I'm not positive on the tone, fefdsghhtrefds, but I definitely agree that the idea of saying that generally the only ones who are able to say that entertainment is apolitical are those who are able to and/or choose to ignore political influences and implications of fiction etc. I wouldn't say they're necessarily a mask, but fiction is not innocent of politics.

What constitutes escapism is different for some than it is for others as well. For some escapism is playing a character completely and utterly divorced from anything that they are or know.

For others, escapism is turning something that you perceive as a weakness or as a source of shame in yourself and playing in a universe where that becomes a strength.

Let's say, for example, someone is a little bit scrawny, and a little bit unathletic, and gets teased at school. For them, escapism might be imagining that they are a mighty-thewed barbarian who cleaves his enemies with a gigantic axe. But it might also be playing a character who is essentially the same as them - bookish, nerdy, priding himself in his intellect, but in this universe this intellect allows him to throw fire and lightning, fly, turn invisible, shield his allies from harm and he can do it all because he studied hard and used his brain.

Both these forms of escapism have always been integral to roleplaying games.

Another way to look at these miniatures is to look at disabilities during the Middle Ages. Not surprisingly, no wheelchairs, but the disabled did have crutches and the like. First picture is how those unable to walk tended fields.



Wiki: "people living with disabilities "were no less undistinguished at the dawn of the Middle Ages from the economically weak. ... Due to the intensive labor that constituted agriculture during this time period, many peasants and serfs have been found with extensive spinal and limb injuries, as well as stunted growth, malnutrition and general deformity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_in_the_Middle_Ages

 ced1106 wrote:
Another way to look at these miniatures is to look at disabilities during the Middle Ages. Not surprisingly, no wheelchairs, but the disabled did have crutches and the like. First picture is how those unable to walk tended fields.

Spoiler:

Wiki: "people living with disabilities "were no less undistinguished at the dawn of the Middle Ages from the economically weak. ... Due to the intensive labor that constituted agriculture during this time period, many peasants and serfs have been found with extensive spinal and limb injuries, as well as stunted growth, malnutrition and general deformity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_in_the_Middle_Ages

D66 rolls on the tables in Warhammer Fantasy. Of course WF handled those sorts of damage a bit more unforgiving than D and D ever did.

I think this is a beautiful, wonderful idea and as soon as I buy a 3d printer, I plan to buy every bloody one of them because it's something that should be supported.

Thank you to the creators, this is the kind of thing that makes life more hopeful.

Playing a bit of a devil's advocate here ... what about people with legs working perfectly but unusable arms and hands? Will they get a proper miniature representation?

Because now it seems every miniature is holding or gripping or brandishing something or at least waving or pointing.

Yennefer is known for casting spells with her leg when she was tied up. Maybe some mage miniatures doing exactly that due to their arm disability?

Cyel wrote:
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate here ... what about people with legs working perfectly but unusable arms and hands? Will they get a proper miniature representation?

Because now it seems every miniature is holding or gripping or brandishing something or at least waving or pointing.

Yennefer is known for casting spells with her leg when she was tied up. Maybe some mage miniatures doing exactly that due to their arm disability?

While i'm not against that, lets not derail a good thing. This is someone honestly trying to move the bar and bringing attention to an under represented group. It doesn't need to be drawn down by every other option there is. We don't need them to make 500 versions of the models just for it to be acceptable. I don't mean to belittle other differently abled individuals, but if someone were to object to this because there are no single arm amputee models or no a half halfling/orge model with a disproportionately large clubbed foot who is bald, then it's ruining what this project is about.

Option A
"Hey we created a low-fantasy steam-punk world where magic exists but it must be fused with technology. When some of the heroes inevitably suffered inoperable limb damage they needed to craft these bad-arse wheelchairs and we hired a 3D sculpter to design these files that you can buy."
Person 1
"These look so cool!"
Person 2
"These look dumb and the idea is dumb"

Option B
Because we are such good and moral people who are commited to an inclusive and equiatable roll playing environment we hired a 3D sculpter to create these wheelchair heroes to fill a shameful hole that has been a disgrace to the world of RPG miniatures.
Person 1
"These look so cool - I am also a good person!"
Person 2
"These look dumb and the idea is dumb"
X# of People
"Can you imagine someone being so hateful and ignorant!!"
Person 3
"That's great but what about a miniature showing *my* specific condition?"
Person 4
"Does anyone else find it a little problematic that non-disabled people might buy these to play-act as wheelchair using folx?"

More Option A in the world - less Option B.

Option B. is why the world has stayed tolerant of donkey-caves with objectively bad opinions.

I'll take the world where we call out intolerance instead of ignoring it, thanks.

Yep.

B is a hamfisted caricature that misses the point and actively misrepresents motivations (more representation isn't about shame, and this rather cynically assumes that moral behavior is motivated by virtue signaling), but, even there, we have the actual issue: A involves no conversation and no politics; B acknowledges political realities.

Arm disabilities are far easier to convert using existing miniatures than wheelchair characters. Something like a single missing arm is one of the easier conversions to make, something anyone could do.

Can you guys take that discussion to a topic of its own please and leave this thread for news regarding the models, thanks!

looks like four more minis in the works


Human Bards (1st amputee designs)


Half Elf Wizard


Human Fighter

and a Gizmondo interview
https://io9.gizmodo.com/creators-of-combat-wheelchair-miniatures-on-the-challen-1845051141

Isn’t that four? There’s two different ones in the first picture.

well caught

There are models I like, and models I do not like.

It is okay to like models.

It is also okay to not like models.

These look well done, but i'm pretty indifferent on them.

I understand inclusion.

I also understand immersion.

No one is looking at Stephen Hawking and thinking hey this is the model of a raging berserker, People would see Arnold S. in Conan gear and think "Berserker". Whether we want to call that bias, or just admitting that one is physically more capable in melee combat than the other is a personal choice we can make.

There are plenty of people that are cool with gnome warriors in WoW being as tough as a Tuaren warrior, so hey whether you like immersion or inclusion or somewhere between there is a market for this.

These models are well sculpted and characterful, and I like how they incorporated the class themes into the chairs themselves. If for some reason I was playing a paraplegic and needed a model for it, I would get these.

They should do one that's a nerdy kid in glasses like the wizard master from nightmare on elm street 3

They're nice sculpts and I think they've improved since the first round. My only recommendation is that the female bard not hold her own blade so precariously close to her neck. Yes, I know the cutting edge is facing the other way but I doubt that detail will be obvious once printed at the proper scale.

Maybe she’s got a kink?

more on the way









thanks to beasts of war for spotting them

These are super cool

 insaniak wrote:

Is it? Or is it an ensorcelled chair that moves under its own power, and responds to his commands. Usually... But maybe not always, because it's semi - intelligent and not particularly obedient?

It's fantasy. A chair doesn't have to be just a chair.

By the same token, a suit of armor doesn't have to be just a suit of armor. It COULD also make the wearer vastly stronger and faster and all sorts of other things. But we reserve that for higher-level characters.

So. Does the DM give the handicapped character a super-duper magical wheelchair at first level? Or does the handicapped adventurer have to 'earn it' at higher level just like the other adventurers, in which case a pony would be vastly more useful than a wheelchair at low level.

(It's worth noting that Floating Disc is a pretty low level spell with high carrying capacity; rather than enchanting a magic wheelchair it would probably be easier to construct and enchant and use a floating chair instead. Likewise the Levitate and Fly spells. Flying carpet, anyone?)

If - IF - I had a handicapped player who really wanted to have a handicapped character that, for whatever reason, could not be magically healed of his handicap and they wanted to adventure in a wheelchair, I'd let them. But I'd also inform them that there will be times where the wheelchair will be a hinderance and a handicap in the game, no less so than there would be hinderances for halflings and half-giants under specific circumstances.

And if this ever came about, yes, those minis are quite nice for that purpose.

I can also see the munchkin trying to game the system to use and abuse wheelchairs; using one to 'charge' down a ramp with a lance for extra damage and the like...

If you can dominate the galaxy from a mobility chair you can be a mere hero.

JWBS wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think—although I cannot be sure— you are most likely coming from a similar place and misunderstanding a turn of phrase.

Edit: ninja

No, you are correct to doubt. Although I wouldn't exactly call myself a Libertarian, I find the idea that the the lack of success of some people should be blamed on those that have succeeded to be fairly reprehensible. Maybe that's not really what he's saying, but if not, it seems to me to be perilously close to that ("The woes of the poor are mainly caused by the not-poor" etc etc).

I like these minis, though I can see why some people might see them as possibly being a bit condescending and some people might find them to be quite immersion-breaking (I don't see them as being either of those things but I'm not disabled and I don't play DnD).

I get what you're saying... to a point. But poor people don't set the price of tuition at universities, nor do they set pay-grades for jobs they can learn how to perform without said education they cannot afford, either.

Yes, some poor people have opportunities they fail to take advantage of. Many others work their backsides off... and still remain poor because of decisions made by others, not because of lack of effort on their part.

Good call. I know I really appreciate it when the DM informs me that my congenital heart defect, asthma, and poor vision are all easily-cured trivialities and that people like me have no place in the setting. It is right that I should have to play a character utterly uninformed by my formative limitations. What’s the alternative? Force the DM to punish the rest of the group as necessary to portray what an albatross I am to any healthy group of people?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That is perfect; since you have access to horses, ride one into a tunnel no larger than 3x3 meters (10x10 feet, the traditional size for a large creature in RPGs) then turn around, go backward, attack with a mock weapon, and the like. I am not being sarcastic; it would be very interesting to hear real-world experience of how practical it is. Doubly so, since in an actual dungeon the steed would be getting attacked, injured, exposed to all manner of effects, and the like. Finding an animal trained to deal with those things without completely panicking would plausibly be at least as difficult as finding the magic to animate a wheelchair. So the horse needs to be as easy or easier to manage in a dungeon to even theoretically compete in the practicality department. This is also assuming all parts of all areas the adventurer encounters are large enough in the first place, which is almost never true from the onset.

Or admit the comment 'just use a horse!' was probably in poor taste and move on.

Horses - or better yet, ponies - can easily be purchased with a standard adventurer's starting gold. Magic self-propelled and thought-controlled wheelchairs, not so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Representation of disabilities as mechanical effects has GOT to come from the players themselves, and in the best cases should really be something that they can decide to opt out of without removing it from their character, in the same way that if you play a gnome with a high strength score, you don't constantly have to be explaining how your character who is supposed to be like 2 feet tall can actually be strong.

Absolutely. Let the players decide how they want to treat their characters. If they want negative modifiers for things, so be it. End of the day, D&D ought to be the ultimate expression of Rule of Cool.

And if I think it would be cool that my character isn't afraid of anything and should never need to make a save vs. fear?

And it's definitely not cool when my character gets eaten by a troll because I can't roll higher than a 5 to hit.

Sometimes rule of cool has to make way for the game to work.

I think you and many of us have very different understandings of how and why people play RPGs.

Ya all know that if you sense a possibility that someone else might at some point have what is by your standards BADWRONGFUN you can just scroll past and not openly declare your intolerance, right? Nobody needs to know that you don't allow handicapped people to have representation at your game table, or that it bothers you that someone else might.

 Theophony wrote:

Cyel wrote:
Playing a bit of a devil's advocate here ... what about people with legs working perfectly but unusable arms and hands? Will they get a proper miniature representation?

Because now it seems every miniature is holding or gripping or brandishing something or at least waving or pointing.

Yennefer is known for casting spells with her leg when she was tied up. Maybe some mage miniatures doing exactly that due to their arm disability?

While i'm not against that, lets not derail a good thing. This is someone honestly trying to move the bar and bringing attention to an under represented group. It doesn't need to be drawn down by every other option there is. We don't need them to make 500 versions of the models just for it to be acceptable. I don't mean to belittle other differently abled individuals, but if someone were to object to this because there are no single arm amputee models or no a half halfling/orge model with a disproportionately large clubbed foot who is bald, then it's ruining what this project is about.

To be fair, it's not terribly hard to change a model with both arms into one missing one or more arms either...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Ya all know that if you sense a possibility that someone else might at some point have what is by your standards BADWRONGFUN you can just scroll past and not openly declare your intolerance, right? Nobody needs to know that you don't allow handicapped people to have representation at your game table, or that it bothers you that someone else might.

Like I said, IF someone really wants to play a character in a wheelchair, I'd let them. There will simply be some consequences to that choice, just as there are consequences to other choices in character creation.

And if they want to use these minis to play said character, that's fine. These are quite well done from a sculpting and artistic standpoint.

> Horses - or better yet, ponies - can easily be purchased with a standard adventurer's starting gold. Magic self-propelled and thought-controlled wheelchairs, not so much.

Yeah, that. In fact, during the middle ages, impoverished people, like serfs, not only had short lifespans, but were crippled and disabled. However, no depiction of them involved wheelchairs. Granted, we're talking escapism here, but, if disabled people exist in a fantasy setting based on medieval history, it should be consistent with history, not rewrite it.

Certainly drawing the line at historical consistency versus magic is subjective, but I'm in the camp where you either magic everything away (at higher levels), heal bodies (cleric at lower levels), build a construct (if you're a tinkerer), or rely on history (if you can't afford it and the cleric hates you). I'm not saying you shouldn't have disabled adventurers who are as capable as non-disabled ones. But I think a wheelchair isn't the right way to do it, although obviously some do.

BTW, I also find the implication that a disabled *adventurer* to be implicitly less able than a non-disabled one to be pretty patronizing. In GURPS, for example, you can have a disability, but buy it off to represent how your character has overcome it. Pirates in RPGs stereotypically have eye-patches, peg-legs, and hooks, yet, in movies, they don't behave any less able than their land counterparts. Blindfighting and ambidexterity are standard advantages in RPG's, yet we don't complain that average adventurer need light in a dungeon or fight with a weapon and a shield. An adventurer may have an animal companion that has a sense of smell or even magic, yet we don't complain that an average adventurer lacks these abilities, either. You could even argue that your typical adventure needs to rely upon a weapon or spell, when monks only need their bodies.

As someone with limited mobility, I do not want to be seen as "disabled". I want to overcome my physical limitations and function as I did before, if not even better.

 ced1106 wrote:
> Horses - or better yet, ponies - can easily be purchased with a standard adventurer's starting gold. Magic self-propelled and thought-controlled wheelchairs, not so much.

Yeah, that. In fact, during the middle ages, impoverished people, like serfs, not only had short lifespans, but were crippled and disabled. However, no depiction of them involved wheelchairs. Granted, we're talking escapism here, but, if disabled people exist in a fantasy setting based on medieval history, it should be consistent with history, not rewrite it.

Certainly drawing the line at historical consistency versus magic is subjective, but I'm in the camp where you either magic everything away (at higher levels), heal bodies (cleric at lower levels), build a construct (if you're a tinkerer), or rely on history (if you can't afford it and the cleric hates you). I'm not saying you shouldn't have disabled adventurers who are as capable as non-disabled ones. But I think a wheelchair isn't the right way to do it, although obviously some do.

BTW, I also find the implication that a disabled *adventurer* to be implicitly less able than a non-disabled one to be pretty patronizing. In GURPS, for example, you can have a disability, but buy it off to represent how your character has overcome it. Pirates in RPGs stereotypically have eye-patches, peg-legs, and hooks, yet, in movies, they don't behave any less able than their land counterparts. Blindfighting and ambidexterity are standard advantages in RPG's, yet we don't complain that average adventurer need light in a dungeon or fight with a weapon and a shield. An adventurer may have an animal companion that has a sense of smell or even magic, yet we don't complain that an average adventurer lacks these abilities, either. You could even argue that your typical adventure needs to rely upon a weapon or spell, when monks only need their bodies.

As someone with limited mobility, I do not want to be seen as "disabled". I want to overcome my physical limitations and function as I did before, if not even better.

It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

The wizard and cleric really work quite well outside of their intended role as representative devices. Wizards would be the kinda people to make wheelchairs and would not suffer much of a drawback in their craft from using one. Clerics can easily have the backing of a church capable of hiring the craftsmen to build a sturdy enough wheelchair, and care enough for seniority that they would do it.

> It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

That's true and it's not true. (: The actual definition we use is "consistency".

To truly immerse your readers in a fictional world of your own creation, you need to write with a consistent vision—and carve away anything in your novel that distracts from that vision. For example: imagine you’re reading one of the Harry Potter books, and out of nowhere the main character’s name is spelled “Pottor”… or he’s suddenly in possession of a certain magical artifact you knew nothing about… or inexplicably turns evil and kills another character? Not only are these choices inconsistent, but they distract from the experience of reading. Instead of thinking about the story, the reader is forced to think about the physical words on the page—and question the intentions of the author that wrote them.

2. Consistent Rules for Your World: Our reality is an elaborate game, one with plenty of strict rules that make it playable. Gravity pulls us down. The sun rises in the east. Water is wet. The Pope is Catholic. Without these rules maintaining the consistency of our world, how would we live? Our lives would be thrown into chaos, and nothing would make sense. Well, the same goes for fictional worlds, too. In order for your readers to fully lose themselves in your fictional universe, a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required. More is required for “unrealistic” genres like science fiction and fantasy, but even stories meant to take place in our own reality require at least a little. Consistency in your world-building facilitates suspension of disbelief, because it makes everything line up—the reader can ignore the exact content of the rules, because they all fall into place together; in contrast, violations of that consistency will jolt your readers out of the story. Remember: Worlds can act “out of character,” too—just like characters can. Internal consistency means that the rules that govern your story on page one will continue to govern it on page 100. A good way to ensure this kind of internal logic is to actually sit down and write out the rules your fictional world should follow. If your story uses a magic system, how does it work? What do spells cost, and who can use them? If your story is set in a dystopian future, who’s in charge? What terrible, oppressive laws are in effect? And how did things get so bad?

So the issue with wheelchairs is, is it consistent with yours or my view of a generic fantasy world. For some people, it is. For others, it's not. I boldfaced the author's comment about magic, because, for *some* readers, a wheelchair is unnecessary because magic exists. You need a good explanation why the wheelchair is there. You need a world with other consistent elements that support wheelchairs. These miniatures alone, imo, do *not* do this, because we do not have generic fantasy worlds, other than C&S, that support wheelchairs. In my view of how a generic fantasy world exists, there cannot be wheelchairs because of alternate support for the disabled, including magic.

https://www.tckpublishing.com/the-importance-of-consistency-in-writing/

Genre Consistency: Consistency with other fictional works. The fictional universe should behave like other works in its genre, unless specifically noted otherwise. Any fictional concepts, characters, or settings borrowed from other works should behave as they do in those works. Tropes are Played Straight. For example, a dragon is generally expected to be a flying reptilian creature that breathes fire; if it's different in your work, the differences should be pointed out before they start affecting the plot.

Internal Consistency: Consistency with itself. Any rules, events, settings, or characters that have been established within the fictional work continue to exist and function as they did previously, unless otherwise indicated. If your work takes place in an Expanded Universe, you're generally expected to be consistent with the (non-expanded) Canon.

Often, a feature in a work is consistent at one level and not at another; for example, maybe your vampires glitter in sunlight, which is not genre consistent with other works featuring vampires, but as long as they always do that, it is internally consistent.

And that's pretty much my point. It's perfectly fine if your internally consistent D&D campaign has a good explanation for wheelchairs and glittering vampires, but neither are genre consistent with generic fantasy. And that may be the product line's point, to change that. However, I believe there's a much better way than wheelchairs for a disabled character. And any wording you need to add to the miniature moves the consistency from genre to internal.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Consistency

 RaptorusRex wrote:
It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

+1

Unless you're working with period-appropriate architecture, language, city planning, governance, class, economics (which, by the way, didn't exist as a concept until more recently), etc., there's no justification for why your imaginary version needs to exclude wheelchairs when something as advanced as constructs are available. If your setting has wheels, axles, and chairs, there's no reason someone couldn't have come up with the idea. A basic one is not complex at all. The only real barrier is cultural, not technological.

And the consistency argument is just strange. It's not like every culture or class in our world has access to the same facilities, nor do they only come up with one solution to any problem. While one solution often comes out on top, invention is very far from linear.

I'm kind of yes and no here. I think choices and options are great, so great. I also think I would approach the concept differently for aesthetics, especially as it relates to different character classes. Some seem more plausible than others, but take the armored priest... Much as these games are about imagination, I'm having a hard time with how it happens you get a guy in armor wheeling around a battle field in a wooden chair without being knocked over and pummeled trivially, not without giving them plot invulnerability. Maybe that's good for some, but we shouldn't tsk others when they just find it breaking the atmosphere too much. Adventuring around the world in a wheelchair just tends to break the historic/fantasy feel and it would work much better in a modern or future setting, say Starfinder, Traveller, etc. For classic D&D it would be less lore breaking if it were someone traveling on a liter drawn by servants, imps, etc.

Then there's the other challenge. I know some people turn disability or any number of other features into identity, but not everyone does that nor does it make sense to all. It's good that this is there for thsoe who want it, but if I were in a wheel chair, for a lot of people it just seems strange to tie their identity to ableness etc. If I were in a wheel chair I would certainly not play a character in a wheel chair any more than I would play myself as a the non-magical, non-roguish, non-elite fightery large semi-musclar man that I am.

I'm glad its there for people who are part of that culture, and I'm all for characters with different ablness features, but I don't think I'd go for this exact implementation in a pre-tech fantasy world.

To each their own in the end.

> And the consistency argument is just strange.

Is it? Because in all my years of D&D and dungeoncrawling boardgames, there hasn't been a single wheelchair. Granted, they may have added it in 5th edition, but I've only skimmed the starter kits.

But there *have* been fantasy prosthetics for disabled. Constructs, clones, life forces in other beings and inanimate objects. I mean, have some creativity, people.

And, again, back to pirates, the consistency of the genre *is* disability. Eye-patches, peg-legs, hooks for hands. With cyberpunk, you have all sorts of augmentations. And they're consistent within their genres.

Dunno. Maybe you're not familiar with consistency in fiction.

*****

> For classic D&D it would be less lore breaking if it were someone traveling on a liter drawn by servants, imps, etc.

So much this. With wheelchairs, it's just a reskin of something modern day, rather than an extension of the genre. It's like when you play a vampire in The Sims.

Might as well advocate D&D to have ye olde smartephones, ye overknight Amazone deliveries, merry olde crowdefunding platforms, and Ye Olde Banana Stande. Banana stande??
https://www.reddit.com/r/arresteddevelopment/comments/d4n5pi/there_be_always_money_in_ye_olde_banana_stand/

Are these only for use in D&D? Are they even primarily for use in D&D?

Again, many people RPG for different reasons. What you specifically find immersion breaking will not trouble many other players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone earlier mentioned rolling to save against fear. To me, that is far, far more immersion-breaking than a wheelchair. I can’t get into the mindset where you want to *roleplay* and need the dice decide how your character reacts to things, whether or not he fears something.

> Are these only for use in D&D? Are they even primarily for use in D&D?

Well, the tropes the miniatures play off are are generic fantasy, and D&D *is* pretty much the RPG system associated with it for most RPG players. Certainly other FRPG tabletop RPGs exist, but D&D is the most popular, so is most associated with fantasy RPG's.

> Again, many people RPG for different reasons. What you specifically find immersion breaking will not trouble many other players.

That's absolutely correct. But I'm differentiating between genre consistency vs. internal consistency.

EDIT: Seen the mod post, my bad.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:
It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

economics (which, by the way, didn't exist as a concept until more recently)

Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776 and his work was based on the writings of people before him. Roman Emperors were using the threat of death to combat inflation and the history of economic thought goes back to the Greeks. Not a recent concept.

The best class that can utilize a wheelchair is Engineer, Chinese fiction already used it.

> The best class that can utilize a wheelchair is Engineer, Chinese fiction already used it.

Good point. CMON also added a tinkerer's combat wheelchair to its Massive Darkness 2. Zombicide 2 had a souped-up wheelchair, modified for rougher terrain, with four heavy-duty tires (see pic below, on the left side). Both, imo, are genre consistent. I think one thing these wheelchairs; the pirate eyepatch, hook, and peg-leg; a mage's magic jar and clones; constructs; and cyborgs is some element of bad-assery, or features that any adventurer would want. While the Du&Di wheelchairs are customized, they don't have the power-trippy aspects or exoticness of the others -- not that they had to.

 ced1106 wrote:
And that's pretty much my point. It's perfectly fine if your internally consistent D&D campaign has a good explanation for wheelchairs and glittering vampires, but neither are genre consistent with generic fantasy. And that may be the product line's point, to change that.

I would say it's that last bit, yes, because when we talk about "generic fantasy" we should keep in mind that it's a genre that for a lot of people doesn't include black people or any kind of woman other than rescuable princesses. Also the miniature line is called "Dungeons and Diversity" and clearly doesn't care about historically accurate european clothing and art circa 1200-1400-ish. The impulse that wheelchairs need to be justified is probably precisely the issue.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
And that's pretty much my point. It's perfectly fine if your internally consistent D&D campaign has a good explanation for wheelchairs and glittering vampires, but neither are genre consistent with generic fantasy. And that may be the product line's point, to change that.

I would say it's that last bit, yes, because when we talk about "generic fantasy" we should keep in mind that it's a genre that for a lot of people doesn't include black people or any kind of woman other than rescuable princesses. Also the miniature line is called "Dungeons and Diversity" and clearly doesn't care about historically accurate european clothing and art circa 1200-1400-ish. The impulse that wheelchairs need to be justified is probably precisely the issue.

Back in my day there wasn't any black people in our fantasy world and if you wanted to play a asium ya had to pick the kung fu man class, it's about CONSISTENCY rabble rabble rabble

Rosebuddy wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
And that's pretty much my point. It's perfectly fine if your internally consistent D&D campaign has a good explanation for wheelchairs and glittering vampires, but neither are genre consistent with generic fantasy. And that may be the product line's point, to change that.

I would say it's that last bit, yes, because when we talk about "generic fantasy" we should keep in mind that it's a genre that for a lot of people doesn't include black people or any kind of woman other than rescuable princesses. Also the miniature line is called "Dungeons and Diversity" and clearly doesn't care about historically accurate european clothing and art circa 1200-1400-ish. The impulse that wheelchairs need to be justified is probably precisely the issue.

It might be fashionable to say so, but is that reality? In all my decades of gaming I have never met a group that thought as you describe. Is the challenge people have with these models really based on the fantasy of a broad discriminatory culture you imagine? No. The challenge is twofold.

The first, is they way the concept of including diverse enabledness is approached here. The challenge for someone differently abled in medieval/fantasy environments is much higher than today. I'd be thrilled to have a player (abled or not) who wanted to seriously roleplay that challenge! This miniatures implementation both breaks the challenge and immersion of such a character by just handing them magical ableness. For a person who can't use their legs to find such a chair might be similar to a paladin finding their holy avenger. Would these minis be cool used that way? Absolutely. But that gets us to the second point, which has to do with the spirit and philosophy of the offer.

This has to do with cultural differences in derivation of identity. There is a contemporary culture that holds that your identity should be derived from your body, economic background, sexuality, etc. That culture seems to assert that a person can not feel included in a game if an exact copy of those traits are not present in that game. This culture further seems to assert that anyone who has any challenge to any aspect of that for any reason at all is a subhuman monster, whose words and ideas are not worth consideration because they are anathema, and certainly such persons can and must be... excluded.

Now perhaps there are some dark minded discriminatory folks out there, but there is a much larger culture of normal people who do not share the same culture of defining themselves or others based on body, economics, sexuality etc. These people are interested in things like diverse and unique story settings, meaningful character and story development, etc. These are people who will often be pleased to find ways to weave personal challenges and traits into those stories in ways that make sense for themes a work of art. This leads to a universe of diverse expressions with unique value. Each may not include every element of the former culture's demands in every dimension, but there is the freedom to add infinite more expressions that include whatever you want. The only problem being with the puritanical bend of the former culture to declare anyone or any setting that doesn't include every feature, as evil, anathema, and heathen. That puritanical zeal has nothing to do really with diversity and inclusion in their proper form and in healthy expressions, but is rather a new toxic expression of Us vs them, the creation of "others" to rally against, vilify, and exclude.

Now that may not represent the offerors of this product, but uses the language and implications of a growing culture that regular folks wince at with the prospect of it coming to their game or game table, and demanding they and their works of art bow in obedience to the new strictures and dogmas.

Is that everyone, or even many people? No, but it is a tilt in the wind of a future where people who started with the aim to slay real monsters of discrimination have become new monsters in their own right.

Vulcan wrote:Horses - or better yet, ponies - can easily be purchased with a standard adventurer's starting gold. Magic self-propelled and thought-controlled wheelchairs, not so much.

Actually, that's entirely dependent on the world you created.

You might have a setting where horses and ponies were hunted to extinction, and so can't be used - or are incredibly rare, and thus cost extraordinary amounts.
On the flip-side, you could have a setting where magical wheelchairs and self-locomotive aids are in abundance, and therefore cost less.

You're forgetting that it's an imaginative setting - you can make up the rules, as long as you're consistent with your own world. So, in my world, where these wheelchairs are plentiful, I don't need to charge my characters for them.

Your refusal to do so is your choice to restrict your players, nothing more.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Representation of disabilities as mechanical effects has GOT to come from the players themselves, and in the best cases should really be something that they can decide to opt out of without removing it from their character, in the same way that if you play a gnome with a high strength score, you don't constantly have to be explaining how your character who is supposed to be like 2 feet tall can actually be strong.

Absolutely. Let the players decide how they want to treat their characters. If they want negative modifiers for things, so be it. End of the day, D&D ought to be the ultimate expression of Rule of Cool.

And if I think it would be cool that my character isn't afraid of anything and should never need to make a save vs. fear?

I too like to misrepresent real world conditions in order to gain mechanical benefits.

Oh, wait, I don't, because that's an atrocious way of looking at this.

Sometimes rule of cool has to make way for the game to work.

What's cool about handicapping your players?
Rule of cool is "your wheelchair works just fine in this setting, have fun".

ced1106 wrote:Might as well advocate D&D to have ye olde smartephones, ye overknight Amazone deliveries, merry olde crowdefunding platforms, and Ye Olde Banana Stande. Banana stande??

I mean, yeah. Those sound rad.

Perhaps there's a certain material or combination of materials that, when put together, are imbued with passive magical energy that allows for the Message spell. Boom - mobile phones. Overnight Amazon? Minimum wage paid wizards being harnessed only for teleportation spells.

Yeah, that's totally possible, plausible, and fun.

where people who started with the aim to slay real monsters of discrimination have become new monsters in their own right.

I find it incredibly amusing whenever people fear this mythical threat of "Opressive Anti-Opression", like there will be anti-fun police braking down their doors and making sure they have the right quota of disabled characters in their campaign. Or that every RPG will have artwork split evenly between male and female characters and anyone seen in chainmail bikini will be cancelled on sight, when in reality you have whole threads spent metaphorically gaking on the idea of wheelchair adventurers, and any GW female model without G-cups is declared "manly". Nerd culture is safe and snug in it's conservatism, worry not!

Cronch wrote:

where people who started with the aim to slay real monsters of discrimination have become new monsters in their own right.

I find it incredibly amusing whenever people fear this mythical threat of "Opressive Anti-Opression", like there will be anti-fun police braking down their doors and making sure they have the right quota of disabled characters in their campaign. Or that every RPG will have artwork split evenly between male and female characters and anyone seen in chainmail bikini will be cancelled on sight, when in reality you have whole threads spent metaphorically gaking on the idea of wheelchair adventurers, and any GW female model without G-cups is declared "manly". Nerd culture is safe and snug in it's conservatism, worry not!

They can take my legs from my cold dead hands!

Cronch wrote:

where people who started with the aim to slay real monsters of discrimination have become new monsters in their own right.

I find it incredibly amusing whenever people fear this mythical threat of "Opressive Anti-Opression", like there will be anti-fun police braking down their doors and making sure they have the right quota of disabled characters in their campaign. Or that every RPG will have artwork split evenly between male and female characters and anyone seen in chainmail bikini will be cancelled on sight, when in reality you have whole threads spent metaphorically gaking on the idea of wheelchair adventurers, and any GW female model without G-cups is declared "manly". Nerd culture is safe and snug in it's conservatism, worry not!

Not so mythical for fantasy artists and writers being canceled for failing to meet the appropriate level of orthodoxy. Even artists who are far from "conservative". But we needn't concern ourselves with what people can see with their own eyes unfolding around them. Surely all those people were just heretics, and the world is a better place with their purging. Nothing to see here.

Do you have any examples? My eyes have seen nothing like what you describe. The only canceling I see going on is an attempt to cancel the representation of people with certain disabilities.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Do you have any examples? My eyes have seen nothing like what you describe. The only canceling I see going on is an attempt to cancel the representation of people with certain disabilities.

Only one I know of is Terese Neilsen. Got cancelled by WOtC for following crazy people on Twitter..

And PETA is always going after GW for some obtuse reason, mostly because of the plastic pelts?

PETA going after someone isn’t cancelling. It’s Tuesday.

Terese Nielsen looks like a double-whammy cancellation, with anti trans views right when JK Rowling made anti trans posting a big problem and with following white supremacist conspiracy peddlers to the point of sending them gifts. I can’t think of any period in my conscious life when a company would want to keep an employee known to send gifts to team McVey The Next Generation.

I mean, Dropfleet is my favorite game right now, but if Dave Lewis started posting about the Elders of Zion and how the Turner Diaries is a great read, I’d drop the game and persuade my friends to do the same.

Well, unless they have some deep Black Friday discounts.

It's best I edit this post. I shouldn't assume deception/bad faith.

Since this thread has kind of moved on from news Ill throw my pennyworth into the ring.

Should a player wish to portray a wheelchair bound character a good DM/GM would be able to make it work in their setting and be immersive.

Creative players could work around it and have fun with their party members.

The important thing to remember is that these STL files being available does not prevent any of us having fun our own way.

 ced1106 wrote:
Dunno. Maybe you're not familiar with consistency in fiction.

I can't tell it this is intentionally patronizing, but it sure is rude, you're the one quoting TV tropes like it's an encyclopedia. I buy that pirates argument, but no, I don't believe that with the tens of thousands of pages of material officially produced or licensed that there's such a necessary through-line that makes it so it's inconceivable that a wheelchair would have reason to enter a setting.

By your logic of consistency, you're just talking about conservatism in your world building. But no, you've convinced me. Shouldn't we still all be playing D&D 1 lore with update rules and print quality, since everything else has changed something of the world? Stick with whatever gods and baddies and classes there were then. If there's anything new, it better be the same as what some books other people played with said.

Where's my garish and kinda punk 40k with Space Marine half-elves, I mean -eldar? Speaking of Eldar, I'm not going to play against any Druhkari, whatever they are. An abomination towards the canon, that's what.

Or maybe we shouldn't change since it was what we grew up with. Cool, nothing but chainmail bikinis for the ladies. Though, really I am a fundamentalist at heart, if we have any races that aren't based on Tolkien, I'm out, that breaks my sense of the world, and I'd really prefer not to see any female characters in my adventuring party at all since they really should be back home if we see them at all: if you don't have a lot of hair on your chin or feet, you better be an elf. Otherwise, they're not consistent with my understanding of the genre, meaning they're not consistent with the genre.

Or maybe I want to take a more progressive attitude and set current corporate precedent as my standard. I should comb through old editions of D&D to see if there are any wizards who are Black. I don't remember seeing any but would really like to play one and don't have any in my current rulebook, so I guess I should keep looking or I won't be able to sleep at night, knowing that maybe there's some long-forgotten reason that isn't consistent with precedent or why that precedent was set.

Or, I could say that lore in a sandbox fantasy setting can be based on something other than what some nerds came up with last century, and that there are ways of playing that can fit something other than what Wizards sells me. Apologies that I don't have the imaginative vision that you do. I was weak.

The wheelchairs aren't about setting realism or consistency (which is completely shot anyways, but that's another discussion). They are about giving real people a more engaging way to play. It is about doing something in-game for people who have to deal with physical disability outside of it. Even if it did break the setting (which again, it's a breadcrumb next to a loaf) the real-world connection is more than enough to justify it. Which is why I feel so strongly resentful about people who have a problem with it; they are going out of their way to make doing something nice for fellow humans a problem. If these miniatures really bother you, don't use them! And don't keep gaking on a really good-natured and wholesome project just because of personal taste.

Put simply: this is about people doing a good thing for other people. If you have a problem with that, kindly feth off.

The idea of my character in a chair going "beep boop up the stairs, no issue here" while everyone smiles and feels warm and fuzzy about diversity seems pretty disgusting to me.

Is that even a thing necessitated by these miniatures? Is that something anyone has proposed?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I swear I don’t even know where some of you Wargamers come from. The stair situation would be an opportunity for the group to work together, be creative, and come up with solutions that fit their characters, like carrying the chair and rider, casting “elevate”, scouting an alternate route, using ropes and pullies, juicing the rider so he or she can climb and leave the chair, or a dozen other things. This is the meat and potatoes of roleplaying.

You don't think people are advocating for some hand waiving away? The miniatures themselves have texture rocks that would be a door slammed in the face if encountered in day to day life in a chair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some people will see these and feel represented. Others see them as minimizing real world issues.

I'm in the latter camp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Put simply: this is about people doing a good thing for other people.

I think it's about people needing to feel good about something that actually promotes ignorance of real struggle. It's hard enough to get people aware and compassionate about accessibility issues without promoting an idea that a wheelchair is no barrier to anything and you can just zip up and over those rocks without a problem.

But at least you get to feel good about yourseelf!

My gods some of you are really stretching to find fault here. It's a selection of 3rd party produced wheelchair based characters for optional use during fantasy roleplay games.


It's not even for Dungeons and Dragons alone; its any fantasy RPG that people want to use models to represent characters for in the game itself. I mean heck I didn't see any of this pure rage in the dog and cat adventurer model threads. No one was arguing that a feral dog can't reach into the pouches on their back; or that they can't hold a wand in their mouth and cast a verbal command spell at the same time.


But for some reason the idea that someone is in a chair with wheels on it sparks a degree of dislike.


I get that its spill over from some other areas, but really this just isn't the place nor thread nor product to focus such spillover onto.

There are always two sides of the representation in popular media coin -- on the one hand, it can help to normalize a disability or health-threatening condition; on the other hand, it can normalize a disability or health-threatening condition. This is why 13 reasons why is such a skub when it comes to public perception -- one group feels it's great bringing their condition to public attention, while the other feels the show romantized a very serious psychological disorder and suicide. And frankly, yes, that show did both. So on that, I can understand where Chamberlain is getting at, and believe their heart is in the right place.

The thing with these sculpt, though, is that they are meant to be a visual representation of the player in a roleplaying game. A handicapped person may very well wish to enact their fantasy by taking on a persona with a corresponding condition, and overcome difficulties in a virtual world. I feel this is an important option physcially-challenged people should have access to, and furthermore, there really is no better person to play such a role than themselves. In a roleplaying game, the narrative is not set by a group of show writer, which are more often than not people with no actual experience of what they are writing about -- after all, it's their jobs to create stories that'd appeal to the public, the other people -- in a roleplaying game, the narrative is forged through collaborative efforts of the GM and the players, and I feel it to be the best way to enhance the understanding of the struggles and sufferings of these people.

While I have concerns over the rules of how these characters should work in a game. After all, they dictate what handicapped characters can and cannot do through categorical, at times arbitrary, decisions, it is not impossible to be improved. If the publisher of said ruleset continue to work with the target audience and improve through user feedback, I believe this experiment will result in a great addition to the roleplaying game industry.

From the rules document:

The Combat Wheelchair may look like it comes with lots of Features and some of you
may feel that because of this it's "unfair" for a character to have this item at first level.
However, this chair only has so many Features because it is designed to enable a
disabled party member to do exactly what the abled members of the party can do.
"But it can float up and down stairs! Isn't that unfair?"
No, unless you plan on making all the able bodied characters at level 1 also remain on
ground floors only and never go up and down stairs and into dungeons. If you were
planning on doing that then that's fair."

So it turns out someone actually is advocating for my character in a chair going "beep boop up the stairs I go."

 lcmiracle wrote:

While I have concerns over the rules of how these characters should work in a game. After all, they dictate what handicapped characters can and cannot do through categorical, at times arbitrary, decisions, it is not impossible to be improved. If the publisher of said ruleset continue to work with the target audience and improve through user feedback, I believe this experiment will result in a great addition to the roleplaying game industry.

Besides RPG games are run through a DM with a group. Good DMs will often use the rules as guidelines; adapting to suit the players they have. They'll focus on aspects the group enjoys, adapting the rules and situation and what they do to craft a fun game for all involved.

Heck lets say stairs is a problem; so now the team are adventuring in the lost tombs of the ancient Slugoscians - a race of giant slug beings that went extinct centuries ago and now their ruined temples are laid bare for looters and monsters. Because they were slugs they didn't have stairs just ramps and magical strange levitation machine rooms- some of which might still function. And there you have it; a few moments and you've got a unique setting without stairs being a factor and the team not needing to worry about them.

Or the team only has to solve the problem once and thereafter they can simply hand wave that they navigate the stairs as normal. It's a puzzle the first time and a simple exercise the rest of the times after.

 lcmiracle wrote:
The thing with these sculpt, though, is that they are meant to be a visual representation of the player in a roleplaying game. A handicapped person may very well wish to enact their fantasy by taking on a persona with a corresponding condition, and overcome difficulties in a virtual world.

Living in an area with concrete destroying cold weather, endless ice and snow and mud when it's not cold, I will admit that I have an instantly frustrated reaction to seeing those wheelchairs up on those rocks and then the hand waving rules for the double down on the minimization.

Great post overall though.

While I have concerns over the rules of how these characters should work in a game. After all, they dictate what handicapped characters can and cannot do through categorical, at times arbitrary, decisions, it is not impossible to be improved. If the publisher of said ruleset continue to work with the target audience and improve through user feedback

I don't think there can be real improvement through feedback because the goal/point of the magic item is to erase the struggle. So there's only room for feedback from people who want that as anything else is in direct contradiction of that goal.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

The word you're looking for is 'verisimilitude'. The appearance of being real within the context of the setting.

And in D&D, powerful magic items are expensive and/or hard to find and/or hard to make. Magic powered thought-controlled wheelchairs would be powerful, and therefore expensive and/or hard to make.

A mundane wheelchair, not so much. But it's also a lot less useful; it requires both hands (or a friend) to move in a straight line, and one to move at all. So no two-handed weapons, paired weapons, or sword & board if you intend to retain any DEX bonus to AC. Rogues would find it hard to access many traps for disarming. Clerics and (especially) wizards would be least restricted in general.... and likely also best able to use magic to not need one in a pinch.

On the other hand, a pony - or if you're expecting to deal with stairs, a mule or donkey - just requires the Ride skill...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are these only for use in D&D? Are they even primarily for use in D&D?

Again, many people RPG for different reasons. What you specifically find immersion breaking will not trouble many other players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Someone earlier mentioned rolling to save against fear. To me, that is far, far more immersion-breaking than a wheelchair. I can’t get into the mindset where you want to *roleplay* and need the dice decide how your character reacts to things, whether or not he fears something.

Fear spells, dragon fear, etc. give a save, but if you fail your character is afraid, period. Even if he IS a described as a big, fearless fighter.

So one great thing to do would be to expand the product line. The chairs are fine for those who want to use them, but how about some that are more in line with less high-magic lore. Frankly even without players wanting to play differently abled persons, I'd love the option to have some NPCs that weren't strapping bold warriors, and an old priest or warrior who has lost a leg and is carried on a litter or has a primitive wheel cart would be a very useful visual story aid.

the_scotsman wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 ced1106 wrote:
And that's pretty much my point. It's perfectly fine if your internally consistent D&D campaign has a good explanation for wheelchairs and glittering vampires, but neither are genre consistent with generic fantasy. And that may be the product line's point, to change that.

I would say it's that last bit, yes, because when we talk about "generic fantasy" we should keep in mind that it's a genre that for a lot of people doesn't include black people or any kind of woman other than rescuable princesses. Also the miniature line is called "Dungeons and Diversity" and clearly doesn't care about historically accurate european clothing and art circa 1200-1400-ish. The impulse that wheelchairs need to be justified is probably precisely the issue.

Back in my day there wasn't any black people in our fantasy world and if you wanted to play a asium ya had to pick the kung fu man class, it's about CONSISTENCY rabble rabble rabble

Back in the late eighties if you wanted to play a non-Caucasian you just noted it on your character sheet and nobody cared because in our games, there were orcs and goblins and giants; no room for animosity toward other humans/elves/etc.

And because in our group, we thought racism was pretty stupid as well.

I hadn’t considered the fear save being taken against a fear-specific spell. Seems like a very narrow set of circumstances that weakens the original comparison to me.

 Chamberlain wrote:
From the rules document:

The Combat Wheelchair may look like it comes with lots of Features and some of you
may feel that because of this it's "unfair" for a character to have this item at first level.
However, this chair only has so many Features because it is designed to enable a
disabled party member to do exactly what the abled members of the party can do.
"But it can float up and down stairs! Isn't that unfair?"
No, unless you plan on making all the able bodied characters at level 1 also remain on
ground floors only and never go up and down stairs and into dungeons. If you were
planning on doing that then that's fair."

So it turns out someone actually is advocating for my character in a chair going "beep boop up the stairs I go."

And if it can just float up stairs, it should logically also be able to just float across rough terrain that would slow normal people down, or possibly even stop them in their tracks....

At which point, it's not a WHEELchair anymore, it's a levitating chair and the wheels are redundant.

Even the God Emperor of Dune realized it was a good idea to have wheels on your hover chair, just in case.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hadn’t considered the fear save being taken against a fear-specific spell. Seems like a very narrow set of circumstances that weakens the original comparison to me.

When your character sctick is 'big fearless barbarian' who is sent running back out of the room screaming like a little girl after failing that save in the first encounter...

I continue to remain shocked and disappointed at just how vile some people will get over giving characters magical wheelchairs. Like holy gak do they just get off on putting others down? Is other people having fun somehow an assault on theirs? If you don't like the miniatures then just. Don't. Use. Them. If you like the miniatures but not the rules, change the fething rules! This is an RPG; if you try to make it not work it will always fail. That some feel the need to try and shoot down the idea so hard speaks to a seriously disturbing mindset.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I continue to remain shocked and disappointed at just how vile some people will get over giving characters magical wheelchairs. Like holy gak do they just get off on putting others down?

I wouldn't give a first-level character a belt of giant strength just because they rolled an 8 strength either, not would I allow the eight-foot-tall half-ogre to swing his greatsword around in 4' tall tunnels carved by goblins. Don't try to make this into me picking on the disabled character because I'm not going to give them magic that allows them to completely ignore their disability. If a disabled PLAYER wants to play a character that isn't handicapped by their disability, don't play a disabled CHARACTER.

I'm not the jerk who says a character has to match a player's race, gender, or physical capabilities, after all.

Now if the player in question (and they don't have to be disabled to do this) WANTS to accept that challenge, and the rest of the party is down with helping them, then sure. Where there's a will, there's a way and all. And yes, these minis will, indeed, be great for that game and I'd be delighted to see them on the table under those circumstances.

But for one player to demand the rest of the party cater to their desire to play a disabled character that drastically increases the danger to them all? That's getting into being pretty darn selfish.

I don’t get the obsession with character levels. Who says these are meant for starting characters? Or DnD characters? Or that you have to use them at all?

A game is between the GM and the players. A good GM should be working with the players to create an experience they all enjoy. Clearly some people are not cut out to be GMs for some groups of people.

So these minis won’t work for you, in your games with the kind of people who want to game with you? So what? You said that already.

I personally don’t want to use My Little Pony minis in a game. I don’t need to post again and again about ponies not being setting appropriate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I continue to remain shocked and disappointed at just how vile some people will get over giving characters magical wheelchairs. Like holy gak do they just get off on putting others down? Is other people having fun somehow an assault on theirs? If you don't like the miniatures then just. Don't. Use. Them. If you like the miniatures but not the rules, change the fething rules! This is an RPG; if you try to make it not work it will always fail. That some feel the need to try and shoot down the idea so hard speaks to a seriously disturbing mindset.

This is kind of confusing. I haven't noticed any preponderance of vile commentary. What does that mean to you, and can you cite some examples from this thread? What is vile about identifying shortcomings of such a powerful device being available to a character from the get go in classic d&d, and suggesting alternative products that don't require reinventing games, settings, or story/balance. Did anyone say that a person can't make their own game and rules? Or that there are no ways differently abled people can be represented in the game at all? I missed it if someone did. People are offering feedback in the challenges to the game as it is typically found and run for the specific product offered, and this points to new product opportunities to explore meeting the intent of representation in ways the user base find more consistent with their experience. It should be taken positively, acknowledging that the specific product may be for a niche market. Instead you seem to suggest if the entire world doesn't accept and modify everything for this specific product, they are vile and disturbing, or opposed to any representation at all? I urge you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, because you are currently missing something.

The best path forward for progress isn't necessarily in insisting people who find shortcomings and suggest alternatives with any particular product or initiative as vile and disturbed, or suggesting they are somehow enemies of progress for not immediately discarding and changing everything to suit a specific product or initiative. People who want to embrace massive change to how they do things and embrace this product are good. People who want to see alternatives for this product that meet the intent but leads to lesser impacts to what they enjoy are also good. Persons suggesting there neither can nor should be inclusion or representation could be considered narrow and missing out, but I didn't spot much of that except by people voicing it as misplaced/misrepresentational mockery and stereotyping of the former.

Hey, you misposted. The thread you are talking about obviously isn't this one!

Hey, now I can always play a fighter in a wheelchair for that extra randomness

 Chamberlain wrote:
You don't think people are advocating for some hand waiving away? The miniatures themselves have texture rocks that would be a door slammed in the face if encountered in day to day life in a chair.

Real humans can't swordfight bears, never mind ghosts or dragons. The failures of D&D in particular and "generic fantasy RPGs" in general to be realistic are innumerable. You strain out a gnat and swallow camels in order to categorically reject wheelchairs from games that lean primarily on dramatic license.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I don’t get the obsession with character levels. Who says these are meant for starting characters?

The Combat Wheelchair may look like it comes with lots of Features and some of you
may feel that because of this it's "unfair" for a character to have this item at first level.


It's in the rules and posted in this very same page.

Or DnD characters?

The very same rules and the fact this is being getting publicity as DUNGEONS AND DIVERSITY. Seriously, how is this even a question or argument?

A game is between the GM and the players. A good GM should be working with the players to create an experience they all enjoy. Clearly some people are not cut out to be GMs for some groups of people.

Like... okay, no, there's too much to unpack there.

Ok, hear me out again. Maybe we should tackle this discussion from another angle -- that of roleplay and gameplay?

Let's go back to the ruleset the miniatures' sculptors had released:

...this chair only has so many Features because it is designed to enable a disabled party member to do exactly what the abled members of the party can do.

First off, I'd like to say that this ruleset can only be a patch work for a system, which the sculptors do not own, that is not designed to accommodate handicapped characters. Therefore, the sculptors' solution to make them essentially the same as a non-chair bound character is simply an easy way to bypass the issue.

However, from the perspective of a player, this makes playing as an impaired character no different from one that's physically intact. I'm sure it's made from good intentions, but it trivializes inclusion of disabled people as "just give it another coat o' paint and call it a day". Again this comes to the representation topic -- you can't say you are representing a group of people without first understanding what the experiences, needs and challenges first, and for the ruleset to be truly representative of the personal experiences of the chair-bound playbase, it needs to incorporate these challenges in the gameplay mechanics.

I'm not advocating to strictly limit what a crippled character can and cannot do in a roleplaying game by design here -- merely that how these activities are done should be differentiated mechanically and narratively from the able-bodied. It does not need to be AD&D level of complexity, nor a flat stat penalty like the old D&D gender stat differentials. I'm only saying the devs could put a little more thoughts into brainstorming and tinkering with the wheelchair as a tool for immersive roleplay. Think of what the characters cannot do while on a wheelchair in each gameplay scenario, and think of ways the players can use alternative means in-game to overcome it. Perhaps the wheelchair has different movement characteristic depending on terrain types; perhaps stats work differently mechanic-wise for wheel-chair bound characters; perhaps they have higher carry capacity. etc.

I am glad we have something different, something I feel the hobby had been missing on for too long; but the first step is nary a step. I understand the sculptors aren't game designers, which is why I believe their work needs community support -- to iron out the issues, to improve, to better reflect the struggles of disabled individuals, while still provide fun and engaging ways for players to overcome these struggles in a play session. Obviously this is a complicated issue, as the mechanics must take care to balance the difficulties, enjoyment, and respect to the target group. But surely we would move further in this path if we all remain cautious but also open-minded to it?

 Vulcan wrote:

But for one player to demand the rest of the party cater to their desire to play a disabled character that drastically increases the danger to them all? That's getting into being pretty darn selfish.

I get what you are saying although as a group wouldn't the selfish player just be nipped in the bud pre game?

Unless you are playing a selfish character? who has issues with their own lack of mobility, a self hate if you will.

Then that character arc just writes itself doesn't it?

 lcmiracle wrote:

First off, I'd like to say that this ruleset can only be a patch work for a system, which the sculptors do not own, that is not designed to accommodate handicapped characters. Therefore, the sculptors' solution to make them essentially the same as a non-chair bound character is simply an easy way to bypass the issue.

Because otherwise people would reject the idea due to the wheelchair user hindering the party.


Obviously anyone is free to come up with a more satisfying rule set or ignore rules altogether, or whatever works for their group and system, but the fundamental problem is people who stand ready to nitpick everything about a character using a wheelchair.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:

First off, I'd like to say that this ruleset can only be a patch work for a system, which the sculptors do not own, that is not designed to accommodate handicapped characters. Therefore, the sculptors' solution to make them essentially the same as a non-chair bound character is simply an easy way to bypass the issue.

Because otherwise people would reject the idea due to the wheelchair user hindering the party.


Obviously anyone is free to come up with a more satisfying rule set or ignore rules altogether, or whatever works for their group and system, but the fundamental problem is people who stand ready to nitpick everything about a character using a wheelchair.

I'd say that's an overly reductive way of looking at it. If you see the wheelchair just as another equipment in the game, one that's just always bond to the user, it is fundamentally no different to any other items in DnD 5E that has detrimental effects. The movement doesn't have to be a constant hindrance, and one can even argue a wheelchair will have superior speed on flat and downward slopes. There's another argument that perhaps wheelchair-bond characters cannot due-wield, which is hardly an issue as not every build is duel wield, is it?

Frankly, a fun RP campaign requires each party member to deal with each other's weaknesses as well as to complement their strengths, to dismiss the value of creating a unique experience centered around the item because some additional constraints is short sighted indeed.

Or just power gaming for the best of the best; which you can certainly do in DnD, but only when the whole party and DM wants you to and its in the spirit of the game you are playing.

 lcmiracle wrote:

Frankly, a fun RP campaign requires each party member to deal with each other's weaknesses as well as to complement their strengths, to dismiss the value of creating a unique experience centered around the item because some additional constraints is short sighted indeed.

Of course, ignoring the suggested rules and coming up with your own in order to make for a play experience that the group thinks is more satisfying to them is great. Yeah, do that. Think about what you want to represent in rules, weigh accuracy against playability and go for it. You want it to be a team effort against an uncaring world? I find that to be a perfectly ideologically correct approach. You have my blessing. The designers of the miniatures making some inelegant rules that just puts the wheelchair user on the same footing as someone who can just walk is understandable, tho, because I do believe that the real issue is those who would nitpick absolutely anything because they don't see people with disabilities as worthy of doing heroic things. If slamming a bunch of feats onto a 1st level character is technically too much for a 1st level character I consider that more amusing than a serious problem. It's very Pratchett, now that I think of it.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:

Frankly, a fun RP campaign requires each party member to deal with each other's weaknesses as well as to complement their strengths, to dismiss the value of creating a unique experience centered around the item because some additional constraints is short sighted indeed.

Of course, ignoring the suggested rules and coming up with your own in order to make for a play experience that the group thinks is more satisfying to them is great. Yeah, do that. Think about what you want to represent in rules, weigh accuracy against playability and go for it. You want it to be a team effort against an uncaring world? I find that to be a perfectly ideologically correct approach. You have my blessing. The designers of the miniatures making some inelegant rules that just puts the wheelchair user on the same footing as someone who can just walk is understandable, tho, because I do believe that the real issue is those who would nitpick absolutely anything because they don't see people with disabilities as worthy of doing heroic things. If slamming a bunch of feats onto a 1st level character is technically too much for a 1st level character I consider that more amusing than a serious problem. It's very Pratchett, now that I think of it.

I don't see many as nitpicks. Equality doesn't mean ignoring differences. You acknowledge them, and then you work with them. There is nothing wrong with people trying to raise awareness of an issue.

Chamberlain wrote:The idea of my character in a chair going "beep boop up the stairs, no issue here" while everyone smiles and feels warm and fuzzy about diversity seems pretty disgusting to me.

You find the idea of a disabled character getting to do the same things as other characters disgusting?

There's only one thing disgusting here, and that's your attitude.

Chamberlain wrote:You don't think people are advocating for some hand waiving away? The miniatures themselves have texture rocks that would be a door slammed in the face if encountered in day to day life in a chair.

Oh, and speaking of hand-waving, can we PLEASE call out the handwaiving of dragons and stuff like that?? And magic?? Because there's no way THAT could exist in real life.

Some people will see these and feel represented. Others see them as minimizing real world issues.

I'm in the latter camp.

Do you use a wheelchair? If not, who are you to say that it's minimising anything if someone who does feels represented?

I think it's about people needing to feel good about something that actually promotes ignorance of real struggle. It's hard enough to get people aware and compassionate about accessibility issues without promoting an idea that a wheelchair is no barrier to anything and you can just zip up and over those rocks without a problem.

I can't speak for everyone, but D&D isn't always the PLACE you want to be going through your "real struggles". Same as racism in RPGs - some people don't want to have to deal with their fictional characters having to deal with that - so you just write out racism in that setting. Simple.

And again, are you also the kind of person who ignore magic in your settings because you could just do things "without a problem"?

lcmiracle wrote:There are always two sides of the representation in popular media coin -- on the one hand, it can help to normalize a disability or health-threatening condition; on the other hand, it can normalize a disability or health-threatening condition. This is why 13 reasons why is such a skub when it comes to public perception -- one group feels it's great bringing their condition to public attention, while the other feels the show romantized a very serious psychological disorder and suicide. And frankly, yes, that show did both. So on that, I can understand where Chamberlain is getting at, and believe their heart is in the right place.

13 Reasons is a skub because it glamourises and romanticises something, which actual suicide prevention groups actively talk about how that's precisely NOT what to do. It's a skub because it actively flaunts the proper protocols of how to talk about that issue. It's a skub because in "bringing attention", they don't actually bring attention to what they *should* be doing.

Wheelchairs for visibility in D&D and other RPGs aren't there to "bring attention to" - they are a form of expression and identification for players. Very different things.

Vulcan wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

The word you're looking for is 'verisimilitude'. The appearance of being real within the context of the setting.

And in D&D, powerful magic items are expensive and/or hard to find and/or hard to make. Magic powered thought-controlled wheelchairs would be powerful, and therefore expensive and/or hard to make.

Um, that's simply not true. In YOUR D&D setting, maybe. But D&D can have infinite variations on what the setting is. Or do you think that everyone plays in the same sandbox, with the same gods, the same interpretations of magic, and everything in between?
You're absolutely right - "being real in the context of the setting" - but you seem oblivious that the setting isn't always the same. And, considering that the GM has the ultimate control over what's in that setting, if you, as the GM, actively work to make a setting that excludes or marginalises your players, you'd better have a damn good reason, and player consent for that.

On the other hand, a pony - or if you're expecting to deal with stairs, a mule or donkey - just requires the Ride skill...

But in my setting, ponies, mules and donkeys were hunted to extinction. Where's the verisimilitude in that?

Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I hadn’t considered the fear save being taken against a fear-specific spell. Seems like a very narrow set of circumstances that weakens the original comparison to me.

When your character sctick is 'big fearless barbarian' who is sent running back out of the room screaming like a little girl after failing that save in the first encounter...

That's what happens when you roll badly. If you character is "fearless", then when you made them, you should have put your abilities into making them resistant to fear.

If I want to make my character smart, I put points in Int or Wis.

Vulcan wrote:I wouldn't give a first-level character a belt of giant strength just because they rolled an 8 strength either, not would I allow the eight-foot-tall half-ogre to swing his greatsword around in 4' tall tunnels carved by goblins.

Do you take into account the square-cube law for dragons too? And how do you get around that whole unrealism of magic?

Don't try to make this into me picking on the disabled character because I'm not going to give them magic that allows them to completely ignore their disability.

Why not?

If a disabled PLAYER wants to play a character that isn't handicapped by their disability, don't play a disabled CHARACTER.

Why are disabled characters in your world not given aid?

Don't give me some BS about "verisimilitude", you're the GM. You can hand-wave what you like in your fantasy world - after all, you must do it with magic, if your world features it.

But for one player to demand the rest of the party cater to their desire to play a disabled character that drastically increases the danger to them all? That's getting into being pretty darn selfish.

And likewise, the GM saying "if you want a wheelchair, you've got to suffer for it" is similarly selfish, and outright malicious.

Lord Kragan wrote:

A game is between the GM and the players. A good GM should be working with the players to create an experience they all enjoy. Clearly some people are not cut out to be GMs for some groups of people.

Like... okay, no, there's too much to unpack there.

No, seriously - what's wrong with that statement? I think it's absolutely correct. If the GM and the players expectations don't meet, they are not suitable to play with eachother. And there's some people here that I can outright say I would not go anywhere NEAR their table.

Wheelchair is not an expression of personality -- physically disabled people such as paraplegics don't get to choose whether they ride a wheelchair -- they have to if they want to move around. So in the same way one does not simply choose to get depression, one does not simple choose to not be physically disabled. Please do not speak of it as if it's a tattoo or a new iphone. If I may say so, your tone is quite callous.

 lcmiracle wrote:
Wheelchair is not an expression of personality

Personality? No. Of self? Absolutely can be.

Who are you to say it isn't?

physically disabled people such as paraplegics don't get to choose whether they ride a wheelchair -- they have to if they want to move around. So in the same way one does not simply choose to get depression, one does not simple choose to not be physically disabled.

A real life person can't. But you can for a character, and if putting your character in a wheelchair you feel better expresses *yourself* (not your personality), you shouldn't be penalised.

Please do not speak of it as if it's a tattoo or a new iphone.

I don't believe I did, and my apologies if it did. But it is absolutely a form of self-expression for a player in an RPG, especially through the medium of your character.

If I may say so, your tone is quite callous.

It's definitely callous against the idea that players should be punished for expressing their character, yes. I don't see a problem with that, because I think it's a frankly awful take.

So I think it would be challenging from a modeling perspective, but would love to see a miniature where they had something like "Tensor's Floating Chair". When I think back over the last year of a campaign and try to visualize how play would have gone with these, I remember a lot of stairs, a lot of climbing and repelling, swimming/diving, and a lot of rough country and caves. I would have been happy to DM the activities and problem solving the characters would come up with for this chair to serve as making the character "just like anyone else", but I recognize how it would have dominated a lot of situations. Maybe that's fine as is. If the goal is to help the PC be "just like anyone else" though, where you scarcely notice the item, I think an enchanted chair like a hacked floating disc spell would be much more seamless.

I think this is what people even at a superficial level of engagement are grappling with. If they are disposed to look for and have the party deal with logical challenges arising from their situations and gear, (e.g. the terrain is getting too rough for the wagon, the cavern drops off sharply into a black abyss) and not just gloss over it, meeting the goal of having the differently abled PC be "just like anyone else" might be better fulfilled by a few tweaks to the concept.

I'm pretty sure a Tensor's floating chair or Limited Magic Carpet would work great. I recognize the identity based philosophy, e.g. "unless it's a wheel chair they can't see themselves represented" (and the unfortunate trope of "anyone who isn't 100% in lock step is a heretic" ), but I think there's a broader application and adoptive market for a product that doesn't limit itself to that premise, and a lot of people ready to welcome inclusive approaches that mesh with their style.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 lcmiracle wrote:
Wheelchair is not an expression of personality

Personality? No. Of self? Absolutely can be.

Who are you to say it isn't?

physically disabled people such as paraplegics don't get to choose whether they ride a wheelchair -- they have to if they want to move around. So in the same way one does not simply choose to get depression, one does not simple choose to not be physically disabled.

A real life person can't. But you can for a character, and if putting your character in a wheelchair you feel better expresses *yourself* (not your personality), you shouldn't be penalised.

Please do not speak of it as if it's a tattoo or a new iphone.

I don't believe I did, and my apologies if it did. But it is absolutely a form of self-expression for a player in an RPG, especially through the medium of your character.

If I may say so, your tone is quite callous.

It's definitely callous against the idea that players should be punished for expressing their character, yes. I don't see a problem with that, because I think it's a frankly awful take.

Why do you keep saying "punish"? If my character is small, then by rule and by simple logic they will have a penalty using a heavy weapon, and the rules of existing roleplay games such as DnD all adhere to. Expressions of self, however one is to go about it, does not translate to "I can be a half-man half-serpent the size of a dragon but can also easily fit into a dog kennel". A character on a wheelchair enjoys the mobility of wheels, but also its limitations, and should therefore be represented in a roleplaying game.

Frankly I don't even see where you are going with this -- pen & paper roleplaying games are full of limitations for class, gear and feat combinations, both for balance and flavor. A ranger can take skills from animal handling, but not a rouge, even though both share many similar skill categories. A rogue has the thieves tools for lock-picking but warriors and paladins don't. Even multi-classing limits the bonus from the additional classes and limits the levels of the first class. It's not just a trade-and-balance game, it's also a way to simulate player expectations of these characters. And that's a part of what makes it fun.

To this end I will add with my ever-draiing ounce of courtesy that yours are terrible understandings of why there are rules and limitations in a roleplay game system, or any gaming system for that matter.

 Vulcan wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

It's a fantasy game. By definition, it is made-up. Go play something like Chivalry and Sorcery if you want realism.

The word you're looking for is 'verisimilitude'. The appearance of being real within the context of the setting.

Lol, the word you're looking for is hypocrite. I've never seen anyone actually apply their realism criticism consistently... its always OK for their characters to stretch the bounds of realism, but the moment it's for someone else their pitiful imagination apparently falters. D&D is dog gak for verisimilitude, if you actually cared about realism you'd be playing a different game. HP are the ultimate gamist abstraction. Magic works FAR to easily and reliably for there to even be classes that don't cast, given that it's as easy to be a wizard as it is to be a dude who hits stuff with a club.

The vice signaling is disgusting, but not particularly surprising. Did I wander onto Parlor? .

lcmiracle wrote:Why do you keep saying "punish"? If my character is small, then by rule and by simple logic they will have a penalty using a heavy weapon, and the rules of existing roleplay games such as DnD all adhere to.

That's funny, because I don't recall my halfling characters having trouble using the same weapons my dragonborn use.

Expressions of self, however one is to go about it, does not translate to "I can be a half-man half-serpent the size of a dragon but can also easily fit into a dog kennel". A character on a wheelchair enjoys the mobility of wheels, but also its limitations, and should therefore be represented in a roleplaying game.

Why? What is to *gain* by limiting players who choose to put their characters in wheelchairs? If the player WANTS limitations, that's up to them, but I'd never, as GM, turn and say "yeah, so you're gonna suffer for that".

Frankly I don't even see where you are going with this -- pen & paper roleplaying games are full of limitations for class, gear and feat combinations, both for balance and flavor.

I choose to ignore many of them, as is my right as GM. I ignore things like "Tieflings are distrusted" or "you need XYZ to take this feat". If a ranger wants to start with two axes instead of two swords, I let them. And I don't see what "flavour" is imparted by handicapping players when an alternative exists.

A ranger can take skills from animal handling, but not a rouge, even though both share many similar skill categories. A rogue has the thieves tools for lock-picking but warriors and paladins don't. Even multi-classing limits the bonus from the additional classes and limits the levels of the first class. It's not just a trade-and-balance game, it's also a way to simulate player expectations of these characters. And that's a part of what makes it fun.

Exactly - and I don't *like* the player-expectation that a character in a wheelchair can't do certain things - so I ignore it.

The whole use of magic itself is a "player expectation" not grounded in reality - so why not for mobility aids?

To this end I will add with my ever-draiing ounce of courtesy that yours are terrible understandings of why there are rules and limitations in a roleplay game system, or any gaming system for that matter.

And I think you're missing an understanding that realism doesn't always mean fun, and that limitations aren't always fun. Especially when you tie real world conditions to mechanical hindrances.

If someone at my table wants to represent themselves, in any way, I'm not penalising that, balance be damned. Balance doesn't always mean fun.

I don't understand the issue here.

You've seen Vikings? What did he use?


It really isn't worth an essay.

 Grot 6 wrote:
I don't understand the issue here.

You've seen Vikings? What did he use?


It really isn't worth an essay.

And for those of us that haven't seen vikings? XD

@Sgt_Smudge That's actually funny, because 3.5, a cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. Halfling cannot wield large weapons like greatswords or halberlds, according to Player's Handbook 4th edition, p44-45. I don't know about 5E but stackoverflow appears to think that small creatures have disadvantage on checks with Heavy weapons. Are those not fun for you? Fine -- why do you insist rule maker should ignore the need to simulate it for the apparent majority who do use them?

Seriously, do you ask your DM everytime an equipment that infer penalty on your character because the rule says so? If not, why not just admit your group simply don't use the rulebook?

Your point about magic items continous to disregarding the fact that it's only there to ignore what it's like to be handicapped. Frankly, I cannot respect any "self-expression" that does not even bother to entertain the idea of imagining the experiences of living like the group of people you roleplay. The point is the wheelchair shouldn't be magical to begin with, just to make everyone functioning the same way.

And lastly, the point of all these rules in all these roleplaying games, are meant to simulate -- not real world -- but a constructed world, to create immersion. Immersion begets entertainment. There is no immersion, without expectations of this constructed world being met. A slidge of hand only maintains the illusion when it's subtle and thought-out.

Reread the level bit. Saying “it might seem a bit much for a level 1” is not the same as saying “it’s specifically for a level 1.”

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


Reread the level bit. Saying “it might seem a bit much for a level 1” is not the same as saying “it’s specifically for a level 1.”

True. Still, I think it's implied that a wheelchair bound character needs a wheelchair to get around. So without the rule for a non-magical version, it implies it's the default.

lcmiracle wrote:@Sgt_Smudge That's actually funny, because 3.5, a cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. Halfling cannot wield large weapons like greatswords or halberlds, according to Player's Handbook 4th edition, p44-45. I don't know about 5E but stackoverflow appears to think that small creatures have disadvantage on checks with Heavy weapons. Are those not fun for you? Fine -- why do you insist rule maker should ignore the need to simulate it for the apparent majority who do use them?

I don't play 3.5 or 4th, and that's solidified that I definitely wouldn't play them with those rules in place.
Ah, I've always houseruled out that Heavy feature on Small creatures. Halflings have the same Str stat as Humans, so they get the same weapon access. If I really cared about "realism", then it's not hard to imagine that Halflings might have equivalent weapons weighted differently to be more suitable.

I frankly don't care what the "apparent majority" say, I'm just pointing out that the GM has the power to make their games more accessible. If you choose not to do that, don't use the rules as a defence.

Seriously, do you ask your DM everytime an equipment that infer penalty on your character because the rule says so? If not, why not just admit your group simply don't use the rulebook?

You're telling me that your group have absolutely no homebrew, no made up NPCs or towns or worlds, your NPCs only speaking from what's printed in the books? If not, that's your prerogative, but damn, sounds dull.

If I recall correctly, the rulebook does make mention of "play how YOU and your group want to play" - rules are a guideline, not the be-all-end-all.

Your point about magic items continous to disregarding the fact that it's only there to ignore what it's like to be handicapped. Frankly, I cannot respect any "self-expression" that does not even bother to entertain the idea of imagining the experiences of living like the group of people you roleplay.

Well, your lack of respect is your problem, not mine.
And again, not all people who use wheelchairs in real life want their characters to have the same negative experiences, but may still want that same identification or empowerment.

The point is the wheelchair shouldn't be magical to begin with, just to make everyone functioning the same way.

Why not?

And lastly, the point of all these rules in all these roleplaying games, are meant to simulate -- not real world -- but a constructed world, to create immersion. Immersion begets entertainment. There is no immersion, without expectations of this constructed world being met. A slidge of hand only maintains the illusion when it's subtle and thought-out.

Exactly - and in the world *I* run, my players aren't handicapped if they need mobility aids. I don't have sexism or racism in my world, because I have control over the world. The constructed world is internally consistent and immersive, because in the rules of that world, I don't need ableism or racism or sexism.

Why isn't that the same in your world? If you're the GM, you have that power to change the construction of that world - and if you don't implement that, that's on YOU, the GM.

RegularGuy:

Why would a floating chair not have wheels on it for the times when it makes contact with the ground? Helicopters have wheels. The Delorian had wheels. How can you be so sure none of these models are Tensor’s Floating Chairs simply resting on thei backup wheels for modeling simplicity?

@Sgt_Smudge Any of our homebrew built upon what system(s) we use. And so, why shouldn'I expect there to be some sort of rules to cover a topic they explained in-game? Sure, Stataminis is not WotC, but they released their rules for their minis as an unofficial addon to DnD. I already stated that they addressed the issue adequately. I simply suggest they improve and address it appropriately.

You will never get it.

And that last line -- wow! Why is it you expect everyone to play to your standards? No, I refuse to play it your way, because your way, is your way. Now leave the rest of us to our ways.

 lcmiracle wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


Reread the level bit. Saying “it might seem a bit much for a level 1” is not the same as saying “it’s specifically for a level 1.”

True. Still, I think it's implied that a wheelchair bound character needs a wheelchair to get around. So without the rule for a non-magical version, it implies it's the default.

Does your mini change every time you level up or gain equipment?

(Serious question actually, because I know some people who do that even though we don’t.)

Also, I’ve started many games with my players having characters with some advancement already, not just raw recruits. But in all honesty, we don’t play DND. We tried it once or twice and went for a simpler rule less hindering to the narrative.

I really don't like the miniatures, but I also cant stand the heroforge minis either, there is just something about the look that feels too cartoonish for me.

lcmiracle wrote:@Sgt_Smudge Any of our homebrew built upon what system(s) we use. And so, why shouldn'I expect there to be some sort of rules to cover a topic they explained in-game?

Because the game isn't always perfect, or might have different ideas on what's important in game?
For someone who wants """"realism"""", those features might be of value - to someone who doesn't, they're utterly useless.

You will never get it.

Likewise.

And that last line -- wow! Why is it you expect everyone to play to your standards? No, I refuse to play it your way, because your way, is your way. Now leave the rest of us to our ways.

I'm not saying I expect everyone use certain standards. I'm just pointing out that it's your choice to continue to feature those negative effects. Take that how you will.

@BobtheInquisitor

Apart from having differently painted weapons and gears, I did actually use different models. It's actually a lot easier lately with 3D printing with studios releasing modular bits.

Though tbf I've never played a character in any sort of vehicle, but if I were one to take a character model on a wheelchair, that character will definitely stay on that wheelchair all game. Unless, of course, the story is about a group of physically impaired friends going through great perils to seek a mcGuffin that restores them. Or something like that.

I guess I can see people using cards are markers and stuffs. Personally WYSIWYG is how we run things over here.

@Sgt_Smudge

I will indeed take that how I will, thank you very much.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I really don't like the miniatures, but I also cant stand the heroforge minis either, there is just something about the look that feels too cartoonish for me.

I get what you’re saying. To me it’s a selling point that they have a stylized look the same way MERCS and Confrontation and Wrath of Kings each had their own stylized looks. Hopefully this will be successful enough someone will make a more, uh, grounded alternative line that would fit better with the ASOIAF line or Oathmark or one of the grittier mini ranges.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I really don't like the miniatures, but I also cant stand the heroforge minis either, there is just something about the look that feels too cartoonish for me.

I get what you’re saying. To me it’s a selling point that they have a stylized look the same way MERCS and Confrontation and Wrath of Kings each had their own stylized looks. Hopefully this will be successful enough someone will make a more, uh, grounded alternative line that would fit better with the ASOIAF line or Oathmark or one of the grittier mini ranges.

I was thinking Nolzur's or Deep Cuts. They are designed with D&D/PF scale and style. Which to me is what these really are meant for (think it was 5e?) That and their prices are extremely good. I get the appeal of heroforge and that style, but it just for some reason rubs me wrong (that and HF prices are nuts for the quality)

The concept seems a little strange to me, especially taking the rules into account.

To start with, I would think that being wheelchair-bound would rather lend itself to certain builds. Specifically those that don't rely on mobility/agility.

For example, the wheelchair-mage seems quite apt as they can still fling spells quite happily while sitting down. But then you've got the bard wielding
a dagger. Might a crossbow not be a better fit? Same with the cleric and barbarian, who are both using short weapons. If you're going to use a melee weapon on a wheelchair, surely it would make more sense to at least have a reach weapon?

Also, is it just me or is there a certain lack of creativity with the chairs? Surely if you're going to have a concept like this, you might as well make the most of it? For example, instead of giving the bard the standard lute, why not turn the back of his chair into a miniature organ? Or how about a fighter/barbarian armed with a wheelchair-mounted lance? Or a rogue's wheelchair with hand-crossbows mounted to the armrests?

Each to their own, of course, it just seems like they could have done a bit more with the concept.


However, I think it's the rules that I find most odd. Specifically, the fact that even the basic chairs are powered by magic (so there's no need to keep your hands free t operate them) and can traverse terrain and even stairs with no difficulty whatsoever. It seems bizarre to me to encourage players to play disabled characters only to immediately handwave virtually all difficulties said characters might encounter as a result of their disabilities.
Surely these sort of difficulties represent exactly the sort of roleplaying scenarios that are appropriate for parties with one or more physically-disadvantaged characters? Otherwise, it seems like you might as well be playing a character with fully functional legs who just likes to sit down a lot.

Coming soon, miniatures for:
- Blind characters (with permanent 120ft True Sight)
- Mute characters (with 400ft telepathy)
- Armless characters (with fully-functional mecha-hands that come with built-in laser cannons)

Are the rules official in any way? Not that I’d treat official rules as sacrosanct, but the miniatures seem to be the product to me with the rules serving as a sales-promoting suggestion akin to flavor text.

So a group of people goes out to make miniatures for physically disabled players, so that said players can have a character like themselves on the tabletop. The chair is also magical to allow then to get around many of the realistic problems that would result. This way the physically disabled player gets in-game representation without putting an unreasonable burden on the GM and rest of the group to restructure rules/encounters/dungeons/etc to accommodate. It is also an unofficial, third-party product that does not even exist in a game unless the players want it to.

That people can have a problem with that and go on for pages about how it is bad disgusts me. It really does. This isn't some rules change or new mechanic in an official rulebook that everyone is forced to deal with. There is no downside to this, there is no bad element. Because people who want it can go out to get it, and people who don't can carry on as they were. Making this out to be people just trying to feel good about themselves? Really? Is the idea of genuinely wanting to do something for other humans so alien that you can't comprehend anyone doing it?

And before the strawman pops up again, obviously I am not painting all criticism with that brush. Noting elements in the miniature one does not like, or personally stating that it is too unrealistic for one's taste, or thinking some classes should be more represented than others, that's not the same as making out the entire idea as fundamentally flawed.

> HeroForge

I'd like my players to decide how they look, assuming we can agree upon internal consistency and any disability inclusion on HeroScape's part would be quite welcome.

> Delorians and helicopters

That's some funky D&D worlds you have there.

Horses can go in terrain that Delorians can't. OTOH, Dwarves in ATV's with heavy armor? That's genre consistency enough for me.

Also, by the time an adventurer can afford a helicopter (not to mention the upkeep), a broom of flying, flying carpet, ring of flying, or flying mount would be within reach. And you'd be able to land on a small clearing, and bring them with you (or at least the griffon can fend for himself!), nor would you need flying lessons from a mentor (maybe).

> Negative modifiers

Should mention that there's at least one blogger who doesn't like the negative modifiers of conditions like deafness, etc. Another has added house rules.
http://analoggamestudies.org/2018/03/blinded-by-the-roll-the-critical-fail-of-disability-in-dd/
https://sleepyspoonie.tumblr.com/post/161772119491

Speaking of modifiers, my own favorite generic fantasy RPG is the rules-light One Shot World, based on Dungeon World. It implicitly has an explicit internal consistency worldbuilding phase where the GM asks players for their input in designing the world. The mechanics themselves focus on narration, storytelling, character relations, etc. over mechanics and modifiers. IIRC, While there's the occasional modifier, you'd roll the dice and then explain what happened, which, essentially, is the reverse of modifiers. So a disabled person, while arguably is a reskin of a normal one, doesn't stand out because, iirc, any physical attribute, such as race, sex, and build, are also reskins. What differs is that a disabled person has the option of a different non-mechanical explanation for their result that an enabled person would have. Frex, with a critical hit, a player for a wheelchair-bound dwarven character could say that his character rode partially against the walls to build up momentum for a well-placed charge attack. Or ran into a few mooks, scooped them up, and put on the brakes just before the edge of a cliff. Or grabbed one of the wheels of his four-wheeled chair, leaned to his side while riding it, and threw his wheel at the right arc to his opponent. Dwarves are awesome.

Ced, I feel like you missed the point that things that can fly often also have wheels.

Referencing to objects outside of DND is necessary because this whole conversation is about a product not already sufficiently covered in that universe.

And DnD is not the whole of gaming universe, so narrowing the focus to that one game is missing a much larger point, even despite the fact that the product used the name of that popular game for catchy marketing purposes.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
That people can have a problem with that and go on for pages about how it is bad disgusts me. It really does. This isn't some rules change or new mechanic in an official rulebook that everyone is forced to deal with. There is no downside to this, there is no bad element. Because people who want it can go out to get it, and people who don't can carry on as they were. Making this out to be people just trying to feel good about themselves? Really? Is the idea of genuinely wanting to do something for other humans so alien that you can't comprehend anyone doing it?

I'd like to offer you a little bit of life advice, if I may: If you are claiming to be speaking for a particular group on a particular issue, try to avoid being more offended about it than the people you are purporting to speak for.

Because when a person seems more offended about something than the people they are purporting to speak for, then they don't come across as representing those people but rather sanctimoniously exploiting them in a vain effort to demonstrate how virtuous they are. As if one's own moral good is somehow proportional the amount of bile they spit at anyone who disagrees with them.

 BrookM wrote:
Can you guys take that discussion to a topic of its own please and leave this thread for news regarding the models, thanks!

Just seem to be rehashing the same arguments from a few pages ago so this still stands, can we please leave this discussion to actual news and rumours please.

Interestingly done models.

As for the figures, I like them. Esp. the rogue with the throwing knives.
I don't play RPGs, so I have no use for these, but the sculpts seem well done.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
I don't understand the issue here.

You've seen Vikings? What did he use?


It really isn't worth an essay.

And for those of us that haven't seen vikings? XD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXGt0DjpXYI

not safe for kids or work

IVAR is the boss!

Would it be wrong of me to have a full contingent of these models for a Frostgrave or skirmish warband, led by a wizard named Jayce?
...
...
...
I'll see myself out.

 highlord tamburlaine wrote:
Would it be wrong of me to have a full contingent of these models for a Frostgrave or skirmish warband, led by a wizard named Jayce?
...
...
...
I'll see myself out.

As long as an opponent doesn't make an even more tactless plant-based enemy warband.