Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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?