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.

 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.