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.

 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.