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.

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.