Alright, I’ll bite. The intentionally provocative tabletop issue of the day is “combat wheelchairs.” Akkadian Rhythms already has something like this. It tackled a similar issue years before. As someone who thought of it first, I only have one thought on the issue. “Why can’t we ask questions?”

The text for the D&D wheelchair supplement is written in an angry tone, intentionally trying to exclude people. It basically provides instructions on how to provoke and then kick out people who don’t agree. It has created yet another divide of angry fans in an already fractured hobby.

Possibly the first question everyone in the hobby has always asked is whether it’s historical. In 2nd edition D&D there is a note explaining the historical context of Bards, and some explanation to why they deviated from the historical use. All of the weapons in the first 3 editions (AD&D-3e, including earlier editions and Basic) have historical uses considered and special properties based on their historical use.

In a game where everyone seeks historical context, what do you think would happen if you asked this author if there was a historical example they considered?

There’s actually quite a history of interesting innovations in war related to loss of limbs. Although gruesome, we’re talking about innovations like amputation, the Nelson Knife, and Florence Nightingale and the entire Nursing industry. Caring for the wounded, and continuing to feed troops to maintain troop movement and a meaningful supply line are historical aspects that might make for good gaming.

Can you ask this author if this concept matches the influences? How would they react?

The examples above are from after the renaissance. When we look at influences in pen and paper RPGs we generally see 3 main groups. Historical, from middle ages to renaissance, mythic from highly celebrated ancient societies like Rome and Babylon, and high fantasy from fantasy authors of the early to mid 1900’s. I previously examined why the fantasy time period had this cut off. If these influences don’t even have the above historical elements, is there any relevant wheel chair or mobility concepts that matches these influences?

Why not chariots?

What would happen if you asked why it had to look exactly modern, and not like a repurposing of a more reasonable concept? Akkadian Rhythms provides the concept of specialized chariots to the race with mobility issues. Although it is historical fiction, taking place long after what would have been the rise of the Greek and Roman empires, in designing this it still had to be researched if the Mesopotamian cultures could reasonably be expected to know what chariots are. Sumerians had access to chariots and vehicles like them. As the first writer on the scene, historical context mattered.

Why is it for combat?

This is a broader question that encompasses why D&D’s magic items are always combat focused, and why D&D monsters all seem to have nothing but traits that react to plate mail, but staying within the current brand of 5th edition, this is an extremely relevant question. Why does it have to be combat, why isn’t it simply something for everyday life. Not even Professor X of the X-Men has a combat wheel chair. He has something much more important, something to help him live his daily life.

Did you even read the book?

There are already a handful of non-combat, mobility items in 5th edition. One restores sight, another replaces a missing leg. Specifically they punish the character until they can regenerate, which has a high cost (through time for a PC to gain the spell, or cost for an NPC to cast it). The punishment is taking up an attunement slot to restore the lost mobility feature.

In addition, 5th edition has several spells to restore mobility in the case of long term mobility loss. They include total resurrection, regeneration, reattachment of limbs, and cloning. Even the Heal spell removes the effects of certain disabilities. None work with the augmentation of mobility, however it is still possible. Polymorph, spider walk, and even levitate should suffice.

So why doesn’t the solution resemble any of the existing options?

This one is specifically addressed in the text, but it’s a completely insufficient answer. Not only is the author obviously unaware of spells like Tensor’s Floating Disk, as it already has a reputation for similar clever uses by players, but it completely ignores a world with dryads and merfolk. You don’t have to have legs, you don’t even have to have a head, as many affects, such as the vorpal sword, specifically call this out. We’re talking about placing artificial limits on both world building and player agency to force players to define themselves by their physical, real world selves.

If players have to define their characters by their physical body in the real world, can players still choose their gender?

Apply this same concept to gender and watch this author delete their social media and go into hiding. It should never be socially acceptable for a game designer to tell players they cannot play another role in a role playing game. At the core of the issue, you have a “game designer” telling people they always have to be judged by their appearance, and it is their defining factor. The next step is forcing someone with a stutter to take low charisma, and placing a bench pressing requirement on playing a barbarian.

To add one more anecdote, several years ago I had a wheel chair bound player. He played the barbarian and it was amazing. It was one of the most fun and memorable games I’ve ever played. All of my game design has been colored by this experience. In no way has forcing this player to inject their physical self into the fantasy world ever cropped up once.

I have more questions, but I think it’s more important to stop and look at behavior. People who ask questions like “Why wouldn’t a cleric in a wheel chair just heal themselves?” are viewed as enemies and attacked. The community has predictably become hostile to any questions.

We should not allow writers to act as childish as this author, and we need to stop believing that conglomerates care about any individual. If you don’t question their motive first, you’ll end up with a bad conclusion. What I’m hoping readers take away is that writers who act inappropriately should be fired, and we should take this as another lesson to teach our kids. Do not spread hate, provocation, and division. The ends never justify the means.