Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat.
Felt like sharing it here because I’m sure more people should keep this kind of thing in mind.
Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat.
Felt like sharing it here because I’m sure more people should keep this kind of thing in mind.
If characters in a story have a disability the question should be “What is the DM/Author trying to say, and how does this character add to the world they are portraying?” The plague of diegetic essentialism etc.
That just enforces the idea that people with disabilities are not a normal part of the society. It’s like asking to justify why a character is tall, blonde, old, a woman. People are just people and there’s a huge variation on their shapes, sizes, colors and disability status.
I’m not sure the commenter disagrees with you. If a player wants their character to have a wheelchair, they are simply “saying” that some people have wheel chairs.
I had to go look up diegetic essential ism and basically the idea is that people get too hung up on the literalness of a character in a wheelchair.
What does it say about the universe that elephants can jump ten feet vertically? What does it say about the DM if they rule against this “fact” of DND?
I don’t think it does unless you reach some odd answers. The answer could be “to create a world that feels real and inclusive.” A big part of world building is describing places and characters so those descriptions do matter and are not just made for no reason. I don’t need to justify some convoluted way that a healing spell doesn’t work.
I think we agree though (?), because if a player asked me so bluntly it would probably require a pause to talk it out at the least, and tbh that’s on me for trying to be pithy rather than adding a sentence to clarify.