Dungeons, ramps and delusions.

Not seeing adventurers in wheelchairs or prosthetics is not a lack of creativity. There are plenty of reasons why one would be bound to one. In fact, it really is not out of the question entirely. Being inclusive in game for the sake of the real world is not a good enough reason. That is nothing more than sophistry and nothing less than delusion. Without opening that can of worms, it is neither necessary or sought after by the larger player base. The question shouldn't be on the wheelchair existence. The correct question would be if an adventurer would be an adventurer while chair bound or not. The fact that magic can heal most anything, including internal damage. The problem when you present something that you think should exist in a fantasy world is that oftentimes, there is no consideration for logic.

I'll be using D&D for the examples here as well as pathfinder since the two do share a lot. I won't be using anything after D&D 3x/PF1e/d20. PF2e as well as D&D 4e/5e are all aimed towards playing fantasy styled superheroes and video games. That's not just something I pulled out of my ass. I will simply avoid using the mathematical differences between all of the systems. No house rules will be considered as it's best to not make that sort of assumption. I allow potions as a free action, but that's not the same for every table. I am fairly flexible but I tend to stay within the core rules as much as reasonable. So I do tend to side with the rule of cool as long as it makes sense. Why I explain that is because, though I do play OSR, there's not a lot that I don't allow as long as it's comparable. Who doesn't want to fight the demon king while playing a light saber wielding paladin at least once? But to the point. Are there genuinely a good number of people asking their GM to let them use a wheelchair? I think not.

There are very few legitimate reasons why an adventurer would subject themselves to being dependent on the party to be mobile and keep pace? And I'll be generous and say that it's not impossible. The GM could agree that a curse was put on the PC and they have to complete a task to regain the ability to walk again as a reason to adventure. Maybe there are very few people around that can use high level magic and by extension make high level potions and they are traveling to find a cleric that can help. Obviously I'm being generous here, but at least it makes some sense. "My character is an expression of myself." Is not a logical reason within the game in most tables. Sure you're role-playing, but even fictional worlds work within their own logic and rules. How many people actually travel long distances for long periods of time while in a wheelchair in the real world? Maybe a handful? Even then, how many travel through the wilderness, a battlefield or any rough terrain for long periods of time? Too few to even consider a static. They would be exceptions, not the rule. The same logic applies to just about all fantasy worlds.

Having the writing team of the company that owns the IP puts something outside of the core rules into a book. Doesn't mean it absolutely has to be used. Dwarves do in fact exist in the game, but just because the forgotten realms says something about their lore, it doesn't by default make it so at every table. Dwarven society doesn't even behave the same within the same publisher. Take Eberron Dwarves as an example. They belong to the same multiverse yet do not share the same lore. Then logically, I can make my Dwarves the dominant race in the world and still follow the same core rules. In much simpler terms. The core matters more than the lore at the table. At least for fairness in this asinine debate.

So let's agree that every table will run lore of their own, or as interpreted by the individual tables GM. By rules as written, going back to 1e, magic has been able to heal, with and without explicit limitations. Each spell acts as the rule for the magic. If a spell doesn't specify a limitation,

D&D 3.x/D20 cure light wounds and subsequent spells follow the same basic rules.

"When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance and can attempt a Will save to take half damage."

There is nothing stating that it cannot heal preexisting damage. So, there is room for interpretation of the GM. I do as most GM's rule that a severed limb is probably a limitation in the spell, but there are spells that allow regeneration of severed limbs. By that logic, using the spells in conjunction with proper medical procedures, I don't see many GM's saying that logically, this would allow us to heal a paraplegic or a gimp leg.

For those who are skeptical that some of us lack creativity. Keep this in mind when you talk about what the books, modules or whatever figurehead say. You are the ones who are limiting your creativity to what is on paper, literally and figuratively speaking. What we are doing is interpreting, not following. Interpretation is creativity, not the other way around.

If you're not convinced by the argument so far, remember that a GM can still rule that there is a ritual or something of the sort that could get the job done. And I am intentionally not using wish as an example as it is effectively a cheat at that point. Not many people would realistically have the wish spell, outside of high level, high fantasy settings. But again, that's the setting, not the rules. Even if I were to be generous and grant that point just for this. How many official sources are actually high level and high fantasy? Eberron? Artificer is able to create prosthetics, wheelchair not needed. Spelljammer? Same as the Eberron answer I'm afraid. Let's see? Starfinder or pathfinder? Similar situations I'm afraid. The more and more you look at the issue, you still have similar results. The inclusion arguments fall apart, UNLESS you are looking at what the GM does or doesn't allow in their group/table. I don't play the lore WotC OR TSR have laid out, but I have played at tables that only play by their lore. The argument that we should be inclusive and accept it is garbage and unwarranted. Would you not feel the same way if someone at WotC suggested a concept that you would NEVER put in your game?

Let's go on from that last bit. Let's say WotC decided to eliminate the monstrous races from the player options. No Orcs, half Orcs, no Goblins, dragons, even dragonborn, and Acemar. You'd be left with elf, dwarf, human, halfling and giant. Obviously I'm missing a lot, but not the point. Wouldn't that be ignored at the table by inclusivity advocates? After all, that's not very inclusive. Is it?

We don't mock the idea of the wheelchair, we laugh at and reject the notion that it makes sense and just because it's in a book, it's law. It's not like we don't see the usefulness of paraplegic characters, such as a princess, cursed by the demon king as a means to keep the human king in line and be able to take over the small country. Of course there are useful and creative ways to make use of "inclusive" elements. However it simply makes no sense that an adventurer, far less one at high level would venture off into a dungeon in a wheelchair. I mention it on X recently, but it would have made much more sense if the suggestion was a small magic carpet that could only transport the injured and a small bit of additional weight, such as an adventuring bag. The carpet takes no penalties for rough terrain, nor does it require a huge amount of maintenance. Not to mention that it would make it easier for the party since they don't have to worry about the chair keeping pace in rough terrain, or on the run. Imagine trying to swing an axe while trying to use your free hand to guide the chair. Don't even get me started on concentration checks for spell casters.

"It's a game of monsters and magic, why can't wheelchairs exist?" Is not the double edged sword some seem to believe, nor is it an argument for that matter. The same logic applies in reverse. "It's a game of monsters and magic, why would a wheelchair adventurer exist?" "It's make believe." Applies both ways, but it breaks down when you apply logic.

Going back to the example of the demon king. Let's apply that to an adventurer. It is true that there are no rules specifically aimed at this. There are however rules for travel speed, terrain, transportation, mounts, vehicles and movement. Let's stick strictly to a dungeon since it's the most talked about in the conversation. Let's also assume that the GM does agree on making ramps, instead of stairs. And it's not like mines don't have very crude elevators. So it's not like it's not doable. However the GM does still have the creative freedom to make ramps and elevators into traps or make them worth the effort of redrawing their maps.

First idea for a dungeon. A group of Goblins has overrun a mine and have had enough time to put up defenses before the party is given the quest to clear the dungeon. The party enters the place. Everything is good and well, but now they've run to the first floor passage to the second. It's dark inside the hallway going down/up doesn't matter. The GM now gets to be a bit creative without throwing more Goblins on the sword for now. The party would do well to check for traps, but how? What are you looking for? Goblins are fairly intelligent. As is the GM if he's not that great at making or finding dungeons with traps. I'd have a trap set up at the middle to top of the ramp. Actually I'd have at least two set up. A few caltrops and oil as well as a trip wire to drop a large spiked stake. You probably didn't bother to check for traps, because you underestimated the Goblins. Even if you disarmed the traps, the one in the wheelchair is still going to be in difficult terrain. Now you're rolling on an incline, or decline, either are especially dangerous for someone who has very limited mobility. Mobility I might add could be destroyed should a trap, or monster destroy while in the dungeon. Now it's upto a party member to carry you. You just cut your strength in half because now someone has to keep you mobile, while trying to fight or defend you. Granted, someone could break a leg in a dungeon either way, but it would be preferable to have someone that can at least still move around on their own. And I will remind you that healing magic does exist, and it's much faster and cheaper than having to find a new wheelchair. Since you insisted on being in a wheelchair, it'd be pointless to say that you would be healed and could walk, but the guy with the broken leg did.

It might be hard to hear, but it's not like every GM is going to baby you and just ignore an obvious vulnerability every single time you're up against something difficult. It would be kind of a dick move to single out the obvious vulnerability, but I digress. Even being generous, you don't control the dice. And you won't always have a safe space with your GM. And as a GM, you're really not doing your players a favor if you're not presenting problems in certain choices. I'm not one to judge, if you really want to play with that handicap, I hope you find a good table that will do that for you. But you don't get to tell others how they should be playing the make believe game. Your feelings on how I and millions of others don't really matter. Just don't be surprised when someone laughs in your face when you're the bully and they don't care for your attitude. Some of us who have been around for a while really don't mind if you get mad because you're not welcome. It has to be something that makes sense and I know I've been talking about the stupid chair, but there are other topics that are better left to their own post. There's the transgender/LGB thing that I want to talk about. Though I know I'll get some shit from quite a few people from every side for what I think about that, so, maybe after I've had a real hard look at how I want to handle it.

Maybe just maybe we drop this specific debate. Honestly, if you're using a bit of effort to listen to the actual argument being made, you'd realize that sometimes, it's not that your idea is necessarily bad, it's just simply not something everyone wants to deal with. Most of us play the elf games because we don't want to be reminded about our disabilities or real world drama.

I think that's about it, if I do think of something else, I'll make another post. Though this is really such an annoying topic to think about. There's just some much that I could probably go on for about three times as long. Nobody wants to read that much about it from some dude on the internet. May the dice decide.