D&D 5E Thoughts on this article about Black Culture & the D&D team dropping the ball?

[Phasestar]

Strange how only the "american problems" always come into focus. The issues with Curse of Strahd and the vistani are just as worse, but the roma-issue is mostly an european matter and thus no reason for someone on the other side of the atlantic to make a fuss

That's one of the points I was trying to make earlier. If enough people look at fantasy through a real-world filter where every decision to use a stereotype or myth is seen as offensive, then D&D is loaded with potentially offensive material, including some of the European-inspired stuff. People around the world from all origins and skin colors have been stereotyping each other and creating myths about it for as long as there have been myths - this is part of every culture and history. Granted some stereotypes truly are offensive, but most are not. At the time when D&D was created, most of these mythical stereotypes were accepted not as guides to the real world but rather as elements of a fantasy story that made the myths and stories come alive as they did. I don't know anyone who reads "Curse of Strahd", for example, as a guide to real-world Romania or Transylvania or the people therein.

As the next logical step, this is also why I don't subscribe to the group identity stuff. Within my lifetime, I've seen much more of a shift, especially among younger folks, away from seeing people as individuals and instead seeing them as groups. IMHO this is not accurate and it does not have good effects - group identity is a crude low-resolution filter filled with its own stereotypes and assumptions that is forced onto a world that is really at an individual resolution level. The end result of group thinking also results in these crude group assumptions then tend to create assumptions of division and opposition that otherwise would not exist if you instead see things at an individual level.

If identity-wise I considered myself primarily as part of a variety of groups rather than an individual, in every group I could be a part of every person there would still be different from me, with many different experiences, assumptions and characteristics. Sure, there may be some shared assumptions or experiences, but IMHO there are more differences and that's why the individual level is the correct one.

 

[Phasestar]

Regarding Redgar, the original intention was to not have him at all. There is Tordek, the iconic dwarven fighter. Why would you need two fighter iconics?
Monte said that someday he and the devs then came back from a trip and suddenly marketing had come up with Redgar as they "needed a male human fighter". As employees they tried to fight him but had to suck it up at one point. Todd Lockwood (who was the artist behind the basic races in the 3e compendium) then intentionally left his race vague (he looked a bit asian to me) while further artists made him more white.

It's interesting to also consider this in light of the recent D&D Beyond survey that shows the Human Fighter as the most popular character race/class combination. In that light, I understand the marketing decision to make a Human Fighter the main iconic fighter instead of the Dwarf and the decision to make him look white could be due to market research or other reasons. I have no way of knowing either way, so given the bulk of the market was probably white I won't assume anything nefarious if I don't have proof for it.

That he is "the iconic of iconic" in your eyes clearly shows that this massive marketing move to shift the attention to Redgar was successful because 1) He was not intended to be and 2) once he was, it was clearly not the dev's intention to have him be the "D&D poster child" as they wanted to diversify their characters.

Yes, I think it was successful, though I did note at the same time looking through the PHB that D&D 3e had iconics of other races and genders and I remember thinking that was pretty cool at the time. I'm in favor of representing the folks in the real world who play D&D with characters that look like them in the game. For me personally, that makes no difference - I've played Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and humans of various skin colors and if D&D had launched with only black characters set in a medieval Africa I think I still would have ended up playing it. I know it does make a difference for many folks though as far as feeling that the game welcomes them and I think it's a good thing to do because of that.

And yes. A black man or one of the other iconics (there are more than enough humans if they really needed "the" iconic to be human) would have probably been as successful had they had the same marketing support.

Agreed on that - perhaps even more successful!

I kind of agree. If you toss aside all RL baggage (which basically means erasing the person you are and the environment you live in), then fantasy can be just fantasy. But I guess this works for "private fantasy" only. As soon as you share your fantasy with others, you engage as the person you are. Plus, it is hard for someone who comes from a marginalized/minority group to not see stereotypes everywhere. I, for example, remember a time where the "damsel in distress" was found in every second piece of fantasy literature, video game and action movie. And it really turned me off.

For me, part of entering a fantasy world for entertainment is actually to make sure I don't bring any RL baggage with me, so that's definitely where I'm coming from. Perhaps it's easier for me to switch that off. Good point about the "damsel in distress". While a female character (made by Gary's daughter) was one of the first in D&D history, the semi-medieval setting definitely included a lot of assumptions that, while they disappeared from the game pretty quickly with future iterations, were certainly part of that first pass. It's been good to see that improve, but even then though, I think the creativity that the game allowed story-wise meant that the game was less about what was in the book and more about how you ran it at your table.

We are individuals, but also members of particular groups. I really don't want to sound offensive, but white, cis men only start to feel as if they are part of a group right now. As a white women, I've always been an individual, also strongly felt part of the "woman" group but not part of a "white" group. I hated seeing female characters being reduces to "the chick", to the singular female representation in an all-male group. To constantly see them as "the love interest" instead of the hero. I had to struggle with not "being one of those girls" (a notion which is , but I had to learn that). I guess black people have the same experience when it comes to "their group". Meanwhile, for a very long time, white men had a whole variety of human characteristics portrayed in the media when it came to "their group", which in turn reduced group based stereotypes.

I hear you on that and I agree the move away from "damsels in distress" and "love interests" is a good thing. Those stories can still happen, but they should be used in moderation with characters of various kinds put in the same situations as they are in reality too. I posted in another post my thoughts on groups vs. individuals. I understand it may be easier to identify strongly with a group in some cases - it's not that we are not part of groups or that we don't have some shared experience. Instead, it's that I believe the individual identity is the correct resolution level. Every time I see group identity override that it tends to lead to incorrect assumptions because it's a crude substitute that doesn't actually represent most individuals correctly, it just creates other stereotypes and assumptions. For example, going back to the original subject, I think the correct question was "Will WOTC consider getting a subject matter expert in the future when adapting real-world cultures" rather than "Will WOTC get a POC".

PS: I, for example, still cringe when there is more than 60-70% male NPCs in a module without any given reason or when most female NPC are described as something beautiful. It is one thing to create a PC or the occasional NPC who has this characteristic, but at some point I start seeing them as male wish fulfillment :X

Sure, point taken.

 

[Phasestar]

Jumping up and down on a game designer because he took the knowledge he had ready-to-hand and applied it to a game to have fun - instead of indulging in a public emotion-fest - is a silly way to expend valuable time better spent on, say, RESEARCH to learn about foreign peoples and cultures yourself.

I agree and I think WOTC can also take that part as constructive feedback.

 

[Phasestar]

No Chult isn't the only black culture in FR, in my opinions not even the most major.

Turami of Turkish would be the biggest and most important and influential, the Chultans we're never a major influence, but the Turami are the majority of the population in Turmish, the Forgotten Realms only major democracy, with representives elected from all the municiplaties and sent to the Assembly of Stars.

Then their are the cities of the Thinguths, Lapals (who interbred with Netherese to form the halruaa, and Tashlans.

And down South there is the Continient of Katashaka, of which Chult is arguably only a colony.

Nice to have an expert on FR (which I am not) chime in. This seems to really go to the heart of the original article's claim that the setting for TOA is the only part of FR that includes black humans. From your answer it seems that the article and bloggers quoted therein needed to do some research of their own.

 

[JonnyP71]

Not seeing the rant? More of a Hidden Figures of D&D article? Perhaps there are factual errors, but the article was about getting to know some of the women involved in early D&D... where’s the offense in that?!

Maybe 'rant' was the wrong word, but it was an article in which she backed up some of her key points with a number of incorrect 'facts', all of which seemed to be twisted somewhat to put 1E in a bad light and bolster her own opinion. It didn't appear that she had actually read any of what she was criticising.

 

[epithet]

Nice to have an expert on FR (which I am not) chime in. This seems to really go to the heart of the original article's claim that the setting for TOA is the only part of FR that includes black humans. From your answer it seems that the article and bloggers quoted therein needed to do some research of their own.

I suspect the article (a product of Gawker media, after all) was designed--successfully, it seems--as clickbait. The bloggers therein quoted were carefully selected to support the thesis of the article, not the other way around. "XYZ is racist and offensive!" is sure to get anyone who likes (or dislikes) XYZ to take a look and see what all the fuss is about.

Research just gets in the way.

 

[Satyrn]

Nice to have an expert on FR (which I am not) chime in. This seems to really go to the heart of the original article's claim that the setting for TOA is the only part of FR that includes black humans. From your answer it seems that the article and bloggers quoted therein needed to do some research of their own.

I also keep seeing it said here that ToA takes all of Africa and jams it into one single region. I wonder how true this is, or perhaps it's like someone looking at the old Maztica boxset and saying "it takes all of the Americas and jams it into one single region."

(Maztica did not do that. It was a fantasy Teotihuacan with little pieces of Mayan and Incan fantasy tossed in, leaving vast swaths of Mayan and Incan cultures and geography unexplored, with Amazon and North American cultures mentioned only in passing as being "off the map aways over there." )

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This seems remarkably cynical to me. I would personally never hire someone as a "token" to scapegoat or sacrifice to the public in case of criticism. I think there's nothing wrong with saying "FR/D&D may benefit from doing more research to make some of the non-European inspired nations and cultures more interesting and varied", but this is an entirely different thing.

I don't presume to speak for any group of people, I speak for myself and that's all I really expect of anyone else.

The D&D team is also not a large team and their focus, at the end of the day, is making great D&D rules and content. They've accomplished that - the rest of this is interesting but secondary and I would rather them spend their budget wisely rather than hiring scapegoats.

It would be remarkably cynical if the only reason you hired someone was to have a scapegoat on hand. That's why I said:

Because having that go-to goat is next to the least amount of effort you can exert in trying to avoid situations like this, beating out only not trying at all.

IOW, tokenism sets the bar so low that only inaction or worse can slip underneath it.

 

[Alexemplar]

No Chult isn't the only black culture in FR, in my opinions not even the most major.

Turami of Turkish would be the biggest and most important and influential, the Chultans we're never a major influence, but the Turami are the majority of the population in Turmish, the Forgotten Realms only major democracy, with representives elected from all the municiplaties and sent to the Assembly of Stars.

Then their are the cities of the Thinguths, Lapals (who interbred with Netherese to form the halruaa, and Tashlans.

And down South there is the Continient of Katashaka, of which Chult is arguably only a colony.

Katashaka is at best a foot note that's described as a dark continent that is where Chultans and Tabaxi (and Thinguth) came from. Thinguth, likewise, are a footnote as they interbred into other groups after escaping slavery and their most renowned trait was running fast. Best to not reference them.

But I honestly did forget all about Lapaliiya (which no longer exists as of 4e either) and Turmish, as they don't get even half the attention that Chult does.

 

[Parmandur]

Katashaka is at best a foot note that's described as a dark continent that is where Chultans and Tabaxi (and Thinguth) came from. Thinguth, likewise, are a footnote as they interbred into other groups after escaping slavery and their most renowned trait was running fast. Best to not reference them.

But I honestly did forget all about Lapaliiya (which no longer exists as of 4e either) and Turmish, as they don't get even half the attention that Chult does.

The Turami get featured right in the PHB: in the text, but the art as well.