WotC WotC's Chris Perkins On D&D's Inclusivity Processes Going Forward

Over on D&D Beyond, WotC's Chris Perkins has written a blog entry about how the company's processes have been changed to improve the way the D&D studio deals with harmful content and inclusivity. This follows recent issues with racist content in Spelljammer: Adventures in Space, and involves working with external cultural consultants.

The studio’s new process mandates that every word, illustration, and map must be reviewed by multiple outside cultural consultants prior to publication.

Leveling Up Our Creative Process: Learnings From Spelljammer

In this blog post, I'll talk about how we in the D&D Studio are changing our review process following the problematic content that appeared in Spell...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[DragonBelow]

It’s bizarre it took them this long and this many flubs to finally commit to outside sensitivity readers, but I’m glad they finally did. Hope it’s for real and not just marketing.

I don't see it as bizarre. I can only imagine the number of meetings it took to establish this process, and the number of people involved.

Unlike the original apology, this doesn't feel rushed, and it sounds like it will help alleviate the issues that were raised.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It’s bizarre it took them this long and this many flubs to finally commit to outside sensitivity readers, but I’m glad they finally did. Hope it’s for real and not just marketing.

Adding an extra editor to the process, with a specialization in sensitivity reads, is definitely for real, although like all editors, they won't catch 100% of the issues 100% of the time. But an extra copy editor is always a good thing and benefits even people who don't care about this particular issue, as it's one more person to spot typos and other problems while they're looking for their main issue.

 

[Marandahir]

GOOD.

Leaving things up to the Project Lead to decide was wrong. Doing this also for reprints of current products is really good and a sign of good-faith changes in the company (obviously, they're not going to go back and edit 1e-4e content sold on DM's Guild).

It very well may be that the impetus from the Hasbro execs is damage control and PR (the fact that they just put out a 4-booster pack box set of Magic: The Gathering for $1,000 speaks to how much Hasbro really only cares about the $$$), but if the end result is a kinder and fairer and more welcoming D&D, the hobby will be better for it, and the such policies will also have a cumulative effect towards making the company more welcoming to work at and grow in, too.

I have full faith that the creatives at WotC have the best of intentions, but good intentions are not enough when internalised biases allow us to overlook issues that would be red flags to someone it directly hurts.

This whole blog post speaks to me of good faith.

 

[Morrus]

Do you really believe that despite all what happened WotC did not use sensitivity readers already or disregarded what they said?

In this particualr case, Perkins says of the offending material "neither of which had been reviewed by cultural experts."

I'm inclined to take him at his word. He says they didn't, so I assume they didn't.

 

[Marandahir]

In this particualr case, Perkins says of the offending material "neither of which had been reviewed by cultural experts."

I'm inclined to take him at his word. He says they didn't, so I assume they didn't.

I think it's pretty clear that the Project Lead didn't catch this, because it wasn't their only job to catch things like this and they had a lot of different elements pulling on them, and they weren't particularly the target of the offensive material so it wasn't immediately obvious to them.

Maybe it should have been, but committing to hiring a team member to review these things for all projects is far better than trusting that the Project Lead is going to catch these things amidst all their other competing priorities.

 

[Ixal]

In this particualr case, Perkins says of the offending material "neither of which had been reviewed by cultural experts."

I'm inclined to take him at his word. He says they didn't, so I assume they didn't.

I have seen enough PR speech that I don't. Especially when a company is in damage control mode take everything with two grains of salt, both about what happened and what they are going to do.
We will see when/if the next "scandal" happens.

 

[Incenjucar]

Cynicism is not entirely unreasonable but this is a good direction. At a minimum it's an investment in intention, and they're putting their money where their Magic Mouth is.

 

[Zaukrie]

Even in things as controlled as building airplanes, issues happen. I'm going to assume that it slipped thru the cracks and they are putting more process in place to make sure more don't. But, every thing like this costs money and tends to have effects on product (in every industry). There are limits to how far any company can do to eliminate error.....even, as I said, in building airplanes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe it should have been, but committing to hiring a team member to review these things for all projects is far better than trusting that the Project Lead is going to catch these things amidst all their other competing priorities.

It's also hard to be aware of one's own blindspots. Even a well-meaning person might not realize there's something to show to a sensitivity reader until it's too late.

 

[Dausuul]

I have seen enough PR speech that I don't.
We will see when/if the next "scandal" happens.

Why would Perkins say that the material had not been reviewed if in fact it had been? If it had been, then WotC could blame the reviewer for doing a bad job. Admitting that it wasn't reviewed means WotC takes the blame.