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

[Caliburn101]

I honestly don't know what to say. If you didn't see it in your post, one of us is missing something. Please recall that all I did was correct your misunderstanding of the licensing agreement between TSR (now WoTC) and FR; you have something you really want to say, and I've stated my opinion that it would be better if you did so to someone who is less likely to take it the wrong way.

I'm glad you're against oppression, but I'm not sure that invoking the whole "some of my best friends are Jewish," is really where you want to go in a thread about how black people have been portrayed, and African culture and history stereotyped, in fantasy products.

If you really want to discuss other issues like the Vistani in D&D, or sexism in D&D, or whatever else is bugging you, why not start a thread on that, instead of making your issues a precursor to discussing this thread's topic?

You just won't let go of labels will you. Nice to be able to summarise someone else's life experiences by putting them in a box which you can dismiss out of hand I suppose.

What the lot of you telling me 'I don't see it' indicates to me is that your view of racism is too narrowly focussed. You think it's only as widespread and important as the media covering it, or the outrage you see on TV, or if it be the case, the racism you yourself suffer. It isn't limited to that, and never was. Admittedly without a sophists skill I criticised the article for being too florid and overblown despite some good points, and tried to expand the narrow scope of the discussion.

The one benefit if you will of the last time my friend's father was attacked with a brick with a message on it about greedy bankers put through his car window (putting in hospital for a few stitches to the head), that as a member of the Jewish community, his report to the Police got acted on promptly and seriously. Anti-Semitism policy in the UK has at least got somewhere since the 70's. That didn't make helping them see something other than the negative side of it the week I spent with them immediately afterwards much easier.

Yes, I have a Jewish friend and am close with his family - and I object to your attempt to stick a label on that, with your use of suggestive quotation marks and overuse of bullet-point wisdom. You inadvertently sought to invalidate an over 30 year relationship which has taught me a lot about the subject at hand with that statement. A pity you think such cynicism is warranted.

I note that in disagreeing that WotC were being racist, and they made great strides with 5th Edition I have been accused of invoking "anger". The fact that I didn't agree 100% with the contention from the author that ToA was racist or showed Chultans in a racist light, I have been the target of clichéd accusations of being an excusist, suffered snide remarks thrown into the mix of 'factual' answers and told by Greg I see below that he suspects I cannot intellectually grasp the issue. Of course that was put into the third person so as not to directly accuse me of it in a way that broke forum rules, but I am the only one he quotes.

What you are defending is a truly worthy thing, but it doesn't make every argument or statement about it from the point of view of the aggrieved party right or righteous. It doesn't give it the kind of automatic legitimacy that should not be examined. It doesn't make everyone who supports the conclusions of the aggrieved party righteous.

You need to be very careful about regarding something as so binary in it's moral authority, or the opinions of anyone of a race or culture entirely illegitimate if they are not the victim in this instance. Humans beings are generally far more capable of empathy and understanding that such arguments give them credit for.

I would invite you, Imaro to consider that in immediately assuming my post was passive-excusist it is you who are conditioned to believe any other position than the one you cleave to in this regard is entirely invalid and therefore fits into a neat strapline definition. Things are rarely that simple, and if you are convinced that they are, then you should test your assumptions as often as possible. You'd be surprised how many times you'd need to change your mind on things you had previously assumed were one way or the other.

Avoid using labels, even if you are certain you really understand.

The moment you slap a poisonous label on anyone, you make yourself complicit in attempting to silence them. You are excused from having to consider what they have to say, and you can justify yourself to the majority in being as dismissive as you like.

"If you aren't with us, your against us" is virtually never a good standpoint to hold.

Anyway - I imagine there is little point getting philosophical about this, and equally so trying to disavow the few of you who have the bit in your teeth about this - but just be clear on my position.

The author's complaints in my opinion are overblown. I don't know the personal reasons, but I spent three hours reading through ToA today trying to find the evidence of that that article was saying, and did so in the same way I have scrutinised many pieces of evidence and documents over the years as an archaeologist trained to avoid cultural bias in interpreting everything from excavation sites to historical accounts. The somewhat 'close to the knuckle' colonial angle is the only criticism I have, and that's at worst, I would think, an unwitting slip-up. I imagine Mike Mearls and crew would be genuinely horrified to think anyone really felt they had been the victim of racism because of their work, and they would be shocked by the accusation.

The world is full of racism, and full of history shot through with it, in all it's horrific human universality. The idea that it can be entirely avoided when using history as a template to create fantasy culture to the satisfaction of everyone, everywhere is a lovely one, but rather unrealistic.

Should it be challenged when it appears? Absolutely, and as rigorously as required to stamp on it.

Should a minor issue be overblown to make a point about a much wider problem? That depends on a case by case basis, and I really don't think this alleged instance deserves it.

The OP asked for our thoughts, and I have made mine. If you think me a racist, excusist or somehow lacking in comprehension of the complexities of this weighty matter at this point - then that's entirely on you and your own confirmation bias. I am very well aware of my own beliefs on the matter, and I have made myself perfectly clear.

I do not therefore see the need to revisit this discussion further.

 

[Imaro]

Well, the author of the article does actually a fair job of summarizing the original Chult of the 80s, and then the Chult of 1993- which do not seem particularly inspired, and a bit cliched.

Then she shows how ToA rewrites the setting in something much more interesting, with lavish illustrations, evocating an african-inspired setting which breathes and beckons adventure (it does do that for me).

But she then writes
"Here’s the rub: While many players I talked to enjoyed how the history and political structures of Chult were expanded in Tomb of Annihilation (and enjoyed the adventure’s plot generally), they were still unimpressed by its execution."

They enjoyed it but were unimpressed by its execution. So, it's a matter of taste. All good. I think I'll enjoy it.

So the author does actually praise what she and others she talked to are the good points of ToA...

Then the author of the article quotes various black persons who nitpick on the work of the authors.

Ahh ok... nitpick as in voice what they feel could have been done better in the adventure (after the praising of what was enjoyed no less)... basically what any review of a roleplaying game or product on the internet does... but it's "nitpicking" with this product for... reasons???

1.
“Their speaking patterns are described right down to having clicks. This creates a problem if white gamers were wanting to do an accent and do serious clicks and clucks based on what they’ve seen on TV about African languages.

I'm note sure what the problem is here.

The problem is most media tends to portray these types of things (click languages)...and African culture in general in a manner that reinforces the stereotype of the savage (One of the two major negative stereotypes, the other being the Sambo, of African and black people)... So yeah the immitation is based on media portrayals it could be very problematic.

2.
"Dace noted that Africa has upwards of 2,000 languages and only three language groups use clicks. It is one of the most stereotyped aspects of Africa.” Dace suggested using Swahili as another point of inspiration."

Click languages appear as very exotic to me, and I'm glad ToA authors make them prominent in their work. I like exotic things in my fantasy. But according to Dace, language clicks are a stereotyped portrayal of Africa... And ? Stereotypes are inherently bad ? When I think about (fantasy) Japan, I think about samourai and katanas (among other things). Is that bad too?

See you have the privilege to like the "exotic" as opposed to it defining you for good or ill or better yet someones badly acted portrayal of it offending you... because you're seen as the "norm". Now I already said I liked that the click languages were included but to not acknowledge that they could be problematic is just putting your head in the sand. Moreso not recognizing that we could avoid the possibility of this being intentionally or unintentionally used to cause offense and still be "exotic" as you put it... or is Swahili not "exotic" enough?

3.
"Light, the writer from BlackNerdProblems, told me that, “To me, it did not feel offensive. It felt lazy.” She wished that Wizards of the Coast innovated more instead of falling back on well-trodden tropes about what a unified “African” culture would look like."

I can understand the need for innovation. Then, ToA feels innovative to me. I guess that's a matter of opinion. Perhaps the next work of WoTC with an african theme will please Light more. In the meantime, she could try her hand at writing a RPG supplement the size of ToA to grasp what an exercise in laziness it is (This last sentence is sarcastic).

Ah now we've fallen back on one cannot critique something without being able to do it themselves... That idea is absurd I'm going to just ignore it for now. If you want some rebuttals just go back and read various posts by various forum goers in this very thread.

Also it probably feels innovative to you because you've been less exposed to said stereotypes throughout your entire life... but I'd be interested to know where exactly does it seem innovative? Is the innovation bar not regulated to cannibals and savages like the last edition did? that seems like a pretty low bar you're setting for "innovative"

4.
Graeme Barber, as quoted by the author the article, says: "“It’s not unfair or hostile to say that the genre of fantasy is riddled with racism."

G. Barber and I seem to have very different notions of what racism is (although I can only guess at his definition of racism).

To me, racism is the view of the human species as separated into discrete biological groups, (the black man, the red man, the white man, and/or the Jew, the Aryan, etc.), with precise characteristics, and then the classification of these groups in an hierarchical structure (the white man is more X than the black man ; the black man is more Y than the red man).

Racism - which is an outdated, obsolete and ultimately nonsensical world view - relies on stereotypes to constitute its various groups, but stereotypes are not inherently racist. it seems to me that Mr Barber too readily conflates these 2 notions of racism and stereotype.

No he doesn't conflate them... I think he said exactly what he meant and the fact that you are trying to redefine his argument while then disagreeing with what you've redefined it as is disingenuous.

Broadly speaking, G. Barber's worldview seems to me evocative of the victimization (the process of making a victim of oneself in order to achieve some symbolic or social gains) I spoke of in my first post.

And I would say your worldview is one of privilege that you neither take notice of nor acknowledge the position other races have been put into in order for you to enjoy it. But continue telling us about how ther's no room for improvement and it's just a victimization complex.

To summarize what I think:
WoTC produced ToA with the ambition of making an original book with a new and broader take on an african-like fantasy place, which could appeal to people of different backgrounds (afro-americans among them), and an author from the Kotaku website wrote an article about it which suggests in a passive-agressive way that the authors of ToA are lazy and/or racist.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Or... we told you what we liked but here's also how we feel your take on a fantasy Africa could have been better...

 

[Kobold Boots]

I was pretty sure she didn't have an agenda- especially not a recent one- because I've been making, voicing, and hearing the exact same complaint when it comes to D&D and fantasy gaming in general for almost as long as I've been playing.

Sure. I'm with you when you say that D&D isn't diverse. That said, the fact that a complaint exists and has for a good while doesn't mean it can't be strategically leveraged when most appropriate for good click through. If this article came out during the Charlottesville media cycle for example I'd have a better argument.

With the implication being that she doesn't do the latter because she's so busy doing the former. I mean, we could always be doing something else in addition to complaining. Who's to say we aren't? And if you don't believe writing your congressman is a better way to spend time, why suggest it?

At least from my side I'm not implying anything and I'm not a big proponent of complaining in general. My point was and is that I believe the motive is to drive traffic, not necessarily to drive discussion about a social issue. My suggestion to write a congressman or help in the communities that are most affected by the social issue were simply examples of better things to do than drive traffic for profit.

Why suggest the congressman? - Honestly don't have a better answer when reflecting on it than "Cause that's what white people are told to do when growing up". Had to laugh when I thought about it, but it's true. Stupid, but true.

In any case, I don't think the aim of the article was to be the singular force that creates a radical paradigm shift. It's part of an ongoing conversation and issue that she (and others, including myself) have been making for some time. However, voicing concerns publicly (and voicing enough of them, and voicing them often enough, and backing them up when they're challenged) and pushing for positive representations in media absolutely does result in paradigm shifts. Her single article won't change the world. Neither will my single post. It's not about changing the world with a single post. She just happens to get paid for her writing while I have to do mine in my time off.

And sometimes things do change a bit...

Not too long ago, I mentioned Forbes' article in 2012 talking about how- adjusted for inflation- former Mali Empire ruler Mansa Musa was the richest man to have ever lived. it spread around various news and social media feeds. Google searches related to him immediately spiked and have been on an upward trend ever since. I certainly don't think raising awareness about Mansa Musa and the Mali Empire in general is what Forbes set out to do. I think thought people would be really surprised to read how some African guy they've never heard of was apparently richer than Steve Jobs and clicked to learn more. Nevertheless, it had a generally positive effect and did raise awareness that pre-colonial Africa had more than they might have thought, if only a little.

People in the US get a lot of their news and impressions about stuff- especially about Africa- from the games they play, the internet articles they read, and the stuff they watch. Precolonial sub-Saharan Africa is not something they really cover in US schools or a topic that many people devote independent research to. There's very little out there to challenge the impressions they get from the media or give them the vaguest idea of what more could exist. That's why it needs to be called out- and not just academically but through the same channels by which the misconceptions were (and still are) propagated.

This piece of your reply is absolutely brilliant and why I XP'd you. All I'd add is that if you'd notice, my approach in this thread was initially and very specifically focused on the academic argument because I know that the academy is the single force that's supposed to illuminate folks to not be ignorant and in the specific case of pre-colonial Africa is the very reason why folks who may not be inclined to racism continued to be ignorant into the mid to late 20th century. That's not to say that there aren't other emergent reasons for incidental racism; but it didn't help. So with your last paragraph there you and I hit equilibrium (in my opinion)

I don't know if I communicate it well, but these discussions don't bother me too much. I have them all the time and have been having them with friends, family, and people on the internet for over a decade now and I know that they can be difficult. I think they're worth having, though. Nothing ever got fixed by half of everyone sitting around unaware of it while the other half saw it but never said anything out of fear not immediately fixing it.

Same here from the "white" side of things. That said, there's an immense amount of inherited guilt surrounding the conversations and it's really hard to be proud of your own heritage when you look at it and realize that so many people have been either lied to or directly oppressed by the way society was and continues to be. So when I talk about things I tend to be rather careful. I'm not a racist, nor am I inclined to see color when I look at someone; but the problem is I'm "whiter" than a bag of golf balls and affluent, so I almost feel like I've no right and it's hard to get whoever the other side is at the time to listen.

End of day though I still care so I get really annoyed when a discussion about racism focuses on what's wrong right now, as opposed to understanding why it's like that so we can move forward. You probably saw some of that in my posts.

Be well Alex - We'll chat about gaming at some point too.

KB

 

[MoonSong]

I'm no PoC, so take my following comments with a grain of salt.
I guess I agree with your statement. FR is a (culturally speaking) often lazy adaptation of various RL cultures. As a European, I can see strange mish-mashes of various stereotypes all over Northern Faerun and I have to admit that the most redeeming part of the setting was the general idea of magic and the interdependency between the divine and mortals. (Oh and the bad guys were usually cool as well. At least to a 18 year old girl which I was when I first read through the Campaign Setting).

I guess Kara-Tur or Zakhara or Maztica or Chult might feel similar for someone who's from Asia (not all of Asia is a mix of feudal Japan and Chinese folklore) or the Middle East (although the Persian empire did span over a vast area, it became a LOT more complicated during/after the middle ages) or Middle/Southern America (don't just mix up Mayans and Inka and jungles and human sacrifices ...) or, as said, Africa.

Now I do like racial and cultural diversity in a setting, as well as having maybe settings which specifically use only one region of the world as inspiration point to take a deeper dive into a variety of sub-cultures.
7th Sea uses a multitude of RL-inspired mythical european cultures as basis. the Avatar-verse uses Chinese, Japanese and Inuit cultures and adds its own mythological stuff on top of it. Zeitgeist mixes up southern America, victorian England and an overall pretty black populace as well as it makes its "elves" based on indian cultures and myths.

Now I think what should be really avoided are harmful stereotypes. And I guess we should ask someone who's from that origin point whether a stereotype we might have used in our writing is too much or even harmful. For example, I'm from Germany. And I'm so annoyed whenever a "german based" person or a "Germany based" region in a fantasy setting is somehow related to this setting's version of Nazis and autoritanism or is overly focused on overly masculine traits like hardness and steel (We're not all metalheads ). I don't mind as much when it comes to using a stereotypical inventiveness/focus on science or orderliness or a complicated beurocracy or a strange, stern humor. Because there are stereotypes many of us like to laugh about

Some thoughts (recognizing that I am myself a white dude):

1) Yes, it would be great to hear from the prospective of POC on this issue. Which is exactly what this article does. The article, aside from the historical context parts, is primarily a collection of takes from black gamers. They asked several. Which is kind of the point, seeing as whatever number of black gamers this article consulted about ToA was also the exact number of black gamers the article's author consulted beyond that which WotC consulted in making ToA.

2) There's been a lot of hand-wringing in this thread about how white (and/or male, and/or straight, and/or etc.) creatives "can't win" and you know what? There's a certain degree of truth to that. But to simply stop there is to only scratch the surface and ignore why that might be. When you dig deeper you realize the problem isn't sensitivity; it's privilege. The white straight male story has been done to death, and continues to be done to death. Our culture is increasingly demanding, appreciating and celebrating diverse stories. This is not to say that white people can't or shouldn't continue to tell their stories, but they should expect a certain degree of pushback or at least eye-rolling, but that's really the worst they can really expect, considering how privileged white narratives still are from a financial/mass market appeal perspective.

2a) Side-note, but if you think that we have no way of knowing what African fantasy is supposed to look like, it is not because such stories do not actually exist. It's because you haven't been reading them.

3) Of course, the better alternative for white creatives is to incorporate diverse perspectives within their own stories. This does, of course, appear to be a fraught and perilous endeavor. But it doesn't have to be. You just have to put in the work. Research. Consult. Workshop. Open yourself up to the criticism before you ship the final product. Or you could skip all of that and just go with your instincts. Guess which path WotC took? (hint: remember how many people of color consulted on ToA?)

4) And here is why people with privilege need to do that work if they choose to present diverse perspectives: the greatest hallmark of privilege is to see one's privileged position as the "default". Remember that ridiculous Jack Nicholson line from As Good As It Gets? About how he writes women by starting with a man and taking away reason and accountability? That's a pretty on the nose representation of this phenomenon.

4a) I almost wrote "mentality" instead of "phenomenon" but I wanted to make one thing clear: in the vast majority of these cases (i.e; those in the real world, as opposed to Nicholson's character) this is entirely unconscious and unintentional. It's the way we're socialized. Everything that we've been presented, up to and including many of the ways we present and talk about issues of "diversity" reinforce the notion of "white straight and male (and able-bodied and etc.)" as defaults. I'm a white straight male who has spent the last decade or so trying to un-learn this and it's still difficult. Nobody said this was going to easy. At the same time, don't expect any credit just for trying. When it comes to actual impact of what you do, your intentions are ultimately irrelevant.

4b) Anyway, back to research. This mostly entails actually seeking out and finding diverse perspectives. And, and this seems to be the more difficult part for a lot of people, taking them at face value. You have to listen and you have to believe. You want to know how to "win"? This might not encompass the entirety of the work you have to do. But it's absolutely where you have to start.

4c) What this allows you to do is to imagine others complexly, to borrow a turn of phrase from John Green. This goes beyond mere "empathy" and into the realm of "understanding".

4d) When you don't bother with doing any of these things, the only things you have to fall back on when trying to present diverse perspectives are commonly recognized stereotypes and tropes. Note that, in the vast majority of these stereotypes and tropes were invented by white creatives for largely white audiences. These are therefore definitionally not "diverse perspectives"; they are still quite solidly white perspectives on diverse cultures. This is what ToA, with it's distinct lack of diverse voices anywhere within the development process, ultimately is.

5) Good intentions do count for a few things, I suppose, even if they fall woefully short of adequate. That the hearts of the designers were probably in the right place is evident by the fact that, in updating a 20+ year-old setting rife with horrifically racist depictions (some from as recently as 9 years ago, it seems), they managed to create something that isn't all that overtly offensive (mad monkey disease notwithstanding). But that's a depressingly low bar, and one which they still managed to clip a little in the vaulting. Why they didn't bother to consult with POC gamers or creators, we probably will never truly know. But whether it was because they didn't want to put in the effort or because the thought never crossed their mind it was something they ought to do in the first place, it represents a clear display of laziness.

6) And here we reach the point where we have to talk about the expectations game. See, all those earlier depictions of Chult (or, as has been pointed out, all of the other incredibly lazy and/or incredibly racist non-white real-world culture fantasy mash-ups that typify the broader Forgotten Realms setting) didn't suddenly become more racist overnight. They were always racist. But nobody really batted an eye, not even at that line about noble savages and cannibals, released several months after Barack Obama became the first black major party presidential candidate. I mean, I'm sure there were voices of anger and frustration within the community at these depictions, I don't want to diminish that at all, but they weren't exactly widespread and they weren't spawning think pieces in internet nerd culture journalism. But in the majority of the community, they either didn't even notice or didn't think it was a big deal.

5a) The 5e Player's Handbook changed everything though. D&D was suddenly a very inclusive game, and it wanted to let you know that. The title image for "Humans" is black woman. Artwork of diverse characters proliferate the entire document. There were inclusive statements on sexuality and gender, and it's easy to forget how radical its statement calling out its specifically trans inclusivity was; that it's still not a broadly popular stance within mainstream liberal community, let alone the wider population as a whole, nearly three and a half years later. This was a D&D that was trying to do so much better for its diverse array of fans.

5b) This brings us to the paradox of "knowing better"; when you appear to know better, to "get it", the expectations for you are higher and when you mess up, the criticism comes that much stronger. Thus, why this version of Chult is significantly better than any that have preceded it, but that it's still not good enough, and why WotC seems to be receiving more criticism than they had in the past, when nobody expected any better. You might think that this is not fair, and you'd be absolutely correct. But imagine, for a moment, the amount of privilege required for the following scenario: the biggest release from the biggest company in an forty-plus year-old industry prominently features black characters and a black culture and not a single person of color was involved in its creation. And nobody involved thought this was enough of a problem to do something about it. "Fair" has never been part of the equation.

6) Ultimately, the issue is the fact that you had this great team with many years of experience among them and all of them were white. And it's endemic of gaming; I mean, it's endemic of basically every American (or hell, Western) media, but gaming is no exception and if anything it is less diverse than other forms of media. By the way, this is why there are women-only gaming writing competitions people seem to love to talk crap about (I'm not away of any POC-exclusive competitions within the field, but there really ought to be). It's about developing and promoting diverse voices so this kind of lazy essentializing stops happening in products released in 2017 and beyond. I mean, even just consulting with prominent fans of colors on your pan-African-inspired setting is a pretty damn low bar, and it's still one WotC failed to clear. And yeah, we do expect better of WotC at this point.

7) But, and here's the main takeaway, I would certainly hope that WotC expects better of itself at this point also. Because if they don't, then yeah... maybe our expectations for them were too high after all.

In the Forgotten Realms, where scandinavian heritage is reduced to "barbarian" warriors in horned helmets, Celtic heritage is repackaged as dwarves and elves, Slavic heritage is ground up into Ravenloft tropes (with Romani lovingly reimagined as vistani,) are we really pretending to be shocked at the trite amalgamation of some African cultural elements in Chult?

Come on, man.

I get that there is a history of racism that leaves a raw sensitivity here, but seriously - it is not remotely reasonable to expect the Forgotten Realms to single out African cultural legacies for respectful, thematically accurate representation. The Forgotten Realms is, in every respect, a silly place. If you want a serious setting that is sensitive to your cultural stuff, you don't want that one. That's not necessarily a bad thing, either... it is a willfully silly place, created for escapist fantasy, often happily embraced by folks who thought Greyhawk was too gritty (with its depiction of a world shaped culturally almost entirely by groups of humans, elves, orcs, etc. trying their best to kill everyone who wasn't completely like them.)

If you look for something to get offended by, you will certainly find it. That said, Tomb of Annihilation is a pretty good adventure, and Chult is a pretty well done region in that book. Could it have been done better with another 6 months and a handful of "consultants?" Maybe... but probably not, because the sensitive treatment of cultural issues is not a thing your merry band of murder-hobos is likely to appreciate.

But, maybe I'm just cynical.

"Person of color" is broader than "black", though. It's really "non-white". I don't like it either, and feel uncomfortable using it because it evokes certain other terms, but that's how I understand it.

Part of why the USA race situation is SO UNBELIEVABLY MESSED UP is the answer to this question: it depends.

The classic KKK rule would be "One Drop". That is, you're a PoC (to use a term they wouldn't) if you have one drop of nonwhite ancestry. (Fun fact: many of them are trying out those genetic ancestry services these days, and are NOT liking the results.)

OTOH, in certain circumstances, a man as black as night could go into "Whites Only" areas...if he were an African. The doublethink here being that Africans had their own countries, and thus, were different from and superior to those who lived in the USA.

Similarly, the same "it depends" answer could be given about your last question. There are places where the racists don't give a damn if you're black. Blacks are OK...BUT if you're Hispanic or Native American, there's going to be trouble.

"Racism: It simply isn't rational."™

Oh, oh I've got it, I'm a white of Color!n_n
More seriously why can't we all try to be a little more empathic?

 

[Parmandur]

If there is one thing ENWorlders are unused to and shocked by, it's people nitpicking products released by WotC. Who would ever do such a thing??

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When I played an African-themed Ranger back in 2Ed, I used some elements of Zulu and Masai culture to do so, plus a bit of this & that. I had him using a particular south-central African variant of the assegai that was 6' long- 3' of handle, and a 3', longsword-like blade- from a book of old weapons. His armor epwas cured lion hide...with the head attached, stretched over a helm.

He was "cursed", however- several combats vs his Favored Enemies, I didn't roll higher than a 7...

What did you use for assegai stats? I've long thought there was a gap in the core martial weapons tables for that kind of weapon: a spear that can be used with a shield and is every bit the equal of the sword. I usually just use longsword/warhammer/battleaxe stats and change the damage type to piercing, but for a recent character (lizardfolk avenger) I fudged and used rapier stats because I wanted a Dex build and, hey, there's finesse in spearfighting, right?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The DM decided to treat it as a bastard sword that could be thrown, but only short distances.

 

[Lychee of the Exch.]

See you have the privilege to like the "exotic" as opposed to it defining you for good or ill or better yet someones badly acted portrayal of it offending you... because you're seen as the "norm".

I'm only partly defined by what others think of me. If I allowed myself to be constantly offended by some badly acted portrayal of me - more precisely, by some badly acted portrayal of the people or the community I'm supposed to be part of - I would allow myself to always and thoroughly be (re)defined by others than me.

In spite of what I just wrote I still get regularly offended, of course, for various reasons, but I strive to not let myself wallow in self-righteous indignation at the perceived injustices of the world because, well... it's bad for my heart and for my soul.

To let oneself be angry all the time, as a fraction of some members of minorities in the USA do, and lash out constantly at the world, in an accusatory way, is not healthy, nor productive. I find it disempowering, in fact.

Now I already said I liked that the click languages were included but to not acknowledge that they could be problematic is just putting your head in the sand. Moreso not recognizing that we could avoid the possibility of this being intentionally or unintentionally used to cause offense and still be "exotic" as you put it... or is Swahili not "exotic" enough?

I'm of the opinion that we can not avoid the possibility of anything to cause offense. Some people want to be offended, and they will be, no matter what you do.

I'm a writer myself, and I don't go out of my way to offend people, but I refuse to censor myself to avoid offending some vague and ill-defined minorities ("people of color", "black men", "Jews", etc.).

Not being a racist myself, I find these minorities ill-defined, and stifling in terms of the individual. Are all person of dark hues supposed to be "black", for example, and are they supposed to be affected in the exact same way by the history of slavery in the USA ?

And I would say your worldview is one of privilege that you neither take notice of nor acknowledge the position other races have been put into in order for you to enjoy it. But continue telling us about how ther's no room for improvement and it's just a victimization complex.

There is definitely room for improvement. ToA IS improvement to me, and not being able to see it diminishes its impact, and perhaps lessens the good will of its authors.

Re:improvement - I don't believe in "races". It's a very flawed and outdated concept, and I think the world would be better if we learned to discard it - though I don't think that will happen for some centuries from now.

I don't think the concept of privilege - as in the privilege of the white man, I suppose - is a sound one either, though I acknowledge that it is for you.

I would say that you and me we understand the worldview of each other, to an extent - and that our worldviews happen to be orthogonal on some important points. I don't think that makes either one of us a bad person. And I don't think you think it does either, and for that I'm grateful

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

Ok so really quick, I know a couple black players who had opinions on Chult and it was more or less the same opinion that the articles, and the few black people that posted on here had.

They didn't feel like it was racists, at all. But they did say things like tone deaf, and lazy. Overall they seemed satisfied, but they did feel it missed the mark.

They pretty much all grumbled when it came to the colonized part, and there was always a wince when it came to Mad Monkey Disease. My friend even jokingly said "You know, I think I would have had less issues with it if they had just called it Black Man Disease."

I think the thing they seemed most dissatisfied with was the mixing of so many African cultures all together.

And it looked to me that some people argued/dismissed that dissatisfaction by pointing out that D&D does the exact same thing with the Medieval fantasy and they were satisfied with the result. Which is valid. If you have a setting, then the more cultures mixed into it the more cultures you have to play with. You have to sacrifice a little depth, but it's ultimately worth it for the extra options.

Let me just remind people that "equal" doesn't mean "the same." Maybe in order for POC to find the same degree of satisfaction as white people, WotC has to approach "their settings" differently. Maybe the standard of a setting with 5/6 cultures with a little depth each is just fundamentally dissatisfying for POC. Maybe POC would prefer a setting with 2 in-depth cultures, or 1 in-depth culture and 2 cultures with a little depth is more satisfying.

It's really interesting because there kinda isn't any precedence. I think it's fair to say that before 5e D&D was writing specifically to a white, and probably male, audience. An audience that they have been writing to for decades and knew well, especially because they themselves were their audience. If they wanted to know if the audience would enjoy something, they could literally just ask themselves and the person sitting next to him. But ever since 5e planted that flag of Diversity and Inclusion, and ever since the unprecedented surgence of POC to D&D they are no longer writing for the same audience. This is uncharted waters for all of us, It's actually quite exciting.

Which is precisely why right now we need to be as vocal and critical and stern with WotC as possible. They need to figure out what we want and how we want it as quick as possible, and they need to shed old bad habits and learn the new ones they need to succeed and nurture this brand new relationship with POC. No one here is criticizing them for some silly social political agenda, no one here believes that they're racists. Mearls is a mumbly squishy faced teddy bear cherub, Crawford is holding it down for the LGBTQ, and Perkins is DM to us all.

Also, in a Fireside Chat, Nathan Steward said that they're definitely going to move out of the Sword Coast which implies to me more POC settings, so its best they keep learning and improving, and they can only do that if they know something is wrong. 5e has been living and dying on that 70% survey approval montra, It looks like it fell short this time with POC.

Finally, to emphasize how much the landscape has changed, and to show where the idea that maybe there is a fundamental difference between how white players, and POC players consume D&D cam from. At the start of October Mearls was on a 5e roundtable with Mercer, Colville, and Koeble. They were talking about the changes that D&D has recently seen. He mentions how they just got some survey data, and he cant go into detail because of proprietary reasons.

That there is an interesting divide towards the game between people who have started playing in the past 3 years and people who were playing before that, across the board. The mechanics are very similar like the number of players they have, and how often they meet to play, how long they play. But then the actual attitudes towards the game are vastly different. I don't see that changing and I think that divide is going to continue to grow.

 

[Alexemplar]

Ok so really quick, I know a couple black players who had opinions on Chult and it was more or less the same opinion that the articles, and the few black people that posted on here had.

They didn't feel like it was racists, at all. But they did say things like tone deaf, and lazy. Overall they seemed satisfied, but they did feel it missed the mark.

They pretty much all grumbled when it came to the colonized part, and there was always a wince when it came to Mad Monkey Disease. My friend even jokingly said "You know, I think I would have had less issues with it if they had just called it Black Man Disease."

I think the thing they seemed most dissatisfied with was the mixing of so many African cultures all together.

And it looked to me that some people argued/dismissed that dissatisfaction by pointing out that D&D does the exact same thing with the Medieval fantasy and they were satisfied with the result. Which is valid. If you have a setting, then the more cultures mixed into it the more cultures you have to play with. You have to sacrifice a little depth, but it's ultimately worth it for the extra options.

Let me just remind people that "equal" doesn't mean "the same." Maybe in order for POC to find the same degree of satisfaction as white people, WotC has to approach "their settings" differently. Maybe the standard of a setting with 5/6 cultures with a little depth each is just fundamentally dissatisfying for POC. Maybe POC would prefer a setting with 2 in-depth cultures, or 1 in-depth culture and 2 cultures with a little depth is more satisfying.

It's really interesting because there kinda isn't any precedence. I think it's fair to say that before 5e D&D was writing specifically to a white, and probably male, audience. An audience that they have been writing to for decades and knew well, especially because they themselves were their audience. If they wanted to know if the audience would enjoy something, they could literally just ask themselves and the person sitting next to him. But ever since 5e planted that flag of Diversity and Inclusion, and ever since the unprecedented surgence of POC to D&D they are no longer writing for the same audience. This is uncharted waters for all of us, It's actually quite exciting.

Which is precisely why right now we need to be as vocal and critical and stern with WotC as possible. They need to figure out what we want and how we want it as quick as possible, and they need to shed old bad habits and learn the new ones they need to succeed and nurture this brand new relationship with POC. No one here is criticizing them for some silly social political agenda, no one here believes that they're racists. Mearls is a mumbly squishy faced teddy bear cherub, Crawford is holding it down for the LGBTQ, and Perkins is DM to us all.

Also, in a Fireside Chat, Nathan Steward said that they're definitely going to move out of the Sword Coast which implies to me more POC settings, so its best they keep learning and improving, and they can only do that if they know something is wrong. 5e has been living and dying on that 70% survey approval montra, It looks like it fell short this time with POC.

Finally, to emphasize how much the landscape has changed, and to show where the idea that maybe there is a fundamental difference between how white players, and POC players consume D&D cam from. At the start of October Mearls was on a 5e roundtable with Mercer, Colville, and Koeble. They were talking about the changes that D&D has recently seen. He mentions how they just got some survey data, and he cant go into detail because of proprietary reasons.

A very, very good summation of what's going on and the concerns/desires being expressed.

That there is an interesting divide towards the game between people who have started playing in the past 3 years and people who were playing before that, across the board. The mechanics are very similar like the number of players they have, and how often they meet to play, how long they play. But then the actual attitudes towards the game are vastly different. I don't see that changing and I think that divide is going to continue to grow.

While I do agree that gaming has certainly diversified, it would seem that the author of this article, the blogger they talked to, and most people in this thread sharing their concerns and desires have been playing D&D and saying more or less the same stuff for even longer. The concerns and desires have always been there and always been voiced.. Goes just the same regarding fantasy and issues of and sexism, sexuality/gender, etc.

I think the change is more on WotC's end- with it's more public statements avowing to address these concerns and desires. That's what's putting even of an onus on them to actually deliver, and also makes it more noticeable when they stumble.

Not trying to contradict/correct you. Just clarifying that this isn't a case of people who have only recently jumped on the D&D bandwagon wanting to change the game as it's always been. It's people who have been on the bandwagon for a long time who have haven't given up on wanting to change it, yet still sticking with it even after all that time.