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

 

[grimslade]

This is good. It should have been best practice after the Curse of Strahd revisions, but it will make for better content going forward so definitely not too late.
The Spelljammer 5E mistakes were just so glaring especially when the previous release was Radiant Citadel. I imagine it was humbling for Chris Perkins. No one likes to have their own personal short-sightedness be the cause of a change in company policy. The benefit is two-fold, they catch uncomfortable copy and educate their staff along the way to keep it from happening in the future. It is a solid addition to the editing of a product.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I know I am going to sound like a broken record but if they are really serious now might be a good time to hire new young diverse creators to work on 1d&D

 

[MGibster]

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.

And let's face it, I bet a lot of us have overlooked things that others might have believed was obviously objectionable material. That's the whole reason to have a sensitivity reader.

He's taking ownership. That's worth something, even if it was forced on him by PR or HR or the execs on high.

This isn't typically somethign that HR would or could force. This was a business decision made by someone high up in the company. HR doesn't typically decide how a product is made or marketed.

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

It's okay to not see the issue. I know I didn't when it first came up. But victim-blaming isn't okay. And WotC themselves have owned up to this being a problem. They saw the issue. There's no question of the problem, but it is something you need to educate yourself on if you don't see it. Please go do that before digging yourself deeper into this hole. It'll help, I promise.

I appreciate that. I did some reading, admittedly not hours and hours, but some. One thing I did find was a post on Reddit, which I'll quote:

the fact that this is even a topic of discussion is more offensive to me (a black person) than the lore paragraph itself. it gets so exhausting dealing with people trying to police other people, media, ideologies because they find something they believe correlates/connects two otherwise unrelated things. (ex. wizarding world goblins/jews, jar-jar binks/jamaic- okay, that one I can't defend so much)

slaves were a thing WAYYYY before my ancestors were subject to it. read anything about the conquistadors invading South America, and the horrific things they did to the Mesoamericans. if I'm being honest, what bothers me most is the fact that the first thing people think when they see "dnd monkey race" is black people. I know the racist stereotypes, but I'm also intelligent enough to know that they're untrue and baseless. just because there's a group of space monkey's that were previously enslaved doesn't mean they're an allegory for people of indigenous or African descent, but if that's what you guys wanna think when you read the lore excerpt that tells me you have some deeper rooted issues that may need to be addressed. I learned years ago that if I spend all my time looking at things from a racial/social/political lens; all it does is make me angry with people for no reason other than that I'm looking to be angry with them.

and I'll be frank with you guys. from my perspective it's other people that, notably, aren't black that I see getting upset about these stupid ass correlations. things can just be things without having some real world socio-political implication

Which largely aligns to how I feel about it. It seems like people are searching for a reason to be angry and indignant about something pretty innocuous. I asked the question above about Wookies being slaves in Star Wars, and I think the reason on one is angry about that is because no one sees Wookies as an analogy for any real-world group. So I'll double-down on what I said before: If you look at an illustration of a monkey and decide it's an analogy for a black person, you're perpetuating a problem, not solving it.

 

[Umbran]

I don't get what the issue is. I'm not trying to be ignorant here...

Mod Note:

Well, you may simply be a person who hasn't had certain racist tropes pointed out to you. Thankfully, ignorance itself is easily fixable. Please allow me to do so:

Referring to those of African descent as "monkeys" or "apes" is a very common racial slur.

The analogy then, between the game race, and African Americans, becomes a problem.

 

[grimslade]

I appreciate that. I did some reading, admittedly not hours and hours, but some. One thing I did find was a post on Reddit, which I'll quote:



Which largely aligns to how I feel about it. It seems like people are searching for a reason to be angry and indignant about something pretty innocuous. I asked the question above about Wookies being slaves in Star Wars, and I think the reason on one is angry about that is because no one sees Wookies as an analogy for any real-world group. So I'll double-down on what I said before: If you look at an illustration of a monkey and decide it's an analogy for a black person, you're perpetuating a problem, not solving it.

Here is the thing, you don't get to tell other people to be okay with something they find upsetting. You often do not get a chance to offer your weak apologia for tone-deaf art and fluff. A person picking up Spelljammer and seeing minstrel art repurposed for a monkey race and then a white messiah origin story might assume D&D is full of racist coding and give it a pass. All because someone not affected by racial depictions decided it didn't affect them, so it is all good for everyone.

 

[Ixal]

Here is the thing, you don't get to tell other people to be okay with something they find upsetting. You often do not get a chance to offer your weak apologia for tone-deaf art and fluff. A person picking up Spelljammer and seeing minstrel art repurposed for a monkey race and then a white messiah origin story might assume D&D is full of racist coding and give it a pass. All because someone not affected by racial depictions decided it didn't affect them, so it is all good for everyone.

Funny considering you are telling other people what they have to find upsetting.

 

[Velderan]

Funny considering you are telling other people what they have to find upsetting.

Where do you get that? They said you don't get to tell other people what they can find upsetting and then presents a hypothetical scenario of someone finding the content offensive. They don't say you have to find it offensive, you just have to understand someone might. It's not that tough of a concept.

 

[Minigiant]

Anyone who has worked in Big Corporate knows the cycle

1. Create recommended practice that makes sense
2. Overwatch it heavily after Implementation
3. Grow lazy on watchguard
4. Policy stops being practice
5. Minor issue due to not using practice
6. MAJOR SCREW UP!
7. MAJOR SCREW UP TWO ELECTRIC BOOGALOO!
8. Recommended practice becomes rigid mandated policy punishable by suspension or termination

We are at 8

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

Here is the thing, you don't get to tell other people to be okay with something they find upsetting.

Absolutely. And I'm pretty sure I never did. But there's an important difference between being upset about something and deciding it isn't allowed to be published. I'm not allowed to read about enslaved alien monkeys because someone else finds it upsetting? That feels like it's one step removed from public book burnings.