D&D General WotC’s Official Announcement About Diversity, Races, and D&D

Following up on recent discussions on social media, WotC has made an official announcement about diversity and the treatment of ‘race’ in D&D.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Following up on recent discussions on social media, WotC has made an official announcement about diversity and the treatment of ‘race’ in D&D. Notably, the word ‘race’ is not used; in its place are the words ‘people’ and 'folk'.

2A4C47E3-EAD6-4461-819A-3A42B20ED62A.png


 PRESS RELEASE


Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is strength, for only a diverse group of adventurers can overcome the many challenges a D&D story presents. In that spirit, making D&D as welcoming and inclusive as possible has moved to the forefront of our priorities over the last six years. We’d like to share with you what we’ve been doing, and what we plan to do in the future to address legacy D&D content that does not reflect who we are today. We recognize that doing this isn’t about getting to a place where we can rest on our laurels but continuing to head in the right direction. We feel that being transparent about it is the best way to let our community help us to continue to calibrate our efforts.

One of the explicit design goals of 5th edition D&D is to depict humanity in all its beautiful diversity by depicting characters who represent an array of ethnicities, gender identities, sexual orientations, and beliefs. We want everyone to feel at home around the game table and to see positive reflections of themselves within our products. “Human” in D&D means everyone, not just fantasy versions of northern Europeans, and the D&D community is now more diverse than it’s ever been.

Throughout the 50-year history of D&D, some of the peoples in the game—orcs and drow being two of the prime examples—have been characterized as monstrous and evil, using descriptions that are painfully reminiscent of how real-world ethnic groups have been and continue to be denigrated. That’s just not right, and it’s not something we believe in. Despite our conscious efforts to the contrary, we have allowed some of those old descriptions to reappear in the game. We recognize that to live our values, we have to do an even better job in handling these issues. If we make mistakes, our priority is to make things right.

Here’s what we’re doing to improve:
  • We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.
  • When every D&D book is reprinted, we have an opportunity to correct errors that we or the broader D&D community discovered in that book. Each year, we use those opportunities to fix a variety of things, including errors in judgment. In recent reprintings of Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, for example, we changed text that was racially insensitive. Those reprints have already been printed and will be available in the months ahead. We will continue this process, reviewing each book as it comes up for a reprint and fixing such errors where they are present.
  • Later this year, we will release a product (not yet announced) that offers a way for a player to customize their character’s origin, including the option to change the ability score increases that come from being an elf, a dwarf, or one of D&D's many other playable folk. This option emphasizes that each person in the game is an individual with capabilities all their own.
  • Curse of Strahd included a people known as the Vistani and featured the Vistani heroine Ezmerelda. Regrettably, their depiction echoes some stereotypes associated with the Romani people in the real world. To rectify that, we’ve not only made changes to Curse of Strahd, but in two upcoming books, we will also show—working with a Romani consultant—the Vistani in a way that doesn’t rely on reductive tropes.
  • We've received valuable insights from sensitivity readers on two of our recent books. We are incorporating sensitivity readers into our creative process, and we will continue to reach out to experts in various fields to help us identify our blind spots.
  • We're proactively seeking new, diverse talent to join our staff and our pool of freelance writers and artists. We’ve brought in contributors who reflect the beautiful diversity of the D&D community to work on books coming out in 2021. We're going to invest even more in this approach and add a broad range of new voices to join the chorus of D&D storytelling.
And we will continue to listen to you all. We created 5th edition in conversation with the D&D community. It's a conversation that continues to this day. That's at the heart of our work—listening to the community, learning what brings you joy, and doing everything we can to provide it in every one of our books.

This part of our work will never end. We know that every day someone finds the courage to voice their truth, and we’re here to listen. We are eternally grateful for the ongoing dialog with the D&D community, and we look forward to continuing to improve D&D for generations to come.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
So long as the game is set up to allow you to make a Goliath with a 10 Strength as well as a Gnome with a 15 Strength at character creation... there's absolutely no reason it is at all necessary to make sure all Goliaths have a +2 to their Strength as part of their feature write-up because the "reality of their size" should impact their features.

If the game really cared or thought it important that all Goliaths be stronger than Gnomes because of stuff like "physics"... they wouldn't have designed it the way they did. So demanding all the Peoples retain ability score modifier bonuses to denote a "reality" is pointless and does not in any way accomplish what they set out to do.

The ONLY time it does is when you as a player Max Out your score with your bonus at creation and your PC ends up with a score that none of the other People can reach. That's the only time you can ever claim "Goliaths are just naturally stronger than Gnomes" because it's the only time it would be impossible for Gnome to be stronger than the Goliath. But considering the game has evolved over the years to get us AWAY from ushering each Peoples into the same one or two classes each and every time and instead allow for more breadth of class selection... do we really want the game to demand that all Goliaths be Fighters and Barbarians just so the players will always Max Out their Strength scores and thus all tables always have Goliaths be stronger than Gnomes (even when a Gnome player bucks the trend and buys their STR to 15 at creation)?

I don't think we do.

(And if you then say you want Goliaths "on average" to be stronger than Gnomes... Player Character design is not the place to denote that. Because PCs are by definition "not average". The place we'd see it would be a Goliath and a Gnome entry in Monster Manual, wherein sure... make the Goliath entry have a 15 STR and the Gnome entry a 10 STR. Most of the Goliaths and Gnomes that appear in any one campaign will come out of them showing up as NPCs anyways, so let the MM handle the heavy lifting for you rather than demanding the PHB do it.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not sure what you're arguing for (against?) here. On the one hand you say that balance is incredibly difficult, then you say that even with the ability score modifiers...which very directly favor some classes over others...you say that balance is already pretty good.

So balance would be even better without the ability score modifiers, just using the other abilities. No?
Maybe you forgot what started the exchange? It was the idea of making the races only have bonuses that don’t favor any class.

My point is that it is difficult to do so without making them homogenous to the point of the differences being purely fluff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Var


Yeah. I read someone in an interview that they have to research every OSR creator before buying anything to make sure they're not a garbage person, and dang if it isn't true.

On the other hand, they've really crapped in the OSR pool, somewhat ruining that scene.

"Is this guy into old school games or old school ... oh, dear."

With this announcement, Wizards has made it entirely clear where they side on the issue of human rights. I'm entirely excited to see what the focus on new and diverse talent brings to the game.

And the part about changing your stats bonuses at first seemed heretical to me. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. It means that people will play a dwarf, tiefling, or whatever because they think they're cool, not because they give them the most optimal bonuses to the class that they want to play.
 



Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
The entire WoD setting were stereotypes - EVEN THE VAMPIRES CLANS and I'm not referring to the nationalities of the vampires. It was not isolated to the East or Gypsies as some would have us now believe!
Some of the VtM clans are meant to be ways to play classic fiction/movie vampires in the game -- most notably the Nosferatu. But any group of people outside the United States and Western Europe got turned into spooky vampire foreigners as interpreted by edgelords. Vampire assassin clan from Israel/Palestine/Jordan/Syria! Inscrutable creepy ancient Egyptian vampires! Mysterious African vampires! And, oh yes, magical untrustworthy Romani vampires!
 

Lem23

Adventurer
Yeah. I read someone in an interview that they have to research every OSR creator before buying anything to make sure they're not a garbage person, and dang if it isn't true.

With this announcement, Wizards has made it entirely clear where they side on the issue of human rights. I'm entirely excited to see what the focus on new and diverse talent brings to the game.

And the part about changing your stats bonuses at first seemed heretical to me. But the more I think about it, the more I like it. It means that people will play a dwarf, tiefling, or whatever because they think they're cool, not because they give them the most optimal bonuses to the class that they want to play.

There are still some good people out there in the OSR movement, and it rankles when people write off the entire scene because of the garbage people, but I also check on the author and publisher these days before I buy. I do that with non-OSR books as well, mind.

As someone who's always liked to mix it up a bit and have Dwarven mages, halfling clerics, gnome bards, etc irrespective of whether it makes for an optimal character, I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.
 


Var

Explorer
I'm thoroughly unhappy how much negative backlash you currently get for not getting overly invested in the current thing.
A company is pretty much required to participate and release a vow towards inclusiveness, heartfelt or just to maintain public opinion.

There's no good choice to pick a path, ask for inclusion of others as well or keep worrying about the rainforest, which you have dedicated your life to for the last 10 years.
Look at the shitstorm Terry Crews got for asking for a two way dialogue to work things out rather than push blame from one side on the other.

Reaching mutual understanding and respect is the only way to achieve anything meaningful. Shoving it down people's throats will create strife and a different kind of toxic environment where the other extreme takes over while their reasonable critics get yelled down by the crowd.


I mean, if you keep saying it ... maybe?
Damn I knew it. Being a gypsy descendant made me blind and unaware of other people's pain. Guess I learned nothing from my parent's and grandparents who raised me to treat all people with kindness, not just whoever is currently yelling "woe is me" the loudest.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Remove ads

Top