WotC Older D&D Books on DMs Guild Now Have A Disclaimer

If you go to any of the older WotC products on the Dungeon Master's Guild, they now have a new disclaimer very similar to that currently found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

The wording is very similar to that found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

Edit: Wizards has put out a statement on Twitter (click through to the full thread)

 

[DemoMonkey]

I think this was a good move. Plus, it deprives me of nothing, which is really my first criteria when it comes to analyzing whether something is right or wrong.

 

[Mercurius]

A related, and interesting issue, is the extent to which racism, genocide, fascism, slavery, and other issues (sexual violence when it comes to orcs / half-orcs, etc.) can be or should be reflected in the base rules.

For the most part, no one (and using the words, I immediately realize that there will be a some one ... so, almost no one) thinks that tables can't make the game as G-rated or X, as serious or as funny, as the table wants.

But I think there is a divergence of opinion as to the amount that certain serious subjects should be reflected in the rules; how much "fantasy racism" should be (and can be) there, for example.

I don't really have answers to those questions.

It would seem that the easy answer--and the one I think guides WotC, for the most part--is that D&D is a game for all ages, or at least roughly middle school and older, so when you have such a game, you tend to moderate it towards the youngest significant demographic. Meaning, PG/PG-13.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It would seem that the easy answer--and the one I think guides WotC, for the most part--is that D&D is a game for all ages, or at least roughly middle school and older, so when you have such a game, you tend to moderate it towards the youngest significant demographic. Meaning, PG/PG-13.

Which makes the whole thing with the "fecundity" of the orcs kinda weird!

 

[ChaosOS]

A related, and interesting issue, is the extent to which racism, genocide, fascism, slavery, and other issues (sexual violence when it comes to orcs / half-orcs, etc.) can be or should be reflected in the base rules.

For the most part, no one (and using the words, I immediately realize that there will be a some one ... so, almost no one) thinks that tables can't make the game as G-rated or X, as serious or as funny, as the table wants.

But I think there is a divergence of opinion as to the amount that certain serious subjects should be reflected in the rules; how much "fantasy racism" should be (and can be) there, for example.

I don't really have answers to those questions.

IMO you can go a lot farther in setting supplements than the PHB. As an example, "Dwarves and Elves hate each other" isn't something that should go in the base rules, but I would find perfectly acceptable in a setting supplement that has the space to give that conflict depth. The PHB just doesn't have the same opportunity to handle sensitive topics because it's got too many other goals.

It is one thing to "condone extremist ideologies," and quite another to "exalt good monarchs" within the context of a premodern fantasy settings. I don't think that's messy; its just fantasy.

That said, I like to explore alternate forms of government in my fantasy world-building than the default medieval/feudal tropes, but that's personal aesthetic preference. The vast majority of premodern real world societies were monarchical, so it makes sense that a "good monarch" would be exalted as the highest form of government within the the context of premodern analogues. Of course, fantasy is fantasy, and there's no reason that other--more democratic--governments can't be explored. For instance, one would think that elves--who in most settings attained a developed level of civilization tens of thousands of years before humans--wouldn't have developed other forms.

From a setting development perspective, you can both address "This person is a relatively good leader" and "The system is fundamentally problematic". Robin Hood is a great example of this - King Richard is held up as a good leader, but the story indicts the system that put the Sheriff of Nottinhgam in power. More modern takes even handle the background events of the Crusades in an appropriate fashion!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

IMO you can go a lot farther in setting supplements than the PHB. As an example, "Dwarves and Elves hate each other" isn't something that should go in the base rules, but I would find perfectly acceptable in a setting supplement that has the space to give that conflict depth. The PHB just doesn't have the same opportunity to handle sensitive topics because it's got too many other goals.

I think that's .... well, I think that's right.

But it brings me to an interrelated issue. Readability.

In my perfect world, there is a strong crunch/lore mix, so that when you are reading a core rulebook, the two seemlessly intertwine. The crunch provides the rules that you mess with and refer to, and the lore is what provides the flavor and the fun that makes it readable.

So for a good core rulebook, you almost need a mix between a good reference book and a novel; something that is easy to access for the rule, yet also very readable!

Making it to light on the lore, and you end up with something that can be alienating. I think the 5e PHB struck the right balance, just barely. But if it was any lighter on the lore, that would not have been good (for me).

 

[Mercurius]

Which makes the whole thing with the "fecundity" of the orcs kinda weird!

Well, yes and no. Middle school age kids are very curious about sexuality. Some depicition of it isn't necessarily weird.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Iirc, the consensus in the other threads about Orcs seemed to be that WotC should highlight that humanoids can be of any alignment by the default (and in the books show a variety of takes from GH and FR to Eberron). That wouldn't even change the rules given the paragraphs at the beginning of the MM. It does get rid of having a race of people exist game-wide for no other purpose than to be othered, subjugated, and destroyed. It would change nothing about what could be done in individual campaign settings as each race could have its own background in them.

I don't recall anyone saying games couldn't depict racism, genocide, fascism, and slavery. The common ask seemed to be for them not to be portrayed as good or heroic things.

There's a huge gap between "The law shouldn't censor fascist creeds" - a point I agree with, publishers should feel within their rights to distribute Mein Kampf or enormously racist works like the Lovecraft Mythos. However, that doesn't mean Wizards of the Coast, the by-far leader in the RPG industry, should condone extremist ideologies. This doesn't even mean you can't include totalitarians in your work! In fact, they're by far the preferable and more interesting enemies. There's a huge gap between including/referencing bad acts and endorsing (or platforming people who endorse) bad acts.

The bigger problem here is going to be how fantasy tends to exalt "good monarchs" as the highest form of government, which is something that I think is a lot messier to deal with. IMO the best handling is stories that show the failings of the hereditary system - Eberron does this with its Last War, but plenty of other fantasy works and settings have pursued similar stories.

The problem here is that a surprising number of people don't think there is anything disturbing about depicting the genocide of fictional species as morally good. Because orcs, drow, goblins, terraformars, zentraedi, etc are fictional, then it is okay to arbitrarily kill, enslave, or otherwise brutalize them because by the rules of the fictional universe itself they are irredeemably monstrous.

I'm endlessly confused.

James Mendez Hodes explains, if I understand him correctly, that it's specifically any cosmetic resemblances to stereotypes of real oppressed minorities that is the problem, because this causes emotional distress and makes those people feel excluded from the hobby. Things like orcs being naturally athletic and dumb and raping our women, or drow being cursed by god with black skin, or goblins being big-nosed and greedy, terraformars being blatant blackface, etc. That's why Warhammer 40,000's space orks aren't considered racist in his essay.

 

[Cadence]

I can't think of a D&D product, past or present, that depicts those things as good or heroic, although wouldn't be surprised if there were on for whether they "should" be allowed to be published, I would argue for "yes," and then we can decide, as individuals, whether or not to support such a product. We all vote with our dollar.

I assume lack of support, from some, in egregious cases, would also extend to the rest of the product line, the stores that chose to carry it, and maybe the parent companies other products. ::::

 

[Mercurius]

From a setting development perspective, you can both address "This person is a relatively good leader" and "The system is fundamentally problematic". Robin Hood is a great example of this - King Richard is held up as a good leader, but the story indicts the system that put the Sheriff of Nottinhgam in power. More modern takes even handle the background events of the Crusades in an appropriate fashion!

You can go that route, but I don't think you have to. That is, I don't think setting designers and writers need to insert contemporary values and perspectives into their worlds. It will always be implicit to some extent, but I see nothing wrong with playing with medievalist assumptions around governmental forms and such, and presenting them as "how things are" in the world without social commentary.

 

[ChaosOS]

I think that's .... well, I think that's right.

But it brings me to an interrelated issue. Readability.

In my perfect world, there is a strong crunch/lore mix, so that when you are reading a core rulebook, the two seemlessly intertwine. The crunch provides the rules that you mess with and refer to, and the lore is what provides the flavor and the fun that makes it readable.

So for a good core rulebook, you almost need a mix between a good reference book and a novel; something that is easy to access for the rule, yet also very readable!

Making it to light on the lore, and you end up with something that can be alienating. I think the 5e PHB struck the right balance, just barely. But if it was any lighter on the lore, that would not have been good (for me).

The specificity of the rules system matters here - for example, 3.5 had a ton of racial combat bonuses, like dwarves vs. giants and orcs or gnomes vs. kobolds. If you abstract your system away from those details you free up the constraints on the lore writing to feature specific race relationships. Baseline I'd prefer "core lore" that prescribes how different races feel about each other, because I find race relationships to be one of the key ways you make settings different.

Even with that said, I still find the 5e PHB races when they hand out proficiencies. Not only are they almost always mechanically irrelevant (classes that don't have the weapon proficiencies don't use those weapons anyways), but they impose an assumption that every elf or every dwarf goes through military training to the point they're "proficient"!

You can go that route, but I don't think you have to. That is, I don't think setting designers and writers need to insert contemporary values and perspectives into their worlds. It will always be implicit to some extent, but I see nothing wrong with playing with medievalist assumptions around governmental forms and such, and presenting them as "how things are" in the world without social commentary.

See, to me this where I break from the (lower-case-c) conservatism of fantasy, as Matt Colville frames it. I'm just not interested in stories about retrenching the faux-medieval status quo. It's not that we can't tell stories from that context, but on a basic level I think we need to handle the reality of that social order - fundamentally repressive and backwards.