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)

 

[Mercurius]

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. ::::

Right. I cringe using this phrase, but in this case I think it is appropriate: let the market decide, which really means, let the people--as free individuals--decide. Whatever the differences that have been discussed on this forum over the last several weeks may be, I don't think anyone (here, at least) is actually wanting those sorts of products.

 

[ChaosOS]

Right. I cringe using this phrase, but in this case I think it is appropriate: let the market decide, which really means, let the people--as free individuals--decide. Whatever the differences that have been discussed on this forum over the last several weeks may be, I don't think anyone (here, at least) is actually wanting those sorts of products.

While I wish the market could decide, the reality is the RPG market isn't terribly competitive and the presence or lack of extremist ideologies isn't a deciding factor for the most part. With WotC owning the majority of the market and unlikely to be upset any time soon, RPG production is entirely authoritarian in the hands of Chris Cocks, WotC CEO.

 

[Immeril]

It's a solution that works as best it can, though it might perhaps be better to place that context description at the top of the product description, rather than the bottom so it's the first thing read (and more readily spotted), as opposed to the bottom of that significant amount of text.

Speaking for myself, it's not something I would necessarily see (or read), as I generally skim such text unless I have a very real interest in the product. I'll typically read the first few paragraphs in their entirety, then start skimming.

... and Kwan is not amused:
The disclaimer isn't even visible on a full-screen web page.
"Thanks for giving us money! If you scroll all the way down, you'll see that we feel real bad about it."

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.

Now that I think about it, 40k Orcs being compared to fungi is even worse than the old 'Jewish parasite' notion.

 

[Mercurius]

While I wish the market could decide, the reality is the RPG market isn't terribly competitive and the presence or lack of extremist ideologies isn't a deciding factor for the most part. With WotC owning the majority of the market and unlikely to be upset any time soon, RPG production is entirely authoritarian in the hands of Chris Cocks, WotC CEO.

And my guess is that his bottom line is economics, and he realizes that producing such products--even if he wanted to--wouldn't be economically sound. Meaning, his publishing choices are largely dictated by we, the consumers.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I'm glad they put this disclaimer out there. One thing I'd like to see further is something like the new introduction to Gone With The Wind. If you haven't seen that, I'd recommend it. The new intro is very thought-provoking, providing context and a greater understanding of why the elements were problematic. It's elegant and yet it doesn't mince words.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

There are lots of things in D&D that I would never do in real life, and I don't even play evil characters. But I still do things in D&D that I would have a serious problem doing in real life, be it killing, stealing, summoning demons, or eradicating a species.

That said, I have no problem playing a character that perceives orcs (etc) as evil, if the orcs are actually presented as evil and it fits my character's worldview. If my adventuring party came across a village of orcs going about their business (orc children playing, etc), I would have no interest in roleplaying a scenario that involved killing them off just because they're orcs. I wouldn't play such a character. But if every orc I encountered was a raider and seeking to kill me, then I'd happily dispatch them.

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.

Depends what you want in your game experience. When we veer into language like "we need to," then it gets a bit too political and/or One Way To Rule Them All. Different people want different things from the D&D experience. Some want to play out subtle real world social and political issues, while others just want to hang out with their friends and kill monsters.

I personally find faux-medievalism rather boring, especially in fantasy literature. I tend to prefer stories that play with underlying assumptions or break from the medievalistic tropes. Some of that comes into my campaign design. When I'm a player, I'm less discerning and mostly just want to have fun.

 

[ccs]

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

And you learn a new word! You come across "fecundity" & go "??"(though within the context of the sentence you get the general idea).
But later you ask someone (my poor parents, they fielded all manner of strange out-of-left-field questions thanks to D&D), pick up a dictionary, or now days Google it.

 

[ChaosOS]

Edited into the OP Wizards response on Twitter, there's a full thread here

 

[PrinceMorganti]

Fecundity is also a Magic Card (one of my favorites)

The disclaimers are a good start as their twitter address mentions.

 

[Zarithar]

Likewise, I don't get offended when Japanese authors write pseudo-European fantasy even though I have European ancestry.

Right? Vinland Saga is one of my favorite anime. How dare the Japanese write about Vikings! Am I supposed to be outraged? It's ridiculous.