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)

 

[Immeril]

And then we've got Tolkien; probably the biggest influence on the depictions of modern monstrous humanoids. Tolkien gets a lot of heat for comparisons between orcs and black people. Since in Middle Earth, goblins are literally the same thing as orcs (orc being the hobbit word, goblin being the English translation of orc), are we to believe that orcs/goblins in middle earth were caricatures of both black culture and Jews now? I very much doubt that, since Tolkien himself said he had modeled the dwarves after Jewish stereotypes :

I go 30+ years of playing D&D and never once did it occur to me that orcs were black people and goblins and dwarves were jewish.....well I guess that's over now....thanks a lot internet!

I'm the same, if it wasn't for spending time on this forum and Reddit, I'd probably still be blissfully unaware.

While some people analysing Tolkien's work have reached the conclusion that Orcs were based on black people, Tolkien has (to my knowledge) never admitted this. What he did admit (in a letter written in 1958, in which he discussed the script of Morton Grady Zimmerman's proposed film of The Lord of the Rings) was that Orcs are "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types."
For the record: in sharing the author's own admission, I'm not suggesting that Orcs being based on Mongols (instead of black people) is somehow less offensive.

When I was a kid, we played a game in which we threw a ball into the air, and then everyone would tackle whoever caught it.

This game had a homophobic name, which I won't type here. I can't imagine being a child or adult who is gay and hearing kids play a game with a homophobic name. I am sure someone in that situation would not feel safe, nevertheless included.

Could my kids play this game today? Yes, of course! But you better believe I would never let anyone use the original title! We would change the parts of the game that exclude or harm others based on identity.

The thing is that in your example the only offensive element is the title of the game. By changing the name, you aren't changing the rules. Books like OA have actual content that is deemed offensive.

 

[TheSword]

I am baffled by the opposition to what is a fairly respectful statement. Just like it was undeniably true for Looney Tunes. This feels like the least-harm route for WOC to take and is a sensible middleground.

What I would like to see is more academic based debate around the specifics - rather than the “yes it is - no it isn’t” debate twitter descends in. I am convinced that no reasonable balanced discussion can be had on twitter which seems formed entirely on people whose decisions are all or nothing and have been decided before they have even heard a word of opposing thought.

While the Asians Represent podcast is very interesting. There are challenges to be made and there needs to be discussion back and forth. That’s how we will move forward rather than the polarization there is now.

 

[Ravenbrook]

In a few years, there probably will be disclaimers for the disclaimers.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Many TTRPGs now come equipped with a baked-in setting. D&D has its multiverse to deal with while also claiming to be a generic enough fantasy RP experience that everyone should use for their homebrew games, which while "a feature not a bug" for some people can nevertheless also be an impediment or drawback to having as strong of a crunch/lore mix as one finds with many other games.

One big complaint I see about OA is that it is a mish mash of Asian cultures jammed together. Look at most western European fantasy and tell me that it is not a hodge podge of 4 or 5 cultures/mythologies/etc.

Keeping in mind that (1) D&D was designed by American mutts of various European descent who grew up learning the collective mythologies and fairy tales of Europe in school; (2) even prior to D&D, European mythologies, fairy tales, and cultures had already been filtered through a mesh through a pre-existing body of literary works produced by Euro-American fantasy fiction writers in the 19th and 20th centuries; and (3) there has been a trend even among Euro-American TTRPG publishers/writers of reexamining and untangling this European mish mash of cultures in settings.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'm glad you have a way of playing you enjoy. Obviously whatever WotC chooses to do won't harm you in any way. But can you see how these changes will help other players feel more included?

Honestly? Nope. I can't see how these changes are going to help other players feel more included. How? "Here's a book that you may find things offensive. But it's ok now, we put a sticker on the front. Good? Ok, lets roll some dice!"

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sadras]

Keeping in mind that (1) D&D was designed by American mutts of various European descent who grew up learning the collective mythologies and fairy tales of Europe in school

I'm not in the least offended, but I'm pretty sure if I used the word mutts to describe a mixed group of Asians, Africans or any other non-white ethnicities I'd be reported so fast and banned from the thread. And this is the example of the sensitivity which exists on the other side which is taking offense with OA, orcs, goblins and the rest.

EDIT: Imagine if it was called Adventures of [insert group] Mutts.
In comparison Oriental smells like flowers.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I never owned Book of Vile Darkness and have no interest in that kind of play, but...isn't calling such folks "losers" etc exactly the type of gate-keeping that gets people upset?

ROFL having an opinion about a dreadful book which was intentionally designed to be provocative and was extremely lame is "gatekeeping" now? Pull the other one mate, it's got bells on. So, no, it ain't. You may wish it was, but a book that's designed to troll like that, and it absolutely, consciously, openly was designed to troll, is fair game for criticism, and I'm entitled to take a dim view of people who financially support such trolling.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One big complaint I see about OA is that it is a mish mash of Asian cultures jammed together. Look at most western European fantasy and tell me that it is not a hodge podge of 4 or 5 cultures/mythologies/etc.

Anyone saying that is confused, and either hasn't read OA recently, or doesn't know much about the cultures involved and their mythology (not even a superficial amount).

That's not what OA is. If anything, it'd be better if it was. Rather OA is a pretty detailed take on Japanese mythology, with all the races, and all but one of the classes coming directly and specifically from Japanese mythology and history. The one exception is Wu Jen, but essentially a Japanese take on a Chinese deal. Which for me is part of why it being called "Oriental Adventures", beyond the poor choice in using Oriental (which even in 1985 had been too-often used as a slur or careless bit of exoticisation), was a problem. Imagine it was called "Adventures in Asia" or something. It would be misleading, and kind of disrespectful to other Asian ("Oriental") cultures, because they're being given any time - all of Asia is being treated as Japan.

Imagine a book called "Occidental Adventures" or "Adventures in Europe", and literally all the classes and races were derived from Scandinavian mythology or something. It's not like Samurai or Ninja or Sohei were generally applicable to Asia/The Orient, they were specific to Japan.

Equally, the cultural details of the culture in OA were a take on Japanese culture, especially as expressed in certain kinds of fiction. The art, such as it is, solely depicts Japanese stuff - the vast majority of the new weapons and so on are Japan-specific.

The monster section does detail a few non-Japanese monsters, and lists "Asian" monsters, which do, including other books, include a lot of monsters from other Asian cultures, but this just serves to highly how OA is "Japanese Mythology Adventures", not what it purports to be.

You might be confusing it with the Forgotten Realms nations/areas related to OA - Kara Tur, particularly is indeed just a giant mish-mash in the way you described.

TLDR: OA isn't a mish-mash - it's titled like it should be, and was marketed like it was, and people assumed it was, but it's actually pretty much 95%+ Japanese mythology.

 

[ccooke]

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.

Oh, I disagree. While this is very much only one step on the path, there is a thing that these changes do deprive people of:

An excuse.

 

[Immeril]

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.

Oh, I disagree. While this is very much only one step on the path, there is a thing that these changes do deprive people of:

An excuse.

On the topic of semantics: OED describes deprivation as 'lack or denial of something considered to be a necessity' and gives the examples of sleep and water.