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)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You want me to provide citations proving that the depictions of various humanoid monsters in history aren't to caricature Jews, but rather caricatures of ethnic groups like Jews were done to emulate more monstrous appearances? Seriously? Well, we know goblins were in cultures around the entire world, in many who had no idea what Jewish people were to begin with. So it would be impossible for them to stylize goblins after Jewish stereotypes. Secondly, it's psyops 101 (literally, it's in the first course I took when in the military) to dehumanize your opponent. make them less than human. More monstrous. it's why all of those pejorative depictions of Africans, Japanese, and Jews were done in the first place. It's obvious that when you take something human and exaggerate features to make them look abnormal, it instills uncomfortable and fear. It's why it's probably one of the most common horror tropes out there in monster design for horror movies. You're asking me to cite the obvious? Sorry, start with a history book. And then google WWII stereotypes in propaganda art.

This is gibberish. I guarantee I know far more about WW2 propaganda than you, given I've actually studied it. That's your problem. You're talking out of your bum here.

You're repeatedly claiming that "goblins" are this thing people are changed to look like. It's complete fiction. Goblins have no consistent appearance across cultures. No consistent traits. Very often they're tiny, but that's about it.

No-one except you is having an argument about whether people are given monstrous or animalistic appearances in propaganda. Obviously they are. It's not in question.

What is absolute gibberish, though, is the claim that these appearances were to make them look more like "goblins" or the like. It's absolutely false. They're generalized and most often they refer to animals (particularly rats and apes), not vague mythological concepts. Where they do refer to mythological concepts, it's typically simply in that they're given horns/fangs/hooves, and the usually the reference point is the Christian devil or possibly a vampire.

To prove your point, which is a positive claim, not a negative, you would need art of a goblin, from say, the 1930s, in a pop culture format, and then propaganda art which clearly resembled that. And you'd need multiple examples, because you're claiming this was widespread. It's absolutely trivial to do that with animals. I can find dozens of pieces where animalistic traits are put into propaganda art. I can find plenty where devilish ones (specific the devil) are, though they're rarer. But claiming they tried to make people look like vague mythological beings that even people within a culture didn't see the same way? Gibberish.

Obviously D&D goblins aren't of the anti-Semitic type, but there are plenty of goblins in other fiction which are. WoW's ones flirt dangerously with it, for example.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Aldarc - Fair enough it's only 5E!

 

[Hussar]

Some people like old movies. Should they feel bad for liking movies that depict outdated ethnic and gender attitudes? Can we not watch Humphrey Bogart without feeling morally obligated to feel bad? If I enjoy Woody Allen films should I feel bad about myself? What about Tolkien or Twain?

Well, let's unpack this one shall we?

Woody Allen is perhaps a good example. Or, a better one might be Roman Polanski. While it's perfectly fine to like what you like, I'm not sure I'd start doing public showings of Polanski's works without some serious disclaimers.

"Because I like it" is hardly a justification for ignoring the problematic elements of a work. I LOVE Shakespeare. Adore it. But, that doesn't mean that I can't be cognizant of the extreme anti-semitism in his works, for example.

 

[ChaosOS]

My 2 cp on the goblins issue is while there's many pieces of wildly popular media that encode them as Jewish (Harry Potter, World of Warcraft are the chief offenders), I just don't see it for D&D. There's no association with money, conspiracies, infiltrating society, or any of the other pieces of the puzzle that work together to form an anti-Semitic trope. Contrast with dwarves, who since Tolkien have featured more pieces of antisemitism. While I'm strongly in favor of D&D improving, let's focus on much more direct & obvious issues than making big stretches.

On the "which books should get it", I don't blame WotC for taking the easy way out and slapping it on all older materials, even if it's 4e an edition I like and believe was much better about representation on balance. For example, 4e just doesn't have LGBTQA+ rep. I'm not familiar with the entire catalogue, but I wouldn't be surprised if some adventure had harmful stereotypes about LGBTQA+ individuals.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You can do whatever you want. And I have no problem with you criticizing the book - but you're insulting the actual people. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. Calling people who buy and use the book "losers" is not inclusive. Consider that some of those people could be members of this forum.

I'm not calling them that, and I haven't done so. I'm saying I'd be within my rights to regard them as such. I'm not going to go around haranguing them, am I? Come on.

Further, acting like BoVD is just a normal book is being disingenuous. It's a book designed to troll. That is the purpose of BoVD, just like BoEF. They're designed to troll, to create pointless controversy, and to get people talking about a deeply mediocre product. It's a game company being edgy for the sake of being edgy. It's definitely super-lame.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

On the "which books should get it", I don't blame WotC for taking the easy way out and slapping it on all older materials, even if it's 4e an edition I like and believe was much better about representation on balance. For example, 4e just doesn't have LGBTQA+ rep. I'm not familiar with the entire catalogue, but I wouldn't be surprised if some adventure had harmful stereotypes about LGBTQA+ individuals.

It's certainly possible but I suspect this is going to be a case of zero representation rather than negative representation in official products. Watching Disclosure on Netflix (about the mostly negative trans representation in media), an interesting case is made that no representation at all may be even worse in some ways than negative (in that people may not even know something is possible, even if it's portrayed negatively), but that case is made in the context of pop culture media as a whole, and D&D is only a tiny part of that.

4E was notably better on certain things than 5E though - the one that immediately comes to mind is that 4E recognised that the Vistani were problematic in large part because they were humans being portrayed as non-human and so on (when the group they're based on his frequently dehumanized!), so made the whole Vistani thing non-race-specific, a sort of cross-dimensional traveling wagon-train. It still leaned on a couple of dumb tropes, but not particularly hard. We've also seen 4E's Goblins were more clearly not the stereotype-kind (and indeed looked more like trad D&D goblins, though they weren't orange as I believe early edition ones were).

 

[Eric V]

So there's a few pieces of this for me

To start, while TTRPGs are "art" and "entertainment", they function quite differently to other mediums - we're the ones creating the stories, the rules are just a framework for that. That means as a DM you're taking a much more active role in the furtherance of those harmful stereotypes than if you're passively consuming a complete story written by someone else.

Thank you.

This is the part people seem to have a hard time understanding: OA is encouraging people to act out stereotypes of East Asians. Not just read about them, or watch them on TV, but literally act them out. That's a big difference.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

On the "which books should get it", I don't blame WotC for taking the easy way out and slapping it on all older materials, even if it's 4e an edition I like and believe was much better about representation on balance. For example, 4e just doesn't have LGBTQA+ rep. I'm not familiar with the entire catalogue, but I wouldn't be surprised if some adventure had harmful stereotypes about LGBTQA+ individuals.

There is (un)surprisingly little openly queer representation, either good or bad, in historical D&D. The obvious counterexample would be Corellon Larethian. The opening sentences in Deities & Demigods (speaking of problematic!) were eye-opening for a lot of D&D players in 1980.

Also? "LGBTQA+"

Sigh. We are going to need a bigger alphabet!

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hiya!



Not exactly. I'm not "feeling uncomfortable". I'm feeling "annoyed".

Not "harmed or uncomfortable". Just annoyed. It's unfortunate if someone feels 'harmed or uncomfortable' when reading a fantasy roleplaying game book...but that's not, to put it bluntly, my fault or my problem. They have to find a way to deal with it. I find things others may say online, in print, or in a movie or video game "uncomfortable"...but I don't think it's up to the other person to try and make me feel 'safe'. That's on me.

For example, this. While I don't feel 'harmed or uncomfortable' with the disclaimer....I do find it annoying because I can see it causing me a lot of head aches in the future. Not just me, but any "old school player".

The disclaimer isn't going to do anything positive. That's all I'm saying, basically.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So you say it's none of your business if someone else feels harmed or uncomfortable by content in D&D. But WotC should not put a disclaimer on older products because it makes you feel annoyed.

I know you said you are out of this conversation, but just in case you are reading this I plead to you to use empathy in this situation.

If you can feel annoyed that WotC is identifying problematic content in older published materials (and you yourself have admitted that older editions do, in fact, contain insensitive materials), then try to extend yourself and think about how others have felt reading those materials.

You said that the purpose of the disclaimer I'd to label these materials as "bad," but I strongly disagree. In fact, I would think that a disclaimer like this actually makes it easier for you to play older editions! Here's why:

Disclaimers like this serve a few purposes:

They protect publishers from accusations of supporting harmful content.

They raise awareness of the harm caused by denigrating tropes and stereotypes.

They forewarn people that they may be reading material that could offend them.


Let's fast forward to you cracking open a 1e adventure at the next big gaming convention. What's this? A disclaimer! You briefly read over it... Hm... Harmful stereotypes... Hm...

Okay, now you are ready! You know where the harmful stereotypes are and how to either avoid them or make your players aware of them. You are also better prepared to not perpetuate them! You start playing.

Someone walks over to your table. "1st Edition D&D?" they gasp. "I thought that was racist!"

"Ah ha!" you say, holding forth the disclaimer. "Some of the depictions and stereotypes can be harmful, my friend, but knowing this in advance we can still play the game without perpetuating negativity."

"Wow!" they say. "I'm sure glad there's that disclaimer! Can I play?"


Okay, that's a fantasy, but do you see how something like a disclaimer is actually a tool that can protect you and allow you to continue playing a game you enjoy, rather than harming you?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Hiya!



...and this (inaction) is bad because...?

I don't care how "harmful or grotesque" some book is, it should NEVER be banned. Same goes for thoughts and opinions.

What AM I fearful of? Getting to the convention, starting up a game of OA...then having a convention official come over and say "You guys can't play that anymore. Someone complained that you were being racist, discriminatory and non-inclusive because you were playing a game with 'That label' on it". THAT is the only 'fear'. That a single person can be offended and have the power to completely cancel my right to play what I want, how I want, with who I want....even though that person wasn't playing, wasn't invited to play, and simply walked by and saw what we were playing and "felt offended".

Of that...EVERYONE should be afraid.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Inaction is bad because it means we become static. I don't want to live in a world where people are too worried about potential making things worse to ever try and make them better.

And, the convention thing is something I don't think would happen. First, you would have already gotten the convention approval by being scheduled if they are so spineless that even the mention of Kara-Tur has them canceling games, then they woulnd't have approved you.

Secondly, that person could have done something similar anyways. Perhaps you have an early monster manual sitting on the table? They could have gone to the convention board and told them that at their family friendly convention you were showing lewd pictures to small children. Or that you were using vile slurs on people who walked by.

The thing is, those are baseless accusations, with no evidence, and with your word against theirs, you would probably be under watch if not asked to leave "just to be safe". I would hope your table would back you up with agreement that that didn't happen, which would then make it clear that the person who reported you was just stirring up trouble. And, while the online store has a disclaimer, that disclaimer is very generic, and has nothing to do with your adventure. And even if they did try and use that label against you, saying "I altered the parts that were problematic" would likely be enough. It is just small pieces that are the bad parts, not the entire book.

Not "harmed or uncomfortable". Just annoyed. It's unfortunate if someone feels 'harmed or uncomfortable' when reading a fantasy roleplaying game book...but that's not, to put it bluntly, my fault or my problem. They have to find a way to deal with it. I find things others may say online, in print, or in a movie or video game "uncomfortable"...but I don't think it's up to the other person to try and make me feel 'safe'. That's on me.

For example, this. While I don't feel 'harmed or uncomfortable' with the disclaimer....I do find it annoying because I can see it causing me a lot of head aches in the future. Not just me, but any "old school player".

The disclaimer isn't going to do anything positive. That's all I'm saying, basically.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The positive thing is acknowledging that there are harmful stereotypes in our rulebooks. Which, frankly, is not something most of us are really shocked by. Something written decades ago isn't going to follow a modern understanding of what is and isn't okay to say. But, while it may not be shocking for us, plenty of companies in the past have revealed ignorance about the affects of their products, so WoTC needed to show that they at least heard the complaints.

Also, while I get the "it is on me to make me feel safe" attitude.... I disagree with it.

I've mentioned this a few times during these discussions, but one of my 4e games I was running, a friend of mine came up to me with concerns about the half-orc that another player was planning on running. He had read the book, and the implied origin of the half-orc made him highly uncomfortable but he didn't want to tell the other player not to play the character he wanted to play.

The relief he felt when I came up with a solution was palpable, but it was not a solution he could have came up with on his own (turning all half-orcs into full-blooded orcs) in fact, his only two options were to continue being uncomfortable or leaving the game.

And frankly, DnD is not the type of culture I think that should be comfortable with telling people to either put up with it or leave. But those are the only options they have available to them in the face of content. They aren't creating the content after all, they might not even be buying it, they might be reading another person's copy. So, the change has to come from somewhere else.